armchairgm
all sports, all you
+ Add Friends
You are not logged-in.
Sign Up - Log In
Main Page
Sports
Write
Articles
Hot Links
Images
Meet People
Fun
Explore
MLB - NFL - NBA - NHL - College Basketball - College Football - Soccer - Nascar - Other
Article - Locker Room Discussion
All Articles - New Articles - Today's Articles
Submit a Link - Approve Links
Picture Game - Ratings - Polls - Pick Game - Quiz Game - Spring Silliness
Random Page - Random Image - Random Fan

About the Author

Shrubbery
I'm a harmles little fuzz ball.

More By Shrubbery

2008 Hottest Female Athlete Tournament - Sixth Round Voting (The Tremendous Two)
17 votes, 14 comments
2008 Hottest Female Athlete Tournament - Sixth Round Voting (The Phenomenal Four)
19 votes, 8 comments
2008 Hottest Female Athlete Tournament - Fifth Round Voting (The Exquisite Eight)
14 votes, 15 comments
View All

Other recent voters

If you like the article, vote for it.
Edit
Page history Discuss pageWhat links here

ESPN gets it wrong...again...so who is on your Top 10

by Shrubbery
created January 31, 2008, last edited February 10, 2009
17
Vote


As is their want ESPN, the same network that has fueled our sports passion while at the same time foisting upon us the moronic Who’s Now promotion, has compiled their list of the top ten National Football League quarterbacks of all time.

 

  1. Johnny Unitas
  2. Joe Montana
  3. Tom Brady
  4. Dan Marino
  5. Peyton Manning
  6. John Elway
  7. Terry Bradshaw
  8. Brett Favre
  9. Otto Graham
  10. Dan Fouts

Now there is little argument with the top three, Unitas, Montana, and Brady all have flawless resumes.  But the omission of John Elway and Brett Favre from the top five is borderline insane, excluding Steve Young from the top ten is just dumb, and putting Dan Fouts on this list ahead of Troy Aikman, Fran Tarkenton, or Roger Staubach is willful blindness.

I concede Marino put up staggering numbers as has Manning but the two have combined for two Super Bowl starts and only one championship.  Elway doubled up both of them in both categories, oh ye of the five Super Bowl starts, two titles, and one Super Bowl MVP.  Favre started two SB’s and won in 1997.  Favre and Elway sit at #1 and #2 respectively in career wins, #1 and #3 in passing yards and touchdowns, and both were amazingly durable. Yet there sit Marino & Manning ahead of the two winningest quarterbacks in NFL history.

The ESPN list doesn’t value games won highly enough.

As egregious as the Elway and Favre slights were even more glaring was the snub of Steve Young.  The guy only won three Super Bowl rings, one as a starter, amassed 32,000 yards passing in a fairly brief starting career, was a two-time NFL MVP, and has the highest career passer rating in NFL history.

Yet Dan Fouts makes the list despite never playing in a Super Bowl, compiling a fairly meager total of three playoff wins, and a nearly perfect 1:1 touchdown to interception ratio.  Fouts makes the list ahead of not only Young but Aikman, Tarkenton, and Staubach.  Aikman won three championships, Tarkenton played in three SB’s and threw for 47,000 career yards, and Staubach won two championships.  I repeat, Fouts only has three career playoff victories and threw nearly as many interceptions as touchdowns.  Even Jim Kelly has a better td-int ration and career playoff winning percentagethan Fouts, all this despite losing four SB’s.

I can’t stress enough how important winning is, especially playoff wins, for evaluating the elite quarterbacks.  That’s reason number one why guys like Warren Moon and  Boomer Esiason, in spite of their lofty career numbers, will never be considered in this debate.  The reason Marino warrants legitimate consideration is his ungodly numbers, the likes of which had never been seen prior to his career.  Though admittedly I’d put Favre and Elway ahead of Marino in this question because of their stats and championship play.  Quarterback is the most influential and important position in team sports. 

Only an NHL goalie or international striker can dramatically affect the outcome of a sport as routinely as a quarterback. 

Taken as whole the quarterback’s career must contain two essentials to be considered for all-time greatness: big statistics and winning.  Absent either of these criteria you’re a blip on the radar screen compared to the meteoric streak blazed by the true immortals.  Fouts was a bleep, albeit a deserved Hall of Fame bleep, Elway, Favre, Tarkenton, Aikman and Young were truly eternal and everlasting in the football universe, and Montana, Unitas, and Brady are Gods, worthy of their own constellations.

Here is one empassioned fan’s list of the all-time greatest QB’s in NFL history…

  1. Joe Montana
  2. Johnny Unitas
  3. Tom Brady
  4. John Elway
  5. Brett Favre
  6. Dan Marino
  7. Steve Young
  8. Terry Bradshaw
  9. Peyton Manning
  10. Troy Aikman

  I had trouble excluding Roger Staubach and Tarkenton, truly, but I couldn’t supplant any of those I already cite.  Fouts should never enter this equation.

The really fascinating aspect of this discussion is what to do with Otto Graham.  The guy won multiple championships, had a 105-17-4 career record, and a career passer rating of 86.6, higher than Elway, Favre, Bradshaw, or Unitas.  But the former Cleveland Brown played in a more run oriented era.  I struggled with Graham more than anything but was he truly the functional equivalent of my top ten.  Maybe.  Any inclusion of Graham in this debate would draw no argument form me.

 

So who is on your top ten?

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs07/columns/story?columnist=sando_mike&id=3209882


Enable Comment Auto-Refresher
Behbigben15All-Star
670 days ago
Score 3+-
Favre at 8??? ESPN is even crazier than I initially thought. Favre should be AT LEAST 5.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 9+-
Brady at three??? ESPN is even crazier than I initially thought, he's not even in the top ten.
Permalink | Reply
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 1+-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 1+-
smartest comment I've heard all day. +++++++++++++++++++++
Permalink
The PipDiv-I Stud
670 days ago
Score 3+-
I had this debate elsewhere only my comment was that Favre is not top ten. I'll say to you what was said to me, "if you honestly think Brady is not a top 10 all-time qb, you're smoking crack. again, your blind obstinance and fervent hatred of the patriots has COMPLETELY obscured your already myopic vision. one could argue that he is the greatest quarterback of all-time, based on championships alone. he certainly belongs in the top 10. in case you didn't get that."

I flipped some names and words to fit your flawed view of the NFL, and it's history.

However once numbers were traded I relented and admitted my mistake.

For your benefit: 3 rings in his first seven years, fastest QB to 100 wins (Regular season + playoff) but he's not top 10, ok. Maybe you should watch more football, or go watch his first two super bowls again where he drove his team down the field for a game winning field goal on the biggest stage. Yes there are 10 QB's in history that would have been able to have done thatm that's why it was done by him, TWICE. Oh, he's yet to have a losing season, or throw more int's in a season than TD's.
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 1+-
Wow. I'm sort of disappointed. I thought smokin crack would get me more messed up than what I currently am. I'm not even really feeling a good buzz..... crack is over-rated (and so is Tom Brady). Bye-bye all. See you soon.
Permalink
The PipDiv-I Stud
670 days ago
Score 0+-
No frank, you are too new here, that was all for Kelsdad.
Permalink
ThecrookedcapAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 3+-
My guess for Graham's inclusion is that they wanted a pre-Super Bowl era QB. If they didn't have one, people would complain about the list being bias towards the present.
Permalink | Reply
Agent0Red-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 1+-
ESPN is even crazier than I initially thought (thought I would continue with your guys' trend) having Fouts on there over Tarkenton and Young is an outrage and also having Bradshaw over Favre in my opinion is a mistake.
Permalink | Reply
Behbigben15All-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I guess John Madden didn't help put this list together:)
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Fouts is a top ten, replace Brady with either Staubach or Young and it's a damn good list.
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 2+-
That's just crazy talk. How can Fouts stay on the list despite a 254-242 td-int ratio. That's by far the worst of anybody mentioned in the article. Fouts only won three playoff games...Manning equaled that in oneseason, as did Brady. Fouts in no way deserves even remote consideration on this list. As for your Brady comment, we'll file that under the dumbass category.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score -1+-
Nice avatar, waving to yourself. Nice touch.
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 0+-
You have to think of Fouts in the same line of thought as you do Marino look at the numbers.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Um, Fouts and Marino aren't comperable. Tarkenton and Marino are but Fouts is not relevant in this debate.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 2+-
How can Fouts stay on the list despite a 254-242 td-int ratio. That's by far the worst of anybody mentioned in the article. Bradshaw 212 TD's, 210 INTs. So should we file your comment under dumbass as well Shrubby?
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Fouts put up big numbers on a pass happy team, that had little overall talent, sounds a lot like Marino if yu ask me
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 1+-
And Bradshaw's FOUR Super Bowl rings, compared to Fouts THREE playoff victories. Comparing the two is just dumb, as is saying Brady isn't top ten material.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
And Marino put up 18,000 more career yards than Fouts...like I said, not comperable. Fouts gets dinked because the only thing he can rely on are career numbers that aren't even in the top five regardless of category. Even Warren Moon had a better career than Fouts.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Fouts played 15 seasons, less than anyone on the list. He played his last game in 1987, and STILL is in the top 12 in career completions, attempts, yards, TD's, Int's and yds/game. Sorry, Shrub, you're wrong. Thanks for playing, though.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 4+-
Fouts played fifteen seasons, Young played 14 and started ten, Aikman started all twelve seasons, and Marino started sixteen seasons and missed most of 93. You're being just blissfully ignorant...Fouts is overrated period. So this discrepency of 242 starts by Marino versus 182 for Fouts explains the 253.2yds/1.73tds/.9ints per game average for Marino versus 237.8/1.4/1.35 per game average for Fouts. Marino had nearly 2:1 td/int ratio while Fouts was nearly 1:1. Even Marino played in 18 playoff games, winning eight...Fouts record in the platoffs is 3-4. Now go play while the adults converse.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score -1+-
I should have checked your bio first, Shrub. Didn't realize I was arguing with a lawyer, what do you know about facts?
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Enough to obliterate your nonsensicle Fouts advocacy. Fouts was good, a well deserving HOFer but not top ten, and barely top 15-20.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I apologize about the dumbass epithet, twas a skosh too caustic. My bad.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 2+-
*Completions: Fouts 10th alltime, Aikman 14th, Young 21st
  • Attempts: Fouts 8th, Aikman, 19, Young 35
  • Yards: Fouts 8th, Aikman 23rd, Young 21st
  • TD's: Fouts 12th, Young 21st, Aikman 52nd
  • Attempts/Game: Fouts 16th, Aikman 24, Young, 48
  • Yards/Game: Fouts 9th, Aikman 24th, Young 48

There is more to football (sports) than rings, Shrub. If you want to associate rings and playoff games to greatness that's on you. You have the right to like/dislike any player for any reason, but taking Super Bowls and playoff games out of the equation it's pretty clear Fouts is better than both these guys and is well deserving of a top ten.

(Aikman might be the worst player in the Hall of Fame).
Permalink
JuTMSY4Legend
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Fouts was ridiculous...he's no marino, but was in a similar mold...
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Nope the worst player in the Hall of Fame goes to Howie Long and I know the guy personally and love him, but he was not a HOF'er
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 1+-
Compelling numbers but you mistake my premise. Yards and winning are equal parts to the equation. Fouts has great career numbers, no doubt. But he has little to no playoff success while Aikman and Young, guys who had at least three fewer seasons than Fouts, had better career QB ratings, more wins, and actually won titles.

Granted, numbers and rings are not to be factored in vacuum like fashion, as Fouts per game yardage is far better but taken in context Fouts' teams never ran the ball regularly while Dallas had emmitt Smith and Young handed the ball of to Ricky Waters and Garrison Heart 20-30 times a game. Your numbers are compelling but misleading. Fouts numbers are inflated by quantity not quality. His td/int ratio is mediocre, his comp % is not top ten, and his yards/attempt is not top ten. And he had a paltry win% compared to his HOF breatheren.

You do make a helluva argument though.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Worst HOFer is Jan Stenerud...followed closely by Charlie Joiner, John Riggins, and Jack Youngblood. Never a fan of any of these guys.
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 1+-
ESPN is even crazier than I intially start, here is AGM Linebackers top 10

1) Johnny U 2) J. Montana 3)B. Favre 4)Dan Marino 5)J. Elway 6)T. Bradshaw 7)R. STaubach 8)F. Tarkenton

9)S. Young Aikmen
Permalink | Reply
Behbigben15All-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Why is Jack Lambert not in even in the Top 10:)
Permalink
Smmonroe2Varsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Favre holds most of the QB records shouldn't he be at or close to the top?
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Favre is easily top five, INMNSHO. You could make a favorable argument that any in my top five is the best QB ever, not so with ESPN's list.
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Youre right Sammy Favre's numbers plus the 3 MVP's and 1 Super Bowl make him a top 5 QB easily.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
So will your next article be the argument of Brady being the best? Can't wait for that one.
Permalink | Reply
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I thought every media outletin the north east had already granted him that honor.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
And well deserved if I do say so myself.
Permalink
BigPPupMajor Leaguer
670 days ago
Score 1+-
He's a hell of a player and he is a winner, but not the greatest QB of all time.
Permalink
Steel TownDraft Pick
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Not yet pup. But I think in the end he will be viewed as the greatest of all time.
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score -1+-
I just vomited in my mouth.
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 3+-
Can't Brady play in the league for another 5 years until we declare him a god?
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
No, he should be deified, along side Montana, Unitas, Elway,and Favre. Plus he has the hottest girlfriend in NFL history.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Thankyou, Frank.
Permalink | Reply
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Kelsdad, check this out. http://www.p...le2868.chtml
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
http://sport...ntent.1.html
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
670 days ago
Score 2+-
Post full artic... whoops, just a comment. MY BAD!
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
What?
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Let me clarify my comment:

As of late, many people haven't posted their full articles here. They always say "click here for more info" or "click here for full article."

I was just trying to be funny. Sorry Frank. :)
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
What now? I just thought that list was interesting. Why is there so much tension around here? Everyone has their "sassy pants" on.
Permalink
SSreportersLegend
670 days ago
Score 1+-
No, it's just some inside jokes we have. Should we teach you so you can blend in?
Permalink
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I don't know if I want to blend in yet. I'm still testing the waters here. It's a little serious here.
Permalink
SSreportersLegend
670 days ago
Score 0+-
(Pulls Shrubbery aside)

You see, I am the official ESPN complainer..you have no right unless you have a license. J/K. :)


Manning behind Bradshaw?! Are you serious?! Other than that, decent list...yours, not the one from ESPN.
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Manning behind Bradshaw ONLY because of the four rings. Otherwise, all things being equal (so to speak), Manning is a superior QB.
Permalink
SSreportersLegend
670 days ago
Score 0+-
BS, then why is Marino ahead of both of them?
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Because of his god-like numbers. That said, I would have no problem bumping Marino down behind Manning and Bradshaw but it boils down to subjective criterea when 5-10 are bunched so closely together. Marino gets defferential mention because he rewrote the record book and had the quickest release ever, all with not a single HOFer he ever played with, besides Dwight Stephenson.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Interestingly enough, both Manning & Brady could concievably own this debate if they keep up their unreal play. Should Manning win just one more title you'd almost have to vault him past Favre and Elway.
Permalink
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 0+-
The thing that's really troubling about ESPN's list is that former NFL guys were consulted for the compilation. At risk of sounding irreverent (shocker) they were woefully off on their top ten, by miles.
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 2+-
Another angle on the debate... Perhaps no two players, let alone QB's are as inextricably linked as Brady and Manning. Their legacies will be intertwined more than any duo in NFL history. If they keep butting heads on way to the title they'll forever live in the pantheon of professional rivals with Bird/Magic, McEnroe/Borg, Russel/Chamberlain, Ali/Frazier. Rarely do we see such great athletes as contemporaries and rivals. It'll be facinating to see how this plays out over the next 5-8 years.
Permalink | Reply
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score -1+-
Another angle on the debate...

Football's rule changes over the past ten-fifteen years or so have been specifically designed to promote offense. Protecting the QB, eliminating downfield contact between the receiver and defensive back are more responsible for taking an average talent like Tom Brady and transforming him into a Hall of Famer. And don't look at Brady if you don't want to. Look at guys like Testaverde and Bledsoe, both these guys rank in the top ten of some QB records and 40 years ago they wouldn't have taken a snap.

When Fouts played, and Namath and Starr, etc. there were no such rules. Receivers could be contacted at any time within ten yards of the line of scrimmage. Off the snap, and five yards off the line, a DB could knock a receiver on his ass and there would be no penalty. It was up to the receiver to get back up and resume his route. The pass interference rule read that both players had an equal right to the ball, now the rule says the pass belongs to the offensive player and defense initiated contact is a penalty, which is bullshit.

Rules protecting the quarterback are ridiculous, I understand the injury factor but they might as well be playing flag football.

And one other thing. Quarterbacks get entirely too much credit for the success of their teams. For half the game they're on the sideline while the defense is on the field. Brady or Manning or even Rex Grossman can go out and throw for 400 yards and four TD's and their team can lose, and the next week totally stink the joint out and win. In both cases they were non-factors in the result. This is also why the ring, especially in football, should not be associated with greatness.

You yourself made the Marino reference, everything he did he did by himself, no Hall of Famer receivers, no Hall of Fame running backs, no Hall of Fame lineman. And no ring, either. And yet he is undoubtedly a top five all timer, at worst.

The Patriots have three rings despite Brady, not because of him.
Permalink | Reply
ShrubberyVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 2+-
Despite Brady?! This is truly worth all the derision I can possibly muster. You're nucking futs! Yes, quarterbacks recieve too much credit for a win and too much blame for a loss. Given. But the position is by far the most important in football and maybe in all of team sports. Guys like Elway, who had great numbers and won two thirds of their games are just that much more incredible. But your willingness to arbitrarily dismiss the winning factor because it doesn't fit into a neat statistical model is ri-goddamn-diculous. And you ignore Fouts near perfect td/int ratio, one of the worst of any HOF qb. Yet Fouts remains a top ten qb in yours eyes despite demonstrable proof he's not worthy. Un-fing-believable!
Permalink
LetstalknflWaterboy
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I hear what you're saying. The only thing I disagree with is the comment about Bledsoe and Testaverde. While the rules helped them, the speed of the game hurt them, and it evened it all out. I think that if you put them in a previous era, the slower speed of the game (namely the pass rushers) would have evened out the lack of passer-friendly rules.
Permalink
KelsdadAll-Star
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I haven't seen any demonstrable proof yet. How much longer do I have to wait?
Permalink | Reply
SSreportersLegend
670 days ago
Score 4+-
The Patriots have three rings despite Brady, not because of him. I know, Richard Seymour stepped in, found Deion Branch and Troy Brown in both Super Bowl 36 and 38, when Vinatieri won the game.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
Bradshaw after 7 years: 10756 yards, 76 TDs, 99 INTs

Brady: 26370 yards, 197 TDs, 86 INTs

On top of that, if Brady wins this super bowl, throws for 1,620 yards, 16 TDs, and under 124 INTs (if that's even possible), there should be no question who's better. They will have the same number of rings, and Brady will have better stats at the halfway point of his career.

That's you evidence KD, considering you put bradshaw in the top 10
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
669 days ago
Score 0+-
Kelsdad's anti-Brady bias aside, he was absolutely right when he talked about the game being different -- and harder statistically -- in earlier eras. The rule changes that enforced a far stricter brand of pass interference have a huge influence on the numbers. You can't compare raw stats across eras in any sport (which is why I don't have a problem with Bonds being the all-time HR leader -- it doesn't mean anything), least of all NFL passing stats from pre-1978 vs. today. That's why I adjusted for era in my rankings (one of the few things I got right). Here are Bradshaw's regular-season numbers, adjusted to 2006:

Image:BradshawAdvancedStats.jpg

Still not Brady-like, but it's a lot fairer to his yardage and TD-INT ratio. Without taking this step, you cannot compare two QBs' stats (unless they were contemporaries). It's that simple.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
his updated 7 year stats: 15536 yards, 100 TDs, 84 INTs. At this point in his career, Brady has thrown for over 1100 yards more, 97 TDs, but Bradshaw has thrown 2 fewer INTs
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
career wise, Brady needs 10,226 yards (>5 seasons), 66 TDs (>4 seasons), without throwing 87 INTs. Brady should still easily suprass Bradshaw with the adapted stats
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
669 days ago
Score 0+-
Oh, for sure, I'm merely pointing out the folly of using unadjusted stats in these arguments. Truth is, we'll never know who is better between 2 QBs because NFL stats are so teammate-dependent, and we can't rely on people's opinions, because they're by definition biased and subjective. That's why it's a pointless endeavor to rank quarterbacks.
Permalink
False ProphetAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
agreed. I just don't have the adjusted stats on my computer like you do ... :) Davis, lets go debate the existence of Clutch instead, shall we? At least it will be a different endless discussion
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
669 days ago
Score 0+-
Here are both players' stats, normalized to 1973 (one of the most difficult passing seasons ever): Image:Brady_Bradshaw_1973.jpg
Permalink
FrugolfVarsity Captain
670 days ago
Score 2+-
Eli's a coming!!!! just kidding, I liked to watch Fran Tarkenton better than all these guys.He's run those big lineman all over the field and then hit a 25 yarder.The lineman had to hate him with a passion,but it was fun to watch.
Permalink | Reply
LetstalknflWaterboy
670 days ago
Score 0+-
I think that I'd like to see Tarkenton on this list. I really can't comment on Graham... that's just a completely different era. Overall, I like you're list though, it would be tough to drop any of your picks to include Tarkenton. Oh, and I absolutely hate Tom Brady... but he still deserves to be top 3 on this list. Montana is my number one also... and I'm a die-hard Marino fan.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
670 days ago
Score 2+-
These so-called "all-time great" lists are completely subjective and entirely based upon the era of which the voter dedicated the most time watching NFL football.
Permalink | Reply
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Okay........
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
669 days ago
Score 2+-
Hey, I tried to be objective, and look what happened... I'll never live down Brady at #54!
Permalink
RomiezzoLegend
669 days ago
Score 2+-
I swear I was going to post that URL! +++++++++++++
Permalink
Simms1156Div-I Stud
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Me and TehLoki were once trying to decide who the best qb of all time was and we came up with a decent formula for deciding qb's greatness. Surprisingly we wound up with Terry Bradshaw as the best.
Permalink | Reply
RomiezzoLegend
670 days ago
Score 0+-
Ridiculous. Brady at 3!? Retards. Manning at 5!? Retards! How the hell can Brady be in front of Marino?
Permalink | Reply
Steel TownDraft Pick
670 days ago
Score 0+-
My question is How can Bradshaw and Aikmen be behind Brady.
Permalink
MmyersWaterboy
670 days ago
Score 0+-
How is it possible to have Manning above Favre but not Marino? That makes no sense at all. On what criteria does Manning surpass Favre but not Marino? Most TV endorsements maybe.

T. Bradshaw is a bit of an enigma IMO because he was not what I would call outstanding early in his career. The first two SB runs were largely due to the strong defense (although he did play well in SB X). But by the time the Steelers won XIII and XIV he was a great QB.

Still you have to give him credity for even their victory in IX because he didn't screw it up. That counts for something. There were two strong defenses in that game.

Fouts would probably not even make my top 15. Jim Kelly and Warren Moon would definitely come in above him. Also Young, Aikman, Starbach as well as one or two other like Tarkenton.

The more I think about it, Fouts shouldn't even be sniffing this list.

I don't think Brady deserves #3--yet.
Permalink | Reply
Tyrone BriggsHall of Famer
669 days ago
Score 0+-
It is hard to argue the #1 and #2 spots. Those belong to Unitas and Montana (although IMO - Montana's the greatest)
Permalink | Reply
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
669 days ago
Score 0+-
No way Tyrone Briggs. Tom Brady is like oh my gosh the best QB that has ever placed foot on grass. He is like so awesome and stuff. I swear if he ran for President I'd totally like vote for him and stuff. He deserves to be numero uno. Pathetic.
Permalink
Davis21wylieMVP
669 days ago
Score 1+-
I like how the title of this article says "ESPN gets it wrong," as though there is somehow a definitive list out there that contains the "correct" Top 10 QBs ever... But you know, God Himself could inscribe His perfect, infallible Top 10 list on a stone tablet and people would say, "God put Bradshaw too high, He got it wrong... again!"

I mean, take it from somebody who knows, it's an impossible task to rank these guys. You can take an objective approach (as I did), but you better factor in every variable, and give the proper weight to each (I didn't). You can be subjective, then, but unless you've worked as an NFL talent evaluator, who really gives a shit what you have to say? And besides, like Tyrone said, even bona fide football people are going to be biased in favor of their friends, colleagues, and contemporaries.

In other words, it's ultimately a futile endeavor to rank the Top 10 (never mind the Top 100, WTF was I thinking?) QBs ever. There are no real right or wrong answers -- and you can never create a list that satisfies everyone -- so honestly, what's the point?
Permalink | Reply
Frank StevensonRed-Shirting
669 days ago
Score 0+-
ESPN is the devil
Permalink
MetsJetsDevilsDraft Pick
669 days ago
Score 1+-
1) Unitas

2) Elway 3) Namath 4) Richard Todd 5) Chad Pennington 6) Ken O'Brien 7) Boomer Esiason 8) Vinny Testaverde 9) Browning Nagle

10) Kellen Clemens
Permalink | Reply
False ProphetAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
LOL Now, that was funny!
Permalink
CheezerAll-Star
669 days ago
Score 0+-
The folly of these discussion is that we will never know who the better quarterback is. Quarterbacks do not operate in a vacuum. They have offensive lines they depend on to protect them, receivers to catch the ball, etc. You get my point.

We all have our version of the best ever. We all have our own criteria for measurement.

We will never know. The debate will never end.
Permalink | Reply
GeodanVarsity
669 days ago
Score 0+-
This list is an exercise in subjective thinking and application.

The ESPN list is woefully inept and the authour's list is a bit premature.

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are not ready for a list like this as yet. Give them a career of ten plus years and then we can add them to a more appropriate place on the list. Perhaps Manning is ready for this list (10 year career). They just seem too young for this discussion.

Dan Fouts doesn't belong on this list.

Interesting discussion, however.
Permalink | Reply
Napoleon15Red-Shirting
669 days ago
Score 2+-
John Elway, Joe Montana, Johnny Unitas, Sammy Baugh, Otto Graham, Brett Favre, Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, Bart Starr. I agree that Brady and Manning don't belong on the list yet. If the rest of their careers are as good as they've been so far, though, they'll probably be numbers one and two.
Permalink | Reply
Napoleon15Red-Shirting
669 days ago
Score 0+-
And if Brett Favre wins another Super Bowl or two before he retires, he will likely be the best ever.
Permalink
HallowedbethynameSoccer Kid
668 days ago
Score 0+-
Johnny Unitas is not #2. I can concede Elway to #3. He was the lone reason Denver was in 3 Superbowls in the 80's. Those teams were so over matched in the big game it was a joke. Not to mention there are only 2 things worth noting for QB's. Wins and Rings. Until this year Elway had the most wins @148. He still has the best winning % @.643. They could be broken by Brady or Manning.
Permalink | Reply
FoutsfanTee-Baller
565 days ago
Score 1+-
Just came across this now. Fouts belongs in the top ten. If you've ever seen him play you'll know what I mean. His numbers early in his career hurt him, playing in the pre 78 Nfl was different than today. Football is a team game, San diego's defense those years were dreadful. Look at Pittsburgh, if they had a better qb, they would've won more than 4 Super Bowls in the 70's. That team was a monster, Bradshaw hurt them. Fouts was brilliant at reading defenses, I think Fouts is underrated when they talk of great QB's.
Permalink | Reply
Add your Comment
ArmchairGM welcomes all comments. If you don't want to be anonymous, Register or Login. It's free
Categories: Opinions | Opinions by User Shrubbery | January 31, 2008 | January 2008 | Football Opinions

Don't Miss

Phillies World Series 2009: A Year Later, and They Still Don't Want Us
Sorry, But I'm Not Sorry
2009 NHL Preview
In Which Ricketts Wins World Series
2009 Week 3: Let’s Talk About Your Favorite NFL Team

In the News

Alex Ovechkin left the game against the Carolina Hurricanes early with an apparent knee injury

Comments of the Day

2 I"m kind of perplexed by this as well. I think McGriff...
1 Fred McGriff was better than Tony Perez.
1 What a great article. A topic that needs to be discussed more ...
0 The question is... Why does Smith struggle when he is under cen...
0 My 9 year old daughter has a loose kneecap, it has sl...

Take a Poll

As of 2009, who is the best third baseman in the game?
Alex Rodriguez Evan Longoria David Wright Ryan Zimmerman Other

New Articles

Alex Smith Carries Niners Past Jaguars
The Los Angeles Dodgers Dominated the Yankees in the 1963 World Series
How Can Fred McGriff Not Be Elected to the Hall of Fame?
Best African-American Quarterback Ever?
Ken Caminiti: National League's 1996 MVP

Retrieved from "http://armchairgm.wikia.com/Article:ESPN_gets_it_wrong...again...so_who_is_on_your_Top_10"

This page was last modified 00:38, 31 January 2008. Content is available under the GFDL.

Main Page About Special Pages Help Terms of Use Advertise