Where do you have Roger Staubach rated in your all-time NFL QB list?

[john4psu]

Where do you have Roger Staubach rated in your all-time NFL QB list?

[El Turco]

Below Benny Friedman above Sid Luckman

[bluejerseyjinx]

Roger Staubach is #1 on MY ALL TIME LIST !!!!!!!!!!

[QB_Eagles]

I have him in the same tier as Dak Prescott.

[El Turco]

Roger Staubach is #1 on MY ALL TIME LIST !!!!!!!!!!

I bet that list looks like dead sea scrolls

[Micah Prescott]

Somewhere in the 8-12 range I think.

[john4psu]

I have him in the same tier as Dak Prescott.

Staubach took the Cowboys to four Super Bowls which is just four more than Prescott.

[El Turco]

I have him in the same tier as Dak Prescott.

Staubach took the Cowboys to four Super Bowls which is just four more than Prescott.

Yeah but he was a loser in two of them and other 7 seasons, he and Dak has the same number of loser seasons.

[QB_Eagles]

I have him in the same tier as Dak Prescott.

Staubach took the Cowboys to four Super Bowls which is just four more than Prescott.

That was just a joke. I actually think Staubach is a Top QB in history. However, I find it hard to compare QBs over different eras and make a list.

For example Brees was ranked very highly when he played but I personally wouldn't even put him in a Top 30 all-time.

[john4psu]

There haven't been 30 quarterbacks better than Drew Brees.

[Micah Prescott]

I have him in the same tier as Dak Prescott.

Staubach took the Cowboys to four Super Bowls which is just four more than Prescott.

That was just a joke. I actually think Staubach is a Top QB in history. However, I find it hard to compare QBs over different eras and make a list.

For example Brees was ranked very highly when he played but I personally wouldn't even put him in a Top 30 all-time.

Most people simply do not understand that a bottom-10 QB today would be a top-10 QB during Staubach's time. In fact I will say that Dak Prescott is absolutely a more accurate passer than Roger ever was. The college talent pool today is like 10x deeper vs then, and the average size and speed of players today far exceeds what Roger was playing against.

However, it is literally impossible to rank QBs like that, so all we can go on is accomplishments and vs. the talent in their own era.

[azcatz11]

Before my time - whatever BJJ says since this is his generation

[QB_Eagles]

There haven't been 30 quarterbacks better than Drew Brees.

Considering all the NFL eras, not really. Brees was never the Top QB when he played; I'd say not even Top 2, but for the sake of the argument let's assume he was. There are many, many players in history who were at most 2nd best at their position.

Most people simply do not understand that a bottom-10 QB today would be a top-10 QB during Staubach's time. In fact I will say that Dak Prescott is absolutely a more accurate passer than Roger ever was. The college talent pool today is like 10x deeper vs then, and the average size and speed of players today far exceeds what Roger was playing against.

However, it is literally impossible to rank QBs like that, so all we can go on is accomplishments and vs. the talent in their own era.

Absolutely not.

On the contrary, if you gave the previous elite QBs modern conditioning and rules, they could shine even more.

Randall Cunningham is the prime example in my opinion. He'd absolutely light the NFL on fire if he was playing nowadays.

[Micah Prescott]

There haven't been 30 quarterbacks better than Drew Brees.

Considering all the NFL eras, not really. Brees was never the Top QB when he played; I'd say not even Top 2, but for the sake of the argument let's assume he was. There are many, many players in history who were at most 2nd best at their position.

Most people simply do not understand that a bottom-10 QB today would be a top-10 QB during Staubach's time. In fact I will say that Dak Prescott is absolutely a more accurate passer than Roger ever was. The college talent pool today is like 10x deeper vs then, and the average size and speed of players today far exceeds what Roger was playing against.

However, it is literally impossible to rank QBs like that, so all we can go on is accomplishments and vs. the talent in their own era.

Absolutely not.

On the contrary, if you gave the previous elite QBs modern conditioning and rules, they could shine even more.

Randall Cunningham is the prime example in my opinion. He'd absolutely light the NFL on fire if he was playing nowadays.

*SOME* would still shine. Cunningham maybe, Roger too probably. Jim Brown would still be an elite runner probably. But the average QB today >>>>>> Average QB in 1970. It's not even close either.

Cunningham was 80s/90s which was when the league really started to cross over. Before that the talent pool was small, MLB was still the American Past time, getting away from players working two jobs and smoking cigarettes, etc.

Today conditioning and scheming even at a college level is higher than 1970s NFL. It is serious business today in comparison to then.

[Micah Prescott]

I'll tell you this too, the 2025 Cowboys would absolutely obliterate any Cowboys team from the 70s or 80s. (90s probably not lol)




Basically a 50-60 lb difference per player in the trenches. It would be an absolute avalanche every play.

And this exact same concept applies to the speed of players as well. There are linebackers today that are faster than the average WR or CB in the 70s. Players are just way bigger, and way faster today. Also just way more athletic overall.

[QB_Eagles]

Unless you arguing human genes changed over the last 50 years, then I don't see how players from the 70s or 80s couldn't reach the same weight and speed as today with the same strength & conditioning, if they were playing today.

[Micah Prescott]

Unless you arguing human genes changed over the last 50 years, then I don't see how players from the 70s or 80s couldn't reach the same weight and speed as today with the same strength & conditioning, if they were playing today.

The talent pool changed, not their genes.

The defenses that Roger faced are much smaller and slower than the defenses today. And the QBs that Roger had to beat out to win a starting position were much less, and much fewer. Football did have the popularity then that it does now.

Would Roger still be elite if he grew up with today's training? Impossible to know, which is why ranking across eras like that is impossible. The only way to do it is to just use what they accomplished in their own era.

You just have to be realistic though, Jim Brown, while an athletic freak and elite talent, ran against skinny white dudes in comparison to today's defenses. He had it WAY WAY WAY easier.

[QB_Eagles]

Unless you arguing human genes changed over the last 50 years, then I don't see how players from the 70s or 80s couldn't reach the same weight and speed as today with the same strength & conditioning, if they were playing today.

The talent pool changed, not their genes.

The defenses that Roger faced are much smaller and slower than the defenses today. And the QBs that Roger had to beat out to win a starting position were much less, and much fewer. Football did have the popularity then that it does now.

Would Roger still be elite if he grew up with today's training? Impossible to know, which is why ranking across eras like that is impossible. The only way to do it is to just use what they accomplished in their own era.

You just have to be realistic though, Jim Brown, while an athletic freak and elite talent, ran against skinny white dudes in comparison to today's defenses. He had it WAY WAY WAY easier.

Youth participation in American football is actually down by about 20% since 2000.

Then you also got 20% more teams than in the 70s and 80s.

So I don't think a supposed expansion of the talent pool means the players of today are better than those of the past, when normalizing for strength & conditioning, plus rules and scheme changes.

Keep in mind for example that right now it's perfectly legal to do a certain amount of steroids; players just aren't allowed to go above a certain level that is already elevated compared to normal.

[Micah Prescott]

Unless you arguing human genes changed over the last 50 years, then I don't see how players from the 70s or 80s couldn't reach the same weight and speed as today with the same strength & conditioning, if they were playing today.

The talent pool changed, not their genes.

The defenses that Roger faced are much smaller and slower than the defenses today. And the QBs that Roger had to beat out to win a starting position were much less, and much fewer. Football did have the popularity then that it does now.

Would Roger still be elite if he grew up with today's training? Impossible to know, which is why ranking across eras like that is impossible. The only way to do it is to just use what they accomplished in their own era.

You just have to be realistic though, Jim Brown, while an athletic freak and elite talent, ran against skinny white dudes in comparison to today's defenses. He had it WAY WAY WAY easier.

Youth participation in American football is actually down by about 20% since 2000.

Then you also got 20% more teams than in the 70s and 80s.

So I don't think a supposed expansion of the talent pool means the players of today are better than those of the past, when normalizing for strength & conditioning, plus rules and scheme changes.

Keep in mind for example that right now it's perfectly legal to do a certain amount of steroids; players just aren't allowed to go above a certain level that is already elevated compared to normal.

In tackle football only, because of CTE fear. Flag football is very popular now.

That is beside the point though, I am comparing Roger's era to now. Football's popularity is way higher vs then. And there are way more involved.

I'd say it all started to flat line around 1990 or so. That is when it is much easier to compare. But before that? It was still a growing sport.

[QB_Eagles]

On the old forum where jaydubb, Mariner, I and others came from there was an old guy, even more ancient than bjj, and he swore Cookie Gilchrist was the best runner he ever saw. Who am I to doubt that? I watched some highlights and he was impressive. You'd have to watch so much film to determine an all-time list.

I'm of the opinion, I'd rather say I give the old players credit and assume the best of the best of their era could also succeed today under today's circumstances. Everything else in my opinion is presumptuous and a little ignorant in the sense that hardly anybody has the wealth of knowledge necessary to come to the conclusion that today's players intrinsically are better than the long list of great players of the past.