NFLN - Top 10 Players To Wear #12 - Staubach Only Ranks 5th

[Chocolate Lab]

How is Andrew Luck ranked 10th of all time? I'm sorry that's just laughable to me, regardless of how talented he is right now. I guess there really hasn't been that many good #12s' in the NFL for them to be putting a 2nd year player, and no I'm not knocking Luck(he's great).

Because all of these NFLN lists are way too heavily biased to the recent past. It's ridiculous.

Just another reason why that channel sucks. It's sad, football is by far my favorite sport and I never watch that channel anymore.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

I'd love to hear one good reason why Joe Namath was better than Roger Staubach.

You'll be waiting for all eternity to hear that.

There isnt even one bad reason to suggest such a thing.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Saying a player will always be #1 on your list is just admitting hero worship and that your list can't be taken seriously.

Which would explain the rest of your post.

There is good reason for someone to have Roger Staubach as a hero. I can think of no player who could be a possible better hero. Maybe some as good, but none better.

 

[Doomsay]

And yet we have numerous posters here who sing the praises of E-Lie simply because he has 2 rings.

uh oh

 

[percyhoward]

A couple of misconceptions that just won't die:

There's the lazy, simplistic "count the rings" argument. While that does work for determining the best teams, and the age of a tree, it's no way to objectively compare QB play. Counting the rings puts Plunkett ahead of Warner ahead of Marino. Not that Bradshaw didn't eventually turn into a great player, but his team had already won two championships before he started to appear among the top 10 passers with any consistency. Until that happened, the Steelers won with defense, often winning despite Bradshaw.

The other misconception is to think you can compare individual statistics across eras. If that's true, then Sam Bradford (79.3) is better than Unitas (78.2), even though Unitas led the league three times and was top 5 eleven times. Look at this list of the top 5 passers of 1978:

1. Staubach 84.9
2. Bradshaw 84.7
3. Fouts 83.0
4. Griese 82.4
5. A. Manning 81.7

Most of those ratings would not have been in the top 20 in 2013. When comparing across eras, you have to ignore the rating and look at the ranking.

If you still want to use the rating, you can adjust the rating for era. Using WPB's list from the OP, here's the percentage difference between these QB's ratings and the average rating of the years they played.

10 - Andrew Luck -3.0% (10)
9 - John Brodie +9.9% (6)
8 - Randall Cunningham +8.7% (7)
7 - Ken Stabler +10.6% (5)
6 - Aaron Rodgers +21.3% (2)
5 - Roger Staubach +27.6% (1)
4 - Jim Kelly +10.9% (4)
3 - Joe Namath +7.5% (8)
2 - Terry Bradshaw +5.2% (9)
1 - Tom Brady +16.0% (3)

Not even on the list: Griese +17.7%. To me, that percentage and the ranking in parentheses comes closer to being a real list of the best #12's, and not some historically ignorant waste of everyone's time.

As for non-#12's, Romo is +14.6%. Aikman was +5.8% over his career, but +17.2% from 1991-95. And here's the all-time top 5, regardless of jersey number:

1. Otto Graham +38.8%
2. Roger Staubach +27.6%
3. Steve Young +25.7%
4. Len Dawson +25.3%
5. Sonny Jurgensen +25.0%

 

[big dog cowboy]

Most of those guys played well before my time... but I'd love to hear one good reason why Joe Namath was better than Roger Staubach.

He looks better in panty hose?

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

A couple of misconceptions that just won't die:

There's the lazy, simplistic "count the rings" argument. While that does work for determining the best teams, and the age of a tree, it's no way to objectively compare QB play. Counting the rings puts Plunkett ahead of Warner ahead of Marino. Not that Bradshaw didn't eventually turn into a great player, but his team had already won two championships before he started to appear among the top 10 passers with any consistency. Until that happened, the Steelers won with defense, often winning despite Bradshaw.

The other misconception is to think you can compare individual statistics across eras. If that's true, then Sam Bradford (79.3) is better than Unitas (78.2), even though Unitas led the league three times and was top 5 eleven times. Look at this list of the top 5 passers of 1978:

1. Staubach 84.9
2. Bradshaw 84.7
3. Fouts 83.0
4. Griese 82.4
5. A. Manning 81.7

Most of those ratings would not have been in the top 20 in 2013. When comparing across eras, you have to ignore the rating and look at the ranking.

If you still want to use the rating, you can adjust the rating for era. Using WPB's list from the OP, here's the percentage difference between these QB's ratings and the average rating of the years they played.

10 - Andrew Luck -3.0% (10)
9 - John Brodie +9.9% (6)
8 - Randall Cunningham +8.7% (7)
7 - Ken Stabler +10.6% (5)
6 - Aaron Rodgers +21.3% (2)
5 - Roger Staubach +27.6% (1)
4 - Jim Kelly +10.9% (4)
3 - Joe Namath +7.5% (8)
2 - Terry Bradshaw +5.2% (9)
1 - Tom Brady +16.0% (3)

Not even on the list: Griese +17.7%. To me, that percentage and the ranking in parentheses comes closer to being a real list of the best #12's, and not some historically ignorant waste of everyone's time.

As for non-#12's, Romo is +14.6%. Aikman was +5.8% over his career, but +17.2% from 1991-95. And here's the all-time top 5, regardless of jersey number:

1. Otto Graham +38.8%
2. Roger Staubach +27.6%
3. Steve Young +25.7%
4. Len Dawson +25.3%
5. Sonny Jurgensen +25.0%

This is great stuff Percy. I was wondering if you would chime in to put things in perspective.

Thanks.

 

[robbieruff]

Jim Kelly. Four time Super Bowl loser. Joe Namath, known more for a guarantee and his playboy lifestyle than his legitimate accomplishments in his professional career.

Great list.

Ummm. While I welcome the debate, Joe Willie Namath was known for way more than that. They guy threw for over 4000 yards in 1967. Yes - in 1967!?!?! Granted it was the AFL - and he did face good competition - but the way the game was played back then, that would've been like throwing for nearly 6000 yards today. Namath was one of the purest passers the league has ever seen and if not for his knees - and horrible medical technology in his day - he would no doubt in my mind be at the top of nearly every record list.

Don't get me wrong, I think Roger should be higher than five - he was my boyhood hero and the reason why I have been a Boys fan for nearly 40 years - but Namath indeed was one of the best. He revolutionized the game. If you haven't seen it, check out the HBO documentary on his life and playing career. You will be impressed and perhaps elevate your opinion .

 

[tyke1doe]

How is Andrew Luck ranked 10th of all time? I'm sorry that's just laughable to me, regardless of how talented he is right now. I guess there really hasn't been that many good #12s' in the NFL for them to be putting a 2nd year player, and no I'm not knocking Luck(he's great).

Bob Griese and Kenny Stabler come to mind as quarterbacks better than Luck.

 

[tyke1doe]

Opps. Kenny Stabler was on the list. My bad.

 

[casmith07]

As much as it bothers me, I can concede Bradshaw was better. He has the hardware.

Bradshaw said he would've backed up Staubach in Dallas if he had the opportunity.

 

[joseephuss]

Ummm. While I welcome the debate, Joe Willie Namath was known for way more than that. They guy threw for over 4000 yards in 1967. Yes - in 1967!?!?! Granted it was the AFL - and he did face good competition - but the way the game was played back then, that would've been like throwing for nearly 6000 yards today. Namath was one of the purest passers the league has ever seen and if not for his knees - and horrible medical technology in his day - he would no doubt in my mind be at the top of nearly every record list.

Don't get me wrong, I think Roger should be higher than five - he was my boyhood hero and the reason why I have been a Boys fan for nearly 40 years - but Namath indeed was one of the best. He revolutionized the game. If you haven't seen it, check out the HBO documentary on his life and playing career. You will be impressed and perhaps elevate your opinion .

Namath was good. He wasn't better than Staubach.

 

[DFWJC]

If you dont put Roger at #1, Brady is the only one that you could make an argument for to be #1. Even Brady is questionable IMO to rank higher than Roger. I mean Brady lost 2 Super Bowls to E-Lie.

I just about spit up my drink laughing there....funny stuff.

 

[Cowboy06]

I just caught the last 15 mins or so.

10 - Andrew Luck
9 - John Brodie
8 - Randall Cunningham
7 - Ken Stabler
6 - Aaron Rodgers
5 - Roger Staubach
4 - Jim Kelly
3 - Joe Namath
2 - Terry Bradshaw
1 - Tom Brady


Kelly, Namath and Bradshaw rank higher than Roger?

I am speechless . . . . . . . . . . .

awww come on, I couldn't stand the Steelers in the 70s, but you have to admit Bradshaw was a good QB for his team and I respected the fact he and Roger had mutual respect and friendship.

 

[khiladi]

I just caught the last 15 mins or so.

10 - Andrew Luck
9 - John Brodie
8 - Randall Cunningham
7 - Ken Stabler
6 - Aaron Rodgers
5 - Roger Staubach
4 - Jim Kelly
3 - Joe Namath
2 - Terry Bradshaw
1 - Tom Brady


Kelly, Namath and Bradshaw rank higher than Roger?

I am speechless . . . . . . . . . . .

That's the worst list ever...

 

[khiladi]

B Jackson was the greatest football player of all time... if he didn't get hurt and technology was better, he'd have like 12 million yards rushing. Guaranteed... That's why.

 

[robbieruff]

Namath was good. He wasn't better than Staubach.

Agreed...the point of my post was to make the case for Namath being more than a lucky QB (prediction) who was best known for being a playboy...not that he was better than Roger...

 

[Roadtrip635]

Saying a player will always be #1 on your list is just admitting hero worship and that your list can't be taken seriously.

Which would explain the rest of your post.

Of course it's hero worship, I'm a Cowboy fan that grew up watching and admiring Roger Staubach and I'm posting on a Cowboys fan forum. Lists like these shouldn't be taken seriously and are very subjective. It's near impossible to accurately rank players like this that played across different eras, rules, medical and technological innovations and trends. What facts, stats or criteria are most important in determining rankings like this? Roger had all the skills, talent and intangibles of a great QB and he's also a large reason why I love football. For all that he will always top my list. Childhood heroes are a powerful thing.

 

[car351]

Why should I care about where some ignorant yahoo ranks Roger Staubach. He will always be #1 on my list. Period.

Staubach, quite literally won just about every award and accolade a football player can win in college AND the pros. He served a tour of duty in Vietnam, is a success not just in sports but in business, a man of high moral character and unquestioning integrity. There is not another player on that list that is half the man that Roger Staubach is.

Yup, everything you said, and my childhood hero, AND the number one reason I became a fan. Well him, and of course that iconic STAR.