Clayton: QB Rankings

[PatsBoy12]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN

2. Tom Brady, New England Patriots

Analysis: I resisted the urge to put Drew Brees ahead of him, but Brady, with three Super Bowl rings, is still the master. The knee injury slowed him a little in 2009 (4,398 yards, 28 TD passes), but I expect his numbers to be much better this season.

Arrow is pointing: Flat

Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

 

[ivanvamp]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN



Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

What's really dumb about this list is that he has 33 QB listed, but *14* of them are in the "elite" category.

 

[sbpatfan]

I wonder what mathematical formula Clayton used to figure out each player's chance of being elite.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN



Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

Yea he contradicts himself by saying Brady will be much better but yet the arrow is "flat"? Makes no sense.

 

[patchick]

What's really dumb about this list is that he has 33 QB listed, but *14* of them are in the "elite" category.

:yeahthat:

The real list of "elite quarterbacks" is Manning, Brady, Brees. Period.

 

[patsfan-1982]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN



Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

this is in no way a knock on you or your post but we have realy been spoiled as fans the last 10 years or so... Brady, throw for the 3rd most yards in team histroy last year and yet we still look at the Media look they are crazy cause they said he's arrow is flat.

 

[PatsBoy12]

:yeahthat:

The real list of "elite quarterbacks" is Manning, Brady, Brees. Period.

I agree.

I also believe Aaron Rodgers and Philip Rivers may be knocking on the door. All it'll take is for them to win a ring or two because that's always in the discussion when comparing/rating quarterbacks.

 

[ctpatsfan77]

:yeahthat:

The real list of "elite quarterbacks" is Manning, Brady, Brees. Period.

Brady, Manning, Brees. Period.

 

[PatsBoy12]

Brady, Manning, Brees. Period.

Ah, nice correction. I didn't catch that.

 

[patchick]

Brady, Manning, Brees. Period.

:rocker: I was just trimming Clayton's list, not making my own!

 

[borg]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN



Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

"Flat"?????
Maybe because ...
Brady's #1 target is coming off knee surgery.
His big play target disappeared in multiple games last year and of course is a year older.
The team will be experimenting with two rookie TEs and two sophmore WRs.
The team's best lineman is a hold out and another OL is done for the year.
The RB starters are ancient and injury prone while their biggest RB investment has been M I A.
Their schedule is brutal
On the positive side, if the D has issues, this team may be in weekly shootouts.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

If Manning's arrow was also flat (as in it doesn't get any better) this would be a decent assessment. That and another category seperating 6-14 from elite before he gets to Noodle territory. That's just silly. Some of those players may be knocking on the door of elite or others may have projected as elite early in their careers but the fact is they aren't elite at this juncture. A few of them are genuine crap shoots season to season. For them the arrow would be key.

I think for guys like Clayton the problem is if you state that it takes an elite QB to win you have to contend there are lots of them or potential for lots or either your hypothesis or your pre season picks will likely be mocked on their face.

I think he does old Noodle a disservice as well naming a division after him and then topping it with Cutler who does not have a 95% chance of becoming elite even by Clayton's screwy standards. He should be perched atop the hit or miss division...

Leinart should have his own subdivision, utter bust waste of time after being given all the chances in the world. Paired with Anderson, the ultimate one year anomoly, that duo should be firmly at the bottom of the lot.

 

[fthft]

Sam Bradford 85% chance of being elite while Stafford has a 55% chance? I don't agree with that at all. Gimme Stafford everytime

 

[tuckeverlasting]

I'm hoping we can have discussion without turning it into a Clayton/ESPN/mainstream media bash party. Everyone has an opinion and this is his. Hopefully we can discuss it's merits (or lack thereof).

From Peyton Manning to Jake Delhomme, ESPN's John Clayton ranks the NFL's starting QBs - ESPN



Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

there is so much nonsense in that i don't know where to start. roethlisberger's arrow and brady's arrow are pointing in the same direction ? maybe in a year or so they'll be facing the same way, but right now the big rapist is facing a suspension while brady's getting ready for the season. i swear clayton's brain dead. i'm not even going to comment on the order. here's my five.
1. brady
2. manning
3. brees
4. rodgers
5. romo

 

[DarrylS]

Mark Sanchez... #23

 

[Nikolai]

Why isn't Sanchez in top three? HBO thinks he's awesome.

Seriously though, I'm always unimpressed with these kinds of lists. The elite category is pretty simply: Brady, Manning, Brees, with consideration given to Rodgers and Favre (if healthy).

Rivers, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Schaub, and Romo are good, but second-tier quarterbacks.

 

[Kontradiction]

Now that Colts fans are finally feeling comfortable enough to show their faces around here again, I know I'm going to get flamed for saying the following. But, this is how I feel in regards to NFL quarterbacks...

1. Brady
2. Brees
3. Manning
4. Rodgers
5. Rivers
6. Rapistberger
7. Favre
8. Eli
9. Ryan
10. Romo

Matt Ryan makes the top ten based on his rookie season, how he looked when healthy in 2009, and how he's looked so far this preseason. I think he's in for a bounce back year. Colts fans and contrarians when it comes to this list, I have to put Brees ahead of Manning. For one, I feel that his game is better than Manning's as of right now. For another, Manning has a history of choking in the biggest games while Brees' finest hour arguably came on the big stage. He takes #2 for now.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

Without arguing his position on the list, I'd be interested to know why Clayton, or anyone for that matter, would think his arrow is flat. Is it because of the team around him?

I just assumed that with Brady at #2, a flat arrow means he's already at the top. An up arrow would mean supplanting Manning as #1 which of course if possible, but Clayton doesn't expect it which is fine.

I actually like the flat arrow. Means Brady is one of the top QBs in the league which is plain-old status quo. Ho hum, business as usual. God bless being a Pats fan.

Edit: I see Manning and others have arrows pointing up. Meh.

Regards,
Chris

 

[jmt57]

Clayton never explains what he means by the arrow pointing up, down or being flat, so it is difficult to comment on. I don't know if he is predicting how that QB will do this year, the next few years, or something else. On one hand Clayton calls Brady the master, points out that he still ranks him above Brees, acknowledges the knee injury and predicts his numbers will be better this year - and then rates him as one of the few elite quarterback's with an arrow being 'flat'. Most of what Clayton has talked about in regards to Brady for the last few months is speculation about his motivation and contract, maybe that has something to do with his 'flat' designation.

As Borg pointed out there are many question marks that may temper expectations, but those should be offset by the fact Brady is another year removed from recovering from his knee surgery. I don't think anyone outside of Pittsburgh would argue that Brady, Manning and Brees are the top three quarterbacks in the NFL.

In regards to Clayton calling 14 quarterbacks elite, I wouldn't read too much into that. He's simply dividing the NFL quarterbacks into three tiers, and calling the top tier elite. Personally I would have found another term to use, and reserved the word elite for those top three QBs, but it's really just a matter of semantics.

Clayton would have been served making a separate category for these three because it drives many readers away from the focus of his column grouping them together with Flacco and Ryan. Another thing he could have done is have no categories at all and just list everyone 1-33.

 

[Joker]

now YOU can have your own personal Clayton right there on your desk for quick access to his all important knowledge....