ilovejerry
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,484
- Reaction score
- 97
As soon as I saw no Johnny U I had to laugh and stop reading
sorry what a waste of time.
sorry what a waste of time.
ZeroClub;1363895 said: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.
ilovejerry;1364325 said:As soon as I saw no Johnny U I had to laugh and stop reading
sorry what a waste of time.
THUMPER;1362802 said: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
THUMPER;1364352 said: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.
THUMPER;1362823 said:It is based on results.
rcaldw;1364747 said:As others have pointed out, any system that places Marc Bulger above Troy Aikman is blind and flawed.