Now that Favre is officially done, where does he rank all time?

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I love, LOVE Bernie Kosar (I was a big Browns fan back in the day) and I actually used to (kind of still do) throw a football side arm. It's weird, I know

Still, I don't know if he's top 10 for me. It'd be very, very close

Kosar was definitely underrated, but his injuries over the years kept him from being a good QB over any long period of time. He only played in a full season 3 times in his career.

I am surprised Sonny Jergensen doesn't get more votes. He was better than Baugh as a QB.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Kosar was definitely underrated, but his injuries over the years kept him from being a good QB over any long period of time. He only played in a full season 3 times in his career.

I am surprised Sonny Jergensen doesn't get more votes. He was better than Baugh as a QB.

I guess it depends. You have to stand on one side of the era adjustments or the other:

1) All player statistics are already representitive of the competition they faced and the weapons they had, and era adjustments are not necessary.

2) The game has changed in a way that has put past performances at a decisive disadvantage. We must adjust their accomplishments accordingly to some benefits the new rules would have given then.

I think saying that Sammy Baugh in his prime would throw for 6,000 yards every year in today's game is pretty ridiculous, but there have been enough rule changes over time that he didn't benefit from that I would say he would rank among the top 3 passers of the 90's with that sort of assistance. It's a tough thing, the toughest thing about all-time QB rankings.

I think it would be a totally reasonable argument for someone to say that Sammy Baugh's skill set (mental and physical) would produce a below average NFL QB today (and a sub-Jurgensen level QB in the 60s) because a lot of QBs today are just better than he ever was. I just tend to think that he was too great for that to be the case.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I guess it depends. You have to stand on one side of the era adjustments or the other:

1) All player statistics are already representitive of the competition they faced and the weapons they had, and era adjustments are not necessary.

2) The game has changed in a way that has put past performances at a decisive disadvantage. We must adjust their accomplishments accordingly to some benefits the new rules would have given then.

I think saying that Sammy Baugh in his prime would throw for 6,000 yards every year in today's game is pretty ridiculous, but there have been enough rule changes over time that he didn't benefit from that I would say he would rank among the top 3 passers of the 90's with that sort of assistance. It's a tough thing, the toughest thing about all-time QB rankings.

You definitely make good points, he did afterall lead the league in passing yards 4 times. However, he lead the league in int's 3 times, and even worse, threw 203 int's to only 187 passing tds. I can't put this guy in the top ten when he threw more ints than tds. He was one hell of a punter though.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

You definitely make good points, he did afterall lead the league in passing yards 4 times. However, he lead the league in int's 3 times, and even worse, threw 203 int's to only 187 passing tds. I can't put this guy in the top ten when he threw more ints than tds. He was one hell of a punter though.

The (negative) value of an INT in 1937 was way, way less than it is now.

The INT to pass TDs ratio is totally acceptable for the era, and actually, is close enough to even to be an argument for Baugh's greatness.

However, if you want to make the argument that QB's have only improved since Baugh, and they should not be penalized for that simply because they play in an era where their skill set is more common, I'm at least on board with the way you are going with that.

[Mc2guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I guess it depends. You have to stand on one side of the era adjustments or the other:

1) All player statistics are already representitive of the competition they faced and the weapons they had, and era adjustments are not necessary.

2) The game has changed in a way that has put past performances at a decisive disadvantage. We must adjust their accomplishments accordingly to some benefits the new rules would have given then.

I think saying that Sammy Baugh in his prime would throw for 6,000 yards every year in today's game is pretty ridiculous, but there have been enough rule changes over time that he didn't benefit from that I would say he would rank among the top 3 passers of the 90's with that sort of assistance. It's a tough thing, the toughest thing about all-time QB rankings.

I think it would be a totally reasonable argument for someone to say that Sammy Baugh's skill set (mental and physical) would produce a below average NFL QB today (and a sub-Jurgensen level QB in the 60s) because a lot of QBs today are just better than he ever was. I just tend to think that he was too great for that to be the case.

I appreciate your earlier feedback, and I think this is one of the great debates in all of sport...how to you objectively quantify players of different eras? Because we have no consistent imperical evidence against which to base our opinions, any arguement has to be heard frankly. You can make a strong case that the players of the past were slower, smaller, and played weaker competition (lack of full integration in league sports). On the other hand you can argue that with the benefit of modern coaching, training, and rules, some past players would be even better than their modern bretheren.

Personally, I think there is a little of both. I'll take your example:
Sammy Baugh played when the rules were squarely set against the forward pass, yet he succeeded at doing just that. With a rounder ball, no personal foul rules, and with D-backs mugging the receiver, he accomplished stats that would be impressive even in the modern era. This is while he was on the field for every snap of the game, mind you, with no TV timeouts to catch his breath. Now, would that traslate to 6000 yards in the modern era...impossible to tell, but one has to believe an athlete that gifted could succeed under any conditions, but even Sammy didn't have Peyton's mind or body.

For others on this board looking at the gaudy stats of the modern "live ball" era, you are missing some of the true greats. Yes, Steve Young took the WCO to levels never seen, even under Montana. He had a great arm and was as efficient as any quarterback could be in that system and more. That said, Young only had one championship and benefited from having Jerry Rice and one of the best offensive minds ever. How can you overlook guys like Star who had 5 NFL championships, more than Bradshaw, more than Brady, more than Montana?

[coggs]

Originally Posted by Mc2guy

I appreciate your earlier feedback, and I think this is one of the great debates in all of sport...how to you objectively quantify players of different eras?

I think the best way to do so is to compare how they dominated when they played. Works best with baseball. I'll always say Babe Ruth was the best player ever even though I never saw him play. He hit more homeruns in a season than entire teams. A few years he hit more than EVERY team in the American League. On top of that won 90 games as a pitcher. For someone to argue that Arod for example is the best ever, he'd have to hit over 150 homeruns in a year. A little harder to use stats in football as the stats do not always tell the whole story. For example, Eli this play-off. Noone will argue, at least succesfully, that he didnt play great in the 4 games, but his stats were nothing impressive or off the charts.