NFL All-Time Passer Rating Leaders - time adjusted

[mattjames2010]

I agree! He was good against NO, LA Rams and Atlanta who were horrible then. (Easy, Easy Division). He won MVP if I'm not mistaken in 92. I was just saying he didn't win (when it mattered) until they signed all those all-pros and broke the salary cap and lost draft picks because of it. Brady and Manning never did that or anybody that I can remember.

It took Manning until 2006 with loads of talent to get his first Super Bowl. Actually, Manning is considered a bit of a playoff choker.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Wow, Dak is ranked the same number of dollars he's probably gonna get per season.

https://www.footballdb.com/leaders/career-passing-rating

 

[CowboyRoy]

It took Manning until 2006 with loads of talent to get his first Super Bowl. Actually, Manning is considered a bit of a playoff choker.

Yep...….and when manning won with the colts, they had two 100 yard rushers that game. And the defense was playing great for them.

 

[mattjames2010]

The only QBs that played on teams as loaded as Young were Aikman and Bradshaw and maybe Montana.
But Young really did have some great years. I won't take that away from him

I would say Brady played on far more complete teams, when he was originally winning his Super Bowls, Bill's defense were shutting down offenses. Manning is another one that had a load of talent, and I think there is an argument he woefully underachieved in the post-season from a simple player standpoint.

Honestly, I can't think of many HOF/All-time greats that didn't have loaded teams outside of Marino.

 

[CowboyRoy]

The only QBs that played on teams as loaded as Young were Aikman and Bradshaw and maybe Montana.
But Young really did have some great years. I won't take that away from him

I guess you could say that ALL of those guys needed a perfect team around them to win it all? As some here would say?

 

[mattjames2010]

Yep...….and when manning won with the colts, they had two 100 yard rushers that game. And the defense was playing great for them.

Manning sucked in the 2006 playoffs if I remember correctly. Something like 3 TDs to 7 INTs

For being a field general, he had so many brain farts in the post-season. All that high intellect just went away under the bright lights.

 

[gjkoeppen]

As we all know, NFL Passer ratings have been steadily drifting up for several decades now.
For example, the average of the top 15 passer ratings was:
76 in 1970
90 in 2000
103 in 2019

It's a big reason why the current leaderboard for career passer rating is so skewed to active players.

You can take the average rating of any year vs the current rating and come up with a real adjustment to these numbers.

Here is a TIME-ADJUSTED list of the NFL's Career Passer Rating leaders.
You'll find it makes much more sense if you want to measure players across eras.

Top 20 (of 100)

1. Graham
2. Young
3. Montana
4. Mahomes
5. Dawson
6. Jorgenson
7. Anderson
8. Rodgers
9. Staubach
10. Starr
11. Tarkenton
12. P Manning
13. Warner
14. Wilson
15. Romo
16. Brady
17. Brees
18. Unitas
19. Fouts
20. Marino

Here's what doesn't make sense with you saying you have to have time adjustments. The NFL started doing QB passer ratings in 1973 using the same formula they use today. So if the same formula is used why is there a need for time adjustments? If we have to have time adjustments to figure out who the career passer rating leaders are then do we have to come up with some time adjustment for rushing yards per attempt or career rushing leader?
.

 

[Skybox22]

The only QBs that played on teams as loaded as Young were Aikman and Bradshaw and maybe Montana.
But Young really did have some great years. I won't take that away from him

Agree! Although, Aikman, Bradshaw, and Montana had a team built through the draft and not 10 all-pro free agents that broke the rules. Deny it all you want that is what happened. Montana is the best I've ever seen and SF did it right with him. Not so much with Young.

 

[DFWJC]

Again, any QB comparison that has Brady at #16 is automatically garbage. I don’t care what kind of angle they’re trying to jam down peoples throats. I guess some will bite.

Numbers are what they are.
No agenda, just numbers.

Nobody is jamming anything.

You're on record saying it sucks because Tommy isn't higher.
Duly noted. That's fine, Rockport

 

[DFWJC]

Here's what doesn't make sense with you saying you have to have time adjustments. The NFL started doing QB passer ratings in 1973 using the same formula they use today. So if the same formula is used why is there a need for time adjustments? If we have to have time adjustments to figure out who the career passer rating leaders are then do we have to come up with some time adjustment for rushing yards per attempt or career rushing leader?
.

This was just an offseason exercise to see how things balance out over time.
Sure enough, the adjusted list is pretty much all HOFers in the top 20.

But if you think Roger Staubach's career QB rating of 84 fits perfectly in this era, where it would make him possibly the lowest ranked starting QB in the NFL...well...that's up to you.

The rating goes up, on average, every year because they have consistently made it easier for the offenses over time.
The TV era dictates that to some degree. 3,-4, even 5 receiver sets.
Don't hit the QB, WRs running free anywhere..even over the middle.
It's just WAY easier now. And will continue to get easier with maybe a year or two of flattening.

All in good fun.

If it bothers you, that's ok. You're not the only one.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Rolling average/Standard Deviation (2 or 4 seasons front and back) of top 15 each year.
The 2019 PR ( I used 101 but real average was 102+ in 2019 so could use that) as the numerator and rolling ave number from the average year played (so if career was 2000-2009 then mid-year rolling average used would be 2005) as the numerator to get the factor.
Factor generally gets larger the further back you go so all older rating are adjusted up to today's standards.
Multiply factor time actual passer rating to get adjusted rating.

Could be done in many ways and would result in slight movement up or down for various players.

Was just bored and having fun.

Interesting.

I don't know about taking the top 15. I'd guess that's significantly bumping up Graham by comparing him to all starters instead of just a biased sample of the top QBs, even assuming that you took the top 12 during his career.

I'd probably normalize per year, then average after that.

Probably limit the average to the top years for the player. Some guys at the front or back of their careers had stinky years. I think the years of playing great matter more than years of playing poorly.

Maybe best X year moving average?

 

[Skybox22]

It took Manning until 2006 with loads of talent to get his first Super Bowl. Actually, Manning is considered a bit of a playoff choker.

I don't know if Manning was a choker (NE was just better and Indy wasn't even competitive without Manning). But what if Indy signed 10 pro-bowl free agents to beat NE and beat them?

 

[DFWJC]

Interesting.

I don't know about taking the top 15. I'd guess that's significantly bumping up Graham by comparing him to all starters instead of just a biased sample of the top QBs, even assuming that you took the top 12 during his career.

I'd probably normalize per year, then average after that.

Probably limit the average to the top years for the player. Some guys at the front or back of their careers had stinky years. I think the years of playing great matter more than years of playing poorly.

Maybe best X year moving average?

Great ideas
So many ways to do it.

I wanted to remove any picking and choosing for this particular one though.

But just choosing the best years would be interesting. That would make Joe Flacco or Nick Foles the best ever, I guess.
lol
j/k

I hear you on Graham.
Then again, since I stopped my data search at 1970 and used those numbers for guys who played before then, he and guys like Tittle got hit hard....unless average numbers were not lower than 1970s back in their day.

I did run these numbers using only top 10 as well.
Extremely close to using top 15 but the top 15 data was much smoother after using the standard deviations.

 

[Skybox22]

This was just an offseason exercise to see how things balance out over time.
Sure enough, the adjusted list is pretty much all HOFers in the top 20.

But if you think Roger Staubach's career QB rating of 84 fits perfectly in this era, where it would make him possibly the lowest ranked starting QB in the NFL...well...that's up to you.

The rating goes up, on average, every year because they have consistently made it easier for the offenses over time.
The TV era dictates that to some degree. 3,-4, even 5 receiver sets.
Don't hit the QB, WRs running free anywhere..even over the middle.
It's just WAY easier now. And will continue to get easier with maybe a year or two of flattening.

All in good fun.

If it bothers you, that's ok. You're not the only one.

QB rating is totally different today. QB's literally throw from the one inch line to make it look like they've done something (to get their bonuses, which I get; it is a QB driven league now). So GB with Taylor, Pitt with Harris, Dallas with Emmitt, Czonka, Riggins, whoever they were. Within the five yard line they ran it down your throat, not these little one yard passes.

 

[JustChip]

Very interesting. Maybe the thing that stands out to me the most is that I’ve witnessed all but 3 (Graham, Tittle & Van Brockton) of the top 75 play.

 

[xwalker]

As we all know, NFL Passer ratings have been steadily drifting up for several decades now.
For example, the average of the top 15 passer ratings was:
76 in 1970
90 in 2000
103 in 2019

It's a big reason why the current leaderboard for career passer rating is so skewed to active players.

You can take the average rating of any year vs the current rating and come up with a real adjustment to these numbers.

Here is a TIME-ADJUSTED list of the NFL's Career Passer Rating leaders.
You'll find it makes much more sense if you want to measure players across eras.

Top 20 (of 100)

1. Graham
2. Young
3. Montana
4. Mahomes
5. Dawson
6. Jorgenson
7. Anderson
8. Rodgers
9. Staubach
10. Starr
11. Tarkenton
12. P Manning
13. Warner
14. Wilson
15. Romo
16. Brady
17. Brees
18. Unitas
19. Fouts
20. Marino

That dilutes players that played a long time like Marino.

It would be better to compared the top 5 years for players with over 5 years of stats.

Marino's QB rating in 1984 scaled up based on the top 15 in 84 compared to the top 15 in 2019 would be:

• Marino (scaled to 2019): 128.7
• Mahomes 2019: 105.3
• Mahomes: 113.8

 

[mattjames2010]

I don't know if Manning was a choker (NE was just better and Indy wasn't even competitive without Manning). But what if Indy signed 10 pro-bowl free agents to beat NE and beat them?

I mean, what would it matter? Draft or FA, the dude was surrounded by a crap ton of talent. It's not like the Dungy Colts were starving, they had two HOF WRs, two star defensive lineman, great RBs, a safety that won DPOY, etc. Colts did their thing through the draft, 49ers did it through FA and both ended up with the same place.

The biggest problem Steve Young had was the fact he had to face the Cowboys and Packers three times each in 6 consecutive post-seasons.

 

[DFWJC]

That dilutes players that played a long time like Marino.

It would be better to compared the top 5 years for players with over 5 years of stats.

Marino's QB rating in 1984 scaled up based on the top 15 in 84 compared to the top 15 in 2019 would be:

• Marino (scaled to 2019): 128.7
• Mahomes 2019: 105.3
• Mahomes: 113.8

Lots of ways to do it for sure, x.
Can't say I'd be up for taking one early great year and using it to cover 17 years though. It's boosting for a limited data point and boosting again for being the earliest data point.

Nick Foles unadjusted 119 in 2013 would make him a HOFer.

But taking top years and adjusting would be pretty cool. Even then, if someone is putrid for 10 seasons and great for 5, it should show up somewhere on average....imo


But no doubt, Marino was a beast in 1984.
A beast overall too

Would be fun to see who has the very best single seasons adjusted.
Marino in '84, Staubach in '71, Young in the 80s.

 

[Skybox22]

I mean, what would it matter? Draft or FA, the dude was surrounded by a crap ton of talent. It's not like the Dungy Colts were starving, they had two HOF WRs, two star defensive lineman, great RBs, a safety that won DPOY, etc. Colts did their thing through the draft, 49ers did it through FA and both ended up with the same place.

The biggest problem Steve Young had was the fact he had to face the Cowboys and Packers three times each in 6 consecutive post-seasons.

I get it. But the whole argument was about Young (94' Niners) not winning the Super Bowl without getting all-pros from other teams (many of them). Indy DRAFTED Wayne and Harrison. Same with Edgerrin James, Freeney etc. But the 49ers couldn't beat Dallas at that time without hired guns. To deny that is silly.
Look, I respect the Steelers, Ravens, Seahawks, Philly. Teams I can't stand, but they do it right. Teams I loathe. But to say Steve Young was a great quarterback (based on playoffs) is really strange.

 

[AbeBeta]

Stabler would have one absolute dog of a game every year. But he was usually magic in a 2 minute drill. If he had played today, they would have fixed his knees so he'd be a scrambler too.

It wasn't just a single game. He's got considerably more interceptions than TD passes