NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10) - Page 2 - New England Patriots Forums

***BradyFTW!*** · 09-02-2009, 05:39 PM

First off, nobody really knows how good a backup QB is until he plays, so this list is an exercise in futility from the get-go.

Secondly, evaluating QB groups should put a massive emphasis on the starter, since most of the time he'll take the vast majority of the snaps. QB depth matters, but it's not nearly as important as having a good QB in the first place.

According to this list, Kirwan seems to think that a better QB group is one that is pretty much guaranteed to be 'good to decent', but has no chance of being 'great'. Which is absolutely stupid, because you don't win SBs with good QBs. You win it with exceptional ones.

Eagles: They have superior depth, but their ceiling just isn't that high. Feeley and McNabb and Vick range from half-decent to pretty good to good, but the fact is that they top out at 'good', because McNabb's their best QB and even 100% healthy he isn't anywhere near the player that Brady, Brees, and Manning are.

Cardinals: a QB who's pushing 40 and has a track record of being unable to make it late into the season, backed up by a former top-10 pick who can't win the starting job even though multiple coaches have tried to hand it to him? We still have no idea if Leinart's any good, but because he won a Heisman a few years ago that makes Arizona's QB group better than New England's?

Cowboys: Same argument as Philly's, although I'd argue that the Cowboys are in a better position than Philly is.

Chargers: Same as Philly again.

Saints: Mark Brunell and Joey Harrington are considered good backups? Really?

Basically, I get the assumptions that this whole exercise is based on, and the rankings are internally consistent based on that, but I would just argue that it's a flawed and ridiculous premise. He's ranking QB depth, not overall group rating, and those terms are far from interchangable.

here isn't a team in the league that wouldn't trade its quarterbacks for the Patriots', because the Pats have the best QB group, followed by the Saints and Colts. Why? Because there are two things that matter: 1) what's the ceiling of your QBs (how good is your starter, basically) and 2) how good is your depth? Kirwan completely ignored the first half of the equation, despite the fact that it's significantly more important.

farn · 09-02-2009, 05:55 PM

Completely ridiculous exercice...

#1 - You always want the BEST qb in the league. The backup is of little consequence. Cassel was fantastic in backup qb standards and - though he lead the team to an impressive record - fell far short of getting to the SB.

#2 - Winning is what matters. It takes a top notch qb to accomplish that. Second stringers are not important. They can get you to the playoffs... but Brady and Hostetler are far rarer than all the other qbs who tried to lead teams.

bucky · 09-02-2009, 06:23 PM

This is a silly exercise. You can't rank teams by combining the starting and backup QB.

Personally, I would rather have Tom Brady backed up by the guy from "My Left Foot" than Peyton Manning (presumably the 2nd best QB) backed up by Rothlisberger, with Brees as the 3rd stringer.

Patsfanin Philly · 09-02-2009, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deus Irae

It makes absolutely no sense to have the Colts above the Patriots on the list.

Jim Sorgi is like Santa Claus, you only see him in December. In 5 years, do you know how many passes he's completed in his career before December 1????? 2...total in his career....Me thinks the Colts ought to be a tad lower on that list...

thewaylifeshouldbe · 09-02-2009, 07:43 PM

I don't have an issue with the Pats at 10. If you were to assign a numeric to the listed QB's on a scale of, say 1-10 and get an average then we're probably about right.

If Brady is a 10 and Ryan Leaf is a 1, then Walter is a......2?

So a 6 for a total number.

Give Peyton a 10, Sorgi a 7, and Painter a 2 and you have a 6.3

etc...

Bartmac36 · 09-02-2009, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skri65

Perhaps we're arguing semantics at this point, but when rankings QB Groups, you aren't necessarily arguing depth. Otherwise, wouldn't the article simply be best #2's? When you compare QB Groups, you have to value the starter more than the backup because they're more important to a QB group. Thus, for example, in this list, i would rate the Steelers pretty high (higher than us) because not only is Ben an excellent QB, but his backup in Batch is solid, too. But to put Carolina above us in regards to the QB group is ridiculous because Tom Brady alone should punch us higher than them.

Again, I think at this point i'm just arguing semantics. I just think the article values the backup as much as the starter which is simply not what a QB Group rankings should be. But whatever.

I guess you could look at this from either angle. I respect your opinion. It's just that I was happy with where they were ranked and actually wasn't expecting them to be so high, simply because there is no real depth (that we know of) at this time other than Brady...

skri65 · 09-02-2009, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thewaylifeshouldbe

I don't have an issue with the Pats at 10. If you were to assign a numeric to the listed QB's on a scale of, say 1-10 and get an average then we're probably about right.

If Brady is a 10 and Ryan Leaf is a 1, then Walter is a......2?

So a 6 for a total number.

Give Peyton a 10, Sorgi a 7, and Painter a 2 and you have a 6.3

etc...

But you miss the whole idea that a backup QB isn't as valuable as a starter. So if there was a mathematical formula to this idea it would be something along the lines of..

((value of starter x 4) + (value of backup)) / 2 = your qb group value.

***BradyFTW!*** · 09-02-2009, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skri65

But you miss the whole idea that a backup QB isn't as valuable as a starter. So if there was a mathematical formula to this idea it would be something along the lines of..

((value of starter x 4) + (value of backup)) / 2 = your qb group value.

^what he said. Apparently some people think that having a good #3 QB is equally as important as having a good #1 QB. In my eyes, that's absurd. The talent of your #1 QB is FAR more important than that of your #2, which is far more important than your #3.

On the 1 to 10 scale, which would you rather have?:

1) a 10, a 1, and a 1, or
2) a 5, a 5, and a 5

By the methodology that that other person posted, 2 is a better option. In reality, a team with 3 so-so QBs is probably not making the playoffs, and you can all but guarantee that they won't be anywhere near a SB.

Team 1, OTOH, is likely a SB contender as long as its starting QB stays healthy. Nobody in their right mind would take option 2.

***mgteich*** · 09-02-2009, 10:55 PM

If the question is who has the least dropoff to their backup quarterbacks, I would move bothe the pats and colts down on the list.

Walter may be the 10th best backup, but that doesn't seem to be the question being asked.

***BradyFTW!*** · 09-02-2009, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mgteich

If the question is who has the least dropoff to their backup quarterbacks, I would move bothe the pats and colts down on the list.

Walter may be the 10th best backup, but that doesn't seem to be the question being asked.

That's kind pointless, isn't it? In that case, you're just penalizing teams for having good starters. The teams with the least dropoff from starter to backup are the ones that don't have a legitimately good starter in the first place.