NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

QB group rankings reveal teams in trouble if starter goes down

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

I think this is one of those lists where you want to be in the middle of the pack as opposed to the top or bottom.

There is an old saying in football, if you think you have more than one starting QB on your roster you probably don't have a starting QB on your roster.

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

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

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

To place the patriots in the middle third of the NFL in regards to their QB position, when they have one of the best QBs to ever play the game, is just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

Honestly, it makes sense to me. Overall, the NFL has a lot of talent at the quarterback position, but unfortunately, there is only enough room for 32 guys to start on a given Sunday.

Somebody on cnnsi.com ranked the top 32 backup quarterbacks in the NFL, and it was really eye-opening for me. Plenty of capable quarterbacks are riding the pine right now. Andrew Walter was rightfully nowhere near the top of that list. Because of that, you would have to drop the Pats down a few spots.

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

If you are comparing the QB groups of a team, you are asking which QB group you'd rather have on your team. At least that's what I take from the question of ranking QB groups. For you to say that you'd rather have the QB group of Kurt Warner/Matt Leinart, Delhomme and Josh Mccown, and the rest of those guys rather than our current one, you are lying to yourself.

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

You can't value your start and your backup evenly, even if you're ranking QB groups. This article values the backup as much as the starter, and that's simply pointless.

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

Unless Peyton is Brady's backup this team of course will be in dire straits - The Cassel cinderella story is about as common as a snowstorm in Death Valley,CA..

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

The article isn't about who has the best starter, otherwise the Pats would most likely be at the top, it's about which teams have the best DEPTH at QB, so going from Brady to Walter isn't ideal top 5 depth...so I'm perfectly fine with where we are ranked...Pats fans might be a little spoiled in these last 9 years or so, but we don't need to be at the top of every list...

Re: NFL.com: QB group rankings (Pats #10)
 

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.