Your final quarterbackery standings

[Rain Man]

Here are the rankings as you, the voter decided. The teams are ranked top to bottom in terms of their past 50 years at the quarterback position.

I've also included a couple charts that show numbers of Super Bowl wins and numbers of Pro Bowl slots in descending order of rankings.

What do you think? Who do you think is ranked too high or too low?

1 - San Francisco
2 - Green Bay
3 - Dallas
4 - Miami
5 -Indianapolis
6 - Pittsburgh
7 - New England
8 - Denver
9 - San Diego
10 - Minnesota
11 - Philadelphia
12 - Cincinnati
13 - Oakland
14 - Buffalo
15 - Tennessee
16 - Washington
17 - NY Giants
18 - Seattle
19 - New Orleans
20 - Los Angeles
21 - Carolina
22 - Jacksonville
23 - Kansas City
24 - Arizona
25 - Baltimore
26 - Atlanta
27 - New York Jets
28 - Tampa Bay
29 - Chicago
30 - Houston
31 - Cleveland
32 - Detroit

[CapsLockKey]

Minnesota seems a bit high. Other than Tarkenton, QB always seemed to be that one piece they could never solve on otherwise really good teams. Too many short term rentals at the end of their careers (Favre, Cunningham, etc) or JAGS. Moss made a lot of guys look much better than they were. Otherwise a pretty solid list.

[Easy 6]

KC at 23? I mean, theres quite a bit of dust on that old trophy... but the Vikings, Jacksonville, Carolina, Titans, Bengals, Philly, among others

How many championship trophies are in their big glass case again?

[NWTF]

Agree on Vikings. Too high

[KChiefs1]

Colts are underrated with Unitas, Jones, Manning & Luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mile High Mania]

Nothing too glaring, PIT should be top 5 though, ahead of Miami and IND.

[jjchieffan]

Dallas waaaaay too high. Aikman sucks.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

Dallas and Pitt should be higher. But most people who voted in these polls think game-managers are groovy, so there's that.

[Bowser]

Dallas and Pitt should be higher. But most people who voted in these polls think game-managers are groovy, so there's that.

I'm going to give it a couple of months to see if the mantra of "game manager" still fits around here. If it doesn't, I'm going to rip through your ass. :D

[jjchieffan]

Dallas and Pitt should be higher. But most people who voted in these polls think game-managers are groovy, so there's that.

It figures that you would think that Dallas belongs higher. Obviously, you're one of the morons who thinks Aikman was anything more than Matt Cassel. He was just fortunate to be playing in Jimmy Johnson's system, behind an amazing line, handing off to Enmity Smith and chucking it up to Irvin, who caught anything that got within 10ft of him. Look at his record when either Smith or Irvin was out. It was abysmal. Yet people who think they know football think he was great. He was nothing special.

[vailpass]

It figures that you would think that Dallas belongs higher. Obviously, you're one of the morons who thinks Aikman was anything more than Matt Cassel. He was just fortunate to be playing in Jimmy Johnson's system, behind an amazing line, handing off to Enmity Smith and chucking it up to Irvin, who caught anything that got within 10ft of him. Look at his record when either Smith or Irvin was out. It was abysmal. Yet people who think they know football think he was great. He was nothing special.

Easy Francis.

[Sweet Daddy Hate]

I'm going to give it a couple of months to see if the mantra of "game manager" still fits around here. If it doesn't, I'm going to rip through your ass. :D

Fair enough.

It figures that you would think that Dallas belongs higher. Obviously, you're one of the morons who thinks Aikman was anything more than Matt Cassel. He was just fortunate to be playing in Jimmy Johnson's system, behind an amazing line, handing off to Enmity Smith and chucking it up to Irvin, who caught anything that got within 10ft of him. Look at his record when either Smith or Irvin was out. It was abysmal. Yet people who think they know football think he was great. He was nothing special.

LMAO

Were you born ignorant, or was special schooling involved?