Rank the top 20 NFL quarterbacks

cc,

Your list of 10-game winners is quite meaningless. A 10-win team is not that good.

The 70's had teams like the Steelers, Dolphins, Raiders, Cowboys that were all great teams. The 80's had the 49ers, Giants, Bears, Redskins. This era has a lot of mediocre-to-good teams. Teams like the Eagles. The Panthers. The Bears. The Steelers. All mediocre-to-good teams. These are not all-time great teams. The depth of greatness is just not there.

 

If not 10 wins, then 11? 12? Romanticize it all you want, but I don't agree that the NFL was so much better in the good, old days.

 

It is what ever game one likes the best. To me I like the older brand of football much better, and as I said that is what it was when I became a football fan and played football. My son who is 37 likes the ball of his teenage years the best and his son likes todays ball the best. To say one is better than the other would not be correct, because it isn't the same game. They have moved the hash line in and that has widen the field on each play, which makes it easier to pass for one, so it isn't quite the same game for that and so many more things that have been changed. I loved those 10 to 7 games, I love the D game. But this is one of the things, that what ever one likes the best he is correct for him or her.

 

I'm not saying that the football back then was better per se. Certainly the players now are bigger, stronger and faster, which is why I think arguments that Team A from the 60's would beat Team B from the 90's are meaningless. Frankly, I think such match-ups would produce winners from the latter-era teams almost all the time, simply because today's athletes are bigger, stronger and more finely-tuned.

However, the argument I was making was that the competition relative to their era was much tougher in certain eras than in today's game. Relative to their era, the Steelers of the 70's had much more competition than the Pats of today. I don't think anyone would really disagree with that. Today's game is parity-ridden, because of many factors - free agency, salary cap, etc. The greatest feat of the Pats' run is with their management of personnel over the years. In today's game, that's the name of the game, and they have done it better than anyone else.

 

Let's see that makes a total of one (1), (at least thus far), at the college and pro level, according to my research. (Although Tennessee did manage to win the National championship the next year after Peyton Mannning left!)

Does kinda' make the four (4) NFL championships won by Arnie Herber-led teams;

the four (4) NFL championships won by Sid Luckman-led teams;

the four (4) NFL championships won by Terry Bradshaw-led teams;

the five (5) - (four NFL and one college) championships won by Joe Montana-led teams;

the five (5) NFL and/or Super Bowl titles won by Bart Starr-led teams;

and the seven (7) pro titles won by Otto Graham-led teams

all pale by comparison, don't it!

Ed

 

I will tend to agree with three of your picks here, with little question.

The quickest release I've ever seen is that of Dan Marino.

And Fran Tarkenton was the greatest scrambler ever, for my mind.

And I have little gripe with the most versatile athlete among quarterbacks, of Sammy Baugh, as well, although a small case for George Blanda (as well as a couple of others) could probably be made in that category, as well, in the area of football. Blanda was a QB, the punter, the kicker, and also played linebacker in college as well as in his first season in the NFL, as well. But I'd still rate Baugh as the greatest overall. No other individual ever came close to leading the NFL in interceptions, passing, and punting, all in one season, as did Baugh.

Ed

 

Off subject, He was a Bear Bryant Qb who went to the pros as well as Babe Parilli. How many Qb's did the Bear send to the pros? On the Jets Superbowl team that beat the Colts, they had two of the Bears Qb's.
Was it 49 or 50 that some say UK was national co-champs? Was that the year they beat Ok. in the bowl game?

 

I gotta' admit, I was not aware that winning the conference was the equivalent of winning the league, as in winning the Super Bowl.

And although I did not mention him before, how about Jack Elway? He was a quarterback, who had a fair to middlin' kid who also played quarterback named John Elway. You might have heard of the kid? He won two of those Super Bowls, to go along with three more of those significant Conference championships.

Ed

 

KY beat OK on New Year's Day in 1951 in the Sugar Bowl. So the season would be considered the 1950 season. Babe Parilli was the QB on that team.

And I have no idea of the number of QBs who played for Bear Bryant, who went on to the pros other than Blanda, Parilli, and "Broadway" Joe Willie, but I am pretty sure there were some more.

I mean, Bear Bryant did coach about 70 years or something like that, anyway. :laugh:
(Actually, 5 years as an assistant coach, then some 4 years in the Navy during WWII where he also coached service teams, and 41 years as a head coach at Maryland, Kentucky, Texas A&M, and Alabama.)

Ed

 

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

 

Mind explaining the logic of listing the the two quarterbacks who led their teams to undefeated seasons (one of them led his teams to seven titles, and the other to three consecutive Super Bowl appearances, winning two) as nos. 12 & 13, and the listing of a three-time winner of the Super Bowl, Troy Aikman, at No. 18, since only Bradshaw and Montana ever won more than three? Just curious.

Don't get me wrong. I fully admire Fran Tarkenton and Dan Marino, for their accomplishments and abilities, but its still the world of a 25 man team or so, and surely Aikman, Graham and Griese, the ones I mentioned, knew how to "Git 'er done!"

Ed

 

Come on Tom, we all know you are a Tenn homer, but this is a little out there for even you. How can Peyton be #2 already over the likes of Montana, Elway, Marino, etc.

Peyton one day may be at the top of the list, but that day is not today.

 

Certainly the game has changed over the years, but it would seem one would have to include a couple or three who are not to be found anywhere on the list for these rankings, in order to be credible.

I would suggest Arnie Herber, Sid Luckman, Bobby Layne, Norm van Brocklin, Sonny Jurgensen, Y. A. Tittle, John Brodie, George Blanda, John Hadl, and Jim Kelley, among others, all deserve to be included in this discussion.

Am I saying that any or all of them should be in the top 25? Absolutely not. But they all deserve the chance to be considered, as opposed to having the choices made already for you.

However, there is one who deserves to be on the list for the greatest quote, among QBs, namely Sonny Jurgensen, who played in the days when there was no "inside the tackles/outside the tackles" rule for throwing the ball away to avoid a sack, and who once said,

"There's an art to grounding the football."

Ed

 

Agreed!

Ed

 

Look at the record books. And you yourself answered this a bit. Peyton's reputation as one of the best to ever wear cleats is settled already. And a homer? I've been critical of Tenn where necessary, so I'm hardly a homer. I know Peyton beat your boys last year, my friend, but that's no need to harbor a grudge :laugh:

Certainly. The last five or seven are pretty interchangable in my mind (with the exception of Moon). You are using the single barometer of SB rings. In my mind, when you compare the overall accomplishment and the cast of surrounding talent, it stands. Should Aikman be a little higher? Probably. But I'll agree that Tittle, et.al., should be considered. Moon should not be on this list.

Truth be told, I would rather have Aikman over Brady and Simms. So I'm not even wild about my own list as such. If I really put everyone where I thought they would be, I'd be pilloried. I don't think Brady belongs in the top 15 and I'd have people not even on the list in the top ten. Graham should be a little higher. Staubach? Well, it's all debatable. Namath? Without his predictions and his mink coats, would he be in anyone's top 20?

Other than the top 4 or 5, I'm not firmly settled on any of the positions.

 

Let's do. What records determine that he is currently the #2 of all time???

Championships? No.

Passing yards? No, not yet. Favre, Marino and others have more.

Passing TDs? No, not yet. Favre, Marino have more.

Passing TDs in a single season? Brady just took that away from him.

So what stats are you using to determine this Tom??

As I said earlier, when it is all said and done in his career he very well maybe the #1 or #2 guy of all time, but he just is not there yet.

Come on now Tom, we all know it. You are telling me that if everything was the same and Peyton played at let's say Florida, you would still have him ranked #2???

Actually I was very happy for Peyton and the Colts. If there was a team and a player that I would have wanted to beat my team, it was them. If the Colts was playing anyone else in the Superbowl I would have been cheering for them. I am a big fan of Peyton. He is a great player. He just is not the #2 QB of all time yet. He very well may get there. But he isn't yet.

 

Just as an observation, I'd have to say that the greatest QB of all time would have to be Archie Manning. Two sons with back to back Super Bowl MVPs. Who is ever going to top that mark? Bob Griese? Phil Simms? Like I said, just an observation.

 

What does being a father to 2 QBs who won Super Bowl MVPs have to do with being the greatest QB of all time? I don't see the connection.