Top 10 QB's of all time

[MickeyDavis]

Cold Hard Football Facts is an interesting site and while any list of "top 10" is very subjective they do make some good points on each of their selections. Brett is #10, Bart is #1.

http://coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articl ... backs.html

[eagle13]

Good article but disagree.

Brett>Staubach.

Know little about Baugh and Graham so OK.

Some like championships others like stats.
Blend is hard.

championships takes a team.
Stats are more reflective of position IMO.

Marino was not a great QB b/c his teams were too weak to win a SB?

What about Elway? Blend of #2 or 3 in most stats and a SB or 2?

[ReasonablySober]

Very interesting article.

[MickeyDavis]

Certainly there is no "right" answer to the top 10 but at least these guys do some analysis. When you read the Starr analysis it's hard to argue his ranking.

[Siefer]

A good read. While I agree there is no "right" answer when it comes to sorting out the top QB's of all time, I like the thought and analysis they put into this. I was a bit surprised at the Bart over Joe pick, but that post season QB rating is ridiculous.

[TJ_Ford_11]

Wow, what a strange top 10 list. I'll give the article credit for not just rehashing everyone else's top 10 QB list.

[NeedsMoreCheese]

Good article but disagree.

Brett>Staubach.

Know little about Baugh and Graham so OK.

Some like championships others like stats.
Blend is hard.

championships takes a team.
Stats are more reflective of position IMO.

Marino was not a great QB b/c his teams were too weak to win a SB?

What about Elway? Blend of #2 or 3 in most stats and a SB or 2?

Based on?

[MickeyDavis]

Wow, what a strange top 10 list. I'll give the article credit for not just rehashing everyone else's top 10 QB list.

Who would you add and replace? Why?

[eagle13]

-= original quote snipped =-

Based on?

first i really like roger. He's in my top ten for sure. However to answer your question why Brett > Roger

1. Stats. Brett blows Roger away. Wins-TDs-Yards-etc. Ints yes.
2. Brett has a SB. Roger has 2. Not that big of a dif.
3. Talent of surrounding team. Brett did more with less. Dallas had far more Pro-Bowlers in Rogers time than Brett has.

[NeedsMoreCheese]

-= original quote snipped =-



first i really like roger. He's in my top ten for sure. However to answer your question why Brett > Roger

1. Stats. Brett blows Roger away. Wins-TDs-Yards-etc. Ints yes.
2. Brett has a SB. Roger has 2. Not that big of a dif.
3. Talent of surrounding team. Brett did more with less. Dallas had far more Pro-Bowlers in Rogers time than Brett has.

1) Well considering Staubach didnt actually start until he was 29 (due to being away in the war), and that he played in the "dead ball" era, is that really surprising?
2) Yes thats true, however Staubach was literally just one dropped pass in the SB away from having 3.
3) I guess so, but its not like Rogers recievers were all that great either.

Roger also had better running skills than Favre. (Dont get me wrong, Favre is great at evading the rush, well he used to be anyways, now hes just ok at it), but compare their rushing at the same age and its not even close. Brett from 29-37
520 something yards, 3 tds
Roger
1983 yards, 19 tds

Even put Favres 15 seasons (im throwing out the falcons year obviously since he really didnt play more than like a few snaps) against Rogers 11 and Favre still isnt really close.
Favre
1774, 13 tds on a 3.4 avg (526 attempts)
Roger
2264, 20 tds on a 5.5 avg (410 attempts)

Also consider how much rougher the league was when Roger played.

His performance as it is, is good enough to put him on the list. I cant even imagine how it'd be if he hadn't been in the Navy. He probably would have been considered the greatest of all time, or at the very least top 3.

[paulpressey25]

[Also consider how much rougher the league was when Roger played..

I get a kick out of you on the Dallas board talking about "our greats". I'm not even sure your parents were out of high school when Staubach played.....

That said, after last weeks Giants game, I reluctantly agree. Staubach > Favre.

Note I'm only giving him one ">" not ">>>", but Staubach was a great player.....

[NeedsMoreCheese]

-= original quote snipped =-



I get a kick out of you on the Dallas board talking about "our greats". I'm not even sure your parents were out of high school when Staubach played.....

That said, after last weeks Giants game, I reluctantly agree. Staubach > Favre.

Note I'm only giving him one ">" not ">>>", but Staubach was a great player.....

Of course I didnt see the games live, but whether I watched them then or now I dont think that makes a difference on whether someone can judge a game.
And FWIW, my parents were 25/26 when Roger was starting in 1971

[MickeyDavis]

Staubach was a good player whose career was cut short. But I wouldn't put him in the top 10.

[Neusch23]

Check out ESPN's front page.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs0 ... id=3209882

This is just BS. I thought about a diff thread, but this is very similar.

They have brett at number 8 with Peyton Manning ahead of him...Just BS.

Brett has more wins, so just because he throws INT's I don't know how you can rank other QB's ahead if him because he threw int's.

I just think that it is BS. I am not going to say he should be number 1, but top 5 for the man who OWNs every record should be common sense....

I know he would be if we win last week.

[MrLynch07]

I dont care what Espn says ever, there just the MTV of sports. Nothing they say affects me in any way.

[paulpressey25]

I just saw those new ESPN rankings of the top ten......

They not only have Manning ahead of Farvre but Marino as well.....

.....I don't see how you put Marino ahead of Favre....Favre beat all his records in essentially the same amount of time and got a ring....and played 280 straight games....

The failure of GB to advance and Favre's picks are now haunting his legacy. But on the other hand, as time advances, more great QB's will come on the scene and set records. So in 10-20 years we could see the guys who have always been top ten move down to the 10-20 rankings....

[xTitan]

IMO Favre had a chance to cement himself in top 3 range if he finished out the year well and somehow ochestrated the upset of NE, hell, many people could claim he was the best of all time and there would be a strong case for that. Favre failed big time and had yet another very poor playoff performance, something we have grown way to accustomed to since the second half of the Denver Superbowl.....everyone has different criteria in judging QB's I would put Favre low part of top 10 because of those bad playoff appearences...I would keep Manning low as well for the very same reason. My top 4 would include Brady, Montana, Starr, and Elway....not sure what order I would put them into yet. Yes, I do believe Starr is the greatest QB in Packer history.

[ahagen87]

Favre is the best QB of all time. You can not deny that he is the most prolific QB and the most exciting quarterback to ever play the game. F Tom Brady and Dan Marino. Who holds the record books?

Thats right. God himself is playing QB for the GB Packers.

Word.

[ReasonablySober]

IMO Favre had a chance to cement himself in top 3 range if he finished out the year well and somehow ochestrated the upset of NE, hell, many people could claim he was the best of all time and there would be a strong case for that. Favre failed big time and had yet another very poor playoff performance, something we have grown way to accustomed to since the second half of the Denver Superbowl.....everyone has different criteria in judging QB's I would put Favre low part of top 10 because of those bad playoff appearences...I would keep Manning low as well for the very same reason. My top 4 would include Brady, Montana, Starr, and Elway....not sure what order I would put them into yet. Yes, I do believe Starr is the greatest QB in Packer history.

Having never seen Starr play I don't know where to rank him. Same with me saying I wouldn't know where to put Unitas, Graham, Staubach, Layne, etc. on the all-time list.

But when people bring up the all-time greats, it seems that post-season success and coming through in clutch situations is what factors most. If Montana or Brady had games or even just moments like Brett has had, I'm sure they wouldn't be looked upon so favorably.

It's a shame but I agree. He had a chance to really cement his legacy had he engineered a game winning drive against NY and proceeded to beat the Pats. He'd probably be up there at #1. Multiple Super Bowls, beating what many consider the best team of all time, having a season like he had at his age, all the passing records in the book...

Instead he did what we're all accustomed to seeing: throwing a bad pass in the worst possible situation.

[jakecronus8]

When it is all said and done Peyton will be ahead of Brett IMO, and he'll probably have most of Brett's records. My top 10 would probably be (and this is projecting to after their careers are over)...

1) Tom Brady
2) Joe Montana
3) John Unitas
4) Peyton Manning
5) John Elway
6) Brett Favre
7) Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach
9) Bart Starr
10) Terry Bradshaw

Honorable mention: Anthony Dilweg.