Ranking the 16 greatest quarterbacks in NFL history

[dbackjon]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ss-BBi93r0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1- Tom Brady
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- John Elway
5- Dan Marino
6- Brett Farve
7- Terry Bradshaw
8- Roger Staubach
9- Johnny Unitas
10- Steve Young
11- Jim Kelly
12- Fran Tarkenton
13- Troy Aikman
14- Joe Namath
15- Drew Brees
16- Bart Starr

[dbackjon]

No Danny White? Manure!

[Grizalltheway]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ss-BBi93r0

1- Tom Brady*
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- John Elway
5- Dan Marino
6- Brett Farve
7- Terry Bradshaw
8- Roger Staubach
9- Johnny Unitas
10- Steve Young
11- Jim Kelly
12- Fran Tarkenton
13- Troy Aikman
14- Joe Namath
15- Drew Brees
16- Bart Starr

Fixed.

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ss-BBi93r0

1- Tom Brady*
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- John Elway
5- Dan Marino
6- Brett Farve
7- Terry Bradshaw
8- Roger Staubach
9- Johnny Unitas
10- Steve Young
11- Jim Kelly
12- Fran Tarkenton
13- Troy Aikman
14- Joe Namath
15- Drew Brees
16- Bart Starr

Fixed.

Looks a bit inflated to me.

[Vidav]

Namath should not even touch the list. Most overrated QB ever.

[93henfan]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ss-BBi93r0

1- Tom Brady
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- John Elway
5- Dan Marino
6- Brett Farve
7- Terry Bradshaw
8- Roger Staubach
9- Johnny Unitas
10- Steve Young
11- Jim Kelly
12- Fran Tarkenton
13- Troy Aikman
14- Joe Namath
15- Drew Brees
16- Bart Starr

This list is racist.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Montana should still be above Brady, IMO.

Bradshaw #7? WTF!? He shouldn't even sniff this list.

Tarkenton should probably be higher.

I agree that Namath shouldn't be here.

Otto Graham should definitely be on this list. An 86.6 QB rating was outstanding for his day, though it does admittedly include the AAFC seasons where the Browns weren't challenged much.

I'm not sure Aikman should be ranked, either. I found it surprising to learn that Staubach, despite playing in a much more defensive era, actually had a higher career QB rating than Aikman.

This list is racist.

No, but I would put Warren Moon above at least a few of the people on it.

[SuperHornet]

Danny White.

Jim Plunkett.

Bob Waterfield.

Norm Van Brocklin.

Sammy Baugh.

Eddie LeBaron.

George Blanda.

[Grizalltheway]

No Danny White? Manure!

Oh, and that's the IMMORTAL Danny White to you.

[SuperHornet]

This list is racist.

Well, many of the quarterbacks who would qualify for this list played in an era when there weren't many African-American or other minority quarterbacks around, whether that be because coaches didn't think they could handle it or they weren't trying. If you have to start looking for them, I agree with Venus that Moon would have to be considered, particularly if you include his CFL record. I'd also want to consider Randall Cunningham and Doug Williams. Williams over Cunningham because of that SB.

[Mvemjsunpx]

Danny White. - Nothing needs to be said here

Jim Plunkett. - A career 67.5 QB rating? I don't think so

Bob Waterfield. - A guy nobody remembers and doesn't even have good numbers for his era

Norm Van Brocklin. - Maybe, but probably not…

Sammy Baugh. - Ditto…

Eddie LeBaron. - See Bob Waterfield

George Blanda. - A deserving HoF'er, but certainly not for his quarterbacking alone

[SuperHornet]

Waterfield didn't have good numbers? Are you nuts, Venus? He was the field general for the most explosive offense in NFL history. He ALSO had one of the hottest sports wives around....

[Mvemjsunpx]

Waterfield didn't have good numbers? Are you nuts, Venus? He was the field general for the most explosive offense in NFL history. He ALSO had one of the hottest sports wives around....

97 TDs to 128 INTs and a 61.6 QB rating. Those are noticeably worse than Van Brocklin's numbers.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Joe Flacco?
Rich Gannon?
Scott Brunner?
Jeff Komlo?

[93henfan]

Joe Flacco?
Rich Gannon?
Scott Brunner?
Jeff Komlo?

Robby Schoenhoft!!!

[Gil Dobie]

Aaron Rodgers should be #1, based on performance. If it's based on Super Bowls, Montana and then Brady.

[SunCoastBlueHen]

Joe Flacco?
Rich Gannon?
Scott Brunner?
Jeff Komlo?

Robby Schoenhoft!!!

He has to be good! He came from Ohio State!

[bandl]

Gus Frerotte was a pretty ferocious QB, especially against walls

[GannonFan]

Joe Montana could grip and throw a properly inflated ball, something that Brady can't. That keeps Montana ahead of Brady.

[Gil Dobie]

Joe Montana could grip and throw a properly inflated ball, something that Brady can't. That keeps Montana ahead of Brady.

Great point Ganny

[Pwns]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/ran ... ss-BBi93r0

1- Tom Brady
2- Joe Montana
3- Peyton Manning
4- John Elway
5- Dan Marino
6- Brett Farve
7- Terry Bradshaw
8- Roger Staubach
9- Johnny Unitas
10- Steve Young
11- Jim Kelly
12- Fran Tarkenton
13- Troy Aikman
14- Joe Namath
15- Drew Brees
16- Bart Starr

Credibility compromised right there.

[SuperHornet]

You're cherry-picking, Venus. Waterfield's numbers are actually outstanding given the run-happy era in which he played. His yards-per-completion averages are all over 12, and mostly over 15. During the 1951 championship run, the team AVERAGED 5.2 yards per rush, and 16.9 yards per completion. Don't whine about the supposedly "pathetic" 3,199 total passing yards between both Waterfield and Van Brocklin. That was over a 12-game schedule, which translates to over 4,200 yards over a 16-game season. They averaged nearly FIVE TOUCHDOWNS a game as well. In addition to the outstanding passing attack, the Rams ALSO had a nearly unstoppable full-house rushing attack; you don't typically see such a combination even today. Waterfield himself played three other positions very well. (A 42-yard career punting average, nearly perfect on PATs in an era when that wasn't a given, decent with field goals, and described as providing the best cover job ever on Don Hutson.) The Rams have retired Waterfield's number, but have NOT retired Van Brocklin's. Do you know something they don't, Venus?

[Mvemjsunpx]

You're cherry-picking, Venus. Waterfield's numbers are actually outstanding given the run-happy era in which he played. His yards-per-completion averages are all over 12, and mostly over 15. During the 1951 championship run, the team AVERAGED 5.2 yards per rush, and 16.9 yards per completion. Don't whine about the supposedly "pathetic" 3,199 total passing yards between both Waterfield and Van Brocklin. That was over a 12-game schedule, which translates to over 4,200 yards over a 16-game season. They averaged nearly FIVE TOUCHDOWNS a game as well. In addition to the outstanding passing attack, the Rams ALSO had a nearly unstoppable full-house rushing attack; you don't typically see such a combination even today. Waterfield himself played three other positions very well. (A 42-yard career punting average, nearly perfect on PATs in an era when that wasn't a given, decent with field goals, and described as providing the best cover job ever on Don Hutson.) The Rams have retired Waterfield's number, but have NOT retired Van Brocklin's. Do you know something they don't, Venus?

Don't ask me why the Rams do what they do. Van Brocklin's numbers are still way better than Waterfield's.

How good the Ram rushing attack was in this era isn't really important to this discussion because Waterfield only had 21 rushing yards for his entire career.

Waterfield's ypc were good, but that's misleading given the passing style of his era. Joe Montana only had 11.8 ypc, but his yards-per-attempt (a more important stat to be sure) were still higher than Waterfield's nonetheless.

The 12-game season thing works two ways. Waterfield threw 24 picks in 1949, which translates to an astounding 32 INTs in a 16-game season.

I don't know why Waterfield's ability to play other positions matters. We're talking quarterbacking and only quarterbacking here.

[SuperHornet]

How good the Ram rushing attack was in this era isn't really important to this discussion because Waterfield only had 21 rushing yards for his entire career.

That's patent bologna. In that era, quarterbacks were expected to call their own plays. Waterfield KNEW when to call runs and when to pass. Part of the reason those plays were successful was Buckets' innate feel for timing.

We're talking quarterbacking and only quarterbacking here.

See above. There's MUCH more to quarterbacking than just throwing the ball around. Too bad people forget that now that the stakes are so high that coaches treat their QBs like idiots.

I don't know why Waterfield's ability to play other positions matters.

That's obvious. The ability to play more than one position creates a flexibility in roster control. In other words, if a quarterback can kick, you don't have to have a specialist to do that. Hence, you can use that roster spot for something else, like an extra receiver or DB. In other words, Waterfield was an intelligent ATHLETE, something we don't see much of anymore....

[Mvemjsunpx]

How good the Ram rushing attack was in this era isn't really important to this discussion because Waterfield only had 21 rushing yards for his entire career.

That's patent bologna. In that era, quarterbacks were expected to call their own plays. Waterfield KNEW when to call runs and when to pass. Part of the reason those plays were successful was Buckets' innate feel for timing.

We're talking quarterbacking and only quarterbacking here.

See above. There's MUCH more to quarterbacking than just throwing the ball around. Too bad people forget that now that the stakes are so high that coaches treat their QBs like idiots.

I don't know why Waterfield's ability to play other positions matters.

That's obvious. The ability to play more than one position creates a flexibility in roster control. In other words, if a quarterback can kick, you don't have to have a specialist to do that. Hence, you can use that roster spot for something else, like an extra receiver or DB. In other words, Waterfield was an intelligent ATHLETE, something we don't see much of anymore....

Most top flight QBs today can audible, you know. The game is also a lot more complicated than it was in 1950. I'm pretty sure Peyton Manning has a lot more knowledge of play calling, opposing defenses, etc., than Bob Waterfield ever did.

A lot of players were playing multiple positions in Waterfield's day. The game has continually evolved toward more & more specialism, and it definitely wasn't at a heavily specialized point yet 65 years ago. I will admit that Waterfield's punting stats were pretty solid (though mediocre for a modern NFL punter). His place kicking stats were awful by today's standards, however (54.5% on FGs)—there's no way a current coach would take those numbers just to save a roster spot.