Rank the top 20 NFL quarterbacks

Its tough. Graham and Marino are tied for me, most championships and the best stats. Brady's not far behind though.

 

IMO, Montana, Elway, Marino, Favre and Brady are the top of the list. I would still have Montana as my #1, but I can see a day quickly coming where Brady may be in that spot.

 

I think your age has a lot to do with who you would pick. Because of the game played in the past isn't the same as that which is played today. At one time you could hit the Qb. like any other player on the field, you could hit the receivers, blocking was different and so on. At one time you could trip a runner and he could get back up and run, you had to have him under control.
So my top Qb's would be Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Bobby Lane, Bart Starr, Sonny Jurgensen, Dan Marino, Y.A. Tittle, Joe Montana, Norm Van Brocklin, John Elway, Bret Favre, Tom Brady, Payton Manning and Steve Young.

The team one has around them has a lot to do with their record of wins as well as the coaching. The above is in order from 1 on down in my eyes. I don't think their are many a Qb to day that could take the beating that Bobby Lane took and gave, as I said the game isn't the same.

 

A quick thought before I vote. Even though Brady and Manning are putting up great stats, as Bob said, you need to consider the era. The NFL rules have been made so easy on QB's these days. Even in the 80's and into the 90's it was a much tougher on QB's. Similar to baseball - you need to keep some of these big stats in context.

Another note on Brady - I wouldn't give him that much credit for all these Super Bowl wins, except for the one that he'll win this Sunday. His first one doesn't count, since that was clearly a fumble against Oakland and so it was pure luck that they even got there. The other two were won mainly with defense in a parity-ridden league. The opponents they faced were not that good. This year is different, though. They have beaten every top team except Green Bay (and I'm pretty confident they could beat them easily). So if they win this Sunday, then Brady has one legit championship - the other 3 had little to do with him. He's overrated beyond measure, becasue even this year's success is mostly due to Moss. Don't believe the Brady hype. The guy is not that good, and he's not that good off the field, either.

 

My Top 20 (even though I didn't like all the nominees - esp. Namath - way overrated):

1.Graham
2.Montana
3.Unitas
4.Elway
5.Starr
6.Marino
7.Baugh
8.P. Manning
9.Staubach
10.Aikman
11.Bradshaw
12.Young
13.Brady
14.Favre
15.Fouts
16.Moon
17.Tarkenton
18.Simms
19.Griese
20.Namath

 

Andy, I'm not even a Patriots fan and I think your post is beyond ridiculous.

Huh? You can't dismiss a Super Bowl win just because you think they were lucky to get there. They may have gotten lucky on the tuck rule call, but was it pure luck to beat the Steelers, who everybody considered the best team in the AFC that year, the next week? Was it pure luck that they completely outplayed the Rams in the Super Bowl? Was it pure luck that Brady engineered the game-winning drive?

The final score of the Patriots-Panthers game was 32-29. Neither defense won that game. It must have been pure luck that Brady engineered another game-winning drive in the Super Bowl.

And the Eagles, who the Pats played in '05, made it to the NFC Championship 4 years in a row, but they weren't that good?

Right. Because it was pure luck that Brady engineered 2 game-winning drives in 2 of the Super Bowls.

I'll grant you that Moss is the single biggest reason that Brady threw 50 TDs, but it's ludicrous to say he's not that good. How do you throw 50 TD's in one season and be not that good?

 

ccr I completely agree. I am not a Pats fan either.

However, there is no way you can claim that Brady is not that good. He has the championships and the stats to prove that he is that good.

Andy, I really enjoy reading your takes on sports, but I have to say you can come up with some of the most ridiculous statements around ... the Twins and their stadium, and now this Brady thing. To have Brady and Favre out of the top 10 and behind some of the other guys on your list is just crazy IMO.

 

While I agree age and era do play a role. I think several of the QBs from the modern era were just as tough as the guys back in the older eras. Brett Favre and John Elway are two that come to mind immediately. I think they could have easily played in Lane's era and been just as tough. Steve Young was another guy who was pretty tough as well.

 

Well, I do like to stir the pot every once in awhile. :wavey:

Let me clarify when I said "he's not that good." I meant that he is "not as great as every one says he is." I still ranked him 13th on my list of all-time QB's, and he is likely to move up when it is all said and done - he'll probably crack the top 10. But he's not the greatest ever or even close to the top 5.

 

Oh, and the reason I put Favre so low is that while he has made some great plays over the years, he has also lost many, many games to his wild gunslinging. To me, he is the Nolan Ryan of football - great longevity, accumulated great stats, but he also accumulated a lot of bad stats (walks and losses for Nolan; interceptions and losses for Favre). While I think Ryan was a great pitcher, I wouldn't put him anywhere near the top 10 of all-time. Same with Favre. And I like Favre - I like him a lot better than I do Brady as a person.

 

cc,

Brady's field goal drives in the Super Bowl are not that impressive to me. Now Montana's drive against the Bengals to score a TD - that is impressive. But to drive the ball to the 30 yard line and let one of the greatest kickers of all-time (Vinateri) do the real clutch work, doesn't earn a lot of points with me.

If the Pats had Joe Montana, they would have won probably 5 or 6 Super Bowls by now. We need to remember that there are not very many good teams in this era. Teams like the 49ers of the 80's and the Steelers of the 70's had so much more competition than the Pats of the 00's.

 

You could be right but I don't know, but those two I think could have played but how easily I don't know. Lets go back for a moment, Baugh was the guy given the credit of putting the ball in the air, played Db, and was the punter. Nighttrain Lane said one time when ask about Qb's, if you want to see how to play Db, look at the films of Baugh.
Things always look better when you are young for the most part, that was the football I watched and played. It is like baseball, to me hitting is Ted Williams, basketball collage is UK of the 40's and 50's, pro is Boston with Russell, NASCAR is Fireball Roberts, singers is Nat King Cole, radio was Dick Powell, movies was Gene Autry, preaching is R.G. Lee, christian editorial writer is A. W. Tozer, preacher or teaching on radio is T.H. Epps and paradise on earth is Florida. Things are great today and the players are good but they just aren't as big in my eyes as I grow older. Where I can try and bully you around is that I've seen both, but that does not make me correct, if the truth is know.

 

Amen brother Floridian, amen.:godisgood:

 

Bob, I completely get and respect what you are saying. I am sure as I, and others here, grow older we will do the same thing with the guys from our generation that are really good players.

 

You are very wise, no matter what your age is!!! But as you grow older learn and enjoy a lot of what the youth of the day enjoy, and then pick on them, but just a little, more than likely they are smarter than you or they think so.

 

We know the truth!!! I heard Adrian Rogers say that when he was the pastor in Merritt Island, Fl. and I had to agree.

 

WHERE IS THE LOVE FOR ELI!?

:laugh:

 

Thanks for the kind words and advice. I will do my best to follow that as I grow older. :thumbs:

 

Other than your bias against Brady, which I assume is due to his personal life, what makes Montana's drive so much more impressive? The Niners started their drive on their own 8, had 3:20 left, all 3 timeouts, and scored with 0:34 left. The Patriots started on their own 17, had 1:21 left, 0 timeouts and scored as time expired. Both were impressive drives and your bias is the only differentiation between the 2. And Vinatieri wasn't considered one of the greatest of all time until he hit Super Bowl winning FG's.

Next.

In other words, the Patriots would have won 5 or 6 Super Bowls in 6 years. Right.

This is a statement that I've heard and don't believe. If it was true, shouldn't we expect to see more mediocre teams this decade than we saw in the 70s or 80s?

Good teams are defined by those who win at least 10 games, right? I mean, nobody really thinks a team is good that only goes 9-7. Here's a list I quickly put together.

1974: 6 teams out of 26, 23%, with 10 wins
1975: 10 teams out of 26, 38%, with 10 wins
1976: 10 teams out of 26, 38%, with 10 wins
1977: 6 teams out of 28, 21%, with 10 wins
1978: 7 teams out of 28, 25%, with 10 wins
1979: 10 teams out of 28, 36%, with 10 wins
1980: 10 teams out of 28, 36%, with 10 wins
1981: 9 teams out of 28, 32%, with 10 wins
1982: Strike season, nobody with 10 wins
1983: 6 teams out of 28, 21%, with 10 wins
1984: 8 teams out of 28, 29%, with 10 wins
1985: 11 teams out of 28, 39%, with 10 wins
1986: 12 teams out of 28, 43%, with 10 wins
1987: 6 teams out of 28, 21%, with 10 wins
1988: 11 teams out of 28, 39%, with 10 wins
1989: 8 teams out of 28, 29%, with 10 wins

2001: 11 teams out of 31, 35%, with 10 wins
2002: 9 teams out of 32, 28%, with 10 wins
2003: 13 teams out of 32, 41%, with 10 wins
2004: 9 teams out of 32, 28%, with 10 wins
2005: 13 teams out of 32, 41%, with 10 wins
2006: 8 teams out of 32, 25%, with 10 wins

I don't see that the Steelers and Niners had so much better competition than the Patriots do.