Top 50 Quarterbacks in NFL History Ranked By Unique Statistical Formula

We Say Greatness, But Some would say this Formula Ranks QBs by Overall Legacy

Brett Favre – ShadowJester07 (original uploader) at English Wikipedia. [CC BY-SA 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)] – Cropped
Alright, Packers fans! Here is that individual attention you deserved by reading through this piece.

You knew if there was any piece written about the history of NFL quarterbacks that the Packers would be heavily involved. It is very true that no franchise comes close to the representation that the boys from Green Bay constitute.

To be clear, this article was not created and written just for Packers fans. We do consider ourselves fans of the all-around history of the NFL, but it is pretty damn convenient the post on this site, isn’t it?

With that said, Colts and 49ers fans should very much enjoy this ranking, too.

But for you Packers fans, here’s the order of all-time Packers quarterbacks and their all-time points. Yes, we know that not all statistics were amassed when these men were wearing green and gold… but most of them were! This is just to illustrate the all-time greatest quarterbacks that have ever played for this franchise:

Brett Favre: 192.5 Points (255 games w/ Green Bay)
Bart Starr: 190.5 Points (196 games w/ Green Bay)
Aaron Rodgers: 144.5 points (174 games w/ Green Bay)*
Arnie Herber: 114 Points (109 games w/ Green Bay)
John Hadl: 96.5 Points (22 games w/ Green Bay)
Cecil Isbell: 68.5 Points (54 games w/ Green Bay)
Babe Parilli: 55.5 Points (48 games w/ Green Bay)
Lynn Dickey: 22.5 Points (105 games w/ Green Bay)
Don Majkowski: 17.5 Points (68 games w/ Green Bay)

*Heading into the 2020 season.

These are the eight most prominent quarterbacks in NFL history that suited up for the Packers.

Hadl played the least amount of games for the Packers, but five Packers quarterbacks have played in over 100 games for the franchise.

It’s incredibly interesting, with how different their playing styles and careers were, that Favre and Starr ended up within two points of each other all-time in career points. Starr has the most in Packers history for any quarterback though, as a few of Favre’s points came away from Green Bay.

So Starr is still number one for this franchise, incredibly.

Starr amassed his points with championship rings, as well as some statistics and individual awards. Favre amassed his points with gaudy statistics and many individual awards, with one ring. They were like equal but opposite forces.

Only five quarterbacks in NFL history have totaled more points than these two men. Incredible.

Favre was the most fun quarterback in NFL history to watch, Starr may have been the most stoic and fearless. His ranking is probably higher than most would have thought, he really was an elite quarterback.

Time will tell how far Aaron Rodgers will climb; so far he’s accumulating points using all factors: stats, awards and wins. He has a couple more years to add to his resume, and point total. Another ring and AP MVP award would vault him up this all-time list. We’ll see.

Herber’s 114 points, almost all collected while he was with Green Bay, would shock almost all football fans. How could this franchise have four quarterbacks with that many points? Everyone knows about Starr, Favre and Rodgers… everyone should know about Herber, too. He was a force in the 1930s, the first true superstar passer the NFL had ever seen. He missed two seasons of statistical recognition, too, because the NFL didn’t record offensive stats in his first two dominant seasons.

All of Isbell’s points were amassed with the Packers as his career was short, but jam-packed with success. Even fewer people know about Isbell’s legacy with the Packers. He continued Herber’s success with standout pass catcher Don Hutson into the 1940s. Isbell will likely remain in the NFL’s all-time quarterback top 50 for another decade or two at least. It’s pretty cool to see.

Dickey was the quarterback of one of the most interesting team in franchise history, the 1983 Packers.

Thanks again for reading this piece, football fans!

Now the next time someone wants to argue that John Elway is better than Steve Young or Brett Favre or that Matt Stafford is an elite quarterback, direct them to this formula and ranking! Or if someone says that quarterbacks from the distant past are far behind the quarterbacks of today, you can prove them wrong.

Feelings be damned! You have the facts on your side.

If you enjoyed this piece, you’d probably like to check out our Ranking of All 32 NFL Franchises By Statistical Formula.

Over twelve-thousand words later and you’re still here, you maniacs.

Thanks again, readers.

May facts and nuance prevail.

 

 

Once again:

Duplication of, or the referencing of, this formula and subsequent rankings without citing PackersHistory.com, or at least hyperlinking back to this article, is not prohibited. We own this formula, its usage and likeness.

About PackersHistory.com 47 Articles
We seek to bring more context to, and share interesting stores about, the history of the Green Bay Packers and the NFL as a whole. Clickbait be damned. "We" are Daniel and David Zillmer; hit the about or contact to learn more.

3 Comments

  1. The requirements of the position are so different over time that the criteria should be qualified by era – basically now all that is looked at is passing, but that was just a small part of the position for the first two decades and more of the NFL.  People have to remember that at one point the rules decreed that a passer had to stand at least 5 yards behind the line of scrimmage, roughing the passer was allowed, a team was penalized for incomplete passes on consecutive plays, and an incomplete pass in the end zone resulted in a turn-over – not to mention the shape of the ball which was more designed for drop kicking.  And the quarterback, along with all the players, also did the duty of special teams today since once you were taken out of a game you could not go back in until the next quarter. If you asked who was the best quarterback when the position required blocking, running, kicking, punt and kick off returns, playing defense, and calling plays with no direction from the coaching staff – that would be a totally different list.

    • Definitely hear where you’re coming from. You’re a true steward of ancient NFL history. Love it. I think there’s something to be said about trying to find a way to rank those players from the 1920s against each other because the game was SO different then, but that would take an incredible amount of work! Thanks for reading.

  2. There are many variables that make choosing the best QBs a very SUBJECTIVE thing. First off, if the QB had a great supporting cast, esp. offensive line &/or receivers, that alone makes a HUGE difference. Brady is probably the most outstanding example who (as even Belichick has stated) was and is not a great athlete (in comparison to other QBs). Brady benefited (massively) from a superior head coach and coaching staff, organization AND a consistently great offensive line. This last fact is the most overlooked and under-talked about variable. If Rodgers had had the consistent offensive line and coaching that Brady had, he would have four superbowl rings at least. Mike McCarthy wasted Rodgers years at GB. But, the whole GB organization suffered from poor ownership most likely as a result of Green Bay being a tiny community. Secondly, football is a team sport. Praising QBs as great makes no sense without considering the whole team effort (all pro players, coaches, etc.). This is totally overlooked in assessing greatness.

    Third, QBs from the last 50 years are better athletes over-all due to competition and training. Intelligence, discipline, fortitude, etc. are important also. Hence, Rodgers makes better decisions and throws far less interceptions. Last comment, QBs from bigger cities and regions always are praised and hyped more by the media, consistently. There is a significantly failure when evaluating QBs to try to eliminate the hype which is, of course, a challenge.

Leave a Reply