By the numbers Top-50 QBs of All-Time

[ilovejerry]

As soon as I saw no Johnny U I had to laugh and stop reading
sorry what a waste of time.

 

[THUMPER]

Interesting list.

There are so many variables to consider....

Here's a few issues:

Because you are using their career stats, if a "greatest ever" QB plays too long after his prime, then his rating drops, correct? I'm not sure that is how it should be. For example, Johnny Unitas was truly great, but played too long. Would his ranking be higher had he quit earlier?[/quote

You bring up a good point but my analysis isn't to determine which QB was the greatest as that is a completely subjective opinion based on countless factors which are impossible to quantify fairly or accurately.

Johnny Unitas ranks 2nd on my All-Time list behind Otto Graham and just ahead of Roger Staubach but that is based on my OPINION although the facts help to support that opinion. But based on stats alone, Unitas drops to 15 on my list and below 50 using the NFL's Passer Rating system.

Another issue - A guy like Tarkenton is penalized because he was stuck, for a time, playing for a bad team. It wasn't his doing or his fault. Those Giants didn't give him much to work with. And once he moved back to the Vikings, I'm guessing his numbers got better. So was he a worse QB with the Giants than he was with the Vikings, or was it just that he was an outstanding QB whose his numbers suffered when he played with a bad team?

The same can be said of several QBs. Archie Manning was a great QB stuck on the lousy Saints for most of his career. His stats sucked and the team rarely won. He is the lowest rated QB in my analysis. But I watched him play his entire career and he could have been a great QB if he would have been on a better team.

Bad breaks are part of the game and most QBs go through periods where the team isn't very good even when they personally, might be at their best. That's just part of an NFL career.

I guess I'm not surprised that Namath isn't on the list. His career stats weren't super-impressive.

No, they weren't. Namath had some very good years but he threw a LOT of INTs and many of the games the Jets won, including the 1968 SB were due to their defense and running game. Joe had a great arm and played some great games but he also had an awful lot of bad passes, and bad games in his career. It didn't help that his knees were shot at an early age.

But I notice that Dan Fouts isn't on the list. He is in the Hall of Fame and most would say he's clearly deserving of it. In my subjective opinion, Fouts was clearly superior to 17. DARYL LAMONICA, 20. JAKE DELHOMME, 23. STEVE McNAIR, 31. MATT HASSELBECK, 32. RICH GANNON, 33. RANDALL CUNNINGHAM, 36. NEIL O'DONNELL, 37. BRAD JOHNSON, 39. CHAD PENNINGTON, 41. ELVIS GRBAC, 44. MARK RYPIEN, 45. MARK BRUNELL, 46. STAN HUMPHRIES, 47. BRIAN GRIESE, 50. MICHAEL VICK.

I loved Fouts when he played but his career win% is only 50% (93 - 93) which drops him down considerably. The fact that he played in an extremely pass-oriented offense puts the onus on him to win more of those games. He also only threw 8 more TDs than INTs for his career and that's not very good.

I'm not giving you a hard time. I fully understand how complex all of this is. And I applaud your efforts. But I think you have got to tweak your system somehow so that a Hall of Famer like Fouts is ranked higher than the likes of Elvis Grbac and Brian Griese. The reason: Fouts was obviously better than Grbac and Brian Griese. It isn't even close.

Maybe if you somehow factored in "honors" ... such as Pro Bowl selections for those who had that opportunity?

Again, I agree that Fouts was a vastly better QB than Grbac, Griese, and their ilk but this is based strictly on stats and he comes up short.

 

[THUMPER]

As soon as I saw no Johnny U I had to laugh and stop reading
sorry what a waste of time.

On which list? He is on both, #15 on mine and # 52 on the HoF list.

I rank Unitas as the #2 all-time greatest QB (behind Otto Graham) but that wasn't what my analysis was for, it was only to rank QBs based on their stats to see if they could come close (and closer than the NFL version) to reflecting who I/we think should top the list of greatest QBs.

 

[BourbonBalz]

I have finally updated my QB Rating spreadsheet using my own statistical rating system that takes several factors into account including wins, losses, and leadership. It favors guys who won.

I'd like to factor in fumbles and fumbles lost but I don't have those stats for most of these guys. I would also like to factor in playoff wins and championships won but that would mean a lot more calculations, still I may add it in someday when I get the time.

I use a minimum of 15000 yards except in certain cases where a QB is still playing and is either close (Vick) or well on his way (Palmer).

The results are not necessarily reflective of which QB is better than another (although Graham is #1 in my opinion anyway) but shows the efficiency and success of each QB.

Here are the top-50 (there are 127 total):

1. OTTO GRAHAM
2. JOE MONTANA
3. TOM BRADY
4. ROGER STAUBACH
5. PEYTON MANNING
6. STEVE YOUNG
7. JOHN ELWAY
8 SID LUCKMAN
9. MARC BULGER
10. DONOVAN McNABB
11. KURT WARNER
12. BART STARR
13. BRETT FAVRE
14. DAN MARINO
15. JOHNNY UNITAS
16. JIM KELLY
17. DARYL LAMONICA
18 TROY AIKMAN
19. DANNY WHITE
20. JAKE DELHOMME
21. CARSON PALMER
22. TERRY BRADSHAW
23. STEVE McNAIR
24. LEN DAWSON
25. JIM McMAHON
26. JOE THEISMANN
27. BOB GRIESE
28. KENNY STABLER
29. PHIL SIMMS
30. FRANK RYAN
31. MATT HASSELBECK
32. RICH GANNON
33. RANDALL CUNNINGHAM
34. KEN ANDERSON
35. DREW BREES
36. NEIL O'DONNELL
37. BRAD JOHNSON
38, NORM VAN BROCKLIN
39. CHAD PENNINGTON
40. DAVE KRIEG
41. ELVIS GRBAC
42. FRAN TARKENTON
43. WARREN MOON
44. MARK RYPIEN
45. MARK BRUNELL
46. STAN HUMPHRIES
47. BRIAN GRIESE
48. TRENT GREEN
49. MILT PLUM
50. MICHAEL VICK

Any rating system that has Steve Young, Marc Bulger, Jim Kelly, Kurt Warner, Donovan McNabb, and Darryl Lamonica rated above Troy Aikman is extremely flawed.

 

[ilovejerry]

On which list? He is on both, #15 on mine and # 52 on the HoF list.

I rank Unitas as the #2 all-time greatest QB (behind Otto Graham) but that wasn't what my analysis was for, it was only to rank QBs based on their stats to see if they could come close (and closer than the NFL version) to reflecting who I/we think should top the list of greatest QBs.

Sorry my mistake he is at number 15 I could have sworn I didn't see him, but alas He is there I thought he would be much higher. again I apologize.

 

[Wolf2k5]

It is based on results.

if its based on results it would be somethin like

1 montana
2 Aikman
3 brady

They got the hardware and thats enough results for me.

(i know i left out others dont bite my head off. just making a point)

 

[rcaldw]

The problem with a purely statistical view of these things is that football is NOT BASEBALL. Oh, that people would get that.

Baseball is very much a one on one sport. Pitcher versus hitter. Yes defense makes some difference but a shot in the gap is a shot in the gap.

Winning pct's for example. How do you factor in that Roger Staubach made his debut with a seasoned team that had been to the Super Bowl just the year before? While Troy Aikman started his "starter" career with a team that was 3-13 the year before and THEN TRADED AWAY THEIR BEST PLAYER? Aikman starts in a 1-15 hole in terms of winning pct. Dan Marino inherited a Super Bowl team as well.

Face it, QB discussions will ALWAYS be subjective. Even in your system you are assigning leadership ratings that are purely your opinion.

As others have pointed out, any system that places Marc Bulger above Troy Aikman is blind and flawed.

 

[THUMPER]

What I am looking to do is to create a better statistical rating system than the one currently used by the NFL for rating QBs.

The NFL system rates 'PASSERS", not QBs, and therefore rewards those who put up good numbers regardless of the results. In addition to the factors I have already added I would like to include playoff wins, championships, sacks, fumbles, good plays, bad plays, etc. in my formula but a lot of that info is either, time consuming, difficult to find (for free), or not available, particularly for older QBs.

Any rating system for acreer numbers will tend to favor guys that are still playing, which is why guys like Bulger are so high on the list. They haven't played very long and have been fortunate to play for good teams, pass-oriented teams, or in schemes that favor their skills and maximize their stats. Over time though they will drop down as their teams lose talent, coaches, injuries, etc. and they will level off where they belong in the end.

If you took out the players that are still active the list actually comes pretty close to being accurate with Graham, Montana, Staubach, Young, Elway, Luckman, Starr, Marino, Unitas, and Jim Kelly rounding out the top-10. From a purely statistical point of view that's not a bad ranking although I would put Unitas at #2 personally and some other guys ahead of some of those. But overall, that's not too bad.

I included the active players so that I can see where they are currently compared with the retired players. It will be interesting to see if Tom Brady can maintain his lofty standing or if he will drop out of the top-10 by the end of his career. It is likely that he will drop down eventually as it is very difficult to stay at the top over time.

I believe that if I can add in some or all of the other factors that I mentioned that it will come closer to being an accurate measure of a QB's career, or as close as a purely statistical model can be.

As I said in another post, ranking who the greatest QBs of all-time are is a PURELY personal opinion and people rate who they believe are the greatest based on what they have observed according to their own criteria. Many younger fans choose Montana due to having seen him play and for his success while the older fans tend to go with Graham or Unitas for the same reasons. It is purely conjecture and opinion though and there is no way to quantify it.

I want to see if there is a way to come close to putting values to a QB's stats that will come close to accurately quantifying those qualities and producing a ranking that has some validity.

Some of the comments here have been very helpful to me but most simply didn't get the point.

 

[THUMPER]

As others have pointed out, any system that places Marc Bulger above Troy Aikman is blind and flawed.

That's not true. Bulger has better stats than Aikman. They have the exact same winning % but Bulger has a higher completion %, Yards per attempt, yards per completion, TD %, and a lower INT %. From a purely statistical viewpoint, Bulger is the better QB. He also has played fewer season and will likely drop down as his career progresses as will most/all of the other active QBs on the list.

From a personal perspective, Aikman is far and away the better QB but that can't be shown statistically... yet. That is exactly what I am working towards.

 

[gazmc_06]

my #1 QB would be tom brady - i think there have been a lot of great QB's but i think the rest of them have had great receivers to throw to, tom brady has put up inredible numbers and win 3 rings with no great receivers. thew closest thing brady had to a great receiver was branch and he was not great, i would take brady over anyone.