How do we rate QBs

In this passing era lots of QBs are now putting up stats, so how will we rate them beyond SB wins as far as to get into the HOF?

Heres a list of QB stats some active some retired that arent in the hall, which ones would yall put in?

1. 34k yards, 274/93 TD/INT, 103.6 pass rating
2. 34k yards, 247/117 TD/INT, 97.1 pass rating
3. 43k yards, 286/142 TD/INT, 95.4 pass rating
4. 44k yards, 288/153 TD/INT, 94.2 pass rating
5. 35k yards, 221/111 TD/INT, 92.3 pass rating
6. 42k yards, 269/162 TD/INT, 88.1 pass rating
7. 37k yards, 234/117 TD/INT, 85.6 pass rating
8. 46k yards, 302/205 TD/INT, 83.6 pass rating
9. 38k yards, 261/199 TD/INT, 81.5 pass rating
10. 38k yards, 247/184 TD/INT, 81.1 pass rating
11. 35k yards, 203/175 TD/INT, 78.6 pass rating
12. 44k yards, 251/206 TD/INT, 77.1 pass rating

So just based on stats who would you put in(assuming they never played another down)? Then look at the names and see if that changes your opinion



I would say that it certainly changed my opinion knowing the names but how will it play out? like basketball where all the top names get in, or baseball when you hit certain milestones? Its going to be hard to make a case against #2 and #3 but Im not sure either should be in.

Crovax said:

In this passing era lots of QBs are now putting up stats, so how will we rate them beyond SB wins as far as to get into the HOF?

Heres a list of QB stats some active some retired that arent in the hall, which ones would yall put in?

1. 34k yards, 274/93 TD/INT, 103.6 pass rating
2. 34k yards, 247/117 TD/INT, 97.1 pass rating
3. 43k yards, 286/142 TD/INT, 95.4 pass rating
4. 44k yards, 288/153 TD/INT, 94.2 pass rating
5. 35k yards, 221/111 TD/INT, 92.3 pass rating
6. 42k yards, 269/162 TD/INT, 88.1 pass rating
7. 37k yards, 234/117 TD/INT, 85.6 pass rating
8. 46k yards, 302/205 TD/INT, 83.6 pass rating
9. 38k yards, 261/199 TD/INT, 81.5 pass rating
10. 38k yards, 247/184 TD/INT, 81.1 pass rating
11. 35k yards, 203/175 TD/INT, 78.6 pass rating
12. 44k yards, 251/206 TD/INT, 77.1 pass rating

So just based on stats who would you put in(assuming they never played another down)? Then look at the names and see if that changes your opinion

Spoiler

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Tony Romo
3. Phillip Rivers
4. Ben Rothlisberger
5. Matt Ryan
6. Carson Plamer
7. Donovan McNabb
8. Eli Manning
9. Dave Krieg
10. Boomer Esiason
11. Jim Everett
12. Drew Bledsoe

I would say that it certainly changed my opinion knowing the names but how will it play out? like basketball where all the top names get in, or baseball when you hit certain milestones? Its going to be hard to make a case against #2 and #3 but Im not sure either should be in.

Click to expand...

The top 8 are probably all HoF QB's. I'm not saying all should be, BUT lets face it, every year the NFL puts people in the HoF that don't deserve to be there. Football's doesn't hold it's players to same level as baseball to get in the HoF. That's not necessarily a criticism of the NFL. It's just that baseball is more stat driven, so the numbers, and the HoF 'numbers' and milestones are more important in baseball.

Team Success definitely plays into it; division championships, playoff victories, superbowl appearances / wins

Individual accolades play into it; MVPs? All-Pros?

Stats do play into it. Raw numbers are part of the equation, but not everything due to the realities of the changing NFL. Rankings within their peers is big as well. If a guy is routinely the #8 guy in yards each year, but his amount is more than the #2 guy consistently was getting in the 80's, that doesn't mean I value him more than the #2 guy in that different era.

In terms of the Hall of Fame, it's the pinnacle for that position in that era in my mind. It is for those in a given era who are at the very top of the spot they play in; the exemplary guys, the dominant guys, the guys you look at and routinely go "best in the game".

Manning. Peyton. Rodgers. Brees. That's probably the first four I go to from the recent era, with Roethlisberger and Eli likely being the backend entrants.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. #2 and #3 could fit into the second one, but doesn't hit the first for me.

Zyphlin said:

Team Success definitely plays into it; division championships, playoff victories, superbowl appearances / wins

Individual accolades play into it; MVPs? All-Pros?

Stats do play into it. Raw numbers are part of the equation, but not everything due to the realities of the changing NFL. Rankings within their peers is big as well. If a guy is routinely the #8 guy in yards each year, but his amount is more than the #2 guy consistently was getting in the 80's, that doesn't mean I value him more than the #2 guy in that different era.

In terms of the Hall of Fame, it's the pinnacle for that position in that era in my mind. It is for those in a given era who are at the very top of the spot they play in; the exemplary guys, the dominant guys, the guys you look at and routinely go "best in the game".

Manning. Peyton. Rodgers. Brees. That's probably the first four I go to from the recent era, with Roethlisberger and Eli likely being the backend entrants.

Click to expand...

No brady?

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. #2 and #3 could fit into the second one, but doesn't hit the first for me.

Click to expand...

If you look at the stats, they have been as good or better than big Ben and similar individual accolades with 4 and 5 pro-bowls to Ben's 4 but neither have had teams like did to get the super bowls. Even if you look at playoff performance #2 93.0 pass rating, #3 85.2 to Ben's 84.6

It's hard to say that Ben belongs in but the other 2 dont just because they wernt on the right teams

Crovax said:

No brady?

Click to expand...

Whoops.

I had it reading "Manning. Brady. Rodgers. Brees"

Then I realized I probably need to make it clear I was talking about Peyton, since some may think Eli is up there and I was going to go into Eli later.

Then I must've highlighted "Brady" instead of "Manning" when I typed in Peyton. Thus why it's "Manning. Peyton...."

Thanks for the catch.

If you look at the stats

Click to expand...

I've looked at the stats, and I commented in my earlier post about how much they factor into things for me.

Second, as I said (or meant to say); Manning, Peyton, Rogers, and Brees are the ones I'd say are definites for the recent era. As it stands, I wouldn't really make the push for Roethlisberger or Eli, but I see them as likely being tail end entrants because of each having two super bowl rings and that is usually hard for people to look past when it comes to the Superbowl.

Also, I don't think it's that hard to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't. The reality is, super bowl championships have historically been given a lot of stock when it comes to the Hall of Fame. You may disagree with that because it matters whether they're on the "right teams" or not, but that's just the reality of things. Roethlisberger's stats are ridiculously similar (if not arguably better) to #2 and #3, but the reality is that #2 and #3 don't have superbowl rings and Ben has two. And that weighs massively on the hall of fame voters minds.

Two superbowl rings to 0 appearances, let alone victories, in the biggest game. That's why it's not hard, at all, to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't.

Crovax said:

In this passing era lots of QBs are now putting up stats, so how will we rate them beyond SB wins as far as to get into the HOF?

Heres a list of QB stats some active some retired that arent in the hall, which ones would yall put in?

1. 34k yards, 274/93 TD/INT, 103.6 pass rating
2. 34k yards, 247/117 TD/INT, 97.1 pass rating
3. 43k yards, 286/142 TD/INT, 95.4 pass rating
4. 44k yards, 288/153 TD/INT, 94.2 pass rating
5. 35k yards, 221/111 TD/INT, 92.3 pass rating
6. 42k yards, 269/162 TD/INT, 88.1 pass rating
7. 37k yards, 234/117 TD/INT, 85.6 pass rating
8. 46k yards, 302/205 TD/INT, 83.6 pass rating
9. 38k yards, 261/199 TD/INT, 81.5 pass rating
10. 38k yards, 247/184 TD/INT, 81.1 pass rating
11. 35k yards, 203/175 TD/INT, 78.6 pass rating
12. 44k yards, 251/206 TD/INT, 77.1 pass rating

So just based on stats who would you put in(assuming they never played another down)? Then look at the names and see if that changes your opinion

Spoiler

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Tony Romo
3. Phillip Rivers
4. Ben Rothlisberger
5. Matt Ryan
6. Carson Plamer
7. Donovan McNabb
8. Eli Manning
9. Dave Krieg
10. Boomer Esiason
11. Jim Everett
12. Drew Bledsoe

I would say that it certainly changed my opinion knowing the names but how will it play out? like basketball where all the top names get in, or baseball when you hit certain milestones? Its going to be hard to make a case against #2 and #3 but Im not sure either should be in.

Click to expand...

I would say the top 4 and Ryan has a good chance if he keeps it up and raises his rating a bit.

No to ELi (Super Bowl rings mean little to me in judging QB careers).

BTW - here is a list of the all-time leaders in QB ratings.

NFL Career Passer Rating Leaders | Pro-Football-Reference.com

DA60 said:

Depends on the era they played in.

QB ratings have skyrocketed over the last 10-15 years or so.

Click to expand...

They all played in this era except #9, 10 and 11 and that's why I included them to show how these retired non-HOFers are very statistically close to our current crop of "elite" QBs

Zyphlin said:

I've looked at the stats, and I commented in my earlier post about how much they factor into things for me.

Second, as I said (or meant to say); Manning, Peyton, Rogers, and Brees are the ones I'd say are definites for the recent era. As it stands, I wouldn't really make the push for Roethlisberger or Eli, but I see them as likely being tail end entrants because of each having two super bowl rings and that is usually hard for people to look past when it comes to the Superbowl.

Also, I don't think it's that hard to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't. The reality is, super bowl championships have historically been given a lot of stock when it comes to the Hall of Fame. You may disagree with that because it matters whether they're on the "right teams" or not, but that's just the reality of things. Roethlisberger's stats are ridiculously similar (if not arguably better) to #2 and #3, but the reality is that #2 and #3 don't have superbowl rings and Ben has two. And that weighs massively on the hall of fame voters minds.

Two superbowl rings to 0 appearances, let alone victories, in the biggest game. That's why it's not hard, at all, to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't.

Click to expand...

Yes being on the right teams has certainly a lot to do with the team accomplishment of a superbowl win

Big ben has had both a top 10 rushing game and a 10 defense for 5 years during his career

#2 has only had a top 10 rushing attack and a top 10 defense 1 year
#3 has never had it

So you can talk about all those team accomplishments but then to ignore just how different the teams are is just foolish.

The QB rating is OK as a metric of a daily performance...but it really doesnt meand much as far as the role of the QB and their actual 'rating'. Case in point...Brett Favre.

Favre ranks 24th with a rather pedestrian QB rating of 86. But Favre was a gunner and he was a leader. Often he led is teams to win on sheer will. And sometimes that cost him interceptions.

You can use the rating as a metric. Career longevity is another metric. Stats. Overall record. Record in the playoffs. Come from behind victories. And of course...playoff wins and Super Bowl rings.

VanceMack said:

The QB rating is OK as a metric of a daily performance...but it really doesnt meand much as far as the role of the QB and their actual 'rating'. Case in point...Brett Favre.

Favre ranks 24th with a rather pedestrian QB rating of 86. But Favre was a gunner and he was a leader. Often he led is teams to win on sheer will. And sometimes that cost him interceptions.

You can use the rating as a metric. Career longevity is another metric. Stats. Overall record. Record in the playoffs. Come from behind victories. And of course...playoff wins and Super Bowl rings.

Click to expand...

Its not really the INTs that hurt Favre if you dropped off 100 his INTs away he still only has a 90 passer rating. He played a lot of his career when comp % was lower and he didnt have much of a vertical passing game.

Crovax said:

In this passing era lots of QBs are now putting up stats, so how will we rate them beyond SB wins as far as to get into the HOF?

Heres a list of QB stats some active some retired that arent in the hall, which ones would yall put in?

1. 34k yards, 274/93 TD/INT, 103.6 pass rating
2. 34k yards, 247/117 TD/INT, 97.1 pass rating
3. 43k yards, 286/142 TD/INT, 95.4 pass rating
4. 44k yards, 288/153 TD/INT, 94.2 pass rating
5. 35k yards, 221/111 TD/INT, 92.3 pass rating
6. 42k yards, 269/162 TD/INT, 88.1 pass rating
7. 37k yards, 234/117 TD/INT, 85.6 pass rating
8. 46k yards, 302/205 TD/INT, 83.6 pass rating
9. 38k yards, 261/199 TD/INT, 81.5 pass rating
10. 38k yards, 247/184 TD/INT, 81.1 pass rating
11. 35k yards, 203/175 TD/INT, 78.6 pass rating
12. 44k yards, 251/206 TD/INT, 77.1 pass rating

So just based on stats who would you put in(assuming they never played another down)? Then look at the names and see if that changes your opinion

Spoiler

1. Aaron Rodgers
2. Tony Romo
3. Phillip Rivers
4. Ben Rothlisberger
5. Matt Ryan
6. Carson Plamer
7. Donovan McNabb
8. Eli Manning
9. Dave Krieg
10. Boomer Esiason
11. Jim Everett
12. Drew Bledsoe

I would say that it certainly changed my opinion knowing the names but how will it play out? like basketball where all the top names get in, or baseball when you hit certain milestones? Its going to be hard to make a case against #2 and #3 but Im not sure either should be in.

Click to expand...

This answer is written before I look at the names. It looks like there are some numbers that would qualify for top 20 all time stats, but this can be misleading for a few reasons. One of the reasons is looking at different eras. QBs put up way different numbers now, than in the past, because the game has changed.

Another thing to look for is what they had to work with. Some QBs have all the weapons and put up good numbers due to good teams and good coaching. Some QBs put up good numbers because they are the ones that raised everyone else up, it was more despite having certain things against them.

And SB wins also comes into play. If you constantly come up short in the playoffs, then you're looked at as a choker. You can't win the big game under pressure. So to offset that you need to put up ridiculous numbers, not sure good (e.g. Dan Marino).

There are a lot of factors. For example, I will adamantly and definitively state that Barry Sanders was the best running back of all time. That he was significantly better than Emmitt Smith. Why? Because Smith had a lot going for him. During his earlier years on the Cowboys, even a mediocre RB could have put up good numbers. Barry Sanders had nothing going for him. Everything he got he did himself, he did it despite having a horrible team with poor coaching.

Zyphlin said:

Team Success definitely plays into it; division championships, playoff victories, superbowl appearances / wins

Individual accolades play into it; MVPs? All-Pros?

Stats do play into it. Raw numbers are part of the equation, but not everything due to the realities of the changing NFL. Rankings within their peers is big as well. If a guy is routinely the #8 guy in yards each year, but his amount is more than the #2 guy consistently was getting in the 80's, that doesn't mean I value him more than the #2 guy in that different era.

In terms of the Hall of Fame, it's the pinnacle for that position in that era in my mind. It is for those in a given era who are at the very top of the spot they play in; the exemplary guys, the dominant guys, the guys you look at and routinely go "best in the game".

Manning. Peyton. Rodgers. Brees. That's probably the first four I go to from the recent era, with Roethlisberger and Eli likely being the backend entrants.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. #2 and #3 could fit into the second one, but doesn't hit the first for me.

Click to expand...

Good response, and the number of games/seasons played as well. But, yeah, there is more to it, like you said. For example, Romo puts up good numbers but he can't win any big games and he will also self-destruct during a game and they will lose because if it. You don't get any points for putting up good numbers but then losing the game.

Oh, and Eli is overrated, imo. He utterly lucked out with his first ring but I'll admit he played solid in the post season for his second one.

-edit- I find it hilarious that Flacco gets paid as much as Brady and there are people who actually consider him a top tier QB.

Fishking said:

There are a lot of factors. For example, I will adamantly and definitively state that Barry Sanders was the best running back of all time. That he was significantly better than Emmitt Smith. Why? Because Smith had a lot going for him. During his earlier years on the Cowboys, even a mediocre RB could have put up good numbers. Barry Sanders had nothing going for him. Everything he got he did himself, he did it despite having a horrible team with poor coaching.

Click to expand...

What exactly do you have to back that up? Smith only really missed 2 games (while he was holding out) and in those 2 games Derick Lassic ran 35 times for 127 yards for a whopping 3.6 YPC and 63.5 YPG. That year Emmitt averaged 5.3 YPC and 106.61YPG

Zyphlin said:

Whoops.

I had it reading "Manning. Brady. Rodgers. Brees"

Then I realized I probably need to make it clear I was talking about Peyton, since some may think Eli is up there and I was going to go into Eli later.

Then I must've highlighted "Brady" instead of "Manning" when I typed in Peyton. Thus why it's "Manning. Peyton...."

Thanks for the catch.

Click to expand...

No, it's because Peyton is the real Manning while Eli is just Eli. I wish I could be paid as the offensive coordinator for whatever team Peyton plays for because I'd be making bank for doing nothing as no other QB has ever run an offense like him. His main issue was being somewhat of a choker as well but I consider him the smartest QB to have ever played.

Second, as I said (or meant to say); Manning, Peyton, Rogers, and Brees are the ones I'd say are definites for the recent era. As it stands, I wouldn't really make the push for Roethlisberger or Eli, but I see them as likely being tail end entrants because of each having two super bowl rings and that is usually hard for people to look past when it comes to the Superbowl.

Also, I don't think it's that hard to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't. The reality is, super bowl championships have historically been given a lot of stock when it comes to the Hall of Fame. You may disagree with that because it matters whether they're on the "right teams" or not, but that's just the reality of things. Roethlisberger's stats are ridiculously similar (if not arguably better) to #2 and #3, but the reality is that #2 and #3 don't have superbowl rings and Ben has two. And that weighs massively on the hall of fame voters minds.

Two superbowl rings to 0 appearances, let alone victories, in the biggest game. That's why it's not hard, at all, to say that Ben belongs in but the other two don't.

Click to expand...

Ben is definitely better than #2 and #3. He was very close to having 3 rings and just had a horrible game against Green Bay. He is also putting up some good numbers and adds a dynamic to the position that many other QBs do not.

Crovax said:

Yes being on the right teams has certainly a lot to do with the team accomplishment of a superbowl win

Big ben has had both a top 10 rushing game and a 10 defense for 5 years during his career

Click to expand...

Having a strong rush game helps in some ways but it doesn't if that's the main call. When the Steelers were taking 10 minutes to drive down the field it wasn't because they were airing it out.

Stats are what got Brady picked 199th in the NFL draft.

How did that work out?

Crovax said:

What exactly do you have to back that up? Smith only really missed 2 games (while he was holding out) and in those 2 games Derick Lassic ran 35 times for 127 yards for a whopping 3.6 YPC and 63.5 YPG. That year Emmitt averaged 5.3 YPC and 106.61YPG

Click to expand...

You mean a guy who only had 75 carries his entire career had a 3.6 YPC? Emmitt Smith, the all time leading rusher had 4.2? Legarette, the #5 rusher this season is 3.8? Yeah, I'd say that guy getting 3.6 ypc was pretty outstanding.

Fishking said:

You mean a guy who only had 75 carries his entire career had a 3.6 YPC? Emmitt Smith, the all time leading rusher had 4.2? Legarette, the #5 rusher this season is 3.8? Yeah, I'd say that guy getting 3.6 ypc was pretty outstanding.

Click to expand...

Not much of a football fan I see, anything under 4 is bad and Blunt is 32nd so far this year in YPC thats not good

Crovax said:

Not much of a football fan I see, anything under 4 is bad and Blunt is 32nd so far this year in YPC thats not good

Click to expand...

NE doesn't rely on the run to move the ball as much as it does to keep the defense honest.

The mindset and skillset of the NE O-line is for pass protection first.

If Blount was in Dallas, I am sure he would be well over 4 yards a carry with those 5-6 Greyhound buses on the O-line.

RetiredUSN said:

NE doesn't rely on the run to move the ball as much as it does to keep the defense honest.

The mindset and skillset of the NE O-line is for pass protection first.

If Blount was in Dallas, I am sure he would be well over 4 yards a carry with those 5-6 Greyhound buses on the O-line.

Click to expand...

Blount has the most carries in the NFL and NE has the 4th most as a team, NE is doing more than just keeping defenses honest

Zyphlin said:

Team Success definitely plays into it; division championships, playoff victories, superbowl appearances / wins

Individual accolades play into it; MVPs? All-Pros?

Stats do play into it. Raw numbers are part of the equation, but not everything due to the realities of the changing NFL. Rankings within their peers is big as well. If a guy is routinely the #8 guy in yards each year, but his amount is more than the #2 guy consistently was getting in the 80's, that doesn't mean I value him more than the #2 guy in that different era.

In terms of the Hall of Fame, it's the pinnacle for that position in that era in my mind. It is for those in a given era who are at the very top of the spot they play in; the exemplary guys, the dominant guys, the guys you look at and routinely go "best in the game".

Manning. Peyton. Rodgers. Brees. That's probably the first four I go to from the recent era, with Roethlisberger and Eli likely being the backend entrants.

It's the Hall of Fame, not the Hall of Very Good. #2 and #3 could fit into the second one, but doesn't hit the first for me.

Click to expand...

What about Brady? He is right there with all of those guys.

Crovax said:

Blount has the most carries in the NFL and NE has the 4th most as a team, NE is doing more than just keeping defenses honest

Click to expand...

That was because Brady was out, and Jimmy G went down resulting in a 3rd string QB.

BB got it to 3-0 playing it safe.

His attempts are down with Brady back.

Crovax said:

Not much of a football fan I see, anything under 4 is bad and Blunt is 32nd so far this year in YPC thats not good

Click to expand...

What does Blunt have to do with Legarrette being the #5 rusher this year with a 3.8 YPC average, which you say is bad? What is difficult to understand that 3.6 YPC for someone who had a total of 75 carries in his entire career is pretty good considering what was being worked with. To even go back to my original statement that a mediocre RB could have put up good numbers, in what world is someone who had 75 career carries considered mediocre? That's not mediocre, that bench warming garbage (not to disparage the player as a person).

Fishking said:

What does Blunt have to do with Legarrette being the #5 rusher this year with a 3.8 YPC average, which you say is bad? What is difficult to understand that 3.6 YPC for someone who had a total of 75 carries in his entire career is pretty good considering what was being worked with. To even go back to my original statement that a mediocre RB could have put up good numbers, in what world is someone who had 75 career carries considered mediocre? That's not mediocre, that bench warming garbage (not to disparage the player as a person).

Click to expand...

Lassic was the only evidence of someone else running in Emmitt's place. Which was a decent player btw he led Alabama to a national championship, he only had 75 carries because he tore his knee up after the 1993 season. You have yet to show anything to back up your claim that "even a mediocre RB could have put up good numbers"

Crovax said:

Its not really the INTs that hurt Favre if you dropped off 100 his INTs away he still only has a 90 passer rating. He played a lot of his career when comp % was lower and he didnt have much of a vertical passing game.

Click to expand...

But what he did have was leadership and heart. That goes a long way. When you are rating a QB, its more than just the one factor.

Playing QB in HS is intense. College...unless you've played college ball, you just cant possibly know. The pro's? I couldnt even begin to imagine. So anyone that even makes it that far is awesome in my book. But to be a starter on ANY NFL team...let alone lead a team to a SuperBowl win....fuggedabowdit.