Top 10 Quarterbacks of the 1970's
edmundfitzgerald
Posts: 4,306 ✭✭
in Sports Talk
Comments
The inherent problem with 'decade' lists is how you treat guys who played parts of two decades.
Kudos to them for not letting Team championships be the main criteria for determining how good an individual is(hence no Plunkett, who was simply an average QB), and recognizing Tarkenton and the fact his teams lost to all-time great teams, instead of just the knee-jerk 0-3 Super Bowl reaction.
Edmund, your guy Kruczek got left off
<< <i>Since the list included Archie, put him on the Steelers or Cowboys teams instead of the Saints and he wins at least 4 with either team. >>
A very real possibility!
1. Joe Ferguson
2. Fran Tarkenton
3. Terry Bradshaw
4. Bob Griese
5. Ken Stabler
6. Jim Hart
7. Billy Kilmer
8. Ken Anderson
9. Bert Jones
10. Archie Manning
<< <i>Good list - and I also agree with #1. Wish we had Roger back! >>
Why? Would you want "your" team to be 4-10 right now?
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's.
<< <i>I would put Bradshaw at #1. The toughest competitor on the list. He never lost to Staubach.
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's. >>
Namath? Are you serious?
Completed almost exactly half his passes. 47 more INTs than TDs. Only 2 seasons his entire career with more TDs than INTs. Since you think winning is everything for a QB, lost more games than he won. Only year he won a game in the playoffs was his miracle 1968 year they won the SB which BTW, he only completed 49.2% of his passes that season and his defense won the SB for them.
1. Joe Ferguson
2. Fran Tarkenton
3. Terry Bradshaw
4. Bob Griese
5. Ken Stabler
6. Jim Hart
7. Billy Kilmer
8. Ken Anderson
9. Bert Jones
10. Archie Manning<<<
Bunt you are a real HOOT!!!!!! Roger not on the list at all and Joe Ferguson #1!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>I would put Bradshaw at #1. The toughest competitor on the list. He never lost to Staubach.
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's. >>
Namath? Are you serious?
Completed almost exactly half his passes. 47 more INTs than TDs. Only 2 seasons his entire career with more TDs than INTs. Since you think winning is everything for a QB, lost more games than he won. Only year he won a game in the playoffs was his miracle 1968 year they won the SB which BTW, he only completed 49.2% of his passes that season and his defense won the SB for them. >>
His stats don't look too great, so how did he make the hall?
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would put Bradshaw at #1. The toughest competitor on the list. He never lost to Staubach.
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's. >>
Namath? Are you serious?
Completed almost exactly half his passes. 47 more INTs than TDs. Only 2 seasons his entire career with more TDs than INTs. Since you think winning is everything for a QB, lost more games than he won. Only year he won a game in the playoffs was his miracle 1968 year they won the SB which BTW, he only completed 49.2% of his passes that season and his defense won the SB for them. >>
His stats don't look too great, so how did he make the hall? >>
Popularity.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would put Bradshaw at #1. The toughest competitor on the list. He never lost to Staubach.
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's. >>
Namath? Are you serious?
Completed almost exactly half his passes. 47 more INTs than TDs. Only 2 seasons his entire career with more TDs than INTs. Since you think winning is everything for a QB, lost more games than he won. Only year he won a game in the playoffs was his miracle 1968 year they won the SB which BTW, he only completed 49.2% of his passes that season and his defense won the SB for them. >>
His stats don't look too great, so how did he make the hall? >>
Popularity. >>
Then why isn't Bo Jackson in??
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>I would put Bradshaw at #1. The toughest competitor on the list. He never lost to Staubach.
Surprised Namath is not on the list. Isnt he in the hall?
I believe Plunkett's and Anderson's best years were in the 80's. >>
Namath? Are you serious?
Completed almost exactly half his passes. 47 more INTs than TDs. Only 2 seasons his entire career with more TDs than INTs. Since you think winning is everything for a QB, lost more games than he won. Only year he won a game in the playoffs was his miracle 1968 year they won the SB which BTW, he only completed 49.2% of his passes that season and his defense won the SB for them. >>
His stats don't look too great, so how did he make the hall? >>
Super Bowl III. Period.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Read the book "Namath" by Mark Kriegel. Research means more than looking up statistics. I don't know if he is over rated or not, but the man deserves some RESPECT for what he was able to do playing with all of his injuries.
I remember when he was active and he was (for a short time) THE MAN in professional football.
I will say one thing, it was a lot more exciting watching football when the quarterback threw the ball downfield. West coast offense is a bunch of garbage. Running backs and good/fast receivers no longer have much value.
<< <i>Namath is quite possibly the most overrated HOFer in any of the major sports. And, I have no problem with the USA Today list >>
With the exception of Pee Wee Reese, I agree.
A very real possibility!<<<
You have got to be kidding! Do you actually think Archie Manning is as good as either Troy Aikman or Terry Bradshaw!!!!
<< <i>corrected list:
1. Joe Ferguson
>>
Oh yeah, Ferguson was so great the Bills decided to switch their helmets from white to red so he would stop throwing so many interceptions!
Snorto~
<< <i>Namath is quite possibly the most overrated HOFer in any of the major sports. And, I have no problem with the USA Today list >>
Agreed, although it would have been interesting to see what Namath could have done had he stayed healthy his entire career.
I hated dropping so much cash on Namath's RC for the NFL HOF RC set. The market values his rookie card far more than I do, but my set building OCD demanded it.
Snorto~
<< <i>The inherent problem with 'decade' lists is how you treat guys who played parts of two decades.
<< <i>
Agreed. My first thought when I saw Billy Kilmer on there, was ... where's Sonny Jurgensen?
He played up through the 1974 season. Even though he was injured for a couple of those years and was splitting time with Kilmer towards the end, he was still one of the highest rated, and most impactful QB's in the NFL.
Are we going to keep comparing him to modern day 10 yard passers and recievers that are protected by the rules
for new born babies. JoeBanzai is spot on. Few if any QB since Namath had his rocket arm.
My argument isn't he's in the top QB list all time...just if there is one player I can think of..maybe in all sports where you can throw out
football reference.com its Joe Willie. For 3-4 years he was professional FB. Nobody else.
There is a reason his cards are so high in $ (not just his RC...but all are high end for HOFERS)
He's no Staubach but deserves the HOF.
1948-76 Topps FB Sets
FB & BB HOF Player sets
1948-1993 NY Yankee Team Sets
http://www.unisquare.com/store/brick/
Ralph
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Boys Boys Boys..I bet none of you ever saw Namath play...or was around when his impact changed the AFL and football entirely.
Are we going to keep comparing him to modern day 10 yard passers and recievers that are protected by the rules
for new born babies. JoeBanzai is spot on. Few if any QB since Namath had his rocket arm.
My argument isn't he's in the top QB list all time...just if there is one player I can think of..maybe in all sports where you can throw out
football reference.com its Joe Willie. For 3-4 years he was professional FB. Nobody else.
There is a reason his cards are so high in $ (not just his RC...but all are high end for HOFERS)
He's no Staubach but deserves the HOF. >>
Im too young to have seem him play live, or many of the 70's or before play. Heck, Im 37 going on 80
But at what point during these conversations can everybody agree, the game is not the same now as it was then! I grew up in the 80's, and even then, hitting
the QB was not the crime it is today! The qb's back then paid the price for numbers with a real chance of getting blown up!! Thats why the running game was more prevelent back then. There was not skirts put on the QB, therefore, use your biggest offensive player to gain the yards.
Im a younger guy, but comparing the QB's of the past is like comparing checker players to ultimite fighters, its nuts!
<< <i>There may be a few exceptions but I think those old enough to have seen Namath hold him in much higher regard than younger fans. >>
Agreed
How does he compare statistically to other QB's from like 1960-1980??
<< <i>The Namath thing will be debated until the end of time.......
How does he compare statistically to other QB's from like 1960-1980?? >>
He was slightly above average at best.
Ask anyone semi knowledgeable about NFL history who the most overrated QB of all time is and almost all will say Namath. He sucked. Made the hall because he ran his mouth and his defense backed him up for one game.
Someone please argue with me. D had 4 INTs and Namath threw for no TDs and they won by 10. Unless it's Romo at QB, everyone would say it was the defense that won.
<< <i>Other than Ali, Namath was probably the most famous athlete in the 70's. >>
He was famous no question. That is, in large part, why he is overrated in the first place.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Other than Ali, Namath was probably the most famous athlete in the 70's. >>
Or maybe Orenthal.
Joe Namath is by far, without a doubt, the most overrated athlete in American sports. Period. He was famous but let's not confuse that with being a good, even mediocre quarterback.
<< <i>It's mind numbing to me (but hardly surprising) the people defending Namath. These are the same people who lack anything resembling critical thinking skills . >>
This coming from the person who likes to compare statistics of QB's from the 90's onward to QB's from the 70's.
If you had any critical thinking skills, you would have understood that the deep ball WAS the passing game in the 70's, compared to the 10 yard dinks of today. But you still compare statistics of guys like Bradshaw to guys like Montana. Check mate.
HOF contemporaries(and guys on that 70's list) who played before the league wide uptick in passing game in 1978. Below are their career performances, excluding any years 1978 and on.
Name.............Td/int.......QB Rate
Tarkenton...317/234.........82
Unitas........290/253.........78
Jurgensen. 255/189..........83
Dawson......239/183.........83
Griese........168/141.........77
Staubach....101/82..........81
Starr..........152/138........81
Stabler.......108/91..........84
K. Anderson..99/69..........82
B. Jones.......71/52...........80
Kilmer........148/143.........72
Jim Hart......152/167........67
Namath.......173/220........65
Bradshaw..... 93/118........62
Everyone, except for Hart, Namath, and Bradshaw have a positive TD/INT ratio. The top ten guys listed are all very similar, then there is a drop off to Kilmer, another drop off to Hart...and then Namath and Bradshaw.
With your last post, is it quite possible that you proved to yourself something that you are vehemently against ?
You've always been against those who think guys can "step it up" in the playoffs.
With Bradshaw's "abysmal" stats (according to your analysis), and his above average playoff performances, is
it quite possible that Terry is a big game player ?
<< <i>Hey Skin2,
With your last post, is it quite possible that you proved to yourself something that you are vehemently against ?
You've always been against those who think guys can "step it up" in the playoffs.
With Bradshaw's "abysmal" stats (according to your analysis), and his above average playoff performances, is
it quite possible that Terry is a big game player ? >>
No.
A couple of things.
1). The use of stats in football are only part of the evidence of determining a football player's 'worth', as there are many strong variables(out of the control of the QB) that go into the creation of each of those performances by those QB's. They simply don't have the same validity as those in baseball. I would not take those above stats above as gospel, and then rank each of those QB's based on their QB rating.
They are evidence though.
2). Proving a big game performer would take far more than a handful of good games in the playoffs. That is if you can even isolate the QB's contribution from that of his teammates to begin with. It is quite possible those few good games only happened with the proper contribution from other players. In the case of football, we all know that to be the case.
In baseball, hitting is very isolated event, so it is far different and much easier to isolate what contribution is from the hitter in question, than what his teammates are contributing(if one is using the correct evaluative methods).
3) Not only must it take more than a handful of games to prove, one would have to answer to the inconsistencies involved. If Montana truly did have that 'big game' ability, as evidenced by his 4-0 Super Bowl record, then how on earth could he not use that ability and perform better in the league championship game??
4)Why do those guys just choose to step it up in the playoffs? Why save it for only the playoffs or big game? Like Montana above(Super Bowl, yes. NFC CHampionship, not so much). Like Reggie Jackson, why only save it for the World Series. Why be such a crappy hitter in the ALC all those years? Are those games not important enough? If you recognize the variables as to why Reggie was a poor hitter in the ALCS, then you must also recognize the variables that explain why he was an excellent hitter in the World Series.
There are a couple of threads where I talk and answer each of those points.
As for the QB specifically, decision making plays a big part of the game. Is it possible that a guy like Romo is lacking a little in that area? In certain areas(situations), sure! I don't think a guy like Brady audibles in that situation like Romo did against GB, and then force a pass for the INT. He either doesn't audible(recognizing the situation), or he doesn't force the pass(recognizing the situation). Not sure if that is 'clutch' or not, or 'big game' ability...and I don't doubt something like that is real.
All this is why I started that Bradshaw thread, and looked at all the pieces of evidence, laid it out year by year, etc...and built a case, instead of just using the knee-jerk Super Bowl record.
PS. A big part of a QB rating is the TD/INT. Some systems/QB's may have the QB throwing TD's on 1st and goal from the 2 yard line, while others chose to run the ball in with a RB. That can really skew a rating! It is possible a guy like Romo has beefed his rating on things like this, or that Bradshaw 'hurt' his rating on things like this. It can be looked at and examined on a play by play basis...and be part of the evidence in a case.
Sorry for adding and editing. Bradshaw's stats above go up to 1977. His best games are 1978 and 1979. The rule changes not only helped every QB, I think they highlighted Bradshaw's biggest skill(his strong arm), and that he was able to shine brighter.
<< <i>Sorry for adding and editing. Bradshaw's stats above go up to 1977. His best games are 1978 and 1979. The rule changes not only helped every QB, I think they highlighted Bradshaw's biggest skill(his strong arm), and that he was able to shine brighter. >>
Cliff Notes version, Bradshaw sucked balls before the rule changes but Namath was even worse.
<< <i>
<< <i>Sorry for adding and editing. Bradshaw's stats above go up to 1977. His best games are 1978 and 1979. The rule changes not only helped every QB, I think they highlighted Bradshaw's biggest skill(his strong arm), and that he was able to shine brighter. >>
Cliff Notes version, Bradshaw sucked balls before the rule changes but Namath was even worse. >>
Yeah, I would say that people really can't claim that their poor TD/INT ratio and Mediocre QB rating are simply a result of the era....because as shown above, the top QB's of the era didn't suffer in those areas nearly as bad as them.
So I did a check of the top guys and bottom guys of the era to see how their TD passes were spread, based on distance, to see if anyone was getting a lot of 'cheap' one or two yard TD's to pad their totals or QB rating...or if they were really carrying their team with a high percentage of long TD passes thrown.
The following are career totals for each:
TD PASSES.......BRDSHW..STBACH...TARKENTON...NAMATH
3 Yds or less.........9%..............8%.............9%...............8%
4-9 yds...............19%.............20%...........21%.............16%
10-19 yds...........29%.............23%............27%............24%
20-29 yds............18%............18%............13%.............16%
30+ yds..............25%.............32%............31%...........36%
% to top 2 WR......44%............35%...........14%.............40%
I see nothing to suggest that anyone was 'padding' their totals with cheap TD's. Bradshaw was actually the lowest of the four in TD % of of 30+ yards(which is his strength).
For giggles, I noted each's career TD passes to their top two receivers. 44% of Bradshaw's career TD passes went to Swann and Stallworth...the highest such percentage of relying on receivers, than any of the four QB's looked at.
Looking at this, and see the list above showing Namath and Bradshaw well off the pace of the other QB's of the era, I would say those numbers are pretty strong evidence that they weren't as good as passers as the elite from the era.
PS: 68% of Bradshaw's Super Bowl passing yards went to Swann/Stallworth. 55% of his Super Bowl TD's to Swann/Stallworth.
In playoff games WITHOUT Swann/Stallworth....Bradshaw completes 46% of his passes, 140 Yds/Game, and 4TD/6INT....and has a winning % of .333
As for Namath...he may possibly have the worst playoff performance in history.....14-40, 0TD, 3INT, and a 17.1 passer rating.
Neither those performances by Bradshaw or Namath would occur if THEY were truly clutch and 'knew' how to win, or if THEY were the reason why their teams happened to win SB's.
If you are familiar with the Super Bowl that the Jet's won with Namath, he didn't throw much at all, in fact an INCOMPLETE pass he threw early in the game caused Baltimore to over react, they played deep after that and the Jet's running game did most of the damage. I think one of Baltimore's' best defensive backs (Volk?) was also injured early in the game
The truth of the matter with Namath is, his right knee was shot before he played a Pro game. The doctor that examined him was quoted as saying "I hope you have another Quarterback" his knees were compared at that time to those of a 70 year old man. Of course Namath (along with the other QB's of the day) took plenty of cheap shots as well.
This supports your small sample size argument as well. Namath simply didn't have enough time to play at a high level because of his injuries. When he was fairly healthy he was a SUPERIOR player, but he only had a few years where he was able to play at that level.
Or how it changes the claim for the people that claim that he was a 'winner' because his team won the Super Bowl? He did play with the same knees in his good games, right? Good knees or bad knees...he was overrated for what 'he' did.
If his bad knees 'allowed' him to win the SB, then they also allowed him to have the worst playoff game ever. Either way you slice it, his team won the bowl, not him...and his decent game was simply a decent game that just happened to occur in a super bowl(where his defense got him FIVE turnovers!). It doesnt mean he was a winner...because if he did know how to win, he would not have allowed his teams to lose so much...and he would not have chosen to play so badly in that playoff game.
If your point is to say, "Namath had bad knees before he started his career, therefore he may have been better than he showed," that is an entirely different topic.
They base it on them winning, and him playing well in the big games. He is a good QB, so it isn't surprising that he would play well most of the time! If he is on a great team, then it isn't a surprise that they are winning(especially when they are playing lesser teams in the playoffs)!
If he was 'the guy' that could lead them, and he knew how to win, then how on earth did he do so badly in these playoff games:
@OAK Loss 14-33...his rating 57
@OAK Loss 24-13...his rating 59
@Bal Win 40-14....his rating 158...his lone good one.
@OAK Loss 7-24...his rating 44
@Den Loss 21-34..his rating 40
A Team record of 1-4 on the road in the playoffs. That doesn't sound like somebody 'rising to the occasion'! Seems to me, that is the occasion the team would most need him to rise to!!
These are the same circumstances that most other QB's face in the playoffs, and fans hammer them for not being able to win in those circumstances. Put Bradshaw in a circumstance where he has to play on the road in the playoffs AND have to play against a truly elite team....and he doesn't do good either, either personally or team wise...just like most other QB's in the NFL have to go against.
He also had four other Home Games where he played below average, but they still won because they had a great team that bailed him out!
We know he had great playoff games too...but the point is, if he truly had some clutch ability, he wouldn't be so bad in nearly half of his lifetime playoff games. The reality is, he was good, he had a great team, they had great situations, and he had a situation that almost no other QB had the luxury of....that recipe leads to what happened.
All the other stuff pointed out leads to him not being as good a QB as several contemporaries, despite his team winning more Super Bowls.
All this isn't even accounting for the Swann/Stallworth/Harris factor that have had a huge bearing on his performances in those big games he had(as evidence is laid out several times on the effect they had on Bradshaw).
What I have been trying to say is that he is not so over rated. The quarterback position was different then than it is now, and to judge him solely on statistics you just don't get the entire story.
When I see a comment that says he was the most over rated QB of all time (or one of them) I simply have to disagree.
I recently read the book "Namath" by Mark Kriegel and if you haven't read it (or another good biography on Namath), you don't have the entire picture. What he was able to accomplish with bad knees in the amount of pain he was in, is quite impressive.
Namath ranked #96
<< <i>Bradshaw ranked #44 in sporting news 100 greatest players of all-time.
Namath ranked #96 >>
Both ranked too high.
<< <i>Again, I am not going to put up a big fight for Namath because he had too short of a career that was hampered by injuries and he doesn't have incredible numbers. He was inconsistent.
What I have been trying to say is that he is not so over rated. The quarterback position was different then than it is now, and to judge him solely on statistics you just don't get the entire story.
When I see a comment that says he was the most over rated QB of all time (or one of them) I simply have to disagree.
I recently read the book "Namath" by Mark Kriegel and if you haven't read it (or another good biography on Namath), you don't have the entire picture. What he was able to accomplish with bad knees in the amount of pain he was in, is quite impressive. >>
His lore comes from predicting a Super Bowl win...and they won. He didn't even do anything particularly great in that game.
As for most overrated...he may not be. Bradshaw may have that title....heck, there are guys that rate him in the top five all-time! That is the definition of overrated. So you may be right, Namath probably isn't the most overrated.
I guess it depends on where you rate him.
If your ranking is leaning heavily on the Super Bowl win from the Jets...then it will probably be a ranking that is too high.
If one goes by that list that Soundgard just said, then he and Bradshaw are vastly overrated.
Soundgard, who cares what the Sporting News ranked them. Come up with original thoughts and examinations, instead of just listening to the talking heads. They are as guilty as many other people for not being thorough enough, or believing in fallacies.
Don't believe so strongly in what writers say...they got their job because they are good at constructing sentences and/or grabbing people's attention, neither of which means they are good at analyzing situations like this.
Same for talking heads on radio and tv...they got their job for creating drama and good storylines...neither of which lends itself for discovering objectiveness and truth.
Former players were players because of physical skills, not mental analyzing skills...so you can often take what they say with a grain of salt.
Why was he not on the list? Because his playing days spanned decades and his best few years were in the 60s.
Doug
Liquidating my collection for the 3rd and final time. Time for others to enjoy what I have enjoyed over the last several decades. Money could be put to better use.
<< <i>
Soundgard, who cares what the Sporting News ranked them. Come up with original thoughts and examinations, instead of just listening to the talking heads. They are as guilty as many other people for not being thorough enough, or believing in fallacies. >>
Both the sporting news and NFL network have Bradshaw ranked in the top 50 players of all-time. I care more about what they say, then some knucklehead on a forum
<< <i>
<< <i>
Soundgard, who cares what the Sporting News ranked them. Come up with original thoughts and examinations, instead of just listening to the talking heads. They are as guilty as many other people for not being thorough enough, or believing in fallacies. >>
Both the sporting news and NFL network have Bradshaw ranked in the top 50 players of all-time. I care more about what they say, then some knucklehead on a message board
People like you are why these networks continue to hire ex-jocks to spout the same nonsense over and over instead of critically thinking folks who can grasp what really wins and loses in sports. Thanks for continuing the tradition of declining standards in sports journalism. You'd much rather listen to some mouth-breathing meathead spout off over 'clutchiness' or 'will to win' than the fundamentals which actually result in a win.
There's no way in hell Bradshaw is a top 50 player all time. The only people who think so are those who think multiple super bowl wins = greatness.