Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Top 20, probably not Top 10. Here are eight guys that IMO are hands down better: Peyton Manning, Brady, Marino, Elway, Baugh, Graham, Unitas, Montana.

Others to discuss; Steve Young, Aikman, Tarkenton, Kelly. Favre was very good, but many of his numbers are inflated because he was so durable and played so long (not bad things, but they do inflate stats).

I agree with your top 8 there.

[budw38]

Elway , Montana , Bradshaw, Staubach , Marino , Manning , Favre . Elway and Marino never had great defences , and usually played with no running game . Had Elway or Marino started in DC with Gibbs in 83 ,,, we would have won 5 Super Bowls . Brady , Graham , Sonny J. as well as a few others could make a case for top 10 . I never saw Unitas or Namath , and Tarkenten would get some consideration had he been on a championship winner . I started watching the Skins in 72' , in all those years , Elway and Marino were the only two that I witnessed win with very little around them . For those of you whe are young , many of the " losses " that they had , they put up 30 , 40 and 50 pts in many of those games that they " lost " .

[dmek25]

i would be hard pressed to find that many qbacks better then Favre. to me, no way Peyton Manning is better. maybe Montana. its really hard to judge the old school guys. they were all tough as nails, considering the amount of punishment they had to take, often after the ball was released. on top of that, they also had to call their own plays. guys like Baugh playing both ways. to me, Marino was nothing more then pistol pete, passing 40-50 times a game, to inflate his stats. in my eyes, it was always about him, not the dolphins.

[hagams]

IMO, it's a toss up between him and Marino. I'm kinda young, so guys before my time I can't really say much about. But when you take into consideration the type of guy he is, and his off-field accomplishments he's got to be in the FAV 5.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

You can never have truly compare greats from different era's, but we can never have an objective conversation until you agree on the definition of "greatest." If we confine the argument a bit you can start to rank players on an apples to apples basis. Everyone has their own definition of great, unfortunately.

Personally, I think you have to look at the whole package, so my criteria would be as follows:

Wins - Did the player win on a consistent basis
Stats - Did the player contribute significantly on a statistical basis
Longevity - How long did they contribute at a high level
Peak Performance - At their best, how good were they relative to their peers, and how long did they perform at that level.
Intangibles - How did this player affect the outcome of games beyond their play? Where they a great leader, a great personality, did they elevate the play of their teammates?

Based on these 5 criteria, I would have to rank Favre top 10 of all time. He played extremely well, for a very long time. At his best he was equal or better than any of his contemporaries, and he owns almost all of the records. He didn't have the intangibles that a Montana had, and his game management signficantly lowers his ranking, but he certainly elevated the play of those around him. Had he not had several down years at the end of his career, I suspect there would be little question about his place in history.

FWIW, here are my top 10

1) Starr (simply the greatest, 5 NFL championships, owned all the stat records when he retired, lead the league in all statistical categories while he played, 7.85 YPA career and beat 8.2 YPA six times, more than anyone; played best when it mattered - 106 rating and 9.6 YPA in championships; extemely high intangibles...teammates were inspired by and would die for Starr, incredible leader)
2) Montana (4 championships, quickest release ever, pure winner, most clutch player, HUGE leadership intangibles, 127.4 rating in superbowls is INSANE, icewater in his veins)
3) Baugh (2 NFL championships, greatest two way player ever, perfected the forward pass, 109 rating in '45 compared to league average of 43, 7.3 YPA when the rules allow d'backs to mug the receiver)
4) Unitas (3 championships, threw for 40,000 in defensive era, called own plays, 7.8 YPA career)
5) Grahm (3 NFL championships plus 4 AFL championships, gaudy 9.0YPA, only played for 6 years in NFL)
6) Brady (3 championships, best season ever, insane post season stats, finds a way to win)
7) Marino (purest passer ever, limited wins and limited intangibles)
8) Bradshaw (4 championships, great arm, pure winner)
9) Favre (Owns all the records now, and won consistently with flair)
10) Elway (best comeback QB, great deep arm, lots of intangibles, great runner)

Honorable Mention: Manning, Tarkenton, Fouts, Moon, Griese (Bob), Luckman, Staubach

Good post on the whole here, but I have a problem with your criteria. Some of the criteria isn't mutually exclusive. You list "stats" but then also "peak performance". Seems that a good chunk of peak performance is statistical production. Winning also factors into peak performance I would think. Intangibles isn't really on the same level as anything else.

I think you have a good start, but the only criteria you can really have is 1) longevity and 2) peak performance. The other 3 are simply tools you use to measure the criterias.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i would be hard pressed to find that many qbacks better then Favre. to me, no way Peyton Manning is better. maybe Montana. its really hard to judge the old school guys. they were all tough as nails, considering the amount of punishment they had to take, often after the ball was released. on top of that, they also had to call their own plays. guys like Baugh playing both ways. to me, Marino was nothing more then pistol pete, passing 40-50 times a game, to inflate his stats. in my eyes, it was always about him, not the dolphins.

Are you asserting that:

1) Marino called his own plays?

and

2) He was more worried about playing from behind to inflate his numbers than winning?

Maybe I'm confused on what you are saying here, but I think you'll have a hell of a time doing anything to substanciate either of those claims. I have never heard anyone argue before that better production somehow was counter-productive to winning.

[skinsfan_nn]

Very simply put, IMO there are many ways to look at stats and pick them to pieces for a lot of folks. But this guy not only has broke most all of the greatest stats of all time and yes a few of the worst.

But this simple man took the chances that most QB's are scared to take to just let it rip and play ball 100% leaving it all on the field, the way football was meant to be played.

IMO he is one of the very best the game has ever seen, in the Top 10 QB list of all time! This class act is leaving this great game on his terms and of course a first time nod in the Hall of Fame. Well Done Brett, even though I'm not a GB fan, you where fun to watch play!

[Riggo44]

This would be my top 10 QB's of all time.

#1 John Elway
#2 Joe Montana
#3 Johnny Unitas
#4 Sammy Baugh
#5 Bart Starr
#6 Bret Farve
#7 Dan Marino
#8 Otto Graham
#9 Terry Bradshaw
#10 Troy Aikman

[budw38]

Originally Posted by dmek25

i would be hard pressed to find that many qbacks better then Favre. to me, no way Peyton Manning is better. maybe Montana. its really hard to judge the old school guys. they were all tough as nails, considering the amount of punishment they had to take, often after the ball was released. on top of that, they also had to call their own plays. guys like Baugh playing both ways. to me, Marino was nothing more then pistol pete, passing 40-50 times a game, to inflate his stats. in my eyes, it was always about him, not the dolphins.

Marino is pistol Pete ,, and Favre ISN'T a " gunslinger " ? How many times did Marino throw up a duck and cost his team a playoff game ? I have no problem with anyone putting Favre at or near the top , but the Elway and Marino are overrated crowd ,, stunning ?

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Good post on the whole here, but I have a problem with your criteria. Some of the criteria isn't mutually exclusive. You list "stats" but then also "peak performance". Seems that a good chunk of peak performance is statistical production. Winning also factors into peak performance I would think. Intangibles isn't really on the same level as anything else.

I think you have a good start, but the only criteria you can really have is 1) longevity and 2) peak performance. The other 3 are simply tools you use to measure the criterias.

Under your criteria, you could have a fantastic year or two, play for a long time, and rank highly? A Randall Cunningham in Minnesota '00 if you will?

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective the greats have to have capacity to play exceptionally and do it often for an extended period of time. In addition to this, intangibles mean something. Great leaders make players around them better and make teams better than they would otherwise be, and that has to count in my book.

I could see how stats and "longevity" could overlap, but that is the nature of performance based metrics, invariably performing well in one area will bleed over to other areas.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SKINSnCANES

How many super bowls did Elway go to, four?

So by that logic, players like Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are better than Dan Marino????
ps- in case you didn't notice, football is a team game. Look at the stats, Favre blows him away.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This has nothing to do with Favre, but I thought it would just be something to chew on regarding Elway, when compared to another player who shared a similar prime career era.

John Elway, career:

Yards/Attempt: 7.08
Comp% 56.9
TD%: 4.1
Int %: 3.1

Mystery Player, career:

Yards/Attempt: 6.92
Comp%: 59.6
TD%: 4.0%
Int%: 2.3%

Here's the peak year performance for Elway, and mystery player:

John Elway, 93, 97, 98:

Comp%: 60.2%
Yards/Attempt: 7.23

Mystery Player, 96, 97, 99:

Comp%: 61.1%
Yards/Attempt: 7.47

So this mystery player from the 90's was far less likely to hurt his team with a turnover, and gave similar offensive production with far less fanfare. So who is the mystery player? Steve Young? Troy Aikman? Dan Marino?

The mystery player in this case, is Mark Allen Brunell.

Outstanding post. I usually catch the stats and recognize the player right away, but this one surprised me. Great way to use stats to prove your point.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

Under your criteria, you could have a fantastic year or two, play for a long time, and rank highly? A Randall Cunningham in Minnesota '00 if you will?

I respectfully disagree. From my perspective the greats have to have capacity to play exceptionally and do it often for an extended period of time. In addition to this, intangibles mean something. Great leaders make players around them better and make teams better than they would otherwise be, and that has to count in my book.

I could see how stats and "longevity" could overlap, but that is the nature of performance based metrics, invariably performing well in one area will bleed over to other areas.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying stats and longevity, for example, can not be compared because they do not share the same genus (i.e. components of QBing greatness).

Longevity and peak performance DO share the same genus, and therefore, can be compared under the same critieria, because (speaking philosopically), when you are talking about longevity, you are saying nothing about peak performance, and vice versa.

Anyway, I'm being real nitpicky there, but only because I thought your methodoligy was very sound, so I felt I could throw my two cents in and maybe thin some stuff out.

The bolded statement is totally unsubstanciated. I mean, it sounds good when said in a Disney movie, and some very smart football people certainly believe it to be true, but it's not a proven factor in quarterbacking. We can not prove that some quarterbacks automatically make players on their team try harder than other QBs. We know we can make them look better by playing better than other QBs, but that's all we know. It's my opinion that QB leadership is an important off field component of locker room chemistry, but changes nothing regarding on-field performance. Some QBs are more mentally prepared than others, but that can be measured statistically, and is hardly an intangible.

Again, I liked your initial post, because most people don't try to define "greatness" before coming up with a list. That's a pretty important step.

[SmootSmack]

I've mentioned him before but when I think of top 10 QBs-and for my purposes here I'll only consider a.) retired players and b. players I've actually had the chance to see play, so this eliminates guys like Tom Brady and Sammy Baugh-one name I always come back to that is always overlooked is Neil Lomax.

I can't rank them, but 10 best (retired) QBs that I've seen:

-Troy Aikman
-John Elway
-Brett Favre
-Jim Kelly
-Neil Lomax
-Dan Marino
-Joe Montana
-Warren Moon
-Phil Simms
-Steve Young

I don't remember Fouts and Bradshaw well enough

And, not to be a homer, but I think Theismann was/is underrated

[GTripp0012]

One last point. EVERYTHING that happens between the white lines is measured in some way. The score, the yards gained, the downs, every carry, every reception, every pass attempt, every field goal kick...all these things are measured by statistics.

So obviously, we can draw the conclusion that everything that determines the outcome of a football game can and is measured. That's pretty obvious when you think about it.

The only thing that is left for human interpretation is how the specific outcomes are achieved by the individual players. Because we know the team output is a sum of the total output of the individuals. Stats won't come out and tell you why thing's just happened, but they will tell you exactly what happened.

Therefore, we can say that anything that is intangible had no effect on the game. If it effected the outcome, it was measured in some way. Which is not to say that these things aren't important...maybe they just aren't intangible after all?