Ten accomplished panelists -- each with a Super Bowl ring and a combined 330 seasons of NFL experience -- ranked their greatest NFL quarterbacks of the past four decades for ESPN, ultimately deciding on a top 10.
Tom Brady ranked No. 1, followed by Peyton Manning, Joe Montana, John Elway and Aaron Rodgers.
As with every ranking, there's usually a player who has been omitted, a player who ranks too high or a player who would have made the list had the criteria been different. We asked our panel of four NFL Insiders to give their thoughts on the list created by Pete Carroll, Tony Dungy, Mike Holmgren, Howard Mudd, Wade Phillips, Mike Reinfeldt, Ray Rhodes, Mike Shanahan, Al Saunders and Norv Turner.
Here are our Insiders' answers to specific questions on the panel's top 10 QBs since 1978:
Which quarterback is ranked too low?
Mike Sando, senior NFL writer: It's probably Troy Aikman, who barely registered in balloting. He was a sensational talent who played his best during the playoffs for a three-time Super Bowl winner. The Cowboys' offensive system contributed to lesser numbers for him, and it's easy to forget all these years later just how accurate he was from the pocket. Concussions shortened his career. It wouldn't be a crime to sub Aikman into the top 10 over Steve Young, who blossomed later in his career and was sensational for a stretch but ultimately won two fewer Super Bowls as the starter for a team that was also very talented.
Aaron Schatz, editor of Football Outsiders: The question is: How much weight do you put on longevity, and how much do you put on peak value? Based on how good guys were at their peaks, Young is definitely too low. In Football Outsiders' DYAR (defense-adjusted yards above replacement) stats, Young has three of the top five quarterback seasons between 1986 and 1998. His peak lasted only eight seasons, but he was the most efficient passer in the league and added more rushing value than any other quarterback on top of that.
Kevin Seifert, national NFL writer: Speaking purely subjectively, it's difficult to accept that there have been two quarterbacks in NFL history better than Montana. Reasonable people can debate Montana's legacy vs. Brady's, but Montana should have finished no worse than second. Manning's passing numbers were phenomenal and exceeded Montana's in every way, but they were of an era that granted him and his receivers innumerable advantages that Montana never received.
Field Yates, NFL Insider: Given that the list is only 10 names long, it's hard to begrudge the order much. Dan Marino is the one who stands out, given his prolific numbers during the decades in which he played, but it's also hard to separate a quarterback's résumé from his team's overall success. Even just one Super Bowl ring likely would've thrust Marino into the top five.
What odds would you give Aaron Rodgers of catching Tom Brady as the GOAT?
Sando: Almost zero. Both have tremendous individual credentials. The fantastic team success Brady has enjoyed will be tough for Rodgers or anyone to match. Rodgers will need to start racking up championships in a hurry to close the gap, even though he's arguably a tougher quarterback to stop in a one-game matchup situation.
Schatz: Sando is right: The problem is that Rodgers doesn't have Bill Belichick, so he doesn't have a team built around him that's going to compete for a Super Bowl title every year. Fewer opportunities in Super Bowls and conference championship games mean fewer chances to build a legend. The odds also are low that Rodgers can follow in Brady's footsteps, staying at the top of his game as he nears age 40. There's no question that the two players are comparable at their peaks, but matching Brady's longevity is something else entirely.
Seifert: None, though this is entirely unfair. As a passer and executor of a passing offense, Rodgers already has reached a level that Brady never hit, and he might not have a peer in NFL history. But at 33, Rodgers isn't likely to match Brady's Super Bowl ring total, for which he will at best be tangentially responsible. To judge a quarterback by Super Bowl championships is to accept the role of chance and other unrelated factors in his final evaluation. Rodgers could retire as the best passer in NFL history, even if an outsized emphasis on his championship total lowers the larger estimation of him in the eyes of conventional historians.
Yates: As mentioned in my answer above, team success is so intertwined with the perception of a quarterback. Rodgers has four fewer Super Bowl rings than Brady, and the latter is in position to compete for more before he opts for retirement. Not to mention, Brady's résumé is simply remarkable on its own.
Which active quarterback who isn't on the list will be closest to making it in five years?
Sando: Matt Ryan has a good head start on the field. He also appears poised to receive some of the defensive support that can make a big difference in the championship equation. Atlanta's blowing that huge lead against New England in Super Bowl LI really hurt. Losing Kyle Shanahan as offensive coordinator was another setback. That's why Ryan has only a narrow lead on Andrew Luck as my choice (on the theory that we haven't seen enough from Derek Carr and that Seattle might not pass the ball enough for Russell Wilson to shine).
Schatz: I know we all believe that Luck is the most talented quarterback to arrive in the NFL over the past few years, but Wilson is the guy whose actual production puts him in this conversation. He doesn't put up the same totals because Seattle's offense is based more around the run. But by Football Outsiders stats, he has been more efficient than Luck in three of the past five seasons, and the seasons in which Luck was better than Wilson (2014, 2016) are a lot closer than the seasons in which Wilson was better than Luck. And if we're making a subjective list that accounts for a postseason legacy, obviously Wilson has a big head start on everyone else from the past few drafts.
Seifert: Judging by how these evaluations are made, Ryan seems the likeliest answer. At 32, he already sits among the NFL's all-time top 20 in passing yards and touchdown throws, and his completion percentage (64.9) ranks No. 7. These numbers must be adjusted for era, but they are accumulating in a way that will pop out in a historical sense. My sleeper here is Wilson, who is showing that he can make the transition from a run-option emphasis, but he's unlikely to get enough pass attempts to pile up the numbers he would need to qualify here.
Yates: Ben Roethlisberger. There is a litany of ways we evaluate quarterbacks, not least of which are Super Bowl success (or lack thereof) and longevity. The fact that Roethlisberger had such instant success -- dominant as a rookie -- coupled with a pair of Super Bowl rings already gives him a compelling case to be on this list. Although he has contemplated retirement recently, Ben has a chance to further solidify his standing on this with another few seasons of excellence.
Would Roethlisberger have made your top 10? If not, whom would you replace him with?
Sando: I'd probably lean toward the old guard with Fouts, but we are splitting hairs. If Roethlisberger produces at a high level for the next couple of seasons, which seems likely, he could further cement his place among the top 10.
Schatz: Roethlisberger has had the team success, but I'm not sure he has actually had a better career than his 2004 draft classmate Philip Rivers. That Giants-sized hole in Warner's career is still kind of inexplicable, but his peaks were so good that I would probably make Warner 10th ahead of Rivers, Roethlisberger and even Fouts.
Seifert: Yes. The big-picture perception of Roethlisberger might be skewed by the way the Steelers used him early in his career, as a caretaker on a running team powered by its defense. But he has developed into not only a dynamic passer but also perhaps the prototype for a presumable pocket passer who knows instinctively how to judge and beat a pass rush. Whether using his feet to avoid rushers or quickening his release time, Roethlisberger has in some ways changed the game. There are plenty of others deserving of a top-10 nod, but I don't have a problem with including a player who has spent a decade as one of the league's most feared quarterbacks. (He also has played in three Super Bowls, winning two.)
Yates: Yes, he would. There's no major issue with having Fouts on this list -- his career was remarkable -- but given how much quarterbacks bear the burden of responsibility in team success (both in victory and in defeat), Roethlisberger's greater team success would catapult him into my top 10. It's nitpicking, but the two-time Super Bowl champion would make my personal top 10.
Favre or Rodgers: Who has had the better career if Aaron never plays another down?
Sando: Rodgers for sure. He can make all the spectacular plays that Favre could make and then some, but he also protects the football and plays within the system, which gives his team a better shot at winning. Favre played on teams with superior defensive talent, which bought insurance for his freewheeling ways.
Schatz: If you remember my Football Outsiders "best teams of the last 30 years" series, you might recall that the 1996 Packers made the top 30 in defense and special teams but not offense. Favre was a great quarterback who did a lot of great things, but he was the leader of a team that had a lot of all-around talent. Rodgers essentially has to carry today's Packers on his own, overcoming the talent deficiencies (or, in Jordy Nelson's case, ACL recoveries) of his receivers and an inconsistent, often below-average defense. Rodgers all the way.
Seifert: Rodgers is better than Favre at all the things that should matter to quarterback evaluators. He is more accurate, better able to manage risk and more effective as a scrambler at this point in his career, and even his arm strength is in some ways superior. Even if you're reduced to judging Super Bowl championships, they're equal. Favre's best historic advantage was his longevity; he made every start for 17 consecutive seasons. But Rodgers has played the position more productively and efficiently. One stat: Favre averaged 17.7 interceptions per season. Rodgers has averaged less than half of that (7.9).
Yates: It's impossible to overlook just how much Favre's longevity and toughness meant to his teams throughout his career. A quarterback is a tone-setter, and Favre was there almost literally every Sunday (and for a record-setting streak of 297 games). However, Rodgers' brilliance in terms of ability within the pocket, cool-under-pressure-out-of-pocket command, accuracy and ability to make the difficult look effortless gives him the edge. He has accomplished enough to this point to surpass Favre, but Rodgers could have a more decided case by the time it's all said and done, as he has a bevy of good football ahead of him.
Which player from the pre-Brady era (2001) would've benefited most from the advances of the modern game?
Sando: Fouts is a pretty easy choice if we are sticking to the period since 1978. He took a pounding back when defensive players unloaded on quarterbacks without consequence. He also played a good chunk of his career before 1978, when the rules made passing tougher. Transporting a young Fouts into the present day and arming him with an enterprising system would set him up for a long, highly productive career.
Schatz: I'm trying to imagine Young dissecting a defensive scheme with zone-reads and run-pass options.
Seifert: Young was an exceptionally accurate passer, both on the field and on paper, and it's crazy to think how efficient he would be in today's era of timing throws and receiver-advantaged windows. Long before 65 percent accuracy was considered standard, Young's pinpoint throws stood out among his peers. During his time as a starter from 1991-98, he completed 66.7 percent of his throws. Only 14 other qualified quarterbacks exceeded 60 percent over the same period. In 2017, what could Young have been? A 75 percent passer?
Yates: Here's a scary thought: Warren Moon in today's NFL. One of the league's most prolific passers was ahead of the curve: His days in Houston and Minnesota were nightmares for opposing defensive coordinators. He was one of the most enjoyable players for me to watch growing up and would challenge for some ridiculous numbers if he played in the modern era of the NFL, in which passing numbers seem to rise by the year.