Top Ten Quarterbacks Of All Time

[_VL]

Using this logic the greatest QB of all time is a no brainer. Otto Graham played for 10 seasons. In EACH of those seasons he led the Browns to the league championship game (4 AAFC, 6 NFL) and won 7 of them.

His record as a starter? 105-17-4

Now, name one other pro QB who won 7 championship rings as a starter, and played for the league championship every year for a DECADE?

O.K., I just ran back in to check on this thread. Buck, Otto is #2 on my list (see initial post), not for W-L, and not just for the interesting stat analysis the authors did that I agreed with; but in my heart the guy's claim is solid for absolute ability. The problem is that in all fairness to any QB before 1978, we should really keep them on a list of their own because it's truly a different game since then. Folks talk about the ball, ya-da, ya-da, but look at the changes in the rules that screw up looking at all of the QB statistics, the passing rules for example. That's why the QB's after 1978 have it "easy" in comparison, not only in game play itself, but also on the impact on stats.

If you want to consider something mind blowing, think about if Otto or Sammy had played in the 1990s!!!

As to any "greatest teams in history" debates, I try to avoid them because I almost lost one boyfriend over our differences there and I love you guys too much to end up wanting to bump heads when I see you in person.

Bottom line, sometimes there never is an answer to who is the best QB because I think you can only TRULY speak to plays that you actually saw where you shudder in a jaw dropping response and wonder "How in the heck did he just pull that off?!" or "How in the heck can he possibly think that quickly on his feet?!" or any one of the many many questions in those moments that make you love the sport!

[BigDaddy33]

As a team, you clearly have to say the Patriots team was better than the Bills team (as much as I hate the Pats). Likewise, to pick the greatest QB of all time, you have to have one that managed to close the deal on a ring...at least once.

Clearly?!?!?!?! I don't believe the Pats competed against a team in the Super Bowl nearly as good as Dallas and Washington those years (I don't think the Giants were that good in 25). I no doubt think the Pat teams are good, but those Bills teams would win more than lose against them. The competition is just watered down more than it used to be. The Cowboys teams were incredible back then and the Pats have'nt had to face a team that was that good in the Super Bowl. I dont think any of the teams today are as good as the teams previously: 90's Bills, Cowboys, Niners. 80's: Bears, Niners. 70's: Steelers, Cowboys, Vikes.... Just examples of teams that would Destroy most teams today, Thats just my take.... If anyone goes to 4 straight SB's again let me know.....

[Rhinoclan]

O.K., I just ran back in to check on this thread. Buck, Otto is #2 on my list (see initial post), not for W-L, and not just for the interesting stat analysis the authors did that I agreed with; but in my heart the guy's claim is solid for absolute ability. The problem is that in all fairness to any QB before 1978, we should really keep them on a list of their own because it's truly a different game since then. Folks talk about the ball, ya-da, ya-da, but look at the changes in the rules that screw up looking at all of the QB statistics, the passing rules for example. That's why the QB's after 1978 have it "easy" in comparison, not only in game play itself, but also on the impact on stats.

If you want to consider something mind blowing, think about if Otto or Sammy had played in the 1990s!!!

As to any "greatest teams in history" debates, I try to avoid them because I almost lost one boyfriend over our differences there and I love you guys too much to end up wanting to bump heads when I see you in person.

Bottom line, sometimes there never is an answer to who is the best QB because I think you can only TRULY speak to plays that you actually saw where you shudder in a jaw dropping response and wonder "How in the heck did he just pull that off?!" or "How in the heck can he possibly think that quickly on his feet?!" or any one of the many many questions in those moments that make you love the sport!

Comparing against different generations is hard. Not only due to the rules, but who they played against. The size of QB's hasn't changed for the most part. Otto Graham was a 6' 1" 210# QB. Brett Favre is 6'2" and 220. Ray Lewis is 6'1" and 250, Jack Lambert weighed 220# at 6'4" and wasn't near as fast.

[Hengman]

Clearly?!?!?!?! I don't believe the Pats competed against a team in the Super Bowl nearly as good as Dallas and Washington those years (I don't think the Giants were that good in 25). I no doubt think the Pat teams are good, but those Bills teams would win more than lose against them. The competition is just watered down more than it used to be. The Cowboys teams were incredible back then and the Pats have'nt had to face a team that was that good in the Super Bowl. I dont think any of the teams today are as good as the teams previously: 90's Bills, Cowboys, Niners. 80's: Bears, Niners. 70's: Steelers, Cowboys, Vikes.... Just examples of teams that would Destroy most teams today, Thats just my take.... If anyone goes to 4 straight SB's again let me know.....

Well, bro.

Football has evolved over the years. From the rules to the gameplay.

Some of the new rookies are even breaking records (exaggeration, but look at Adrian Peterson).

Patriots vs. Rams in the Superbowl. Rams had an amazing offense.

I have to admit that I was a huge Cowboys fan when they had the big three on the offense. However, if you look at the Cowboys now, they have an incredible setup for the offense (I just think that they need more time to get anywhere). Probably one of the best to exist in the NFL, but I'm just predicting since there are some of the MOST talented players in there right now.

The ONLY thing I hate about the NFL currently is that my favorite players are getting hurt more and more every year, which I didn't see back in the 90s too often.

[BuckSpin]

Comparing against different generations is hard. Not only due to the rules, but who they played against. The size of QB's hasn't changed for the most part. Otto Graham was a 6' 1" 210# QB. Brett Favre is 6'2" and 220. Ray Lewis is 6'1" and 250, Jack Lambert weighed 220# at 6'4" and wasn't near as fast.

Lets also throw in expansion (a REALLY watered down league now) and the fact they play so many more games to rack up stats.

[BigDaddy33]

Plus the fact that alot of the guys care only about stats today..... I agree the Cowboys are good now, but not even close to the 90's version.. The 90's Bills would be happy to play the "new" Cowboys in the Super Bowl. The Bills should be celebrateing their 4th Hall of Famer (Bruce Smith) from that era soon....

I don't think most teams today have a chemistry like they used to have. You know, maybe did'nt really care for each other, but on the field nothing mattered but winning, all other crap was set aside. The Cowboys will win a playoff game if they get rid of TO...

[lookingtogrow]

Clearly?!?!?!?! I don't believe the Pats competed against a team in the Super Bowl nearly as good as Dallas and Washington those years (I don't think the Giants were that good in 25). I no doubt think the Pat teams are good, but those Bills teams would win more than lose against them. The competition is just watered down more than it used to be. The Cowboys teams were incredible back then and the Pats have'nt had to face a team that was that good in the Super Bowl. I dont think any of the teams today are as good as the teams previously: 90's Bills, Cowboys, Niners. 80's: Bears, Niners. 70's: Steelers, Cowboys, Vikes.... Just examples of teams that would Destroy most teams today, Thats just my take.... If anyone goes to 4 straight SB's again let me know.....

Are you sure about that?

"The Rams finished the 2001 season with the NFL's best regular season record at 14-2, and advanced to their second Super Bowl appearance in the last 3 seasons. In 2001, they led the league in both total offensive yards (6,930) and scoring (503). This was their third consecutive season with over 500 points, an NFL record. On defense, they only allowed 271 points, improving their 31st ranking from last season to 7th.

Their offense, nicknamed "The Greatest Show on Turf," is widely considered one of the best in NFL history. There seemed to be an endless amount of offensive talent at every position. Quarterback Kurt Warner was awarded the NFL Most Valuable Player Award after throwing for 4,830 yards and 36 touchdowns, with 22 interceptions, and earning a league high 101.4 passer rating. Wide receivers Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce each amassed over 1,100 receiving yards, combining for 142 receptions, 2,469 yards, and 13 touchdowns. Wide receiver Ricky Proehl caught 40 passes for 563 yards and 5 touchdowns. Tight end Ernie Conwell caught 38 passes for 431 yards and 4 touchdowns. Wide receiver Az-Zahir Hakim caught 39 passes for 374 yards, and added another 333 yards returning punts.

Running back Marshall Faulk won NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award for the third year in a row. He rushed for 1,382 yards, caught 83 passes for 765 yards, scored 21 touchdowns, and became the first NFL player ever to gain more than 2,000 combined rushing and receiving yards for 4 consecutive seasons. Running back Trung Canidate was also a major contributor, rushing for 441 yards, catching 17 passes for 154 yards, returning kickoffs for 748 yards, and scoring 6 touchdowns. Up front, their offensive line was led by guard Adam Timmerman and offensive tackle Orlando Pace, who was selected to the Pro Bowl for the third year in a row.

The Rams also had a solid defense, ranking third in the league in fewest yards allowed (4,733). The line was anchored by Pro Bowl defensive end Leonard Little, who led the team with 14.5 sacks and recovered a fumble, and defensive end Grant Wistrom, who recorded 9 sacks, 2 interceptions, and 1 fumble recovery. Behind them, the Rams linebacking core was led by London Fletcher, who had 4.5 sacks and 2 interceptions. St. Louis also had an outstanding secondary, led by Dre' Bly (6 interceptions, 150 return yards, and 2 touchdowns), Pro Bowler Aeneas Williams (4 interceptions, 69 return yards, 2 touchdowns), and Dexter McCleon (4 interceptions, 66 yards)."

[ASWEDE]

Clearly, if we can't come to the same conclusion of who was best with QB's from the same era, it's ridiculous to compare them from different eras.

[DanVanVliet]

Montana is the greatest of all time. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy

[ASWEDE]

Montana is the greatest of all time. Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy yyyyy

taste great

[DanVanVliet]

taste great

..

[BigDaddy33]

Clearly, if we can't come to the same conclusion of who was best with QB's from the same era, it's ridiculous to compare them from different eras.

Why not? Who says we can't. I believe we can....

Those are nice stats on the Rams, lots offense, couldnt beat the Pats and barley beat Tennesee,, so, the 90's Cowboys and Bills would still beat them!! All that offense and only 40 pts in two bowls. Over the last 13 bowls, the most points in a game have been scored by Tampa, a defensive team..

[ASWEDE]

Why not? Who says we can't. I believe we can....

Those are nice stats on the Rams, the 90's Cowboys and Bills would still beat them!!

I didn't say you couldn't debate it, just that there's no way to really come to a conclusion. Stats can be misleading.

[DanVanVliet]

The eightys 49ers would beat any team now playing or any team who ever played before them

[ASWEDE]

The eightys 49ers would beat any team now playing or any team who ever played before them

Says the devoted 49ers fan!

[DanVanVliet]

Says the devoted 49ers fan!

I like all the teams but thought you would like that

[ASWEDE]

I like all the teams but thought you would like that

I forget which year, I think it was the 89' 49ers but I always thought that it was the best team that I've seen. Of course, I'm biased and would tell you on other days in was the 85' Bears.

[lookingtogrow]

Ok, just to put some objective statistics in comparing the Bills of the 90's to the Pats of the 00's. By the way, I was a big fan of the Bills in the 90's...I really liked them, just as much as I hate the Patriots, but in the end we have to let statistics speak for themselves. The following stats are averages of regular seasons for the 4 years that each team was in the SB. The Bills were consecutive years, as were their SB appearances, and the Pats were from the 2001, 2003, 2004, and 2007 seasons.

SB Opponents Regular Season Statistics:

Bills Opponents:
Average Record - 13 wins
Points Scored - 401.25
Points Allowed - 226.75
Yards Gained - 5,442
Yards Allowed - 4,511
Offense Rank - 5th
Defense Rank - 2.5
QB Rating - 94.75

Pats Opponents:
Average Record - 12 wins
Points Scored - 396.75
Points Allowed - 296.50
Yards Gained - 5,748
Yards Allowed - 4,863
Offense Rank - 9.5
Defense Rank - 9th
QB Rating - 90.15

When you look at the numbers, you can scratch the difference between yards gained and allowed, because the differential in both is similar (around 900 yards difference). There is a one win differential between the opponents, in favor of the Bills. While the points scored are similar, the opponents' defenses for the Bills were more stingy than the Pats opponents. The Bills did play teams that were ranked better in offense and defense than the Pats, with QB that had higher ratings. Overall, the statement that the Bills' opponents were stronger teams in comparison to the rest of the league is accurate.

Now, let's look at the stats of the teams themselves from the same years:

Bills:
Average Record - 12 wins
Points Scored - 399.00
Points Allowed - 276.50
Yards Gained - 5,671
Yards Allowed - 5,076
Offense Rank - 3.25
Defense Rank - 11th
QB Rating - 89.98

Pats:
Average Record - 14 wins
Points Scored - 436.25
Points Allowed - 261.00
Yards Gained - 5,555
Yards Allowed - 4,901
Offense Rank - 5.75
Defense Rank - 3.25
QB Rating - 95.55

Pitch the yard differential again (about 600 yards for each), and look at the rest. The Pats averaged 2 more wins, more points scored, less points allowed, a better QB rating, and a much better ranked defense. The Bills did have a better ranked offense by a couple of slots.

So, the Pats were a better team in comparison to the rest of the league, whereas the Bills played opponents in the SB that were stronger against the rest of their league. Because of that, you'll have some people claim that the Pats won 3 SB only because they played weaker competition, but others will say that the Pats were clearly a better team than the rest of the league when they won. Fact is, both statements can be backed up. So how do the differences stack up, and which might have contributed more to the SB wins?

Average Record - 1 win difference vs. 2 wins, in favor of Pats
Points Scored - 4.5 point difference vs. 37.25, in favor of Pats
Points Allowed - 69.75 point difference vs. 15.5, in favor of Bills
Offense Rank - 4.5 difference vs. 2.5, in favor of Bills (both)
Defense Rank - 6.5 difference vs. 7.75, in favor of Pats
QB Rating - 4.6 difference vs. 5.6, in favor of Pats
SB wins - 0 vs. 3, in favor of Pats

If I were to give my opinion, I would say that the Pats performance was more the factor than the quality of their opponents. That's just my opinion...I'll let you all make your judgments based upon the data.

[DanVanVliet]

Thats my reading for the year damn

[egoatdoor]

Just popping in to give reps to all you guys and girls for your wonderful replies to this thread! This is great!!

[BigDaddy33]

Just popping in to give reps to all you guys and girls for your wonderful replies to this thread! This is great!!

Thanks...

I didnt quote it would be too long..

Stats are just that Stats... (impressed you took the time by the way). Ive watched both teams closely (what happened to the Rams),, anyway, I think the 90's Bills vs. 00's Pats would be a great game and probably would be a split....both teams just wanted to win, Buffalo would just not go down with out a fight. That said, I think the 90's Cowboys (as much as I dislike them) would Beat up on them both... well they did beat on Buffalo...

[lookingtogrow]

Thanks...

I didnt quote it would be too long..

Stats are just that Stats... (impressed you took the time by the way). Ive watched both teams closely (what happened to the Rams),, anyway, I think the 90's Bills vs. 00's Pats would be a great game and probably would be a split....both teams just wanted to win, Buffalo would just not go down with out a fight. That said, I think the 90's Cowboys (as much as I dislike them) would Beat up on them both... well they did beat on Buffalo...

No question that those Cowboys were something else. That team showed just what an incredible O-Line can do for a team's offense. They gave Aikman incredible time to find receivers, and opened massive holes for Emmitt to run through.

[Dad_in_KC]

I am not going to include any QB outside of my era - not fair.

1970 - Current

1. Elway
2. Marino
3. Manning, Pe
4. Montana
5. Tarkenton
6. Bradshaw
7. Staubach
8. Fouts
9. Kelley
10. McNabb

[jf1]

1. Joe Montana
2. Johnny Unitas
3. Roger Staubach
4. Fran Tarkenton
5. Steve Young
6. Bart Starr
7. Bob Griese
8. Ken Stabler
9. Dan Marino
10. John Elway

YES!
i dont know about the other 9, but i completely agree with joe montana as number 1!

joe montana was the best thing a quarterback could be; A WINNER!
something marino never was!

[tinyman5000]

1. marino
2. farve
3. elway
4. unitas
5. fouts
6. brady*
7. Tarkenton
8. Rothlisberger (hes number 3 if he wins the superbowl this year)
9. Bradshaw
10. Peyton manning

[egoatdoor]

Brett Favre in the top 10?Im sorry but putting a QB who has thrown for a ton of yards doesnt mean he should be mentioned as an all time great. Brett Favre is an INT machine.

Bumping this thread in tribute of the man who is NOT among the top ten after another ill advised meltdown brain dead play with his team in field goal range in the final seconds of a champiosnhip game. The great Brett Favre.

[user94984100999]

Montana for sure!! my other fav's Troy Aikman,Dan Marino,Tom Brady.

[JolietKev]

I am not going to include any QB outside of my era - not fair.

1970 - Current

1. Elway
2. Marino
3. Manning, Pe
4. Montana
5. Tarkenton
6. Bradshaw
7. Staubach
8. Fouts
9. Kelley
10. McNabb

How can you put Mcnabb on that list? That is pretty laughable actually. He is an OK QB but that is about it. He is not even the best QB the Eagles have had in the past 30 years. Jaworski, Cunningham were better IMO.

[JolietKev]

When it is all said and done I believe Big Ben will be on that list. 2 SB wins already at his age. He came out as a junior so he is still very young and has not even come into his prime as a QB yet. If the Steelers get some help on the O line he should be around for another 10 years. He does not get the pub that many of the other QBs get, however if you look at the number of games he has won in the fourth quarter along with his total number of wins at this point, they are pretty impressive. I hope that he quits partying so much though and focuses more on his fitness level. He reminds me a lot of Kenny Stabler.

[mickyb55]

Bumping this thread in tribute of the man who is NOT among the top ten after another ill advised meltdown brain dead play with his team in field goal range in the final seconds of a champiosnhip game. The great Brett Favre.

As I was watching that game with a buddy of mine, we were commenting on that last drive how "this is the stuff to seal his legend" or "he's going to blow it" ! Then, Childress totally mismanages the clock, they get the penalty and Brett throws a pick. Brain dead is a great way to describe the management of that last minute, including Brett's throw. Farve has always broken his fans heart.

As for my top 10 QB's of all time, I'm listing in no order only those that I witnessed play in the NFL:

Joe Montana, Dan Marino, John elway, Roger Staubach, Terry Bradshaw (he wins!), Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Dan Fouts, Joe Namath, then would have to add either Jim Kelly or Kurt Warner. John Unitas belongs on every list but I didn't see much of him.