'Mt Rushmore' All-Time QBs

[mwald]

I think this goes back to your point that a running game can still be effective even if the average gain is substandard for the league. I think there is some truth to that, but when you then say "consistently moving the first down chains on the ground," you are exaggerating how effective that running game is. It would be an interesting to see how well the Pack ran the ball on first down during the threepeat. I would think not so well making Starr's passing effectiveness more crucial.

Actually, i like Bernard's point that Starr is in the mix amongst the best and Matt's point that we should probably be discussing a whole lot more than a top 4.

Whether Starr is overrated or underrated, or where he ranks period, is subjective and wasn't really where I was going.

Just pointing out how, asked to carry less of the load, he had a greater opportunity for success than some others. An opportunity he made the most of, to his credit.

[JohnH19]

Actually, i like Bernard's point that Starr is in the mix amongst the best and Matt's point that we should probably be discussing a whole lot more than a top 4.

Okay, I'll bite.

My top six are, in chronological order; Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning and Brady.

The next level, again in chronological order, would be; Luckman, Starr, Tarkenton, Staubach, Elway, Marino, Young and Favre.

A third level would consist of way too many names so I'll leave it at my top 14.

Edit: I added Steve Young to the second level.

[Bob Gill]

My top six are, in chronological order; Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning and Brady.

The next level, again in chronological order, would be; Luckman, Starr, Tarkenton, Staubach, Elway, Marino, Young and Favre.

A third level would consist of way too many names so I'll leave it at my top 14.

Good list. I might put Van Brocklin and Layne in there, but ... Well, I'll just add them, and say that's my top 16.

People do tend to prefer round numbers, so maybe a top 20 would be better. I don't know -- Tittle, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Fouts, Aikman, probably a couple of others I'd think of if I spent more time. No, I'll stick with 16 for now.

[Jeremy Crowhurst]

Actually, i like Bernard's point that Starr is in the mix amongst the best and Matt's point that we should probably be discussing a whole lot more than a top 4.

Okay, I'll bite.

My top six are, in chronological order; Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning and Brady.

The next level, again in chronological order, would be; Luckman, Starr, Tarkenton, Staubach, Elway, Marino, Young and Favre.

A third level would consist of way too many names so I'll leave it at my top 14.

Edit: I added Steve Young to the second level.

I'd swap Marino and Manning, and replace Young with Brees, and keep the rest the same.
For me the "who was he throwing to" question looms large, which elevates Brees way up.

[BernardB]

My top six are, in chronological order; Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana, Manning and Brady.

The next level, again in chronological order, would be; Luckman, Starr, Tarkenton, Staubach, Elway, Marino, Young and Favre.

A third level would consist of way too many names so I'll leave it at my top 14.

Good list. I might put Van Brocklin and Layne in there, but ... Well, I'll just add them, and say that's my top 16.

People do tend to prefer round numbers, so maybe a top 20 would be better. I don't know -- Tittle, Jurgensen, Bradshaw, Fouts, Aikman, probably a couple of others I'd think of if I spent more time. No, I'll stick with 16 for now.

I suspect there is a wide consensus that these are the quarterbacks who performed at the highest level in their particular circumstances. To state the obvious, there is no consensus on how to sift through those circumstances. I have always been content with the large list. Others prefer to winnow the grain finer, but this is to move onto contested ground.

[JohnH19]

I'm still second guessing my late addition of Young. As great as he was, he will always live in Montana's shadow. I added him because I thought his career was very similar to Staubach, who I had no qualms about listing in my original top 13.

They were both absolutely brilliant, they played a similar style and they both had a relatively short run as starting QBs. The biggest difference is four SBs and two wins for Roger and only one and one for Steve.

Young was a two time MVP, he led the league in passer rating six times in nine qualifying seasons - eight if you exclude the Tampa Bay season - and he had three All-Pro selections - four if you include the 1998 Sporting News team. He was also the Pro Football Reference QB of the 90s.

Staubach won four passing titles in eight qualifying seasons but strangely had zero All-Pro nods. Mind you, Roger could very easily have been selected as All-Pro in 1971, 77, 78 and 79. He was the Pro Football HoF and Pro Football Reference QB of the 70s.

There isn't much to choose from between the two other than the SB appearances.

[NWebster]

This is almost an annual thread for us, the consensus usually ends up being Baugh, Graham, Unitas and Montana (which is my four, personally) ...

I saw the NFLN piece also and thought about posting something, too.

Heath Evans had: Brady, Brees, Montana and Marino.
Thomas Davis had: Brady, Brees, Manning and Marino.
Fans Choice was: Brady, Manning, Montana and Elway.

Drew Freaking Brees, Mt Rushmore, my god I'm glad I didn't see that, there would be a hole right in the middle of my fancy TV right now had I seen it live.

[JohnH19]

Drew Freaking Brees, Mt Rushmore, my god I'm glad I didn't see that, there would be a hole right in the middle of my fancy TV right now had I seen it live.

Amen.

[Reaser]

Drew Freaking Brees, Mt Rushmore, my god I'm glad I didn't see that, there would be a hole right in the middle of my fancy TV right now had I seen it live.

Yup, I didn't get mad, just laughed. Typical NFL Network when it comes to history type topics.

Similar to how the other day they were saying something about how Rodgers is the greatest of all-time because of his passer rating. Which using stats like that isn't a NFLN only problem and is why I'm always going on about stats. Way to go, compare a QB who's spent his entire career in essentially the no pass defense allowed era (middle of field open, illegal contact, overly protected QB's, etc) to QB's who played in 70's, 80's, etc and make no mention of the difference in eras - just use numbers across the board as if all things are equal. Asinine.

[NWebster]

Drew Freaking Brees, Mt Rushmore, my god I'm glad I didn't see that, there would be a hole right in the middle of my fancy TV right now had I seen it live.

Yup, I didn't get mad, just laughed. Typical NFL Network when it comes to history type topics.

Similar to how the other day they were saying something about how Rodgers is the greatest of all-time because of his passer rating. Which using stats like that isn't a NFLN only problem and is why I'm always going on about stats. Way to go, compare a QB who's spent his entire career in essentially the no pass defense allowed era (middle of field open, illegal contact, overly protected QB's, etc) to QB's who played in 70's, 80's, etc and make no mention of the difference in eras - just use numbers across the board as if all things are equal. Asinine.

So at the risk . . . I don't think you have a problem with stats, you have a problem with idiots using stats.

Having played Wideout for the Dallas Cowboys, DT for the TB Bucs or having gone to Journalism school, none of them make you qualified to know how to use numbers. But that's the NFL Network set. I cannot possibly comment intelligently on String Theory, for example, because I took one physics class in HS and one in College, but I do know how to use numbers. Does anyone think Warren Sapp, Michael Irvin or Rich Eisen knows how to use numbers in an intelligent way???

It's giving a gun to a baby, the problem is not the gun, it's not the baby, it's that you shouldn't give a gun to a baby! They don't know how to use them!!

Stats can be very insightful, properly used, but honestly there are few people who know how to do that, much as everyone would like to - because they surround us.