NFL.COMs Projected List of Top QBs All Time by 2026

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000645677/article/top-qbs-through-super-bowl-lx-who-will-be-no-1-in-10-years

My only glaring issue is the top 4.
I can't put a cheat #1
#2 somehow by winning only 2 you get into 2nd place? it makes no sense at all. ragardless of whatever criteria you want to use.
#3 should be #1
#4 based on what is stated by winning a 3rd and putting up said numbers he would be #3 (yes, even though he's a cheat for the sake of the argument and 'having' 4 rings he can be #2)

Of course I do realize this is a subjective list and it'll change with each person. I just prefer in my opinion to take the wait and see approach, meaning let the guys that are still playing finish before we give too high a praise, especially #2 lol and even #4.

Why not just put Aaron Rodgers at number one and then officially declare that Aaron Rodger's also has the finest genetalia of any man on planet earth. Then instill some kind of jury duty selection system for each days ball washing duties.

I like Aaron Rodgers and his style of play but he's been overrated for sometime. He's reminding me a lot of another Packer QB in that way. Not that I think Favre doesn't belong in the HOF, I just think for someone with the reputation he has, he should have more than one SB just as I do about AR. I feel the same way you do about Peyton and Brady as well. I really think I have to stick with Montana for my number 1.

KeepHarrisonTilHes92 wrote:

Why not just put Aaron Rodgers at number one and then officially declare that Aaron Rodger's also has the finest genetalia of any man on planet earth. Then instill some kind of jury duty selection system for each days ball washing duties.

well done sir, well done lol

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

I like Aaron Rodgers and his style of play but he's been overrated for sometime. He's reminding me a lot of another Packer QB in that way. Not that I think Favre doesn't belong in the HOF, I just think for someone with the reputation he has, he should have more than one SB just as I do about AR. I feel the same way you do about Peyton and Brady as well. I really think I have to stick with Montana for my number 1.

I recognize that Rodgers is pretty good. Do I think he's the 'best' in the game today, no. It's really week to week for the most part.

I'll never understand the defacto praise that certain players will get but I guess that's what sparks debates.

I'm interested to see what other peoples top 10 list is as mine is as follows (and based on the outline of Dameshek by super bowl LX)

1 - Montana
2 - Brady (I can't put a cheat #1 but for the sake of this discussion ok 2 as much as it pains me)
3 - Ben (wins a 3rd then its a no brainer for me)
4 - Staubach (I never saw him play but anything I have seen the guy was amazingly athletically gifted)
5 - Marino
6 - Peyton
7 - Rodgers
8 - Bradshaw (regular season stats were horrible but you don't win 4 titles by a fluke either)
9 - Moon
10 - Cam/Wilson/Luck/some undrafted kid

Of course the above means nothing lol

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

1. steve mcnair
2. ben roethlisberger

SteelersCanada wrote:

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

Everyone crapped all over Peyton playoff record.
So pretty simple we can crap on Rodgers now too. Can't have it one way and not the other so....
Ben - 12-5
Rodgers 7-6

I couldn't careless how talented Rodgers is I want the guy getting it done in January and that's Ben.

The score is still 2-1 Ben in winning it all.

On top of that Rodgers gets way too much credit hence why I can't fathom how he can be #2 (even though it's a fictitious list) by only winning 2 rings the math doesn't add up.

Again as I said I can't put a cheat #1
But for the sake of the debate I'm Montana Brady and based on what Dameshek says it has to be Ben at 3. As it would be 4-2 in appearances and 3-2 overall.

3 is higher than 2 right? Correct me if I'm wrong lol

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

Everyone crapped all over Peyton playoff record.
So pretty simple we can crap on Rodgers now too. Can't have it one way and not the other so....
Ben - 12-5
Rodgers 7-6

I couldn't careless how talented Rodgers is I want the guy getting it done in January and that's Ben.

The score is still 2-1 Ben in winning it all.

On top of that Rodgers gets way too much credit hence why I can't fathom how he can be #2 (even though it's a fictitious list) by only winning 2 rings the math doesn't add up.

Again as I said I can't put a cheat #1
But for the sake of the debate I'm Montana Brady and based on what Dameshek says it has to be Ben at 3. As it would be 4-2 in appearances and 3-2 overall.

3 is higher than 2 right? Correct me if I'm wrong lol

This is a tired argument.

The reason Peyton Manning was and continues to be dumped on for his playoff record was because of the talent on offense he had. Two hall of fame receivers on the boundary and he couldn't bring himself to win playoff games was astounding.

Aaron Rodgers has the same issue that Brady has had for a while. The lack of talent on offense around him (either through injury or poor drafting) has been pretty remarkable. Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson have been his best receivers throughout his career.

Roethlisberger is a first ballot hall of fame quarterback. I don't know how this can be refuted. That being said, Ben's first ring was not his doing. Posting the worst QBR in playoff history and then saying "Ben is better than Rodgers! Count the rings!" is silly. Much like Manning in 2015, the defense won Ben his first ring.

Using the whole "only one ring!" thing is also ridiculous to me because it leaves out Dan Marino. Marino was an incredible quarterback that never won a ring. Using this logic, Joe Flacco is a better quarterback than Marino because of the ring. See the fallacy?

This whole "Brady is a cheater and can't be #1!" makes Steelers fans look stupid. Does anyone honestly think Brady has four rings because he cheated? C'mon man. Get over it.

SteelersCanada wrote:

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

Everyone crapped all over Peyton playoff record.
So pretty simple we can crap on Rodgers now too. Can't have it one way and not the other so....
Ben - 12-5
Rodgers 7-6

I couldn't careless how talented Rodgers is I want the guy getting it done in January and that's Ben.

The score is still 2-1 Ben in winning it all.

On top of that Rodgers gets way too much credit hence why I can't fathom how he can be #2 (even though it's a fictitious list) by only winning 2 rings the math doesn't add up.

Again as I said I can't put a cheat #1
But for the sake of the debate I'm Montana Brady and based on what Dameshek says it has to be Ben at 3. As it would be 4-2 in appearances and 3-2 overall.

3 is higher than 2 right? Correct me if I'm wrong lol

This is a tired argument.

The reason Peyton Manning was and continues to be dumped on for his playoff record was because of the talent on offense he had. Two hall of fame receivers on the boundary and he couldn't bring himself to win playoff games was astounding.

Aaron Rodgers has the same issue that Brady has had for a while. The lack of talent on offense around him (either through injury or poor drafting) has been pretty remarkable. Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson have been his best receivers throughout his career.

Roethlisberger is a first ballot hall of fame quarterback. I don't know how this can be refuted. That being said, Ben's first ring was not his doing. Posting the worst QBR in playoff history and then saying "Ben is better than Rodgers! Count the rings!" is silly. Much like Manning in 2015, the defense won Ben his first ring.

Using the whole "only one ring!" thing is also ridiculous to me because it leaves out Dan Marino. Marino was an incredible quarterback that never won a ring. Using this logic, Joe Flacco is a better quarterback than Marino because of the ring. See the fallacy?

This whole "Brady is a cheater and can't be #1!" makes Steelers fans look stupid. Does anyone honestly think Brady has four rings because he cheated? C'mon man. Get over it.

It's not a tired argument because it works both ways.
He still gets a pass for blowing a 16 point lead against Seattle because he had a 'baby calf' injury :_(
If he gets a pass in that game, Ben gets one for the Denver game in 2011 because of his 'high ankle' sprain.

Fact is they both played and both lost. No excuses.

Ultiamtely I just don't think Rodgers is 'THAT' good. He's good, as are a lot of guys but I don't think he's head and shoulders above everyone else like we're lead to believe.

To your point about Ben's first super bowl. Agreed he sucked in that specific game but the Steelers don't make that super bowl without him at QB in the 3 games prior as he carried the team to the dance. Everything has to click for sure but if you're this supposed 'unstoppable' force like Rodgers, eventually he has to shoulder some of the blame much like Peyton.

There's exceptions to every rule, the here and now is mostly based on the 'what have you done for me lately' and 'how many rings do you have'. Because you're right no one is picking Flacco over Marino.

lastly about Brady, that's my opinion because really they won their first one by taping the Rams walkthrough the week of the super bowl. they taped the Steelers prior to the '04 AFC title game, and to think the Patriots* we're the better team is crazy because the Steelers handed them their asses during the season. Then as of '07 when QBs were allowed to start 'mucking' up the balls to their liking only Brady ends up getting caught?
I dunno man..what's the saying...once a cheat always a cheat? lol

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

Everyone crapped all over Peyton playoff record.
So pretty simple we can crap on Rodgers now too. Can't have it one way and not the other so....
Ben - 12-5
Rodgers 7-6

I couldn't careless how talented Rodgers is I want the guy getting it done in January and that's Ben.

The score is still 2-1 Ben in winning it all.

On top of that Rodgers gets way too much credit hence why I can't fathom how he can be #2 (even though it's a fictitious list) by only winning 2 rings the math doesn't add up.

Again as I said I can't put a cheat #1
But for the sake of the debate I'm Montana Brady and based on what Dameshek says it has to be Ben at 3. As it would be 4-2 in appearances and 3-2 overall.

3 is higher than 2 right? Correct me if I'm wrong lol

This is a tired argument.

The reason Peyton Manning was and continues to be dumped on for his playoff record was because of the talent on offense he had. Two hall of fame receivers on the boundary and he couldn't bring himself to win playoff games was astounding.

Aaron Rodgers has the same issue that Brady has had for a while. The lack of talent on offense around him (either through injury or poor drafting) has been pretty remarkable. Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson have been his best receivers throughout his career.

Roethlisberger is a first ballot hall of fame quarterback. I don't know how this can be refuted. That being said, Ben's first ring was not his doing. Posting the worst QBR in playoff history and then saying "Ben is better than Rodgers! Count the rings!" is silly. Much like Manning in 2015, the defense won Ben his first ring.

Using the whole "only one ring!" thing is also ridiculous to me because it leaves out Dan Marino. Marino was an incredible quarterback that never won a ring. Using this logic, Joe Flacco is a better quarterback than Marino because of the ring. See the fallacy?

This whole "Brady is a cheater and can't be #1!" makes Steelers fans look stupid. Does anyone honestly think Brady has four rings because he cheated? C'mon man. Get over it.

It's not a tired argument because it works both ways.
He still gets a pass for blowing a 16 point lead against Seattle because he had a 'baby calf' injury :_(
If he gets a pass in that game, Ben gets one for the Denver game in 2011 because of his 'high ankle' sprain.

Fact is they both played and both lost. No excuses.

Ultiamtely I just don't think Rodgers is 'THAT' good. He's good, as are a lot of guys but I don't think he's head and shoulders above everyone else like we're lead to believe.

To your point about Ben's first super bowl. Agreed he sucked in that specific game but the Steelers don't make that super bowl without him at QB in the 3 games prior as he carried the team to the dance. Everything has to click for sure but if you're this supposed 'unstoppable' force like Rodgers, eventually he has to shoulder some of the blame much like Peyton.

There's exceptions to every rule, the here and now is mostly based on the 'what have you done for me lately' and 'how many rings do you have'. Because you're right no one is picking Flacco over Marino.

lastly about Brady, that's my opinion because really they won their first one by taping the Rams walkthrough the week of the super bowl. they taped the Steelers prior to the '04 AFC title game, and to think the Patriots** we're the better team is crazy because the Steelers handed them their asses during the season. Then as of '07 when QBs were allowed to start 'mucking' up the balls to their liking only Brady ends up getting caught?
I dunno man..what's the saying...once a cheat always a cheat? lol

This is pretty close to my position on these matters as well. I do feel Rodgers is a little overrated but let me add that I think a lot of people misunderstand that word. Someone can be overrated and still be first ballot, I believe Aaron will be but this list had him hypothetically being the second greatest ever after 2026 and J just can't go along with that. He's a great QB and honestly after Ben, he's probably my favorite to watch in the league but I just think his short comings are ignored. I do agree that rings alone don't tell the whole story because no way is Flacco better than Marino. I feel the same way about Brady. I just strongly feel that the shadiness of the Patriots* past makes it hard for me to crown him the GOAT while there are other capable candidates. I'd also like to add that when Ben won his SBs, he got called a game manager but no one talks about ohw the Pats* relied on a strong defense and run game in Brady's early years or holds that against him. And you're right SN, Ben did suck in SB XL but without him, we're not there. He beat two QBS who were considered much better than him in Palmer and Manning to get there. Granted Palmer did get hurt. I think this exercise is silly though. 2026 is a long ways away. I think Ben does deserve more consideration than he's gotten. He's made a lot of receivers better than they might be. Outside of Santonio Holmes the Steelers have not drafted high for receivers for him. I just think the whole concept of overrated and undrrrated is misunderstood. I can think a guy is overrated and still think he's a Hall of Famer and there are people who are underrated who may just fall short of the Hall of Fame. THis over/underratedness is about public perception. Honestly in the end as a Steelers fan, I'm just happy to have the QB we've had since 2004. So many fans would kill to have that.

ImmaculateGreenePolamalu wrote:

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

SteelersNorth wrote:

SteelersCanada wrote:

Aaron Rodgers is infinitely more talented than Roethlisberger. I've yet to hear a coherent argument otherwise.

1. Rodgers
2. Brady

Everyone crapped all over Peyton playoff record.
So pretty simple we can crap on Rodgers now too. Can't have it one way and not the other so....
Ben - 12-5
Rodgers 7-6

I couldn't careless how talented Rodgers is I want the guy getting it done in January and that's Ben.

The score is still 2-1 Ben in winning it all.

On top of that Rodgers gets way too much credit hence why I can't fathom how he can be #2 (even though it's a fictitious list) by only winning 2 rings the math doesn't add up.

Again as I said I can't put a cheat #1
But for the sake of the debate I'm Montana Brady and based on what Dameshek says it has to be Ben at 3. As it would be 4-2 in appearances and 3-2 overall.

3 is higher than 2 right? Correct me if I'm wrong lol

This is a tired argument.

The reason Peyton Manning was and continues to be dumped on for his playoff record was because of the talent on offense he had. Two hall of fame receivers on the boundary and he couldn't bring himself to win playoff games was astounding.

Aaron Rodgers has the same issue that Brady has had for a while. The lack of talent on offense around him (either through injury or poor drafting) has been pretty remarkable. Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson have been his best receivers throughout his career.

Roethlisberger is a first ballot hall of fame quarterback. I don't know how this can be refuted. That being said, Ben's first ring was not his doing. Posting the worst QBR in playoff history and then saying "Ben is better than Rodgers! Count the rings!" is silly. Much like Manning in 2015, the defense won Ben his first ring.

Using the whole "only one ring!" thing is also ridiculous to me because it leaves out Dan Marino. Marino was an incredible quarterback that never won a ring. Using this logic, Joe Flacco is a better quarterback than Marino because of the ring. See the fallacy?

This whole "Brady is a cheater and can't be #1!" makes Steelers fans look stupid. Does anyone honestly think Brady has four rings because he cheated? C'mon man. Get over it.

It's not a tired argument because it works both ways.
He still gets a pass for blowing a 16 point lead against Seattle because he had a 'baby calf' injury :_(
If he gets a pass in that game, Ben gets one for the Denver game in 2011 because of his 'high ankle' sprain.

Fact is they both played and both lost. No excuses.

Ultiamtely I just don't think Rodgers is 'THAT' good. He's good, as are a lot of guys but I don't think he's head and shoulders above everyone else like we're lead to believe.

To your point about Ben's first super bowl. Agreed he sucked in that specific game but the Steelers don't make that super bowl without him at QB in the 3 games prior as he carried the team to the dance. Everything has to click for sure but if you're this supposed 'unstoppable' force like Rodgers, eventually he has to shoulder some of the blame much like Peyton.

There's exceptions to every rule, the here and now is mostly based on the 'what have you done for me lately' and 'how many rings do you have'. Because you're right no one is picking Flacco over Marino.

lastly about Brady, that's my opinion because really they won their first one by taping the Rams walkthrough the week of the super bowl. they taped the Steelers prior to the '04 AFC title game, and to think the Patriots*** we're the better team is crazy because the Steelers handed them their asses during the season. Then as of '07 when QBs were allowed to start 'mucking' up the balls to their liking only Brady ends up getting caught?
I dunno man..what's the saying...once a cheat always a cheat? lol

This is pretty close to my position on these matters as well. I do feel Rodgers is a little overrated but let me add that I think a lot of people misunderstand that word. Someone can be overrated and still be first ballot, I believe Aaron will be but this list had him hypothetically being the second greatest ever after 2026 and J just can't go along with that. He's a great QB and honestly after Ben, he's probably my favorite to watch in the league but I just think his short comings are ignored. I do agree that rings alone don't tell the whole story because no way is Flacco better than Marino. I feel the same way about Brady. I just strongly feel that the shadiness of the Patriots** past makes it hard for me to crown him the GOAT while there are other capable candidates. I'd also like to add that when Ben won his SBs, he got called a game manager but no one talks about ohw the Pats** relied on a strong defense and run game in Brady's early years or holds that against him. And you're right SN, Ben did suck in SB XL but without him, we're not there. He beat two QBS who were considered much better than him in Palmer and Manning to get there. Granted Palmer did get hurt. I think this exercise is silly though. 2026 is a long ways away. I think Ben does deserve more consideration than he's gotten. He's made a lot of receivers better than they might be. Outside of Santonio Holmes the Steelers have not drafted high for receivers for him. I just think the whole concept of overrated and undrrrated is misunderstood. I can think a guy is overrated and still think he's a Hall of Famer and there are people who are underrated who may just fall short of the Hall of Fame. THis over/underratedness is about public perception. Honestly in the end as a Steelers fan, I'm just happy to have the QB we've had since 2004. So many fans would kill to have that.

Well put.
I enjoy the differing takes from people.

Agreed again, someone in your perception can be overrated, yet be a HOF player. It happens in all sports.

I know it'll never happen because of how the media spins things but I'd just be happy if they mentioned certain guys in the same conversations as others. And when those same guys have a bad game don't sugar coat it, say that he had a bad game because you know what they're human it does happen.

Ah well the pipe dream I have lol