A question about evaluating quarterbacks

[SeahawkFever]

Out of curiosity,

I often hear people talk about championships regarding quarterbacks when they talk about them, and occasionally other playoff results in their respective contexts. Don't get me wrong, those are all certainly worth an acknowledgement.

But could it also be argued that we should be talking about how many top offenses the quarterbacks were a part of, and their contexts?

Ex: People talk about how Patrick Mahomes has three championships. Well on top of that, he can also say he's been the starting quarterback for two number one offenses by points scored physically (2018 and 2022), with 2019 and 2021 also being top five offenses by raw points.

Or to see what this could look like with an older quarterback, Johnny Unitas was the primary passer for seven or eight top five offenses in his career (1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1967, and 1971) with 1958, 1959 and 1964 being number one offenses; granted 1960 and 1965 were fourth and third out of 13 teams, and in 1971 he threw the most pass attempts, but Earl Morrall started more games and the passing statistics the Colts put up were below average for the year.

Obviously regular season performances are not championships, but a thought I had is that the performances of the offenses that the quarterback was leading could be something worth an acknowledgement in its context when talking about the career resumes of quarterbacks.

What do you think?

[ChrisBabcock]

Well, you're on to something. It's the entire package. Championships, regular season success and stats, intangibles (leadership,etc) ....and all of the above in the context of comparison to the player's own era. Jim Plunkett and Eli Manning each won more Super Bowls than Steve Young and Aaron Rodgers. But I don't think anyone would argue which pair of quarterbacks would rank higher on a list of all time greats.

[Brian wolf]

Eli Manning will stir much debate come October

[racepug]

Eli Manning will stir much debate come October

I don't think there's much to debate. He got on a couple of runs and won a couple of S.B.s (albeit against one of the all-time best) but outside of that there was absolutely nothing special about him, in my opinion. One person I know (who is VERY MUCH a football nerd), when I asked him a while back about Eli Manning someday being inducted into the P.F.H.o.F. replied, simply: "If he were to make it he'd be the worst QB in there by a mile."

Heck, I wouldn't even consider putting Eli Manning up for the "Hall of Very Good."

[Brian wolf]

He regressed too much for me to make it, especially with Plunkett, Simms and Tommy Thompson out there, but with those two championships plus his family name, he will get elected.

[racepug]

Getting back to the original question: yeah, there certainly are several factors to take into account, no question about it. And probably every person who does so weighs different factors differently.

Example: I have this football simulation (from the '80s into the early '90s) that at one point provided a "Franchise All-Stars" (1920 - 89) set of rosters.

The top-rated QB from that set as far as those folks were concerned was: John Unitas (PASS rating of "98")

The next group (all with a PASS rating of "97") was:

Y.A. Tittle (as a N.Y. Giant)
Fran Tarkenton
"Broadway" Joe Namath
Roger Staubach
Dan Fouts
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino

Then (PASS rating of "96"):

"Slingin' Sammy" Baugh
Bobby Layne
Norm Van Brocklin (as an "Iggle")
Terry Bradshaw
Ken "Snake" Stabler
Kenny Anderson

Next (PASS rating of "95"):

Otto Graham
Sid Luckman
Bart Starr
John Hadl

Len Dawson - despite winning all those A.F.L. titles and the one S.B. and being considered (at the time) the best QB in Kansas City Chiefs history - was given a PASS rating of "94," below that of John Hadl (who, at the time, was listed as the #1 backup at QB for the L.A./San Diego Chargers All-Time Greats) while Jack Kemp was given a PASS rating of "93." (after much thought I came to the conclusion that within the context of that simulation an average QB was assigned a "92" for PASS)

The guy considered by many to be "The Greatest QB of all time" (at least until Peyton Manning came along) was given the highest PASS rating so that's understandable.

But outside of that it's a little hard to know, for sure, what criteria were used to assign PASS ratings*. I, for one, was surprised to see John Hadl having been assigned a higher PASS rating than Len Dawson. Or Kenny Anderson being assigned a higher one than Otto Graham, Sid Luckman, and Bart Starr.

And Fran Tarkenton, Dan Fouts, John Elway (as of 1989), and Dan Marino never won any league titles and yet each was given a PASS rating just one notch below that of "Johnny U."

So, evaluating N.F.L. QBs is not an easy thing to do and you can probably find just about as many different ways of doing so as you can find people who are willing to do so.

To me, it has to do with "numbers," it has to do with leadership abilities, it has to do with championships won, and at least some of it has to do with the "eye test" which is why, for example, I consider Patrick Mahomes to be one of the best QBs of all time and why I don't consider Lamar Jackson (who was just awarded his 2nd league M.V.P.) to even be the best starting QB in his own division (that "honor" I give to Joe Burrow - hands down), let alone the entire league.

*I know the name of the person who put those rosters together but my attempts to find anything else out about him or about how to contact him have failed.

[JameisBrownston]

I'd chalk that up to late 80s video game developers just not knowing much about Sid Luckman and Otto Graham and thinking their stats looked low. Pretty impressive for something that old to include basically a Madden Ultimate Team prototype, though.

The real answer, of course, to why we use certain metrics and not other potentially better ones to evaluate players at any position is "it's what's on the PFR card". The easiest measurements to see are what everyone will use to make judgments. So anyone in charge of the data distribution end of things who wants to shape the narrative in a particular direction has unbridled power to condition us in any way they want, within the constraints of there being certain things like passing yards and Super Bowls that are always going to be featured prominently.

"Stats can be made to say whatever you want them to" - Matthew Berry

[racepug]

I'd chalk that up to late 80s video game developers just not knowing much about Sid Luckman and Otto Graham and thinking their stats looked low. Pretty impressive for something that old to include basically a Madden Ultimate Team prototype, though.

The real answer, of course, to why we use certain metrics and not other potentially better ones to evaluate players at any position is "it's what's on the PFR card". The easiest measurements to see are what everyone will use to make judgments. So anyone in charge of the data distribution end of things who wants to shape the narrative in a particular direction has unbridled power to condition us in any way they want, within the constraints of there being certain things like passing yards and Super Bowls that are always going to be featured prominently.

"Stats can be made to say whatever you want them to" - Matthew Berry

I'm guessing that guys like Len Dawson and Otto Graham got knocked maybe because their teams were so good (i.e. how much talent they had surrounding them compared to other teams of their era and/or league) and that guys like Sid Luckman and Otto Graham got docked perhaps because passing games aren't considered to have been all that sophisticated back in their day as they were in later decades.

[RichardBak]

Reading this thread has me thinking fondly back to my old APBA playing days. Nobody rated higher than a 5 on those cards, and beery arguments with my buddy Gary over some QB (Brodie? Morrall? Hadl?) being rated a 3 one season.

Played a few games while eating Cheetos. Orange thumb prints all over the cards. Live and learn.

[GameBeforeTheMoney]

Reading this thread has me thinking fondly back to my old APBA playing days. Nobody rated higher than a 5 on those cards, and beery arguments with my buddy Gary over some QB (Brodie? Morrall? Hadl?) being rated a 3 one season.

Played a few games while eating Cheetos. Orange thumb prints all over the cards. Live and learn.

I grew up playing Strat-O-Matic! Pretty much the same thing; and I also have Cheetos stains plus some Pepsi spills on my cards. I think those simulations do give some insight into the game that you can't get elsewhere.

There are so many things that go into evaluating quarterbacks and a lot of it isn't easy to do from a fan's perspective and impossible to do from just reading PFR. Reading defenses, not getting sacked out of field goal range, putting the ball to where only the receiver can get it, calling the right play for earlier eras, clock management, throwing to where a receiver is in stride vs making him lose a step reaching for it - so many things. As a group, we could probably list 50 of these things. Joe Montana - his clock management was so far above other quarterbacks in his era. It was a huge part of his success but you have to see it to fully grasp what that meant to the 49ers success. All these qualities add up into a "total offense" category.

Pretty sure that everybody on this board is going to rank Unitas and Graham at least on par with Mahomes. As for Eli being a HOFer, I honestly think he's borderline. Was he better than the vast majority of his peers? Not really. BUT - did he out play some of the best quarterbacks of his generation in the biggest games? Yes - he outplayed Favre and he outplayed Brady. I know three games doesn't make a HOF career, but there's a difference beating Favre and Brady in championship games to what Plunkett did. And I like Plunkett, but I think Eli's playoff success as an underdog in all three games helps his cause with me personally. I know he lost playoff games against other QBs who aren't HOF caliber, too. I do think he'll get in because of his brotherhood. That's not a knock on him. But the way the NFL is marketed now, there's going to be a big push for him to get in. I might get some flak for saying this, but in Eli's case, I"m okay with that. He's a great ambassador of the game, he was a good enough player and a very well-known player (it is the Hall of "Fame"). Part of the lore of history is the "characters" of the game - there aren't many left. Eli, in addition to being a good player who was outstanding in his biggest games, he's a well-known character of his era through his family legacy, the Passing Academy, and the broadcast. I'm not saying I would necessarily vote for him if I were a voter, but as a fan, I'm not going to be upset if he gets in. There are other guys I won't name that I thought had lesser careers who are in, and others who had great careers but let's just say they don't represent the game nearly as well.