Hall of Fame QB win percentages
-
you know what they say....QB's get too much credit when they win and too much blame when they lose.....
Never been a fan of how QB's(or other players, ftm) get propped up so high just because they landed on great teams. In my eye's, lots of the greatest woulda been closer to average on lesser or bad teams......
True greatness usually shines through and Marino is the perfect example. No SB and no doubt he's one of the best. Conversely, take Bradshaws super bowls away and give him Marino's record and is he still one of the best or in the HOF?......(no way).....
-
Remember when SF was ridiculed for trading a 2nd and 4th to the Bucs for a USFL/NFL bust? All of Young's stats are diluted by 19 awful starts in Tampa.
For what it's worth PFF's Weighted Career AV for Young is 135 (15th overall since 1950).
Stabler's is 94 (180th overall since 1950)... not bad, but not Young.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Maybe.....because I was seeing Kelly, Marino, Favre, Elway, Aikman doing it more and just as good or better than Young.
Aikman was battling Kelly for much of the first half of that decade for team supremacy.
Favre and Elway were battling each other for the last half of that decade.
Young got one year squeezed in there. Kind of as an afterthought, sorta.
You seem to be substituting QB names for team names.
It's a team sport and Dan Marino was a better QB than Eli Manning or Jim Plunkett.
Elway got a couple titles when he was less of a QB than he was earlier in his career because he was on better teams.
Steve Young was the starter for eight years and led the league in passing six times and made 7 Pro Bowls. Retired with the highest passer rating in the history of the NFL. But you are saying he was not the best QB of his era because his team only won one SB.
Well, Favre only one 1, Kelly won none, Marino won none, If John Elway retires two years earlier he gets none ... Troy Aikman must be your best QB of the era since he won those 3 rings all by himself.
Zombo
Zombo said:
You seem to be substituting QB names for team names.
It's a team sport and Dan Marino was a better QB than Eli Manning or Jim Plunkett.
Elway got a couple titles when he was less of a QB than he was earlier in his career because he was on better teams.
Steve Young was the starter for eight years and led the league in passing six times and made 7 Pro Bowls. Retired with the highest passer rating in the history of the NFL. But you are saying he was not the best QB of his era because his team only won one SB.
Well, Favre only one 1, Kelly won none, Marino won none, If John Elway retires two years earlier he gets none ... Troy Aikman must be your best QB of the era since he won those 3 rings all by himself.
Zombo
I know what I am saying....I am saying that I think Elway, Favre, Marino, Kelly, Aikman were better QBs.
And certainly you know that I can count titles.....and yet I put two guys who never won one over your boy.
As for being the highest rated passer in history....the guy that was chasing his tail was Jeff Garcia.
There wasn't much of a dropoff after Garcia replaced Young at QB for the 49ers.
Do you want to claim that Jeff Garcia was better than those other guys?
I see Young as a system QB primarily. He fit that system well....but that did not give him primacy over other, better contemporary QBs.
-
Remember when SF was ridiculed for trading a 2nd and 4th to the Bucs for a USFL/NFL bust? All of Young's stats are diluted by 19 awful starts in Tampa.
For what it's worth PFF's Weighted Career AV for Young is 135 (15th overall since 1950).
Stabler's is 94 (180th overall since 1950)... not bad, but not Young.
Remember when SF was ridiculed for trading a 2nd and 4th to the Bucs for a USFL/NFL bust? All of Young's stats are diluted by 19 awful starts in Tampa.
For what it's worth PFF's Weighted Career AV for Young is 135 (15th overall since 1950).
Stabler's is 94 (180th overall since 1950)... not bad, but not Young.
But, if I had to choose a QB to play for me, I may likely take the Snake over Young....and feel good about it....statistics be damned.
It is close enough in my view to make me consider it anyway. Young may get the nod.....but not until after long contemplation.
-
Zombo said:
You seem to be substituting QB names for team names.
It's a team sport and Dan Marino was a better QB than Eli Manning or Jim Plunkett.
Elway got a couple titles when he was less of a QB than he was earlier in his career because he was on better teams.
Steve Young was the starter for eight years and led the league in passing six times and made 7 Pro Bowls. Retired with the highest passer rating in the history of the NFL. But you are saying he was not the best QB of his era because his team only won one SB.
Well, Favre only one 1, Kelly won none, Marino won none, If John Elway retires two years earlier he gets none ... Troy Aikman must be your best QB of the era since he won those 3 rings all by himself.
Zombo
I know what I am saying....I am saying that I think Elway, Favre, Marino, Kelly, Aikman were better QBs.
And certainly you know that I can count titles.....and yet I put two guys who never won one over your boy.
As for being the highest rated passer in history....the guy that was chasing his tail was Jeff Garcia.
There wasn't much of a dropoff after Garcia replaced Young at QB for the 49ers.
Do you want to claim that Jeff Garcia was better than those other guys?
I see Young as a system QB primarily. He fit that system well....but that did not give him primacy over other, better contemporary QBs.
I know what I am saying....I am saying that I think Elway, Favre, Marino, Kelly, Aikman were better QBs.
And certainly you know that I can count titles.....and yet I put two guys who never won one over your boy.
As for being the highest rated passer in history....the guy that was chasing his tail was Jeff Garcia.
There wasn't much of a dropoff after Garcia replaced Young at QB for the 49ers.
Do you want to claim that Jeff Garcia was better than those other guys?
I see Young as a system QB primarily. He fit that system well....but that did not give him primacy over other, better contemporary QBs.
System QB?
In the NFL?
He had better stats than Joe Montana in the same system, was Joe a system QB too?
Young didn't win all those titles but he had Seifert and Mooch, while Joe had a HOF coach and best D in the league.
Young had a great arm and was off the charts in mobility, accuracy and intelligence ... he would have done great in any system in any era.
Z
-
Young vs. Boomer Esiason:
Record: 94-49 vs. 80-93
Comps/Att: 2667/4149 vs. 2969/5202
Comp. %: 64.3 vs. 57.8
Yards: 33,124 vs. 37920
TDs: 232 vs. 247
TD%: 5.6% vs. 4.7 %
Ints: 107 vs. 184
Int.%: 2.6% vs. 3.5%
YPA: 8.0 vs. 7.3
YPC: 12.4 vs. 12.8
YPG: 196 vs. 202
Rating: 96.8 vs. 81.1
4th Qtr. comebacks 14 vs. 19
Game winning drive: 17 vs. 26
Statisically Boomer isn't far off.....except in winning record.....which as was pointed out, can be a team thing.
Young won his only SB appearance, Boomer lost his fairly miraculously to Young predecessor.
-
I know what I am saying....I am saying that I think Elway, Favre, Marino, Kelly, Aikman were better QBs.
And certainly you know that I can count titles.....and yet I put two guys who never won one over your boy.
As for being the highest rated passer in history....the guy that was chasing his tail was Jeff Garcia.
There wasn't much of a dropoff after Garcia replaced Young at QB for the 49ers.
Do you want to claim that Jeff Garcia was better than those other guys?
I see Young as a system QB primarily. He fit that system well....but that did not give him primacy over other, better contemporary QBs.
System QB?
In the NFL?
He had better stats than Joe Montana in the same system, was Joe a system QB too?
Young didn't win all those titles but he had Seifert and Mooch, while Joe had a HOF coach and best D in the league.
Young had a great arm and was off the charts in mobility, accuracy and intelligence ... he would have done great in any system in any era.
Z
Zombo said:
System QB?
In the NFL?
He had better stats than Joe Montana in the same system, was Joe a system QB too?
Young didn't win all those titles but he had Seifert and Mooch, while Joe had a HOF coach and best D in the league.
Young had a great arm and was off the charts in mobility, accuracy and intelligence ... he would have done great in any system in any era.
Z
Maybe all of what you say is true....that yes, he and Joe were system QBs. (though Joe did well without the 49ers, Young didn't.)
Young would have done well perhaps as you say.
But he still would not have been a better QB than Montana/Favre/Marino/Elway/Kelly.
I am not saying Young was a schlub...just that in my view he was far from the best of his era.
-
How about these stats for comparison: Young vs. Kelly in the USFL!:
Starts: Young: 33 Kelly 36 Played same years 84/85
Atts/comp: Young 316/560 Kelly 730/1154
Comp %: Young 56.4 Kelly 63.3
Yards: Young 4102 Kelly 9842
TDs: Young: 16 Kelly 83
TD%: Young: 2.9 Kelly 7.2
Ints: Young 22 Kelly 45
Int.%: Young 3.9 Kelly 3.9
YPG: Young 113.9 Kelly 273.0
-
we all have our opinions, but the measurables all point to Young being the best of those mentioned...how can you deflect the highest passer rating ever???
Its not everything, but the difference between a 96.8 passer rating and a 75 or 81 is huge....and it accounts for all those numbers and stats you keep posting....
And Id also point out that Young is a first ballot hall of fame selection and the other 2(Esiason and Stabler) have been waiting decades....so their contemporaries and those that select the players for the HOF seem to agree...
-
Young vs. Boomer Esiason:
Record: 94-49 vs. 80-93
Comps/Att: 2667/4149 vs. 2969/5202
Comp. %: 64.3 vs. 57.8
Yards: 33,124 vs. 37920
TDs: 232 vs. 247
TD%: 5.6% vs. 4.7 %
Ints: 107 vs. 184
Int.%: 2.6% vs. 3.5%
YPA: 8.0 vs. 7.3
YPC: 12.4 vs. 12.8
YPG: 196 vs. 202
Rating: 96.8 vs. 81.1
4th Qtr. comebacks 14 vs. 19
Game winning drive: 17 vs. 26
Statisically Boomer isn't far off.....except in winning record.....which as was pointed out, can be a team thing.
Young won his only SB appearance, Boomer lost his fairly miraculously to Young predecessor.
Young vs. Boomer Esiason:
Record: 94-49 vs. 80-93
Comps/Att: 2667/4149 vs. 2969/5202
Comp. %: 64.3 vs. 57.8
Yards: 33,124 vs. 37920
TDs: 232 vs. 247
TD%: 5.6% vs. 4.7 %
Ints: 107 vs. 184
Int.%: 2.6% vs. 3.5%
YPA: 8.0 vs. 7.3
YPC: 12.4 vs. 12.8
YPG: 196 vs. 202
Rating: 96.8 vs. 81.1
4th Qtr. comebacks 14 vs. 19
Game winning drive: 17 vs. 26
Statisically Boomer isn't far off.....except in winning record.....which as was pointed out, can be a team thing.
Young won his only SB appearance, Boomer lost his fairly miraculously to Young predecessor.
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
plus the Championship ...
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
Z
-
Remember when SF was ridiculed for trading a 2nd and 4th to the Bucs for a USFL/NFL bust? All of Young's stats are diluted by 19 awful starts in Tampa.
For what it's worth PFF's Weighted Career AV for Young is 135 (15th overall since 1950).
Stabler's is 94 (180th overall since 1950)... not bad, but not Young.
But, if I had to choose a QB to play for me, I may likely take the Snake over Young....and feel good about it....statistics be damned.
It is close enough in my view to make me consider it anyway. Young may get the nod.....but not until after long contemplation.
But, if I had to choose a QB to play for me, I may likely take the Snake over Young....and feel good about it....statistics be damned.
It is close enough in my view to make me consider it anyway. Young may get the nod.....but not until after long contemplation.
Long? Took me a few milliseconds...
Here's the thing, Gip... you think that stats like completion percentages of 64 and 57% are "close" when they are very far apart. The scale is linear, but the difficulty is exponential. Each incremental percentage point in that 7-point differential is harder than the one that preceded it.
As for your system notes, take a look at this YPC comparison.
Young with SF: 12.5
Garcia w/ SF : 11.3
Stabler w/OAK: 12.8
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
we all have our opinions, but the measurables all point to Young being the best of those mentioned...how can you deflect the highest passer rating ever???
Its not everything, but the difference between a 96.8 passer rating and a 75 or 81 is huge....and it accounts for all those numbers and stats you keep posting....
And Id also point out that Young is a first ballot hall of fame selection and the other 2(Esiason and Stabler) have been waiting decades....so their contemporaries and those that select the players for the HOF seem to agree...
we all have our opinions, but the measurables all point to Young being the best of those mentioned...how can you deflect the highest passer rating ever???
His measurables are barely different from Esiason...so they prove little
Its not everything, but the difference between a 96.8 passer rating and a 75 or 81 is huge....and it accounts for all those numbers and stats you keep posting....
Except, of course that big difference in passer rating affected no other statistic for Young over Stabler. They won the same number of games...same number of title....had about the same winning pct.... Close on every other stat: yards/ypc/ypa/ypg etc. BUT passer rating. The big difference that affected passer rating was the interceptions....yet, even with Stablers worse int. record.....it made not one goddamn bit of difference in winning game. Stabler won as much or more than Young
And Id also point out that Young is a first ballot hall of fame selection and the other 2(Esiason and Stabler) have been waiting decades....so their contemporaries and those that select the players for the HOF seem to agree...
And yet......their accomplishments were barely less than Young's if at all.
-
Young vs. Boomer Esiason:
Record: 94-49 vs. 80-93
Comps/Att: 2667/4149 vs. 2969/5202
Comp. %: 64.3 vs. 57.8
Yards: 33,124 vs. 37920
TDs: 232 vs. 247
TD%: 5.6% vs. 4.7 %
Ints: 107 vs. 184
Int.%: 2.6% vs. 3.5%
YPA: 8.0 vs. 7.3
YPC: 12.4 vs. 12.8
YPG: 196 vs. 202
Rating: 96.8 vs. 81.1
4th Qtr. comebacks 14 vs. 19
Game winning drive: 17 vs. 26
Statisically Boomer isn't far off.....except in winning record.....which as was pointed out, can be a team thing.
Young won his only SB appearance, Boomer lost his fairly miraculously to Young predecessor.
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
plus the Championship ...
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
Z
Zombo said:
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well.
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK
plus the Championship ...
but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same.
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences.
And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era.....
he wasn't....by no means.
And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves.
Z
-
But, if I had to choose a QB to play for me, I may likely take the Snake over Young....and feel good about it....statistics be damned.
It is close enough in my view to make me consider it anyway. Young may get the nod.....but not until after long contemplation.
Long? Took me a few milliseconds...
Here's the thing, Gip... you think that stats like completion percentages of 64 and 57% are "close" when they are very far apart. The scale is linear, but the difficulty is exponential. Each incremental percentage point in that 7-point differential is harder than the one that preceded it.
As for your system notes, take a look at this YPC comparison.
Young with SF: 12.5
Garcia w/ SF : 11.3
Stabler w/OAK: 12.8
Long? Took me a few milliseconds...
Here's the thing, Gip... you think that stats like completion percentages of 64 and 57% are "close" when they are very far apart. The scale is linear, but the difficulty is exponential. Each incremental percentage point in that 7-point differential is harder than the one that preceded it.
Again, I point out that a 57% completion pct. in the offense run by the Raiders in my view is actually more impressive than the 64.3 pct. that Young put up in the WCO. The Raiders ran about the most vertical offense in history....the 49ers about the most horizontal.
As for your system notes, take a look at this YPC comparison.
Young with SF: 12.5
Garcia w/ SF : 11.3
Stabler w/OAK: 12.8
OK, I concede: YOung was a better QB than Jeff Garcia.
-
Zombo said:
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well.
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK
plus the Championship ...
but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same.
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences.
And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era.....
he wasn't....by no means.
And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves.
Z
Zombo said:
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well.
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK
plus the Championship ...
but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same.
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences.
And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era.....
he wasn't....by no means.
And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves.
Z
It's not cherry picking those are the stats that separate QBs ... Comp%, ypa, td%,int% winning % ... and most of them are not even close.
What you consider "close" is laughable.
And the stats you choose to make your argument don't hold up.
He had more yards, and TDs? well he threw over 1,000 more passes, I hope so. Young is easily outscores him in TD% and YPA
More yards per game? How about yards per start? (Or better yet, yards per attempt). Young was a backup for several years and appeared in 26 games he did not start, that will skew "yards per game", I think you should look at their starting careers, I'm sure that is what the HOF did.
And finally yards per completion. This one is interesting, yes, Esiason is 12.8 to 12.4. so Bomer's average pass play was only 4/10 of a yard longer than Young's yet Young completed 64.3% of his 12.4 yard throwws, while Boomer only completed just 57.0% of his 12.8 yard throws.
So, if they both throw the ball 100 times, Steve Young gets you 800 yards for 6 TDS and 3 Ints, while Esiason 730 yards 5 TDs and 4 Ints.
You choose which stat line you would rather have.
Never mind that the guy will the better stats won two thirds of his starts while the other won less than half.
Please digest the above because I am about to mention Young's running prowess again and I want you to make your choice on passing alone.
OK.
So ... Oh, by the way .. Steve Young ran for 4,239 yards and 43 TD
He would be 6th all-time on the Browns in rushing, ahead of Ernest Byner and 6th in TDs ahead of Byner and Motley.
Boomer Esiason ran for 7 TDs. That is 36 more TDs that Young brings to the table ... but let's stick to the passing.
Zombo
-
-
Zombo said:
It's not even close. Killed him in accuracy, TD%, Int%, higher ypa and higher rating .... and same "system".
But Esiason had more yards, more TDs, better ypc, better ypg....I can cherry pick as well.
Plus the running...
Plus the winning ...
The ONLY real advantage Young has...OK
plus the Championship ...
but for the miraculous Joe Montana drive, this could have been the same.
Just stop.
You're not a Steve Young fan. Got it. But no need to make a fool out of yourself
If the respective stats were listed anonymously for each to someone that didn't know better, they would see imperceptible differences.
And its not that I am not a Steve Young fan.....I am just not one to cream my jeans over him and declare him the best of his era.....
he wasn't....by no means.
And anyone that says he is: Just stop....and stop making a fool of yourselves.
Z
It's not cherry picking those are the stats that separate QBs ... Comp%, ypa, td%,int% winning % ... and most of them are not even close.
What you consider "close" is laughable.
And the stats you choose to make your argument don't hold up.
He had more yards, and TDs? well he threw over 1,000 more passes, I hope so. Young is easily outscores him in TD% and YPA
More yards per game? How about yards per start? (Or better yet, yards per attempt). Young was a backup for several years and appeared in 26 games he did not start, that will skew "yards per game", I think you should look at their starting careers, I'm sure that is what the HOF did.
And finally yards per completion. This one is interesting, yes, Esiason is 12.8 to 12.4. so Bomer's average pass play was only 4/10 of a yard longer than Young's yet Young completed 64.3% of his 12.4 yard throwws, while Boomer only completed just 57.0% of his 12.8 yard throws.
So, if they both throw the ball 100 times, Steve Young gets you 800 yards for 6 TDS and 3 Ints, while Esiason 730 yards 5 TDs and 4 Ints.
You choose which stat line you would rather have.
Never mind that the guy will the better stats won two thirds of his starts while the other won less than half.
Please digest the above because I am about to mention Young's running prowess again and I want you to make your choice on passing alone.
OK.
So ... Oh, by the way .. Steve Young ran for 4,239 yards and 43 TD
He would be 6th all-time on the Browns in rushing, ahead of Ernest Byner and 6th in TDs ahead of Byner and Motley.
Boomer Esiason ran for 7 TDs. That is 36 more TDs that Young brings to the table ... but let's stick to the passing.
Zombo
Zombo said:
It's not cherry picking those are the stats that separate QBs ... Comp%, ypa, td%,int% winning % ... and most of them are not even close.
Of course it is cherry picking. Out of 10 statistics you take the 5 that Young leads in and say that these are more important than the 5 that Boomer leads in. That is cherry picking
What you consider "close" is laughable.
And the stats you choose to make your argument don't hold up.
He had more yards, and TDs? well he threw over 1,000 more passes, I hope so. Young is easily outscores him in TD% and YPA
Longevity counts a little for something. Many of the stats that we use to compare QBs are simply longevity stats.
More yards per game? How about yards per start? (Or better yet, yards per attempt). Young was a backup for several years and appeared in 26 games he did not start, that will skew "yards per game", I think you should look at their starting careers, I'm sure that is what the HOF did.
Well, I might look at those if those stats were published. You are welcome to publish those stats if you find them.
And finally yards per completion. This one is interesting, yes, Esiason is 12.8 to 12.4. so Bomer's average pass play was only 4/10 of a yard longer than Young's yet Young completed 64.3% of his 12.4 yard throwws, while Boomer only completed just 57.0% of his 12.8 yard throws.
So, if they both throw the ball 100 times, Steve Young gets you 800 yards for 6 TDS and 3 Ints, while Esiason 730 yards 5 TDs and 4 Ints.
You choose which stat line you would rather have.
Never mind that the guy will the better stats won two thirds of his starts while the other won less than half.
Please digest the above because I am about to mention Young's running prowess again and I want you to make your choice on passing alone.
OK.
So ... Oh, by the way .. Steve Young ran for 4,239 yards and 43 TD
He would be 6th all-time on the Browns in rushing, ahead of Ernest Byner and 6th in TDs ahead of Byner and Motley.
Boomer Esiason ran for 7 TDs. That is 36 more TDs that Young brings to the table ... but let's stick to the passing.
Zombo
OK, let me be clear.....I am not arguing that Esiason was the better QB than Young....I only took Boomer because he was an exact contemporary of Young....they both came out in 1984. In a lot of areas, as contemporaries, Esiason had the better overall stats....
on a statistical basis.
I do not argue on behalf of Boomer, but I do on behalf of Stabler.
But then....if you want to include running as a prime area of comparison....then perhaps I should compare the statistics of another contemporary of Youngs: Randall Cunningham. Young would have no edge in that department (but he would have that SB win)
So, maybe for shits and giggles I will compare Young and Cunningham.
-
Here are
Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984
Cunny............Young
82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter
2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps
56.5%...........64.3% compl %
29979..........33,124 yards
207..............232 TD passes
4.8%..........5.6% TD%
134............107 Ints.
3.1%.........2.6%
7.0............8.0 ypa
12.3..........12.4 ypc
186.2.......196.0 ypg
81.5..........96.8 rating
21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks
26...........17 Game winning drives
775........722 carries
4928......4239 yards
6.4........5.9 ypc
30.6......25.1 ypg
35.......43 TDs rushing
So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4.
There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact.
The one major difference?
Young won a SB.
I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now.
-
Here are
Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984
Cunny............Young
82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter
2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps
56.5%...........64.3% compl %
29979..........33,124 yards
207..............232 TD passes
4.8%..........5.6% TD%
134............107 Ints.
3.1%.........2.6%
7.0............8.0 ypa
12.3..........12.4 ypc
186.2.......196.0 ypg
81.5..........96.8 rating
21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks
26...........17 Game winning drives
775........722 carries
4928......4239 yards
6.4........5.9 ypc
30.6......25.1 ypg
35.......43 TDs rushing
So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4.
There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact.
The one major difference?
Young won a SB.
I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now.
Here are
Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984
Cunny............Young
82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter
2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps
56.5%...........64.3% compl %
29979..........33,124 yards
207..............232 TD passes
4.8%..........5.6% TD%
134............107 Ints.
3.1%.........2.6%
7.0............8.0 ypa
12.3..........12.4 ypc
186.2.......196.0 ypg
81.5..........96.8 rating
21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks
26...........17 Game winning drives
775........722 carries
4928......4239 yards
6.4........5.9 ypc
30.6......25.1 ypg
35.......43 TDs rushing
So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4.
There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact.
The one major difference?
Young won a SB.
I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now.
So, these comparison stats are very very close
No ... They ... Are ... Not.
Again look at the percentages... more TDS, less Ints, completes far more passes, higher yard per attempt, higher rating ... these are "the stats" that are used to compare passers. No one is cherry picking.
Esiason and Cunningham were very good quarterbacks who had nice careers. I think everyone understands that. You keep comparing them to one of the greatest passers of All-Time and you're just going to keep coming up short.
Yes, longevity is definitely something to take into consideration, but Young's eight seasons as a starter were so phenomenal that he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Everyone sees it but you.
So those are his stats after he became the starter in SF. He averaged a 102.4 QB rating over the course of his entire career as a starter. Boomer never had a 100 rating as a full-time starter and Cunningham did it just once.
Being good for a long period of time is not > than being great for a not quite as long period of time.
Based on their entire career productivity, if you give all three guys 1000 attempts and you have:
Young 643 completions,8,000 yards, 56 Tds, 26 Ints
Cunningham 566 completions, 7,000 yards 48 TDs 31 Ints
Esiason 570 completions, 7,300 yards 47 TDs 35 Ints
One of these passers is Clearly more effective.
I mean do you want more yards and TDs with less ints or not?
Same era. Two very good QBs and one Great One.
Seven consecutive Pro Bowls, Led the entire league in passing 6 times in seven years. record as a starter in SF 91-33 ... that is greatness.
Would Randall Cunningham be in the Hall of Fame if they had won the SB in 98? Absolutely not. Because he was Randall Cunningham, he wasn't Steve Young.
Zombo
-
Here are
Randall Cunningham drafted 1985 vs. Steve Young drafted 1984
Cunny............Young
82-52-1..........94-49 winning record as starter
2429/4289.....2667/4149 atts/comps
56.5%...........64.3% compl %
29979..........33,124 yards
207..............232 TD passes
4.8%..........5.6% TD%
134............107 Ints.
3.1%.........2.6%
7.0............8.0 ypa
12.3..........12.4 ypc
186.2.......196.0 ypg
81.5..........96.8 rating
21 ...........14 4th Qtr. comebacks
26...........17 Game winning drives
775........722 carries
4928......4239 yards
6.4........5.9 ypc
30.6......25.1 ypg
35.......43 TDs rushing
So, these comparison stats are very very close. Young's shorter passing game as with others gives him the completion pct. But again, when it come down to it....they got almost the exact same production out of their passing game. For each pass caught it was 12.3 to12.4.
There is no advantage at all in the rushing game. Cunningham comes out better in fact.
The one major difference?
Young won a SB.
I conjecture that if Randall Cunningham had won a SB, he would be in the HOF right now.
So, these comparison stats are very very close
No ... They ... Are ... Not.
Again look at the percentages... more TDS, less Ints, completes far more passes, higher yard per attempt, higher rating ... these are "the stats" that are used to compare passers. No one is cherry picking.
Esiason and Cunningham were very good quarterbacks who had nice careers. I think everyone understands that. You keep comparing them to one of the greatest passers of All-Time and you're just going to keep coming up short.
Yes, longevity is definitely something to take into consideration, but Young's eight seasons as a starter were so phenomenal that he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Everyone sees it but you.
So those are his stats after he became the starter in SF. He averaged a 102.4 QB rating over the course of his entire career as a starter. Boomer never had a 100 rating as a full-time starter and Cunningham did it just once.
Being good for a long period of time is not > than being great for a not quite as long period of time.
Based on their entire career productivity, if you give all three guys 1000 attempts and you have:
Young 643 completions,8,000 yards, 56 Tds, 26 Ints
Cunningham 566 completions, 7,000 yards 48 TDs 31 Ints
Esiason 570 completions, 7,300 yards 47 TDs 35 Ints
One of these passers is Clearly more effective.
I mean do you want more yards and TDs with less ints or not?
Same era. Two very good QBs and one Great One.
Seven consecutive Pro Bowls, Led the entire league in passing 6 times in seven years. record as a starter in SF 91-33 ... that is greatness.
Would Randall Cunningham be in the Hall of Fame if they had won the SB in 98? Absolutely not. Because he was Randall Cunningham, he wasn't Steve Young.
Zombo
Zombo said:
No ... They ... Are ... Not.
Who are you talking about now? Esiason, Cunningham?
Again look at the percentages... more TDS, Esiason had more TDs
less Ints, completes far more passes, Esiason completed far more passes
higher yard per attempt,
Yards per catch just as important.
higher rating
Then I assume you feel that Chad Pennington, Trent Green, Jeff Garcia, Daunte Culpepper, David Garrard are all better....since they all have a better passer rating.
... these are "the stats" that are used to compare passers. No one is cherry picking.
Yards, yards per completion,
YPC the same for Young, Cunningham and Esiason
Esiason and Cunningham were very good quarterbacks who had nice careers. I think everyone understands that. You keep comparing them to one of the greatest passers of All-Time and you're just going to keep coming up short.
I am not comparing them to one of the greatest of all time....I am comparing them to Steve Young.
A lot of these guys don't come up short. In many it is "the other guy" that has the better stat.
Yes, longevity is definitely something to take into consideration, but Young's eight seasons as a starter were so phenomenal that he was a first-ballot Hall of Famer. Everyone sees it but you.
His eight years were no better than Stabler's 8 years....at winning. He had some better stats...primarily due to his lower int. rate...but that is about IT
So those are his stats after he became the starter in SF. He averaged a 102.4 QB rating over the course of his entire career as a starter. Boomer never had a 100 rating as a full-time starter and Cunningham did it just once.
Being good for a long period of time is not > than being great for a not quite as long period of time.
Based on their entire career productivity, if you give all three guys 1000 attempts and you have:
Young 643 completions,8,000 yards, 56 Tds, 26 Ints
Cunningham 566 completions, 7,000 yards 48 TDs 31 Ints
Esiason 570 completions, 7,300 yards 47 TDs 35 Ints
One of these passers is Clearly more effective.
I mean do you want more yards and TDs with less ints or not?
Same era. Two very good QBs and one Great One.
Seven consecutive Pro Bowls, Led the entire league in passing 6 times in seven years. record as a starter in SF 91-33 ... that is greatness.
Would Randall Cunningham be in the Hall of Fame if they had won the SB in 98? Absolutely not. Because he was Randall Cunningham, he wasn't Steve Young.
Warren Moon.....really a lesser QB than Steve Young is in the HOF.
Zombo
Similar career stats. As I said, I was giving some contemporaries to him who had similar stats....and yes, they are "similar".
Nevertheless....my point remains: Young.....not as good as Elway, Marino, Kelly, Favre
Stabler just as good.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login