List: The 100 Greatest Quarterbacks of the Modern Era

[Roughneck]

http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=The_100_Greatest_Quarterbacks_of_the_Modern_Era

#10 is a pretty fair spot. I DO NOT agree with a few of the Quarterbacks ranked ahead of #33.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Craig Morton ahead of Aikman tells you all you need to know about that list.

I was surprised they had Roger in the top 10.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I need to not respond to this list. It will only succeed in pissing me off.

 

[Crown Royal]

lol

That list has Dallas Cowboys Great Brad Johnson ahead of Tom Brady.

 

[ZeroClub]

There are so many things involved in being a great QB (and some are great for different reasons), it is really tough to come up with a statistical method that passes the smell test.

Tarkenton and Ken Anderson are clearly way too high. Morton over Aikman is absurd. And so on.

But once you accept the idea that a list generated by simple statistics is going to have obvious flaws, this one isn't so horrible, IMO.

 

[joseephuss]

lol

That list has Dallas Cowboys Great Brad Johnson ahead of Tom Brady.

I noticed that.

seasons
13 BJ
7 TB

yards
28,548 BJ
21546 TB

TDs
164 BJ
147 TB

INTs
117 BJ
78 TB

completion percentage
61.8% BJ
61.9% TB

yards per pass attempt
6.7 BJ
7.0 TB

yards per pass completion
10.9 BJ
11.4 TB

percentage of TDs per pass attempt
3.9% BJ
4.8% TB

percentage of INTs per pass attempt
2.8% BJ
2.5% TB

QB rating
83.08 BJ
88.36 TB

SB rings
1 BJ
3 TB

Sure looks like Brad Johnson is better than Tom Brady. :laugh2:

 

[burmafrd]

As Mark Twain said(he picked it up from someone else but he made it famous)
There are LIES, there are DAMN LIES, then there are statistics.
Ken Anderson was very under rated as a QB. He may have been the only QB I can remember that rivaled Aikman for accuracy. Sadly he was getting on in years by the time the Bungles built a good team around him- and the one year they made it to the SB it was against SF. If Johnson does not fumble, that whole game might have turned out different. The Bengals actually were the more experienced team, and had a lot of confidence.

 

[Catch-22]

Bledsoe and Brad Johnson rated higher than Brady :laugh2:

 

[DallasEast]

The list was an interesting read between #11 to #32, but I have to admit that I vomited a little in my mouth each time at #19, #23, #24, #26, #27, #29 and #31.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

http://www.armchairgm.com/index.php?title=The_100_Greatest_Quarterbacks_of_the_Modern_Era

#10 is a pretty fair spot. I DO NOT agree with a few of the Quarterbacks ranked ahead of #33.

Quincy is not mentioned?

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Morton, Esiason, Cunningham all ahead of Aikman, what a joke, I don't care about their criteria, what a joke!

Also if the Cowboys had beaten the Steelers in the 2 70s superbowls, Roger would be ahead of Johnny U and Montana as #1 all time. IMO.

 

[dwmyers]

This system has a longevity function; it values QBs who played a long time at a high level. It's also a *relative system*. As QB play has generally improved over the years, it will tend to rate great older QBs (who stuck out like sore thumbs) over the better QBs of recent years. In modern times, say 1988 on, there have been more good QBs, making them stand out a little less relative to one another.

They say many nice things about Staubach including:

Because of his Navy duty, Staubach had the shortest career of any Top 10 member; he had only 11 seasons in total, 8 full, with only 146 adjusted games played. Had he played the same number of adjusted games as Tarkenton (assuming he would maintain his PAR/G rate), Staubach would rank as the most valuable QB of all time.

How does that affect Aikman? Since it's a relative system and there were some *very good quarterbacks* playing when Aikman played, it doesn't matter whether Aikman played well in an objective sense. Relatively, he was often the 2nd or 3rd best QB, or sometimes the 4th or 5th in terms of QB stats.

That he didn't care about the stats means that the only fair way to rate Aikman isn't statistically, but by how many games he won. People carping over Aikman's standing in a relative system are really carping about relative rankings in general.

David.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

This system has a longevity function; it values QBs who played a long time at a high level. It's also a *relative system*. As QB play has generally improved over the years, it will tend to rate great older QBs (who stuck out like sore thumbs) over the better QBs of recent years. In modern times, say 1988 on, there have been more good QBs, making them stand out a little less relative to one another.

They say many nice things about Staubach including:



How does that affect Aikman? Since it's a relative system and there were some *very good quarterbacks* playing when Aikman played, it doesn't matter whether Aikman played well in an objective sense. Relatively, he was often the 2nd or 3rd best QB, or sometimes the 4th or 5th in terms of QB stats.

That he didn't care about the stats means that the only fair way to rate Aikman isn't statistically, but by how many games he won. People carping over Aikman's standing in a relative system are really carping about relative rankings in general.

David.

Like I said, it's a joke!

What a shame for them to go to all that trouble and time to make this list to foul it up like that.

 

[dwmyers]

Like I said, it's a joke!

What a shame for them to go to all that trouble and time to make this list to foul it up like that.

Look. There is some simple math in there. Morton played for 19 years. Aikman played for 12 years, and Aikman was a little frail. He's never going to win *any* QB endurance contest, sorry. Anyone, no matter how attached to the Aikman legend they are, has to realize that a pretty good QB who plays for 20+ years is going to score higher than Aikman.

The system the author used isn't going to reward a QB for 5-6 good years. It's going to be very favorable to the Jim Harts and Jim Fouts of the world, guys who play at fairly high levels for a long long time.

Bill James uses a system much like this one in his Historical Baseball Abstract. And so, players like Babe Ruth tend to float to the top, and Goose Goselin of the Washington Senators, who was a great power hitter for a few years, tends to be in the 30s and 40s and 50s of his charts.

As loud as people were putting this system down, I was curious and looked. I think the naysayers are wrong and the analysis is legitimate. It's driven by health of the QB, length of career, and overall performance, as opposed to playoff performance, but it's a legitimate look at QBs. For guys like a Dan Marino or a Kenny Anderson, this kind of analysis may be the only way to see their careers for what they actually accomplished.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Morton, Esiason, Cunningham all ahead of Aikman, what a joke, I don't care about their criteria, what a joke!

Also if the Cowboys had beaten the Steelers in the 2 70s superbowls, Roger would be ahead of Johnny U and Montana as #1 all time. IMO.

Mark Brunnell also ahead of Aikman? Regardless how this list was compiled, it's a bunch of crap.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

Look. There is some simple math in there. Morton played for 19 years. Aikman played for 12 years, and Aikman was a little frail. He's never going to win *any* QB endurance contest, sorry. Anyone, no matter how attached to the Aikman legend they are, has to realize that a pretty good QB who plays for 20+ years is going to score higher than Aikman.

The system the author used isn't going to reward a QB for 5-6 good years. It's going to be very favorable to the Jim Harts and Jim Fouts of the world, guys who play at fairly high levels for a long long time.

Bill James uses a system much like this one in his Historical Baseball Abstract. And so, players like Babe Ruth tend to float to the top, and Goose Goselin of the Washington Senators, who was a great power hitter for a few years, tends to be in the 30s and 40s and 50s of his charts.

As loud as people were putting this system down, I was curious and looked. I think the naysayers are wrong and the analysis is legitimate. It's driven by health of the QB, length of career, and overall performance, as opposed to playoff performance, but it's a legitimate look at QBs. For guys like a Dan Marino or a Kenny Anderson, this kind of analysis may be the only way to see their careers for what they actually accomplished.

NO WAY a guy like Aikman who won superbowls, plural, should be behind some of the QBs he's behind, it's rediculous.

Football ain't baseball, in the NFL winning is paramount and stats are secondary for the most part. Baseball is too much about stats and not enough about winning. If a QB compiles stats throughout his career during the regular season and can't get it done in the playoffs then it's nearly worthless IMO. Which is what this whole thing is anyway, opinion.

 

[THUMPER]

My All-Time QB rating system is much better and more accurate. It is also a lot easier to understand.

I have to update it for last season but I have posted the results many times in the past.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

But once you accept the idea that a list generated by simple statistics is going to have obvious flaws, this one isn't so horrible, IMO.

It's not going by stats that gives flaws, it's usually not using enough stats to get a more, complete picture. It's kind of like Joyner using YPA for determining CB play. It's a decent measure, but if he looked at other stats like total allowed completed passes per game and total yards allowed per game you start to get a better picture.




YAKUZA

 

[THUMPER]

It's not going by stats that gives flaws, it's usually not using enough stats to get a more, complete picture. It's kind of like Joyner using YPA for determining CB play. It's a decent measure, but if he looked at other stats like total allowed completed passes per game and total yards allowed per game you start to get a better picture.




YAKUZA

Exactly!

 

[Coy]

Troy #33???? plain and simple this list is a joke.