NFL 100 Worst QBs

[JohnH19]

Hill, Ninowski and Gary Cuozzo are the types of guys who belong on this list; ineffective QBs who received substantial playing time over the course of lengthy careers.

I think that's a good way to look at it, but don't forget about Pete Beathard. He played 10 years, his passer rating was almost identical to Hill's, and he threw 400 MORE passes. Altogether he threw 43 TD passes, with 84 interceptions -- almost exactly the same ratio as Hill (37-71) and Ninowski (34-67). And he threw more passes than either of them.

I might pick them as the three worst of the 1960s, though of course the very fact that they played so many seasons is a strong indicator that they were better than lots of guys who didn't last as long.

Beathard is a great example! What about Zeke Bratkowski? He was generally poor as a starter and he wasn’t even all that effective as Bart’s backup in Green Bay.

[SixtiesFan]

Hill, Ninowski and Gary Cuozzo are the types of guys who belong on this list; ineffective QBs who received substantial playing time over the course of lengthy careers.

I think that's a good way to look at it, but don't forget about Pete Beathard. He played 10 years, his passer rating was almost identical to Hill's, and he threw 400 MORE passes. Altogether he threw 43 TD passes, with 84 interceptions -- almost exactly the same ratio as Hill (37-71) and Ninowski (34-67). And he threw more passes than either of them.

I might pick them as the three worst of the 1960s, though of course the very fact that they played so many seasons is a strong indicator that they were better than lots of guys who didn't last as long.

Beathard is a great example! What about Zeke Bratkowski? He was generally poor as a starter and he wasn’t even all that effective as Bart’s backup in Green Bay.

I disagree. The one moment in Bratkowski's time in Green Bay in which the Packers really needed him to come through was the 1965 playoff game against the Colts. Starr was injured early as the Packers fell behind 10-0. Bratkowski was good enough to bring them back to a win. And that's what counts.

I saw the game on TV.

[JohnH19]

A long PI penalty set up Green Bay’s only TD and Chandler’s game tieing FG probably missed so it’s not like Zeke was fantastic that day. He did go something like 22-39 for 248 which was good but he also threw a couple of INTs.

Regardless of that one game, Bratkowski was generally mediocre at best. I did, however, very much enjoy his presentation to us at the Green Bay convention in 2016.

[JuggernautJ]

Regardless of that one game, Bratkowski was generally mediocre at best. I did, however, very much enjoy his presentation to us at the Green Bay convention in 2016.

But mediocre isn't "worst"...
Cuozzo was probably below average but also (imo) not horrible.
He was good enough to "lead" the Vikings to a couple of Division Championships ('70, '71).

Likewise, Marc Wilson and Pete Beathard were certainly not barn burners but "worst ever?"
(They both had winning records)

Now JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf I can agree with.
Not only were they bad, bad, bad but they cost their teams high draft picks and seriously impaired the franchise for years to come. I was going to include Todd Marinovich on my list but he doesn't meet any min attempts qualifiers.

[Mark L. Ford]

Let's do this. I see it working something like this: each poster nominates 5 names they'd like to see on the "top" 10, until 25 different QBs have been nominated by at least three different people. Then I/someone else will collect the qualifiers and put them on a Google form, where you can vote for your 10 worst; votes will be collected until they stop coming in, then it will be closed and the top 10 vote-getters make the "team". For the two-way era, a "QB" is anyone who took significant passing work. Use whatever criteria you want for "worst": a bust like Ryan Leaf, a loser like Brodie Croyle, just plain bad like Nathan Peterman, etc. What do y'all say? I'll start with example nominations:

I hate to be the spoilsport here, but as the Executive Director of the PFRA, I'll have to point out to Jameis Loseston that the PFRA doesn't have a list of "100 worst NFL quarterbacks", nor does it endorse having one. Our members select a "Hall of Very Good" that gets recognition in the media. We don't have a "hall of very bad", and I doubt that we ever will. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and it's an interesting discussion, but please don't imply that your list was the PFRA's idea.

[JohnH19]

Regardless of that one game, Bratkowski was generally mediocre at best. I did, however, very much enjoy his presentation to us at the Green Bay convention in 2016.

But mediocre isn't "worst"...
Cuozzo was probably below average but also (imo) not horrible.
He was good enough to "lead" the Vikings to a couple of Division Championships ('70, '71).

Likewise, Marc Wilson and Pete Beathard were certainly not barn burners but "worst ever?"
(They both had winning records)

Now JaMarcus Russell and Ryan Leaf I can agree with.
Not only were they bad, bad, bad but they cost their teams high draft picks and seriously impaired the franchise for years to come. I was going to include Todd Marinovich on my list but he doesn't meet any min attempts qualifiers.

Since this is an informal list consisting of our individual opinions, I have chosen to include QBs who had long careers and who received a substantial amount of playing time. I find it easier to form an opinion on that type of player than one who flamed out quickly or one who played sporadically over the course of their career. Your mileage may vary.

[SixtiesFan]

A long PI penalty set up Green Bay’s only TD and Chandler’s game tieing FG probably missed so it’s not like Zeke was fantastic that day. He did go something like 22-39 for 248 which was good but he also threw a couple of INTs.

Regardless of that one game, Bratkowski was generally mediocre at best. I did, however, very much enjoy his presentation to us at the Green Bay convention in 2016.

"A long PI penalty set up Green Bay's only TD..." You can say something like that about hundreds of football games. The bottom line is Bratkowski was good enough to win the day the Packers needed him.

BTW, I was not a fan of Lombardi's Packers.

[JameisLoseston]

We're all forgetting the woefully inadequate Mike Phipps! He had a couple random years where he was about average and lucked into a bunch of wins, but the rest were bad bad. Somehow ended up with a winning record despite a career near 1:2 TD-INT ratio. One of the weirder terrible careers out there.

[Bryan]

Hill, Ninowski and Gary Cuozzo are the types of guys who belong on this list; ineffective QBs who received substantial playing time over the course of lengthy careers.

Yeah, there needs to be some type of cumulative "negative/below average" tally. If you are bad for 10 straight years of starting, that cumulative effect is worse than being terrible for half a season. I had an old thread about QBs who were consistent starters and accomplished very little...I think it got lost in the transition to the new forum, but guys like Jay Fiedler, Mike Pagel, Lynn Dickey and Jay Cutler were on the list.

Somewhat off-topic, but what about the 1977 Cowboys postseason run? They faced Bob Avellini in the divisional round, backup Bob Lee in the NFC Championship, and 'bad hip' Craig Morton in the Super Bowl...they were basically handed the title that year.

[sheajets]

What I saw out of Mark Sanchez...he's really one of the worst for a guy who played as much as he did in the era that he did behind the line that he had. Just a bad long term starter. Can be in that JohnH19 group. Bad long term starters.

Poor accuracy, easily baited into a lot of interceptions, no feel for the pocket, no ability at all to read a defense, happy feet, didn't protect the football. Made the most puzzling nonsense decisions at the wrong times.