![]() |
| |||||||
| |
| Football Forums Football Forums. Smash mouth football talk is a click away. Chat about anything that doesn't fit in one of our team's pro football forums. |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
| Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Johnny Unitas was the MVP of the NFL in 1967 when he led the Baltimore Colts to an 11-1-2 record. He completed only 58.5 percent of his passes and threw almost as many interceptions (16) as touchdowns (20) for a passer efficiency rating of 83.6. This week, there are 17 NFL quarterbacks with passer efficiency ratings better than Unitas in his MVP season. His best passer efficiency rating was 97.4 in 1965. There are six quarterbacks this week with efficiency ratings better than that. Johnny U never completed more than the 58 percent of his passes in a season. Twenty-three quarterbacks are completing better than 60 percent of their passes this season and three are in the 70s.. Are we to assume that there are several quarterbacks in today's NFL better than Unitas? Understand that these quarterbacks played two different games. You can't compare them with the same measuring stick. Back in the 1950s and '60s when Unitas was king of kings, the NFL employed downfield passing attacks. He had two wide receivers who went against a defense's two best cornerbacks in man coverage. There were no offensive or defensive "packages." So Unitas would force passes. All quarterbacks of his era did. If you wanted to complete passes, you had to throw the ball down the field. That's why they threw more interceptions than today's quarterbacks. When Bill Walsh implemented the West Coast offense in the 1980s, he gave quarterbacks more receivers, thus more options. There are four elements that determine passing efficiency, and completion percentage and interceptions account for half of the equation. Greater passer efficiency is the nature of the game, not the nature of the quarterback. The quarterbacks in today's game may have better systems, but that doesn't make them better quarterbacks than in the Unitas era. Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | SportsDay: Columnist Rick Gosselin
__________________ Forum Rules |
| |||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Would anyone in their right mind prefer to have a guy like Jay Cutler on their team over a Sonny Jergunson? or a Derek Anderson over a John Brodie? Danny White would be coveted today I dare say. |
| Sponsored Links |
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better What it gets down to here are two things 1. The rules now favor offensive players, particularly receivers, far more than in the old days. 2. The quality of defensive back is far lower now than it used to be. Outside of Brady, Manning and Favre in his prime, I don't see any quarterbacks playing today that would've found much success in the 70s.
__________________ Chuck aka "Lefty Noob" - GTG Staff (Sort Of) Hey look, I'm a website now: www.chuckbednar.com |
| |||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Could you imagine telling a Roger Staubach or Fran Tarkenton that they could throw the ball away once they got outside the "tackle box"? Guys like Ken Anderson abd Brian Sipe today would carve up defenses. Football has been ruined for me by all the rule changes and coaches having to be in total control of every aspect, especially play calling.
__________________ Visit Lindell's sports articles at http://associatedcontent.com |
| |||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better In my opinion, based on my limited knowledge of some of the legendary qb's, qb's today (with a few exceptions) are not the leaders that the legendary qb's were. They don't take command of their teams. That to me makes a good qb become great.
__________________ I'm a Tar Heel born. I'm a Tar Heel bred. And when I die I'll be a Tar Heel dead. So it's rah rah Carolina-lina. Rah rah Carolina-lina. Rah rah Carolina-lina--go to hell State! |
| |||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Manning would be the only one that I could think of. |
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Quote:
I found this article interesting because we are always looking for the best of all time. You cant compare them because the system is entirely different today. |
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Quote:
|
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Quote:
So if we eliminate Favre, and Brady, because though he is a real cool character in the pocket, I still dont think he would be quite the success he is without Belicheck, that leaves us just Manning????? |
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Quote:
|
| ||||
| Re: Today's quarterbacks rate higher, not necessarily better Quote:
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:42 AM.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||