Who's Better, Philip Rivers or Dan Fouts? Finally, We Have the Answer

Dan Fouts and Philip Rivers, the two most successful and beloved quarterbacks ever to suit up for the San Diego Chargers, are two of my favorite players in the history of the National Football League. Both deservedly enjoy their share of rabidly loyal fans. But it seems only Rivers has more than a few detractors.

These naysayers came out of the woodwork on Sunday after the Chargers lost a tough game to the Indianapolis Colts on the road, with many of its offensive stars injured. In the game, Rivers, under constant pressure from rushing Colt defenders, threw a few uncharacteristic floaters that did not find their targets. It happens, well, almost never. But this is all it took for a few football plebes to say that Rivers will never be the quarterback Dan Fouts was.

This is curious, because if anyone should have doubters and detractors, it's not Rivers, it's Fouts, who's deservedly in the NFL Hall of Fame but whose gargantuan number of interceptions, low career quarterback rating and sometimes putrid playoff performances should give one pause.

Don't get me wrong. I love Dan Fouts. He's a hell of a competitor and by all accounts a quality person, just as Philip is. Fouts has earned the accolades that have come his way, he was a great player and he's also a tremendous broadcaster. 

But the overall quality of his work on the football field while leading the Chargers in the 1970's and 1980's isn't really even close to Philip's. 

Sometimes myth collides with reality, and the mythology surrounding Dan Fouts and those legendary Charger squads don't completely corroborate with the facts. A great quarterback and leader with some pretty gaudy numbers, Fouts, the leader of the almost mystical "Air Coryell" era for the Bolts under innovative and respected coach Don Coryell, was a hard-ass on the field. He was tough as nails and a great leader of men, and the fans here in San Diego loved him for it and still do. 

But Dan was far more erratic and error-prone as a starting quarterback than many want to remember. And while I don't want to take anything away from Fouts' storied reputation as a tough guy, Rivers is every bit as tough, if not tougher. A coach's kid, a good-natured warrior, Rivers never, ever leaves a football game.

Who's Tougher, Who's Smarter?

Before you start in with the Eddie-Shore-old-time-hockey argument that quarterbacks were a helluva lot tougher back in the day because there were fewer rules to protect the quarterback, well, it's a nice try, but it won't fly. When defenders hit you now, it hurts more. Period.

Training methods have improved demonstrably over the decades, and for that reason along with some evolutionary and, um, pharmaceutical reasons, players now are just scary strong and scary fast. Stronger and faster in fact than they were 30 years ago when Dan ruled Jack Murphy Stadium (now Qualcomm Stadium).

Dan was tough. No one's disputing that. But Rivers has played through some ungodly pain, including a severe rib injury he didn't tell anybody about that anyone who has ever had a severe rib injury knows is just about the most painful thing there is.

Then there's the all-important factor: who makes better decisions with those one-to-five seconds after the snap? This one's real easy: Rivers has a much, much higher overall football IQ than Fouts, and is a much more accurate passer and throws profoundly fewer interceptions. 

Rivers has better field vision, is better at check downs, and is just a smarter football player who, one day, will make a tremendous coach. 

The Super Bowl Argument's a Wash

Of course, neither Fouts nor Rivers ever made it to a Super Bowl. But that means next to nothing. Both are Hall-of-Fame level players. If there was any justice in sport, both would be multiple Super Bowl winners. But neither was on a team that put it all together. Why? Simple. It's a team game.

There are plenty of great quarterbacks who never made it to the Super Bowl: Rivers, Fouts, Warren Moon, Bernie Kosar, Sonny Jurgensen, Randall Cunningham, to name a few.

And there are plenty of mediocre-at-best quarterbacks who did play in a Super Bowl: Jeff Hostettler, Rex Grossman, David Woodley, Trent Dilfer, Vince Ferragamo, and that list goes on and on, too. 

As for the only Chargers QB to actually make it to a Super Bowl, Stan Humphries was a very good player who had an accurate rocket for an arm, a big heart, and an unappreciated sense of when and when not to throw the ball downfield. He was underrated, but just to booster my point, Stan was not in Dan or Philip's league. 

Numbers Don't Lie, Cheat or Steal

If you're into stats and numbers, we've got more than you need to make a solid decision here about who is better: Fouts played 15 seasons as the starter for the Chargers and ended up with 43,040 yards passing. Impressive as hell. Rivers has spent three fewer seasons as the starter and has amassed 42,240 yards passing. He will pass Fouts sometime this year and still has several more good years in him. Fouts completed 58 percent of his passes in his career, while Rivers has completed 65 percent of his passes. Fouts had 254 touchdown passes, which is 19th on the all-time list, and has a whopping 242 interceptions, which puts him 12th on the all-time interceptions list, a dubious distinction. Doesn't make me love Fouts any less, but it's a troubling stat. 

Rivers so far has a whopping 286 touchdown passes, which is 11th all time, just four behind Johnny Unitas, who he will pass in a couple more games. And Rivers has thrown just 135 interceptions - more than 100 fewer than Dan! That stat alone should be all you really need to know, especially considering Dan's coterie of ridiculously good wide receivers.

Wait, there's more. Fouts' career QB rating is a slumpy 80.2. Rivers' career QB rating to date is 95.8, which is the 8th best of all time.

Who's the Better Playoff Quarterback?

Neither Rivers nor Fouts have been world shakers in the playoffs. But Fouts simply did not excel in the postseason, where he threw more interceptions than touchdowns. You can pick several several playoff losses in the Fouts era and point right to him as one of the reasons if not the only reason the Chargers lost. But there is not a single playoff game in the Rivers era that you can point to and say Rivers was the reason the Chargers lost. Not one. In seven playoff games, Fouts is 3-4, with 12 TDs and a whopping 16 interceptions. In nine playoff games, Rivers is 4-5, with 11 TDs and just 9 interceptions.

The Bottom Line

Members of the jury, here's my summation: Dan Fouts is a tremendous football player who absolutely deserves to be in the Hall of fame. But Rivers is even better, for several easy-to-explain reasons. If Dan belongs, simple deductive reason will lead us to conclude that Philip does, too. 

For one thing, Dan Fouts was only really great for about five years. Before and after, he was mediocre. On the other hand, Rivers, even in his worst years in the league, has put up Pro Bowl numbers and even when his supporting cast is weak, he still makes very few mistakes.

Rivers has done so much more than Fouts with so much less, especially the years 2012-2013 when Rivers had the absolute worst offensive line in the league and still put up remarkable numbers while literally running for his life from hungry linebackers.

And in 2015, Rivers had an unprecedented, historic number of injuries along the O line and rarely had time to move in the pocket and he still threw for more than 4,000 yards. Now that is impressive. Who handles real adversity better? Need you ask?

Fouts had mostly great blockers during his good years, though Rivers did have some great ones, too, back when Kris Deilman, Marcus McNeil and Nick Hardwick were lining up in front of him.

Needless to say, Fouts had an insane amount of skill-position weapons, including a few Hall-of-Famers and superior wide receivers. Rivers has had a couple future Hall-of-Famers, too, in tight end Antonio Gates and All-Universe running back Ladainian Tomlinson. 

But Rivers never, ever had the wide receiving talent that Fouts had. Few if any QBs in NFL history have enjoyed that kind of ball-catching talent that Dan Fouts enjoyed. I mean, Charlie Joiner, John Jefferson and Wes Chandler all caught passes for Dan. Are you kidding me? 

Both Fouts and Rivers are great football players. Uniquely gifted. Tough. But anyone who thinks Rivers is not as good (he's actually a little better) just doesn't know very much about football. 

By every single tangible measure, and by all the intangible measures, Rivers is the better quarterback. It's close. But it's clear.

At the end of the day, and at the end of this column, I defer to legendary San Diego sportswriter Nick Canepa, who knows more about football than I, or you, will ever know. "As much as I admire Fouts, a tremendous competitor and leader, Rivers is the better quarterback, because he's made fewer mistakes," Nick wrote. That's good enough for me.