Okay.  Let's face it.  The current QB Rating is weird.  No one understands it.  A 158.3 is perfect?  I think that my new one is pretty good.  It's simple, and it has loads of flaws, but what doesn't?  Here it is.

(Passing Yards * (Touchdowns/Interceptions) * Completion Percentage + Passer Ratings -Sacks) * (Super Bowls /NFL Championships +1)

Montana: 24,935,166.2360
Graham: 13,571,084.8064
Starr: 12,495,670.6656
Elway: 11,658,752.0775
Brady: 11,340,620.8000
Favre: 11,037,549.3000
Unitas: 10,070,667.2496
Manning: 10,041,265.3144
Young: 9,234,607.7952
Bradshaw: 7,337,786.9550
Staubach: 7,265,624.0000
Aikman: 7,110,492.6300
Marino: 6,075,770.3478
Dawson: 4,281,939.0372
Moon: 3,597,467.3200
Tarkenton: 3,444,922.3060
Baugh: 3,416,829.1170
Kelly: 2,885,902.7118
Fouts: 2,657,050.8000
Cunningham: 2,621,171.1130
Jurgensen: 2,482,122.6496
Tittle: 1,508,348.7055
Blanda: 1,094,088.1680

I think that my Touchdown to Interception ratio made it easier for old time players because of the emphasis on the running game back then.  Also, I made Championships very important.  Overall, I don't agree with very much of this, but I think my formula was pretty good.  If I would have taken off the brackets, then it would change everything.  Manning, Favre, and Elway would be at the top instead of Montana, Graham, and Starr.  If you want winners, you can't argue with this.