By John Turney
Back in the day, if you wanted to know who the “all-time leading passer” was, you reached for paperback record books like the ones above. The answer changed with the book—and with the system.
Before 1973, the NFL crowned its passing leaders with a moving target: yards one era, completion percentage the next, then various point and inverse-ranking schemes that compared a passer only to the men who threw that same season. When the league adopted the Pro Football Hall of Fame formula in 1973—the four-category scale Don Smith (Hall of Fame), Seymour Siwoff, and Don Weiss (NFL) built against a 1960–70 performance standard—the names at the top shifted because the method itself had changed.
That formula has its well-known limits. It rates the pass, not the quarterback. It ignores sacks, rushing, and era. But it has been the same formula since 1973. The intent was stability: a fixed standard instead of a yearly pile of category rankings that reshuffled every time the rest of the league improved.
The formula had many critics (rewards dink-and-dunk passers), and some semi-fans. Steve Young once said, "It's hard to do well in those categories. It's hard to throw touchdowns and to not throw interceptions." Both views have merit..
Be that as it may, we will likely have a new leader in about a month.. Current leader, Lamar, at the oment sits at the top with a 102.2 rating. Aaron Rodgers is slightly behind him. But when Brock Purdy reaches 1,500 pass attempts (he is 91 short), he will be number one with a rating around 104, barring injury and him throwing a mess of interceptions.
So at 26, he will be number one.
Is 1,500 pass attempts to sit atop a list like this given how many passes are thrown these days? Perhaps not, but that is what we have. And after all, Ken Anderson was just 27 when he surpassed Len Dawson to become the official all-time NFL passing leader. We say official because the NFL did not allow AAFC numbers in their NFL lists, but the Pro Football Hall of Fame did. After the 1983 season joe Montana made that problem moot since he ended that season with a 90.0 rating, about 3.5 "rating points" ahead of Otto Graham who'd been the Hall's number once since the system started. And Montana was 27, same as Ken Anderson.
 |
| Chart by PFR, with Purdy added by us |
Purdy, because of real time, will get the record, as we mentioned at 26, but he will be 27 when the season ends, and when next year's Official NFL Record & Fact Book is published, that will be his age. He will be the third 49ers quarterback (Montana and Young) to be first on the list as well.
This matters less and less, but in the 1970s at a young age`, it was fun getting those paperbacks and seeing in print the new leader is passing. Stuff of great memories.
And in the 70’s there seemed to be so much more quarterbacking talent. Youth , young veterans and old veterans . The AFC east had Unitas, Morrall, Griese, Namath & Plunkett. The AFC Central had Bradshaw, Anderson , Pastorini. The AFC West had Stabler, Lamonica, Hadl, Fouts , Dawson and Charley Johnson . The NFC East had Morton, Staubach, Kilmer , Jurgensen, Tarkenton, Snead and Hart. The NFC Central had Landry. The NFC Weat had Gabriel, Brody, Barkkowski, Jaworski.
ReplyDeleteBW ...
ReplyDeleteThanks John ...
The formula seemed to reward completion pct and fewer interceptions. Yards per attempt was rewarded but somewhat downgraded.
Thats one reason why Aaron Rodgers is considered the greatest regular season QB ever ... his TDs to interceptions ratio is ridiculous. Jackson and Purdy are young and wont keep their ratings as high but they still need that elusive championship.
Its still surprising more later round gems at QB dont materialize? I guess they have to have a good-to-great team take a low risk chance on them to develop their potential. I read where Bill Walsh use to purposely draft QBs that he felt had talent or at least a big arm to challege his defense in training camps or practices. Montana never felt threatened like more established starters today might. With injuries happening at alarming rates these days, teams cant have enough of them.
Formula was designed to find a level field for guys like Bart Starr and Bob Griese, effecienct guys but did have fairly high yards per attemopt, and yes, guys who avoided INTs
DeleteNo one wants to admit it because these aforementioned QB's were their heroes growing up, but Purdy is far out in front of all of them no matter how you look at it - Passer rating, QBR or other methods. One day he may finally get his due recognition.
ReplyDeleteHe's playing great and has since he won the job. Passing rating is really a "passing statistic" meant to put passers on level playing ground. The QB is more of a rating, but PFF grades are high and the film study of him is great ... He keeps this up he'll be MVP
Deletethe fact that Deshaun Watson ranks ahead of Tom Brady is prima facie evidence of the actual value of the QBR rating system....which is zero
DeleteDisagree in part. With a changing game it is better to compare a guys rating with the rest of the league. Today a high rating is not as impressive because the league is around a 90. But hwne you compare it to peers, for the time they played Brady is more ahead of average than Watson.
DeleteJust cannot compare Unitas, to Montana, to Brady to Mahomes ... unless you compare to leage average.
That said, there is value to the system. I would put the value at higher than zero. But would not have it 100 either.
I would same some value, when doen right
I understand "context" as you articulate it John....that said, please explain/justify how Watson and Garrapolo are ahead of Brady......(I haven't bothered to look it up, but what's Baugh's or Freidman's ratings?)
DeleteIn the context I mentioned, brady is ahead of Wagtson and Garapolo. Baugh way ahead, he was further ahead compared to his peers than almost anyone. He was good when most passers we not that great.
DeleteSo, yes, in raw numbers brady is lower than the guys you mention, but in context he's ahead of them, and baugh is ahead of him. Obviously this is a passing statisting, not a career evaluation, of titles, gross counting stats