What I thought would be a short and simple unveiling of our Top 10 quarterbacks of all time turned into a several-hours-long shouting match between me, my brother, and my friend. I think I won because the other two slightly amended their lists by the end. Anyway, it was the most fun I've had in a little while (and I just went on an awesome cruise).
# - David - Ian - Mike
1 - Elway - Elway - Montana
2 - Montana - Montana - Unitas
3 - Unitas - Unitas - Marino the nazi
4 - Graham - Favre - Favre
5 - Favre - Graham - Graham
6 - Luckman - Young - Starr
7 - Young - Luckman - Staubach
8 - Starr - Baugh - Young
9 - Baugh - Starr - Elway
10 - Tarkenton - Bradshaw - Griese
Our lists and justifications were created independent of one another. I'm aware that there are a lot of similarities, but we argued over the glaring (and even the not-so-glaring) differences, twisting numbers every which way and trying to explain our valuing system for intangibles. Here's my very brief analysis:
David- I valued winning above all, though numbers (statistics) were important. Importance to a team was also essential, one of the reasons why Elway is number 1 and Tarkenton is on the list. I mainly looked at championships, MVPs, TD to INT ratio, yards passing, and I compared the last two to contemporaries.
Ian - Interestingly enough, Ian's order shows that he favors stats over wins, except for the Bradshaw selection. I say this because he ranked Favre over Graham and Young over Luckman. He took QB rating into account in addition to the qualifications I looked at minus importance to his team (hence Bradshaw). He is also my younger brother and looks up to me (figuratively, the bastard is like a half of a foot taller).
Mike - He initially claimed to value championships won the most, but later admitted that he valued numbers over wins. He doesn't feel the QB is that important to a team's success. I disagree greatly (listen, I'm trying to keep this post civil). It also came threw that intangibles (except when it comes to Staubach and Bob Griese) were not important. A player's ability to scramble to make a play or take his team down the field for a win played a small role in his list. Marino exemplifies these two points. He and Tarkenton are the only two on the lists never to win a championship. Tarkenton went to 3 Super Bowls, has the numbers, could make a play, and was 10th on my list, while Marino went to 1 Super Bowl and has great numbers, but that's it. He was 3rd on Mike's list. Mike looked at All Pro appearances (evidently, Griese's 2 get him one, 0 MVPs), QB rating, yards, TDs, and championships played in and won.
6 comments:
The first thing I noticed was how similar the three lists were, for the first 8 picks.
The last pick for each surprised me (maybe it shouldn't considering they were the last picks).
To be honest, I don't follow football as close as say baseball, so I'm OK admiting that I don't know probably four or five names on that list (Graham, Starr, Luckman, Baugh, Griese).
I had to do a lot of convincing to get the first 8 that similar ;)
Of the quarterbacks that you haven't heard of Bob Griese played in the 1970s, Starr in the 1960s, Graham in the 50s, Buagh and Luckman in the 40s. So you're forgiven. We fought over the last picks for a looong time.
Up here, we hear a lot about Warren Moon. I guess he isn't top 10 all time, but would he be considered for top 20 or 30? Or is his greatness overstated by us in Edmonton simply because he played here before the NFL?
Warren Moon is an interesting case, because he was so successful in the CFL and the NFL. Ian seriously considered him for the Top 10. I thought of him, but he never made a Super Bowl, so I wouldn't put him in the top 10. Mike didn't think of him.
Without thinking it through, I would say that Moon is one of the top 20 or 30 quarterbacks of all time. He's probably in between 20 and 30, which is pretty damn great.
unitis grahm montana and marino
John Elway #1!
Post a Comment