The Great Quaterback Debate

There is constant discussion about the importance of quarterbacks, and they get entirely too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing.  While it is certainly the most important single position in the game, it is still a team sport, and without a line to block or receivers to catch the ball or a running game to keep the defense guessing, no QB wins a Superbowl.  

The position isn’t as significant as a goalie is to a hockey team, and even they shouldn’t get all the credit for wins or the responsibility for losses. 

Championship QBs are spoken of in deep reverence, and no one considers how bad a supporting cast is as even a mitigating factor. 

Many people already rate Matt Hasselbeck right up there with Donovan McNabb, who next to Elway in the 80's has had the worst offensive supporting cast ever, even though he has the same number of Superbowl appearances (and wins) and a lot fewer championship starts.  He has also been supported by one of the league’s best offensive lines and running backs in the game.  Does anyone seriously think Trent Dilfer or even Kurt Warner is better than Peyton Manning or Dan Marino? 

Hence, here is my list of the QBs who should not be on the best-ever list in the Superbowl era (including those who began earlier) and the reasoning behind the choice.

1. Joe Namath.  I doubt anyone considers him the best all-time, but even putting him in the discussion is insane.  Don’t get me wrong—the man’s a champion.  His Superbowl III upset was arguably the greatest ever in sports at the time and still ranks in the top ten, maybe top five.  But he gets far too much credit for this, partly because his flash and bravado (which he at least backed up, unlike a lot of today’s athletes) got him so much attention.  He completed less than fifty percent of his passes for his career and never won any important games after this one.
2. Joe Montana.  This name should be on everybody’s short list but should fall no higher than sixth, while most people consider him number one.  Again, this is because he won so many championships, but consider those in context and look at his numbers.  He had the second greatest coach of all time, an innovative offense that no one could figure out how to stop, the best line in the game at the time, the best receiving corps ever, and a very good backfield.  He also had a pretty good defense to rely on, so he never had to force things.  He had 273 touchdowns, less than two-thirds Marino’s record, and only once had 30 in a season.  Most of his stats aren’t even top five at the position.
3. Bart Starr.  A hybrid of the above two QBs as it pertains to this list, because he is a benefactor of a dynasty like Montana and wouldn’t be first on anyone’s list like Namath.  He played for the greatest coach of all time (although the unstoppable play for Lombardi was the sweep, unlike Walsh’s slant), had the best line of his era, arguably the best backfield of all-time through the first Superbowl season, and an outstanding defense that allowed him the luxury of not pressing.  Granted, his numbers are anemic in part because the Packers didn’t pass much, both because of the era he played in and because he didn’t have any Hall of Fame receivers, but his touchdown to interception ratio was horrid (152:138, or about 1.1 TD/INT).
4. Troy Aikman.  He could be in the discussion but is no way in the top five as he is often credited.  He had only 165 TDs, his TD:INT ratio was not Hall-worthy (1.17:1), he had only one season with 20+ and only five with 3000 yards—heck, he only played 12 seasons because he kept getting hurt.  He also had receivers who could get open (one because he cheated and the other because everyone was covering the first), the best line in the game for almost his entire career, and arguably the best running back of all time. (Smith is third on my list behind Brown and Payton, better than Sanders because he was good close to the goalline, could block and catch, and had fewer negative runs, but I digress…AGAIN.)  He also didn’t have to force things because of the above and a good defense, and I realize that also adversely affected his numbers….I’m not saying he wasn’t great (without him, they wouldn’t have beaten the 49ers once in the play-offs), and I’m not even saying he wasn’t a Hall of Famer, just that he shouldn’t have gotten in on the first ballot and should never be mentioned in anyone’s top ten of all time much less five.
5. Terry Bradshaw.  He  benefited from an incredible receiving corps, offensive line, and backfield, and let's face it, he won four Superbowls because of that defense.  Heck, he was barely the starting quarterback the first season they won because he had been struggling so badly.

    Now for the FIVE BEST QBs OF THE SUPERBOWL ERA:

The discussion should consist of only these five men...

1. John Elway.  It was a tough choice selecting a number one, but this man carried the Broncos to three Superbowls before he had any supporting cast.  Okay, it was in a weak conference, and they suffered two of the most embarrassing losses in the history of that game.  However, I bet no one who is not a Broncos' fan can name more than two of his offensive teammates on those teams, and many of you can’t name two from either side of the ball.  He also sort of revolutionized the position, since while Tarkenton was a similar kind of quarterback, after Elway the athletic scrambler became more common.  I’m not sure he is on my list if he doesn’t win a couple championships, but he is still a legitimate first ballot Hall of Famer, and while Terrell Davis was the offensive catalyst when he did win, as soon as Elway retired, they lost 10 games.
2. Brett Favre.  Yes, he is reckless and undisciplined--that's why I cannot put him #1.  Yes, his fundamentals are so bad that it would be easier to use videotape of him to show young QBs what NOT to do.  But no one can complete passes more ways, even now past his prime, and no one has more wins, yards, completions, 3000-yd seasons, wins, or TDs.  No one has more MVPs or toughness (don’t say Steve McNair—he plays hurt a lot because he gets hurt a lot; over 250 consecutive games started including the play-offs…’nuff said!)  Moreover, he already has a championship in two Superbowl appearances.  He also spent the first half of his career behind a sub-par offensive line with a sub-par running game, and when he was struggling in 2005 had no line, running game, or receiving corps: almost all of his interceptions that year came when the team is down and he gets desperate and tries to force things.
3. Dan Marino.  Tough call putting him behind Favre, or even Elway, but he did benefit from a pretty good line and an awesome receiving corps, and his numbers were helped by a porous defense that forced him to keep scoring.  However, that was also what stopped him from getting the one thing so many criticize him for lacking: a ring.  He also never had a running game, meaning everyone knew what was coming and still couldn't stop it.  His numbers will remain better than almost everybody else’s.  Some of his records might have stood forever were it not for the new pass-offense happy rules; there's no way Manning breaks his season record for TDs if they don't start handcuffing cornerbacks a couple years' back.  If anyone ever got a bad rap for lack of championships, it's Dan--that being said, it does mean something, and that's why he dropped to No. 3. 
4. Fran Tarkenton.  I had a hard time determining where he should fall on this list, since he didn’t play in the same era as the other three.  He put up comparable numbers even though he played on a solid running team with a solid defense, requiring fewer passes.  But he played in an era with less-sophisticated defenses to read, as well, and while I think championships are an overrated measure for QBs, they mean a little more when you go into the game as a favourite, as he did against the Chiefs.  Nonetheless, he is top three to five in many categories, and practically pioneered the position with his scrambling and creative ability.  He accounted for about 29 miles between rushing and passing, and is still third in TDs, the most important stat to me for the position.  He completed over 60 percent of his passes in five of his last six seasons, in a time when that was almost unheard of.
5. Johnny Unitas.  He had a lot of interceptions (worst TD:Int ratio--1.15:1--in the top five), but was elected to ten Pro Bowls, won four championships and and three MVPs.  He also had the most consecutive games with a TD pass in an era when passing was almost an afterthought--of course, having Raymond Berry always helps.  Still, he is probably the first QB who comes to mind when I think about who I regret not having had a chance to see play. 

The more you are called on the more you prove your worth.  Consequently, I left Dan Fouts off the list, for whom much was expected, since he not only failed to win a championship, but had only a 1.05:1 TD:INT ratio (FAR worse than Marino's).  Like Marino, he  benefited from a great receiving corps and passing playbook...and the need to pass because of a lacking ground game and defense.  (It is fair to point out that he passed for over 40,000 yards and completed 58.8 percent of his passes with a vertical attack, however.)

Also noticeably absent from this list are many great active QBs; Brady and Manning who top that list, but can’t seriously be considered until they do it for a longer period of time.  At their current pace, by the end of 2010 season, they are top five; by 2012, they might be #1 and #2.  I also should note that while I think the greatest QB at any given time was Steve Young in the mid-90s, he wasted too much time in the USFL and behind Joe Montana early in his career and suffered from too many concussions late to do it for long enough.  

Tags: | Edit Tags