NFL 2017

[Town Heretic]

"In 1971 Roger Staubach notched a season passer rating of 104.8 when the NFL average for qualified passers was 62.2. In percent, Staubach was 68% better than the league average, the best value achieved by any quarterback in the Super Bowl era."

In fact, Staubach was the best in that category for four years and Montana only two. When Staubach retired he had the best passer rating of any quarterback in NFL history.

I'm not disparaging Staubach. A great quarterback, but he's not in Montana's air.


Staubach finished with 153 tds to 109 ints and a career rating of 83.4 He went into the 90s twice in his career and had one season above 100.
Montana finished with 273 tds to 139 ints and a career rating of 92.3 Joe also had two 90s and three times broke the 100 level, once shattering the record for a season by bringing a 112 in 1989, his 10th year as a starter.

Staubach's high was a 104 in his third year as a starter.

In the playoffs?
Staubach finished with 24 tds to 19 ints on 20 games with a career rating of 76.0
Montana finished with 45 tds to 21 ints on 23 games with a career rating of 95.6

Both men rushed for 20 tds in their regular season careers. Montana ran for 2 tds in the post season, Staubach 0.

Besides that, he had a skill which Montana never even dreamed of matching, and that skill was his ability to scramble.

You're wrong there. He was a better runner, but Montana had great lateral motion and moved well outside the pocket. He wasn't a down field threat, but he didn't have to be either.

He rushed for 2,264 yards during his tenure in Dallas and scored 20 rushing TD's. Also, he had a regular season winning percentage of .746 compared to Montana's .713.

I'd agree that when you factor in the two declining years with the Chiefs Staubach has a marginal team edge, which doesn't say much about his actual comparative play.

If Staubach and Montana were the choices to be the quarterback for the same team I would pick Staubach every time

And you'd be making a mistake, every time. Staubach was a lesser version of Young, who was another all time great. And Montana beat Young every time they faced one another.

He would win more games with that team than Montana would win with the same team.

No objective reason to believe it, Jerry. Montana was the more accurate passer 63/57%, threw fewer picks and was overall more effective than Roger, who would still be a great pick for a team.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Staubach finished with 153 tds to 109 ints and a career rating of 83.4 He went into the 90s twice in his career and had one season above 100.
Montana finished with 273 tds to 139 ints and a career rating of 92.3 Joe also had two 90s and three times broke the 100 level, once shattering the record for a season by bringing a 112 in 1989, his 10th year as a starter.

From the article I cited "it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare the passer rating of different QBs in different eras. But what we can do is use the passer rating to compare a given QB with his peers of the same era and in that regard..."

By that method no one in the Super Bowl era has ever had a higher rating than the one which Staubach had in 1971. And he had the highest rating in four different years compared to only two for Montana.

Both men rushed for 20 tds in their regular season careers. Montana ran for 2 tds in the post season, Staubach 0.

There is no comparasion between the two when it comes to scrambling ability. Staubach was not called "Roger the Dodger" for nothing. He and Fran Tarkenton were the best in that category during their time by a country mile. And nothing takes the wind out of defenses as does a quarterback who can keep a play alive with his feet on third down.

Nothing!

I will take Staubach's skills and leadership over Montana's every time.

 

[Town Heretic]

From the article I cited "it doesn't make a lot of sense to compare the passer rating of different QBs in different eras. But what we can do is use the passer rating to compare a given QB with his peers of the same era and in that regard..."

I'm sure he believes that, but I don't agree. You're an accurate passer or you aren't. You move well in the pocket or you don't. Your tds and rushing yards will differ, because of games played and the style of the thing, and the competition has improved as athletes of the modern era got bigger, faster and stronger. I've said that I believe if Marion played today he'd be put up a six thousand yard season.

By that method no one in the Super Bowl era has ever had a higher rating than the one which Staubach had in 1971. And he had the highest rating in four different years compared to only two for Montana.

I don't know why that's significant. The highest among his peers? Super. But his ratings don't compare favorably with Joe. Two years after Staubach retired, Joe played his first year as a starter and put up a higher passer rating that Roger could only match three times and better only twice, once in his last year. Rogers' completion percentage in a great last year, 1979, was 57.9. Two years later Joe's inaugural season ended with a 64.5%, because he was always the more accurate passer.

What I'm saying is that Rogers era and Montana's almost overlapped, that the game play and players weren't particularly different and that Joe clearly out performed him. And I'd take either over Otto, the more I look at it.

There is no comparasion between the two when it comes to scrambling ability.

Sure there is. The comparison is in what it accomplished. Joe was hard to get to, a chicken legged scrambler who could buy enough time to kill you as the defense broke down.

Staubach was not called "Roger the Dodger" for nothing. He and Fran Tarkenton were the best in that category during their time by a country mile. And nothing takes the wind out of defenses as does a quarterback who can keep a play alive with his feet on third down.

Drives take the wind out of defenses. Joe could kill you with that. As the Bengals. Your guy ran. Fran ran around. Montana moved the pocket and move out of it just enough to frustrate and foil defenses. And their different approaches worked.

But Montana was as effective at keeping the play alive and better at delivering the ball. Better at making the right decisions in the biggest game, which is why he's the king of the SB with a goose egg in the int slot and not one SB performance with a rating under 100.

Also, while everyone has a bad playoff game or two, your guy had historical lows, with two games around 19 for rating, with 7 ints against 0 tds. In fact, 7 of his 20 games were bad performances. 60s and under. 9 were good to great, with 7 over 100.17 of Joe's 23 playoff games were good to great, with 12 over 100.

I will take Staubach's skills and leadership over Montana's every time

You're a great Cowboy's fan and he was a great quarterback. I don't care for either team, or the conference, so I don't have a rooting interest. The numbers aren't mistaken. Joe Cool remains the king.

 

[Nihilo]

I'm more interested in their individual play in the post season and their play in the big games. Starr and Graham had fewer games to play to get to a single elimination championship game (mostly 12 game seasons). Given the limited field it presented a much easier path to a Championship than Montana had.

Graham played 126 games for 174 tds to 135 picks and a career rating of 86.6
Montana played 192 games for 244 tds to 123 picks in SF, with a carer rating of 93.5

Brady played 237 games for 456 tds to 152 picks and a career rating of 97.2

In the playoffs?

Graham played in 12 playoff games for 14 tds and 17 picks, with a playoff rating of 67.4
Montana played in 23 playoff games for 45 tds and 21 picks, with a playoff rating of 95.6

Brady played in 34 playoff games for 63 tds and 31 picks, with a playoff rating of 89.1

There's obviously different ways to skin this cat. Brady's not shabby, but he's not tops, and there's not enough time for him to become tops either, but still, one of the greatest qbs ever.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

But his ratings don't compare favorably with Joe. Two years after Staubach retired, Joe played his first year as a starter and put up a higher passer rating that Roger could only match three times and better only twice, once in his last year. Rogers' completion percentage in a great last year, 1979, was 57.9. Two years later Joe's inaugural season ended with a 64.5%, because he was always the more accurate passer.

Montana's great success was due almost entirely to the Bill Walsh system which was based on a "SHORT" horizontal passing attack. Of course Montana would have the better completion percentage. Under Walsh's system two previous quarterbacks, Virgil Carter and Ken Anderson, had also lead the league in the same category. Take Montana out of the Walsh system and his passer rating does not reach his previous highs.

Heck, Montana was not even the best quarterback who ever played for San Francisco--Steve Young was. He and Staubach were closest in football skills than Montana. Only Staubach was the better leader.

 

[Town Heretic]

Montana's great success was due almost entirely to the Bill Walsh system

Which is why he beat the Niner two years running with the Chiefs. lain: Or, no. Though I think great coaching helps any quarterback, as does the kind of team you have around you, especially young.

which was based on a "SHORT" horizontal passing attack.

The difference between his average and Roger's was .2 per pass. lain:

Of course Montana would have the better completion percentage.

Right. He was a more accurate passer. It follows.

Under Walsh's system two previous quarterbacks, Virgil Carter and Ken Anderson, had also lead the league in the same category.

You can lead a team playing safer than not. Montana's average long ball in a year was comparable to your guy's. And at Notre Dame, where the system called for more long ball, Joe had an 8.5 and 7.7 avg and a career qb rating of 125.6. And before you say Rice and YAC, Joe's average in the SB he won before Rice was less than a half yard different and his longest pass went for 71 that year.

So Joe could (and did) put air under the ball. But great coaches play to their talent's strengths. And Joe's was found in reading defenses and placing the ball where it needed to go. If that didn't excite you like Roger, okay.

Take Montana out of the Walsh system and his passer rating does not reach his previous highs.

Rather, put a guy at the physical end of the string and his numbers are going to slip. But they were still great numbers, with a higher rating than your guy in all but three of his years. Years Staubach played in the one uniform and system.

Joe at SF: 63.7%, 93.5 rating,
Joe at KC: 60.7%, 85.0 rating, an 87 the first year and an 83 the second. He retired thereafter. But he beat his former team and talent both years and, again, his last game with KC, a playoff loss, saw Joe with over three hundred yards and a 100+ rating. He just couldn't bring it every game at that point.

Heck, Montana was not even the best quarterback who ever played for San Francisco--Steve Young was.

Some people will argue that. Some will argue that outside of rings he might have been the best to play the position. He was a more gifted runner than anyone before him at the position and in his eight full years as a starter only two of them saw him with a sub 100 rating, and they were in the 90s. :shocked: Take him out of SF and Joe's shadow and I think more people would consider the argument. But most don't, inside and outside of SF, which is why Brady's chase and press speculation wasn't about Steve.

Young called Joe "the Master". And the Master beat him head to head, every time they met. It was Joe's head that made him the superior qb.

He and Staubach were closest in football skills than Montana. Only Staubach was the better leader.

I think you're right on the leadership angle, partly because of age and service. I think that presented a gravitas that Young never really had, great as his skill set was. Otherwise, Young was a better qb than Staubach and I'd probably take him, lighter britches notwithstanding, over Roger, unless I had an immature team. Young could do everything Roger did and do it better.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

He was a more accurate passer. It follows.

More accurate because his passes were shorter. And how many times did he complete a short pass to Rice and Rice turned that short reception into a huge gain? Even with that he still did not match Staubach's yards per attempt.

Again, when compared to his peers no one in the Super Bowl era has ever excelled in the way that Staubach did.

Staubach had the misfortune to play the best defense in NFL history in two Super Bowls and the Boys only lost both those games by four points. If the tables were turned then Montana would have won two and lost two and Staubach would have won four. If that would have happened then would you still hold out Montana as the best quarterback in NFL history?

 

[Nihilo]

If the tables were turned then Montana would have won two and lost two and Staubach would have won four. If that would have happened then would you still hold out Montana as the best quarterback in NFL history?

But if you're going to play that, then you have to do it for everybody else too, to be fair. I could see where Brady would have won 8 SBs now if certain things went one way or another, but what happened happened. We have to base it on what happened, not what would-a, could-a, should-a. IMO anyway. Playing this way, it would be never ending. You'd have to run through everybody's career who is even within shooting distance to be fair.

 

[Town Heretic]

More accurate because his passes were shorter.

Not much, apparently, on average.

And how many times did he complete a short pass to Rice and Rice turned that short reception into a huge gain?

You think that didn't happen for Roger? Of course it did. And I already noted that Joe won a ring before Rice, as a relative rookie. And his average was about half a yard off. Not exactly the stuff to write home about, differentially speaking.

Even with that he still did not match Staubach's yards per attempt.

What are you talking about? You're describing Montana as dink and dunk and Staubach as a bomber and the difference between them is .2 per throw. Curiously, their second year in the league both men averaged 6.6 per attempt. And Staubach was throwing to the all decade Pearson for a few, along with Bob Hayes, who was Rice like before Rice and dubbed "The World's Fastest Human". You think that wasn't worth YAC aplenty? Pshaw, Jerry.

Again, when compared to his peers no one in the Super Bowl era has ever excelled in the way that Staubach did.

You're nuts. No one has a better SB record than Joe at his position. Not really close. And I've noted his statistical superiority. If you're trying to cloud it a bit by conflating team accomplishment to individual contribution you're getting desperate. But even then, 4-0 is going to be impossible for you to touch with your Cowboys under Staubach. Look at how many he helped get them to, his performance when he did, and the argument that never really was much of one, ends.

Staubach had the misfortune to play the best defense in NFL history in two Super bowls and the Boys only lost both those games by four points.

The Steelers were great, but he didn't play them every day or most days and when you look at the talent he had and the teams he played, day in and out, the averages don't help him against Montana.

If the tables were turned then Montana would have won two and lost two

You can believe that if it gives you comfort. It's on par with my saying that Manning with Bill and the consistency of New England, would have dominated in a way Brady didn't. But it's all just daydreaming. What we know is what happened.

If that would have happened then would you still hold out Montana as the best quarterback in NFL history?

Of course not. But it didn't. What did happen and how it happened tells me that Montana remains the GOAT. And, again, he's not my guy and that's not my team.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Just curious but when did you start watching the NFL?

 

[Town Heretic]

Just curious but when did you start watching the NFL?

Early in my family. As far back as I can remember. I have an older brother by about six years and he was charging to play it and watch it so, of course... One of the things I loved about the NFL channel was being able to see so many of the old games. My first football hero, the one I had an active rooting interest in, was Bradshaw and those Steelers. I never forgave them for the way they treated him at the end of it. A similar thing happened with Peyton, though I'd rooted for Indy when Captain Comeback was leading them, so it was harder to separate.

Now I'm a free agent, looking for a young qb and a rising team to follow for the next fifteen or so. Any suggestions? :chuckle:

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Early in my family. As far back as I can remember.

About what year?

 

[Town Heretic]

About what year?

That sounds too much like a guy about to adjust his belt and say, "Well listen here, I saw everyone on our list play and..." I've seen everyone in the modern era play, from Roger to Montana, Marino to Elway and on into the present. Thanks to the NFL network and some ESPN programming and YouTube I've even had the opportunity to see them essentially side by side, instead of through the distortion our memories too often provide. That's one great thing about the now for sports fans.

Now about the future...I don't know. It starts with the signal caller for me. Won't be the Falcons. I can't get excited about anything that comes out of Georgia. Tampa? Meh. Didn't like him in college, can't imagine liking him now. Dallas? Likeable kid, less likeable kid running the ball...I may have to wait a bit.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

That sounds too much like a guy about to adjust his belt and say, "Well listen here, I saw everyone on our list play and..."

I was just curious. I saw first hand the difference made to the Boys when Staubach was finally made the starter over Craig Morton. Morton was a very good quarteback, later taking Denver to the Super Bowl. He was good enough that in a trade with the Giants for him the Boys ended up with Randy White.

But when Staubach was made the starter the team underwent a radical change due to Staubach's leadership. Otto Graham, who coached Staubach in the College All-star game, said "I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."

Graham's words say it all--leadership is the most important thing for a quarterback. And Staubach had it in spades.

"Bob Lilly has told tales about practices where Roger would tell Bob Hayes (owner of an Olympic Gold Medal in sprinting, mind you) that he could beat him in a 20-yard dash.

'Roger told Bob Hayes one day, he said, ‘I’m gonna beat you in a 20-yard dash.’ They ran one and Bob beat him. And they ran two and Bob beat him. They ran five and Bob beat him. And they ran ten and Bob beat him! …And after about the thirtieth one – he beat Bob. And that was the end.'​

Staubach’s competitiveness wasn’t just seen in races against Pro Football Hall of Famer Bob Hayes. He pushed his teammates to greater heights than even they thought possible. Roger was able to draw more out of a player than that player could have drawn out of himself – the mark of a true leader.

Roger’s teammates idolized him. He was bigger than life to them. They felt that with him, anything was possible. They gave him their absolute all because they knew that if they did he would deliver for them and the Dallas Cowboys."​

https://insidethestar.com/cowboys-ctk-greatest-dallas-cowboy-of-all-time-roger-staubach-takes-12/​

More often than not that quality is overlooked. It was amazing to see the change the team underwent when Staubach became the starter. Staubach's confidence rubbed off on his teammates. Under Staubach the team never lost a game they just ran out of time.

A quarterback cannot be judged only by his skills and stats. Staubach was not far behind anyone in regard to those categories.

But his leadership put him above all of the other NFL quarterbacks in the Super Bowl era.

 

[Town Heretic]

I was just curious. I saw first hand the difference made to the Boys when Staubach was finally made the starter over Craig Morton. Morton was a very good quarteback, later taking Denver to the Super Bowl. He was good enough that in a trade with the Giants for him the Boys ended up with Randy White.

But when Staubach was made the starter the team underwent a radical change due to Staubach's leadership. Otto Graham, who coached Staubach in the College All-star game, said "I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."

Graham's words say it all--leadership is the most important thing for a quarterback. And Staubach had it in spades.

More often than not that quality is overlooked. It was amazing to see the change the team underwent when Staubach became the starter. Staubach's confidence rubbed off on his teammates. Under Staubach the team never lost a game they just ran out of time.

A quarterback cannot be judged only by his skills and stats. Staubach was not far behind anyone in regard to those categories.

But his leadership put him above all of the other NFL quarterbacks in the Super Bowl era.

How many rings did the Niners win before Joe? How soon after he got there did that change? And HOFer Steve Young, who led a later team to the SB called Montana the Master, the guy who led his team on a SB winning drive while noting John Candy in the stands, whose nickname, Joe Cool, says loads about what he brought into the huddle. I think leadership is extremely important. It's one reason I favor Peyton over Brady and Bird over Jordan, though neither of them were the greatest to play their sport. Montana had it.

 

[intojoy]

Joe Montana was better all around than Jerry Rice was


Sent from my iPhone using TOL

 

[Jerry Shugart]

How many rings did the Niners win before Joe?

The same number the Cowboys won before Roger.

I think leadership is extremely important. It's one reason I favor Peyton over Brady and Bird over Jordan, though neither of them were the greatest to play their sport. Montana had it.

Not even close to Staubach's leadership.

 

[Town Heretic]

The same number the Cowboys won before Roger.

Right. Joe came and the culture of winning began.

Not even close to Staubach's leadership.

Not even close to an actual argument.

Look, you're a fan fighting for your guy. Good for you and I hope you always feel that way about him if it elevates your enjoyment of the game and your team. But I'm a fan of the game without a rooting interest in the competition, noting a truth about a guy who isn't mine, who led a team I never rooted for.

Staubach inherited a team in 69 that had gone 12-2 the year before and took them to a SB three years later.
Montana inherited a team that had gone 2-12 the year before he carried the starting load and took them to a SB one year later.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Right. Joe came and the culture of winning began.

Most people think that it was the arrival of Bill Walsh which began the turn around for the 49ers, not Montana.

Not even close to an actual argument.

I guess it depends on how a person evaluates a quarterback.

I share the same opinion of an NFL quarterback who has been there and done that, winning seven NFL championships and still holds the record for career YPA and for career winning percentage, Otto Graham. He coached Staubach in a College All-star game and said:

"I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."​

I do not think that you share Graham's opinion as to what is the most important thing for a quarterback. You go more for the glitz and glitter.

Staubach's leadership qualities continued after he retired from the NFL and many on his real estate team became wealthy while he amassed a fortune estimated at $500 Million. He is probably the most successful player in a second career since Byron "Whizzer" White, who in 1962 became a justice of the Supreme Court.

 

[Town Heretic]

Most people think that it was the arrival of Bill Walsh which began the turn around for the 49ers, not Montana.

The Cowboys were already winning 12 games without Staubach, so that's not really helping you. But Joe took over a stinker and was in the SB sooner than your guy with a winner.

I guess it depends on how a person evaluates a quarterback.

With me it's his play.

I share the same opinion of an NFL quarterback who has been there and done that, winning seven NFL championships and still holds the record for career YPA and for career winning percentage, Otto Graham. He coached Staubach in a College All-star game and said:

You said that already. He never coached Joe. I'm sure Roger was the best he had. It's a limiting context though.

"I coached the College All-Star game for 10 years and of all the quarterbacks in that game, Roger was the best I ever had. He was a great leader - that's the most important thing for a quarterback."​

I do not think that you share Graham's opinion as to what is the most important thing for a quarterback

I don't doubt how Graham saw him when he had him. What's the source and time frame for the quote anyway. I can't find it. But you're wrong anyway, I think leadership is crucial. That's why I loved Bird.

You go more for the glitz and glitter.

I think you're a homer who is letting it get the best of him and starting to speak for me (and getting it wrong without any more reason) is a way to end what I've conducted as a friendly difference.

I've answered on the point, the nickname, the way he won and how quickly, the SB record, the besting of a better team and a future HOFer when he was in decline. Joe had to face some of the greatest defenses of all time too. Like Roger, he sacrificed years by sacrificing himself to make the best throw.

Joe was a leader who could calm his guys on a SB winning drive and move them down field to victory. That's not glitz.

Staubach's leadership qualities continued after he retired from the NFL and many on his real estate team became wealthy while he amassed a fortune estimated at $500 Million.

lain: