I’ve been thinking about how we evaluate quarterbacks all time and I’m not sure we are looking at the right thing. There is a big difference between putting up video game numbers and actually elevating your team year to year. Some QBs rack up stats while their team treads water. Others might not break records but somehow keep their squads in contention consistently.

I am not saying high volume passers are bad, far from it, but at some point you have to separate the stat compiler from the team elevator. If a QB ends up stacking postseason success with fewer flashy numbers, it might force a lot of us to rethink how we have ranked guys for decades. Makes you wonder how much of a legacy is real impact versus just narrative built on production.

Dan Marino for example, widely regarded as a locked in top 5-10 QB by most fans. 

But I’ve always wondered how much of Marino’s legacy is “ahead of his time numbers” versus actual team elevation. The stats were great, no debate there. But when you look at year to year results, it’s not like Miami was some dynasty constantly knocking on the door. At some point you have to ask whether he was driving winning or just putting up video game production while the rest of the roster stayed average.

Not even trolling, but if a guy like Sam Darnold ends up stacking real postseason success later in his career, people might look back and realize we overvalued Marino’s stat profile compared to actual impact.

How Much Should Raw Passing Numbers Matter in All Time Rankings?