Discussion in 'NFL Football Forum' started by CelticPatriot, Nov 30, 2013.
QB Index: 2013's pleasant surprises - NFL.com
Brady is 8th....
Good....I hope every team we play heading down the stretch considers Brady the 8th best quarterback!
Another anti-brady list, no surprise. IMO the first tier is obvious, and I would rank the QBs like this.
Tier I: First ballot HOF QBs that can carry their teams.
Tier II: Russell Wilson tier- is so far ahead of the other young kids at QB.
Tier III: Clutch QBs with rings and playoff performances that need a great team around them to have success; they can't carry weak teams.
Tier IV: The "Loser" Tier. They are great fantasy football QBs, but either have losing regular season or post season records, as well as 0 rings between all of them. Ranking them anywhere in the top 8 I just disagree with.
Tier V: Promising kids.
I am constantly amazed and re-amazed at what people get paid to produce and blog. This is a great example of a useless, silly, subjective analysis getting elevated to the stuff of national commentary.
This idiot Rosenthal, who clearly has too much time on his hands and not enough understanding of the game, put out this drivel on the day before Thanksgiving, sprinkling in his own "likes" and "dislikes" and coming up with a "Ranking." Hopefully, he did a better job carving his Turkey the next day or he'd be missing a few fingers.
If you just look at the numbers, Brady is #10 in Passing Yards and #19 in Pass Rating but has improbably taken his inexperienced, undermanned offense supported by a decimated defense to 7--3 and, for now, the number two seed...sooo....Rosenthal somehow concludes that he is Number eight, seven notches below a Peyton Manning who fell apart in the cold on Sunday night looking for all the world like he'll be lucky to be upright by the end of the season, four notches below an Aaron Rodgers who hasn't steeped between the lines in almost a month because of injury and five notches below a Phillip Rivers, who is notorious for choking and underachieving, but who put up 30 great minutes last week.
What does that mean at this point in the season? More or less absolutely nothing.
Meh, it's based on numbers from the whole season. You remember the early part of the season, right?
Great listâ€¦ not!
1. Top shelf â€“ Phillip Rivers, hmm sounds to me like Gregg Rosenthal has been drinking a little too much off the top shelf.
2. Roethlisberger at seven and Brady at eight, I am assuming he missed the 55-31 beat down in week 9 that Brady put on the Steelers.
3. Andrew Luck at five? Really the guy has a ton of talent and a bright future but his career QB rating is under 80.0
Can't argue with your first tier.
Wilson still has to prove something in January and, just as importantly, consistently on the road, away from his noisy Home before I'd put him in a class by himself above other good, young QB's.
Your third tier? Not so sure at all. Roethlisberger has, in years past, carried his team both on his arm and his legs. He might be done now, both mentally and physically, though, but he got it done in the past. Eli is just plain inconsistent and streaky, but the fact is that he did carry his team for two memorable runs that will put him in Canton, whether we like it or not (I sure don't). Flacco's play in OT in Denver in January argues against your characterization; inconsistent? erratic? Yes, indeed, but he carried the Ravens into the SB that day. Careers are framed by runs like Eli's and games like Flacco's in frigid Denver.
Fourth tier. Stafford sure didn't look like a loser on Thursday. And, I really don't think we can characterize any of those competitors as "losers." Underachievers? Erratic? Unreliable? Whatever? Yes, but I dare you to call any of them "loser" to his face.
Five. Yeah, sure. They are all "promising."
I read this as QB's "Fun to watch" list for the season. Which is why a Philip Rivers is so high. Don't think it's "best" list. If I'm correct, I'd probably say it's not far off. From a fun to watch perspective, it's so subjective, it's meaningless. For me, he's the most fun to watch, but if not a Pats fan, he might not make my top 5 list.
If it's a best list, it's just so silly, it's not worth mentioning.
Sounds good. The third tier can carry their teams in the postseason but usually can't carry them enough to reach the postseason. Their bad QB play has resulted in .500 or sub .500 records, while the first tier has never had team W/L that bad. The Wilson point is fair.
Loser may be a bad word, but all those QBs either have playoff losing records or regular season losing records. They also have 0 rings.
It's just for this season, so I accept Brady shouldn't be top yet, but he should be above Big Ben ffs. Steelers had been awful all year (as had we apparently) then we hammered them and have been very good since. What's worse is up until a few weeks ago (and after the Steelers game) Matt Ryan was above Brady aswell. Absolute madness.
Then why is Aaron Rodgers up there?
Andrew Luck has a lower QBrating, fewer TDs, fewer yards, lower Comp% and yet is ranked 2 slots ahead of Brady.
Doesn't seem like its based on numbers to me.
he was putting up decent number till he got injured, but yeah, he shouldn't be up there.
brady should've been around 5th. this is stat based for sure.
it looks like a combination of alot of things. luck did beat the 3 best teams - seahawks, niners, and denver. and just few weeks ago he was rated top 3-4.
but he looked awful ever since they lost wayne.
this is just another stupid trolling article.
Exactly. The first part of the season, at times, TB was barely breaking the 50% completion mark. The list accurately reflects that.
This list reminds of the Pete Carroll days. We were a great September team! In October I bet we were high on many varying lists. But as the BB days have shown, it's the team you have in December that matters most. So as long as TB is at or near the top for December, I'll take that over any QB who is lighting it up in September and October.
Because hes Aaron Fiking Rogers man... the new air apparent super talent that will replace PM in the media. He doesnt need #'s..
Separate names with a comma.