Best QB in franchise history?
- Thread starter BaseballJones
- Start date
Part of the deal that allowed the franchise to move from Cleveland to Baltimore and become the Ravens was that the team name and all the history would remain in Cleveland. That's why if you look on Pro Football Reference the Ravens history begins in 1996, and the Browns runs from 1946 to 1995 and then resumes in 1999.
I know people here hate Eli, but it's Eli with only Simms coming close. Fran only played five years with the Giants, and Phil, while great for his era, had a career derailed in part by a number of injuries early in his career, and some terrible choices by his coaches. (Simms absolutely outplayed Scott Brunner in the 1983 preseason, but first year coach Bill Parcells handed Brunner the starting role that season, which nearly cost Parcells his job, and possibly his career. And then later Ray Handley elevated Jeff Hostetler over Simms, one of many decisions that did cost him his job.)
I know people ding him for finishing his career with a .500 record, and because his late career Giants teams were so bad, finishing 19 games under .500 in his last five seasons with him at the helm, but if you look at his stats for that period (2014-2019: 1966-3111 63.2 Cmp% 21,678 yards 137 TDs 73 Ints), Eli wasn't the problem on those teams, his defense usually was. He had back to back seasons in which the team went 6-10 while he threw for an average of 4421 yards and 32.5 TDs and 14 Ints (2014-15). That's not on the QB.
I guess he's got an argument for AZ, but he was 5th in passing yards, 5th in TD, 5th in completions...I don't think 5 years and a super bowl appearance (and a losing record overall) is enough to put him at the top of their list. Gotta be Jim Hart.
He's in a similar place statistically with the Rams (5th in completions, 6th in both yards and TDs), but 2 MVPs and a super bowl win shoot him up their list pretty quick.
We disagree re Opie. IMO he is vastly overrated, and colored by his inflated passing stats that are all but meaningless when compared to earlier vintage QBs. But that remains a discussion for another time.
As an aside, If Peyton is seriously considered the Bronco's all-timer, and he is not in my opinion, Elway is, and its not close, then Tarkenton's 5 year body of body of work on a mediocre team, where he was a dynamic scrambling QB, and led the Giants to a well-above offense, and where he was named as a pro-bowl QB in 4 of those 5 years and where he was about the only reason to watch the Giants back then, supports the case. Tarkenton was a great QB in his prime with the Giants. He was vstly superior to Opie.
I agree with you on Simms.
It's Eli for the Giants guys. And I don't think anyone is close. Inflated stats or whatever, Eli had 47k yards passing. Eli had the two SBs and a much longer career. 246 starts. Simms had 169. Fran had 27 starts for the Giants and went 13-14. Fran had 13.9k passing yards for the Giants.
What is the point of even making that hypothetical "Fran Tarkenton" argument?(couched with Peyton with Denver, who isn't close to Elway, anyway) Eli wasn't amazing, no doubt. There are many QBs way better than he was. But this is an exercise on a team by team basis. And Eli is, by far, the best QB in NY Giants history.
Longevity matters for this exercise. Especially because there were a lot of really, really bad QBs who have played while Eli was slinging it for over a decade, never missing a game.
What is the point of even making that hypothetical "Fran Tarkenton" argument?(couched with Peyton with Denver, who isn't close to Elway, anyway) Eli wasn't amazing, no doubt. There are many QBs way better than he was. But this is an exercise on a team by team basis. And Eli is, by far, the best QB in NY Giants history.
Longevity matters for this exercise. Especially because there were a lot of really, really bad QBs who have played while Eli was slinging it for over a decade, never missing a game.
If Simms has 2 Superbowl wins instead of just 1, I think there is maybe a case for him.
Eli started many more games, but...
Eli was 117-117 as a starter. Phil was 95-64. So, to match Eli Phil would have needed to start another 85 games and go 32-53.
The difference in passing yards per game was not that great considering the change in eras: 242 for Eli vs 204 for Phil.
Very surprisingly to me, Phil's TD and INT rates aren't that different from Eli's. Eli: 4.5%/3.0%; Phil: 4.3%/3.4%. Phil is worse, but the league as a whole was much much worse during his time.
Eli does have the longevity and the 2 SBs. I think that pushes him over the top. But if Phil had the 1990 SB, I think I'd go Phil.
Your Phil argument is excellent. And I agree with your conclusion.
But someone throwing Tarkenton into the mix is just bonkers.
If Phil had stayed healthy that season and won Super Bowl XXV, he probably would have made the Hall of Fame, especially if he won a second SB MVP. But Eli did do that in winning his two titles and was great through both of those championship runs those seasons, which are among the reasons I give him the edge. (The longevity and his ability to stay on the field matter hugely as well.)
I don’t hate Eli. I’m fucking baffled he won two rings at the pats expense, but I don’t hate him. He actually seems goofily likable.
His brother, I hated.
fuck you, Cooper.
I can't really think of a comparison. I'm tempted to say Mahomes, because Randall threw a great deep ball and loved to improvise, but the Eagles version of him didn't want to be a pocket passer.
The prime of his career was wasted by Buddy Ryan, who didn't value the OL, and Rich Kotite, who tried to turn him into a pocket passer. He also really didn't do much with the Eagles after 1990 because he kept getting hurt.
1991 - Torn ACL in Week 1
1992 - Benched for Jim McMahon on occasion
1993 - Broke his leg after a 3-0 start
1994 - Started 7-2, lost 7 in a row to end season
1995 - Lost job to Rodney Peete
EDIT: luckiestman's comp of a taller Kyler is more accurate.
Last edited:
Best current comp is taller Kyler. RC was a better passer than Lamar but not as good as Mahomes, imo. Josh Allen reminds me more of Elway, Mahomes reminds me more of Steve Young.
I mean, peak vs. longevity is a massive central disagreement in these discussions. Just asserting "longevity matters" without discussing the massive difference in peak performance is disingenuous. Fran only had one year with the Giants worse than Eli's best year, and the primary argument for Eli is rings (which are attributable in large part to other factors). In addition, the fact that teams had crappy QBs shouldn't enter the evaluation. Yes, longevity matters. But the assessment should assume that the alternative is neutral, not penalize or advantage one QB because of who else the team drafted before or after.
If you want a shot at a ring with their relative performances for the team, Fran's a no-brainer over Eli, IMO.
Thinking otherwise isn't insane, but you can't simply say longevity matters and peak doesn't when that's normally one of the most important disagreements at the heart of the discussion. It's why cases for Pete Rose and Sandy Koufax are made.
Last edited:
Bradshaw also won two Super Bowl MVPs.
Ben won SB 40 despite a terrible performance (9/21, 151 yds 0 TDs and 2 INTs. 1 rushing TD). He played well in SB 43, and made the crazy throw to win, but Santonio Holmes was the deserving MVP. He was OK in SB 45, but threw 2 INTs (including a pick 6), and only moved the ball 15 yards on the final drive. Ben was very Bledsoe-ish in the biggest games of his career.
So I looked at this to see if my Eli/Simms argument fit here, too, and I don't think it does, too wide a gap between Ben and Bradshaw.
Ben is 165-81-1, while Terry is 107-51-0, so to match Ben Terry would have to start another 89 games and go 58-30-1.
Here, 257 for Ben, 167 for Terry. Nearly 100 yard gap. Ben has thrown for well more than double the passing yards.
Here the difference between the two is huge. Bradshaw threw 212 TDs... and 210 INTs, where Ben had 418 TDs vs 211 INTs. On a percentage basis, Ben was 5.0%/2.5% TD/INT while Bradshaw was 5.4%/5.4%. Similarly, Ben completed 64% of his passes vs Bradshaw's 52%. Just a huge gap.
Bradshaw was 4-0 while Ben was 2-1. And one could argue, maybe, that the league changed more from Bradshaw's time to Simms' than from Simms' to Eli and Ben. To win a SB, you first have to get there, so Ben not winning MVPs is not a major knock against him for me.
But I think the longer productive tenure and the sheer numbers outweigh the SBs. If I gave Eli/Simms to Eli by a nose, I think Ben/Terry goes to Terry by a comfortable margin.
Yep. PFR doesn't give career ANY/A+, but a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation gives it 110-104 to Ben (I didn't weigh it by percentage of attempts each season and obviously excluded 2019). The playoff gap is gigantic though when you consider eras. The only people with a higher ANY/A than Bradshaw from his era or before are Montana (and they didn't overlap much) and Starr. Ben is tied with Testaverde and behind Hasselbeck and Eli. It's also worth nothing Ben came into a pretty stable organization. The Steelers were the laughingstock of the league for 40 years before Bradshaw (and others too obviously) got there.
Last edited:
HIs defense played an important role in their Super Bowl wins, but Eli was superb in both Super Bowl runs: 178-282 63% 2,073 yds 15 TDs 2 INTs 4 Postseason Comebacks and 5 Game-Winning Drives. He was the largest part of those runs.
I also agree with the Bradshaw over Ben argument. It's easy to look at his numbers and think he was an important part of the last two SB wins (XIII and XIV) but was only along for the ride for the first two (IX and X), but that's not fair to him. With the game at 9-6, Bradshaw was responsible for 40 of the 66 yards in the drive that salted the game away, including the 4 yard TD to Larry Brown that ended the drive, and effectively the game. And in Super Bowl X, he launched a perfect 64 yard strike to Lynn Swann 3 yards from the end zone that provided the winning score while standing in the midst of a furious rush that would result in Larry Cole ringing his bell so badly that he was done for the day.
(Start at 18:48)
View: https://youtu.be/fKOqePKSr9c?t=1128
Note--the Cole hit was NOT a penalty in 1974. How the sport has changed.
Blah blah blah.
Fran was 13-14 for the Giants in 5 seasons. He made the playoffs a total of 0 times. Truly impressive stuff. No brainer. Definitely.
Obviously peak versus longevity matters. Here's the thing, Fran had neither longevity nor peak. Eli had historic longevity and two seasons of Mount Everest peaks. For better or for worse, those rings matter.
Tarkenton was a pro bowl QB in 4 of his 5 seasons with the Giants,. He was one of the best QBs in the NFL with the Giants, and helped a very mediocre team become competitive. Eli was never one of the best QBS in the NFL. He was good, maybe a top 10 type guy (among his 30 peers) but he was simply not a top 5 guy. Tarekenton was.
Its not that complicated.
Its not that complicated.