And the best Packer quarterback of all time. I think there is a certain tendency among modern analysts to both minimize the accomplishments of the past and to underrated champions. The first is understandable. Football changes from era to era unlike almost any other sport, and the game as it was played in the 1960s bears only a passing resemblance to the game today.
The second is the result of a modern skepticism born of a mistrust of quarterbacks like Eli Manning  and, going back a bit, Terry Bradshaw. That skepticism is warranted as many commentators still focus on “ringz,” but it’s worth keeping in mind the Montanas among the (Eli) Mannings. Bart Starr, first of among legendary Packers , is much closer to the former than he is given credit for.
Starr was the greatest leader a team could ask for: humble to a fault, happy to spread credit to his teammates, and not flashy. Flashy here will be represented by QBSLG, or more simply, Yards per Completion. Joe Namath existed for celebrity, and his game reflected it before his knees abandoned him. Most quarterbacks of this era did. Starr always seemed like someone’s dad, or failing that, their older brother, and his game reflected it as well. I’ve adapted QBOPS for modern QBs as well as for college QBs, and there is no reason it cannot also tell us the tale of the classic era. Here is what you need to know about Bart.
I limited the sample to quarterbacks who actually pass, including anyone from 1950 to 1975 who threw over 1750 passes. If you go down to 1500 it doesn’t impact much, and nothing at the top. What it shows you is that Starr does suffer for lack of flash, finishing 20th with a good, if not great QBSLG at .670. That’s fine, it’s not who Starr was. But if you enjoy watching Aaron Rodgers  play now, with his incredible care for the ball, dotted by occasional huge strikes and unerring accuracy, you should have more respect for Starr than you probably do.

In this sample, Starr was first in QBOPB with .339, just edging Sonny Jurgensen, Len Dawson, and Fran Tarkenton. Importantly, his QBSLG is higher than everyone just mentioned, and it is not until you get to Otto Graham that someone surpasses him. The problem with Otto was the picks. The problem with a lot of these guys was the picks. Interceptions were not as big a deal 60 years ago, but they had the same negative impact they do today, and here we punish Starr for being conservative instead of praising him for being a forward-thinking genius. By raw QBOPS Starr is 13th, just barely trailing Unitas, however when we adjust for interceptions in QBOPS+, he soars to first.
The fact is that Starr was one of the most accurate passers of his day, and smart enough not to take the risks of his contemporaries. If his Yards per Completion were more along the lines of modern game managers, some criticism might be warranted, but the fact is that Starr barely sacrificed anything in this category while completing passes at an unprecedented rate, and providing the Packers with extra possessions in an era that did not appreciate them properly. Combine all of this with his incredible post-season success , and the fact that they ran a fundamentally pass-based offense for the time, and it’s ridiculous that he is often left out of the discussions of all-time greats.
Brett Favre  was great, but he was a bit of an accumulator and he had his problem with picks. Favre only appears at the top of lists that require longevity. Rodgers’  story isn’t finished, but his second act finds him sacrificing too much explosiveness for his fear of turnovers.
Only Starr managed the balance of winning all of his titles, doing so with uncanny accuracy, hitting his big plays to legends and drunks alike, and maintaining passing records to this day. Starr appears among the greatest counting-stat quarterbacks and among the greatest rate stat quarterbacks, and he should appear on any honest list of top ten quarterbacks ever. If your list includes Otto Graham or Johnny Unitas, Starr was better. Y.A. Tittle, Joe Namath, or Fran Tarkenton? Starr was better.
Compared to his contemporaries, no Packer quarterbacks are his equal, and only the truly elites of their era compare.

Continue Reading @ PaulNoonan 

PaulNoonan wrote:

I think Bart Starr probably had one of the 10 greatest careers an NFL QB ever had. However, under that same standard, Terry Bradshaw had one of the 10 greatest careers. Is Bradshaw one of the 10 best? I would say no. That's why I think there's a gap in the argument of using Starr’s winning percentage and/or postseason success to conclude he’s one of the 10 best. That same argument is valid for a player like Bradshaw. You can’t pick and choose when to use it or not use it.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

What elevates Starr (and is often overlooked in these arguments) is his work ethic, knowledge of the game, and leadership. These are the attributes that I think elevate Starr certainly beyond Bradshaw and potentially into the top 10.

Starr did not throw the ball as well as Dan Marino did nor could he extend plays like Steve Young could. He also did not have the arm strength of John Elway or Brett Favre. Starr put in work outside of the field that allowed him to makeup for any physical misgivings (and then some).
Consider a player who was not selected high in the draft but had the drive and work ethic to succeed. This player used that drive to become a student of the game and set an example to his teammates. This player also played his best football during the most critical junctures of games and led game-winning drives in championship games. A true steward of the game, this player became a leader who players respected and wanted to play with. Which modern QB does this sound like? I would say Tom Brady. Which pre-Super Bowl era QB does this sound like? I would say Bart Starr.

Now, I’m not saying Starr’s on Brady’s level. I don’t think that. But I do think Starr in today’s game would have the drive to succeed in ways that other gifted QBs do not. The drive to succeed and will your teammates to victory is what elevates leaders. In this case, it elevates QBs – who are maybe less physically gifted than others – to greatness.

Starr and Brady. Brady is the modern day Bart Starr. Starr's intangibles, plus his incredible penchant for winning important games, makes him one of the top 3 QBs of all time. Not because he was the most talented football thrower, but rather despite the fact he wasn't.

Originally Posted by: earthquake 

Largely true. That notwithstanding:[list]

Starr also played in a league with 14 teams - not 32
Reached just 2 SBs opposed to 9 from Brady
Starr did lose an NFL Championship
His career rating ranks 15 higher than Starr’s.

Originally Posted by: porky88 

[list=1]

However, comparing the eras they played in is apples and oranges. The league is vastly different in many ways (e.g., rules, schemes, philosophies, recruitment, prejudices), so you cannot compare the eras objectively. We get too caught up on lists and settling on who is No. 1. Regardless of where they “rank” on lists, these are two all time greats that any young QB would be wise to study.

Originally Posted by: porky88