Let's rank some QBs!

[amfootball]

I won't give you the typical arguments; you know those already.

 

I will point you here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00/gamelog/post/ Rodgers has postseason success. Let's not lose sight of that. We're not talking about pre-2003 Manning, or pre-2012 Matt Ryan. Rodgers has actually been excellent in the postseason. Ironically, the Packers got a win in the one bad playoff game Rodgers has on his record, kind of illustrating why I think it's folly to reduce a player's legacy to his postseason results.

 

To each his own. I personally think Rodgers belongs in that tier, and I think it's a no-brainer.

I think post-season is only part of it - for me anyways. Like I said his fourth quarter woes are also another part. And he has had leadership issues as well voiced by his teammates. So all and all, I don't think he is quite there with Manning and Brady but I really don't have an issue if he is grouped with them along with Brees. JMO.

[NewColtsFan]

I am not ESPN insider so I could not read it. My mistake. I thought it was the typical ESPN ranking where they do it more on popularity and fan hoopla. Not sure if it is against the rules of the forum to post the article in its entirety but I would love to read it.

 

Fair enough......   I appreciate your position (not being an Insider)

 

And I'm sorry I jumped on you....   I took some of my frustration that I have with some here out on you.   You just happened to be the latest to take an unnecessary shot at ESPN.    That's a favorite pastime here.     Sometimes it's deserved.   But often it's not and fans here are almost knee-jerk about ESPN in their reaction to whatever they do.

 

If they'd take the time to actually read what was written they might find much of their material is not so objectionable.

 

Again....   sorry if I was hard on you.....

[amfootball]

Fair enough......   I appreciate your position (not being an Insider)

 

And I'm sorry I jumped on you....   I took some of my frustration that I have with some here out on you.   You just happened to be the latest to take an unnecessary shot at ESPN.    That's a favorite pastime here.     Sometimes it's deserved.   But often it's not and fans here are almost knee-jerk about ESPN in their reaction to whatever they do.

 

If they'd take the time to actually read what was written they might find much of their material is not so objectionable.

 

Again....   sorry if I was hard on you.....

No worries. No offense here. And I don't hate ESPN but I have never really liked their ranking lists of QBs or power rankings. I do like some of their writers.

[Superman]

Sure, I get the criteria is loose. If we are judging just based on who I want QBing my team this season then it is still Manning and Brady first. If we are talking long term then I would go with one of the new wave QBs - Luck, Kaep, Wilson.

 

I am not that taken with post-season success either which is why I said I would put Wilson and Kaep with Newton, RG and Luck even though they have had more post-season success than the other three. I don't see that big of a difference between those 5 with maybe RG being a wild card as he really struggled last year but I think that had more to do with the coaching and FO than him.

 

Fair enough. I obviously think more highly of Rodgers than a lot of people on this board. I think fans nitpick QBs pretty intensely, unless it's their QB. Stuff like "Rodgers is only 9-24 in close games (or whatever the record is), and he can't beat the Niners," is something we'd all argue vehemently if it were said about our guy. JMO. I don't think that kind of stuff says as much about the quality of his play or his importance to his team. I personally don't see a real flaw in Rodgers game. If I had to change one thing, I'd get him to get rid of the ball more quickly and take fewer sacks.

[sweetsurrender]

Fair enough. I obviously think more highly of Rodgers than a lot of people on this board. I think fans nitpick QBs pretty intensely, unless it's their QB. Stuff like "Rodgers is only 9-24 in close games (or whatever the record is), and he can't beat the Niners," is something we'd all argue vehemently if it were said about our guy. JMO. I don't think that kind of stuff says as much about the quality of his play or his importance to his team. I personally don't see a real flaw in Rodgers game. If I had to change one thing, I'd get him to get rid of the ball more quickly and take fewer sacks.

Are you suggesting their is a fan bias?  ;)

 

There does not seem to be much love up here for Rodgers. Some of it may also be the factor of what you see most recently is what you feel at the moment. The losses to the niners are a bit of a mystery. I think the whole team poses issues for them especially Kaep vs their defense. I think the issue for GB is they play kind of soft and the niners just bring the wood and play more physical with more swag. They do not fear Rodgers for whatever reason. Maybe because they feel they can mess with his line and his receivers but at some point the GB mgmt has to figure it out. I certainly put the least amount of blame of Rodgers for the losses but at the same time I am kind of waiting for him to rise up and take the game from them but not sure he has the horses to do it.

[Superman]

Are you suggesting their is a fan bias?  ;)

 

There does not seem to be much love up here for Rodgers. Some of it may also be the factor of what you see most recently is what you feel at the moment. The losses to the niners are a bit of a mystery. I think the whole team poses issues for them especially Kaep vs their defense. I think the issue for GB is they play kind of soft and the niners just bring the wood and play more physical with more swag. They do not fear Rodgers for whatever reason. Maybe because they feel they can mess with his line and his receivers but at some point the GB mgmt has to figure it out. I certainly put the least amount of blame of Rodgers for the losses but at the same time I am kind of waiting for him to rise up and take the game from them but not sure he has the horses to do it.

 

To the "they don't fear Rodgers" part, I don't know how to quantify that. That line is used from time to time, and I don't know that it's anything more than a throwaway. Look at Rodgers' stats vs. the Niners -- they should fear him, or at the least, respect his ability to make plays against them, because he always does. He wasn't great against them last year in the playoffs, but he was also coming off a big injury. The previous year, the Packers defense gave up 45 points, and made Kaepernick look like a superhero. Then they wasted a good Rodgers game in the 2013 opener by getting roasted by Kaepernick again. 

 

I just don't agree with trying to break a QB down based on a handful of games. In the early 2000s, the Colts couldn't beat the Pats, the Pats couldn't beat the Broncos, and the Broncos couldn't beat the Colts. Sometimes inexplicable stuff like that happens, and it's not all on the QB. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with the QB (unless you think Jake Plummer was better than Tom Brady). 

 

As for fan bias, go look in the TD record thread for definitive proof of there being absolutely no fan bias on this message board when it comes to QB evaluation. ;)

[Valpo2004]

Fair enough. I obviously think more highly of Rodgers than a lot of people on this board. I think fans nitpick QBs pretty intensely, unless it's their QB. Stuff like "Rodgers is only 9-24 in close games (or whatever the record is), and he can't beat the Niners," is something we'd all argue vehemently if it were said about our guy. JMO. I don't think that kind of stuff says as much about the quality of his play or his importance to his team. I personally don't see a real flaw in Rodgers game. If I had to change one thing, I'd get him to get rid of the ball more quickly and take fewer sacks.

 

I agree.  

 

Also, although I'm guilty of this too is making wins a quarterback stat.

 

If anything that should be a coaching/GM stat.  

[Superman]

I think post-season is only part of it - for me anyways. Like I said his fourth quarter woes are also another part. And he has had leadership issues as well voiced by his teammates. So all and all, I don't think he is quite there with Manning and Brady but I really don't have an issue if he is grouped with them along with Brees. JMO.

 

Yeah, we've talked about the so-called leadership issues before. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there's very much to it. A frustrated and personally slighted Greg Jennings taking parting shots at Aaron Rodgers is hard for me to take seriously, especially when he chased a few dollars and went to catch passes from Christian Ponder. I don't slight him for taking more money from a different team, but it's hard to take his criticisms of Rodgers seriously if he doesn't take things like leadership and quality QBing seriously enough to not go play for the Vikings. JMO.

 

If you look at these four guys over the last five years, I don't see any distinction between Brady and Manning vs Brees and Rodgers, personally. None. Rings, playoff wins, stats, overall wins, team dependence, consistency, etc. And to Rodgers' credit, he's been reaching his prime, not playing through his prime. It's possible he gets better at 30+, just like the others did, as they really mastered their crafts. 

 

We could argue this all day long. To each his own. I'm not emotionally invested in this, I just don't see a distinction. They are the four best, clearly.

[Superman]

I agree.  

 

Also, although I'm guilty of this too is making wins a quarterback stat.

 

If anything that should be a coaching/GM stat.  

 

Yup. 

 

I think QB is the most important single position in sports, with the only competition being a goalie in hockey in golf or soccer. No one player changes the game as much, so I understand why they get tied to wins and losses the way they did. I just don't like the lazy analysis that tries to define them by wins and losses, on any stage. Because, as important as they are, they need help in such a team-based sport.

 

Example: Tim Howard is getting crazy love right now for a heroic performance yesterday in the World Cup, but his team lost. He gave up two goals, but it's hard to blame him for either of them, as the goal was being assaulted basically all game long. Howard was amazing, and it didn't lead to a win. Now imagine someone criticizing him by saying "yeah, but he's never won a World Cup!" Trifles and nonsense...

 

Same for a QB. Even when they're not perfect, football is a team sport. These top tier guys will generally make you a contender no matter what, but they need help for contention to turn into title(s). And sometimes, when they have an off game, they need to be picked up by their teammates. And how often that happens or needs to happen is much more a reflection of the coaching and team management than it is of the QB himself. 

[amfootball]

Yeah, we've talked about the so-called leadership issues before. It doesn't bother me because I don't think there's very much to it. A frustrated and personally slighted Greg Jennings taking parting shots at Aaron Rodgers is hard for me to take seriously, especially when he chased a few dollars and went to catch passes from Christian Ponder. I don't slight him for taking more money from a different team, but it's hard to take his criticisms of Rodgers seriously if he doesn't take things like leadership and quality QBing seriously enough to not go play for the Vikings. JMO.

 

If you look at these four guys over the last five years, I don't see any distinction between Brady and Manning vs Brees and Rodgers, personally. None. Rings, playoff wins, stats, overall wins, team dependence, consistency, etc. And to Rodgers' credit, he's been reaching his prime, not playing through his prime. It's possible he gets better at 30+, just like the others did, as they really mastered their crafts. 

 

We could argue this all day long. To each his own. I'm not emotionally invested in this, I just don't see a distinction. They are the four best, clearly.

Donald Driver backed up Jennings comments, http://forums.colts.com/topic/20196-donald-driver-backsexplains-jennings-criticisms-of-rodgers/ and Finley also had some issues with him too. But as you say we have been over this. But I do see his leadership being questioned to some degree so that has to be accounted for.

 

I don't see this great chasm between the top four either but I don't see Rodgers in the Brady/Manning realm yet. As you say he is just entering his prime so he may have great years ahead of him. I have no issue either of they are all lumped together. I have separate reasons for not seeing Brees with Brady or Manning either but I will leave that alone. For sure the four of them are the best in the game even if there is a different level between Brady/Manning and Rogers/Brees in my view anyways.

[sweetsurrender]

To the "they don't fear Rodgers" part, I don't know how to quantify that. That line is used from time to time, and I don't know that it's anything more than a throwaway. Look at Rodgers' stats vs. the Niners -- they should fear him, or at the least, respect his ability to make plays against them, because he always does. He wasn't great against them last year in the playoffs, but he was also coming off a big injury. The previous year, the Packers defense gave up 45 points, and made Kaepernick look like a superhero. Then they wasted a good Rodgers game in the 2013 opener by getting roasted by Kaepernick again. 

 

I just don't agree with trying to break a QB down based on a handful of games. In the early 2000s, the Colts couldn't beat the Pats, the Pats couldn't beat the Broncos, and the Broncos couldn't beat the Colts. Sometimes inexplicable stuff like that happens, and it's not all on the QB. Sometimes, it has nothing to do with the QB (unless you think Jake Plummer was better than Tom Brady). 

 

As for fan bias, go look in the TD record thread for definitive proof of there being absolutely no fan bias on this message board when it comes to QB evaluation. ;)

By fear, I mean they don't step on the field and think he can just beat them. And to be fair, I am not sure the niners D feels that way about any QB. They are a pretty stout, physical group. When Rodgers plays his division rivals, I think do fear him and it is almost like GB begins the game with a 7-0 lead just from a psychological stand point. I just don't sense that with the niners and maybe part of that is also because they know Kaep will have success against the Packers D. Football has such a symbiotic relationship so the defense can play loose knowing Kaep will get his too.

 

I agree with your point about trends which is why I said I think people, myself included, can be a prisoner of the moment. Most felt GB would win more titles after the first one and they have only won one playoff game since against the Webb led Vikings. It is amazing how fast the NFC changed when all the new QBs and coaches came in - Harbaugh/Kaep; Carroll/Wilson; Rivera/Newton. I think most expected Rodgers to own the younger guys but their teams are better than his and the young QBs have played well against him. But for sure the tide could change but I am not sure how much faith I have in McCarthy or the GB FO.

[Valpo2004]

Yup. 

 

I think QB is the most important single position in sports, with the only competition being a goalie in hockey in golf or soccer. No one player changes the game as much, so I understand why they get tied to wins and losses the way they did. I just don't like the lazy analysis that tries to define them by wins and losses, on any stage. Because, as important as they are, they need help in such a team-based sport.

 

Example: Tim Howard is getting crazy love right now for a heroic performance yesterday in the World Cup, but his team lost. He gave up two goals, but it's hard to blame him for either of them, as the goal was being assaulted basically all game long. Howard was amazing, and it didn't lead to a win. Now imagine someone criticizing him by saying "yeah, but he's never won a World Cup!" Trifles and nonsense...

 

Same for a QB. Even when they're not perfect, football is a team sport. These top tier guys will generally make you a contender no matter what, but they need help for contention to turn into title(s). And sometimes, when they have an off game, they need to be picked up by their teammates. And how often that happens or needs to happen is much more a reflection of the coaching and team management than it is of the QB himself. 

 

I don't watch hockey but I don't think a goalkeeper in soccer could compare to a QB in the NFL in terms of how much they contribute to wins.  

 

A QB can affect the entire offense which is almost 1 half of what your team is doing during a football game.  And shoot he can help his defense by keeping the offense on the field.

 

A goal keeper can only make saves.  There is nothing he can do to stop a team's constant assault on the goal.  

 

The best they can do is when they are having a really great performance they can keep you in a game that you wouldn't otherwise be in.  

 

But they can't score goals. . . unless the wind helps them out.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO1PQehOUc

[amfootball]

I don't watch hockey but I don't think a goalkeeper in soccer could compare to a QB in the NFL in terms of how much they contribute to wins.  

 

A QB can affect the entire offense which is almost 1 half of what your team is doing during a football game.  And shoot he can help his defense by keeping the offense on the field.

 

A goal keeper can only make saves.  There is nothing he can do to stop a team's constant assault on the goal.  

 

The best they can do is when they are having a really great performance they can keep you in a game that you wouldn't otherwise be in.  

 

But they can't score goals. . . unless the wind helps them out.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO1PQehOUc

That was awesome!

[Valpo2004]

That was awesome!

 

Thing was, if you watch him he doesn't really celebrate it.  They asked him about that after the game and he said he felt so bad for the other keeper that he couldn't celebrate it.  

[amfootball]

Thing was, if you watch him he doesn't really celebrate it.  They asked him about that after the game and he said he felt so bad for the other keeper that he couldn't celebrate it.  

Those soccer players are just too nice.

[Superman]

By fear, I mean they don't step on the field and think he can just beat them. And to be fair, I am not sure the niners D feels that way about any QB. They are a pretty stout, physical group. When Rodgers plays his division rivals, I think do fear him and it is almost like GB begins the game with a 7-0 lead just from a psychological stand point. I just don't sense that with the niners and maybe part of that is also because they know Kaep will have success against the Packers D. Football has such a symbiotic relationship so the defense can play loose knowing Kaep will get his too.

 

I agree with your point about trends which is why I said I think people, myself included, can be a prisoner of the moment. Most felt GB would win more titles after the first one and they have only won one playoff game since against the Webb led Vikings. It is amazing how fast the NFC changed when all the new QBs and coaches came in - Harbaugh/Kaep; Carroll/Wilson; Rivera/Newton. I think most expected Rodgers to own the younger guys but their teams are better than his and the young QBs have played well against him. But for sure the tide could change but I am not sure how much faith I have in McCarthy or the GB FO.

 

Fair enough.

 

I think expectations are way out of whack sometimes. We have all these QBs being judged and sometimes defined by who wins SBs, but only one guy can win it every year. Since the Packers won, it's only been three years. It's not like his career is over and he's never been close again. Just wait and see what happens. Don't declare a SB drought, as if every great QB is supposed to win the SB ever year. 

 

Also, Rodgers has owned the young guys; he's clearly better than all of them. Even though Kaepernick has been a monster in head to heads, there's no question who the better QB is at this point. Unless Rodgers is supposed to be stopping Kaepernick, somehow.

[Superman]

I don't watch hockey but I don't think a goalkeeper in soccer could compare to a QB in the NFL in terms of how much they contribute to wins.  

 

A QB can affect the entire offense which is almost 1 half of what your team is doing during a football game.  And shoot he can help his defense by keeping the offense on the field.

 

A goal keeper can only make saves.  There is nothing he can do to stop a team's constant assault on the goal.  

 

The best they can do is when they are having a really great performance they can keep you in a game that you wouldn't otherwise be in.  

 

But they can't score goals. . . unless the wind helps them out.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omO1PQehOUc

 

I'm not talking about their role; I'm talking about their importance, relative to wins and losses. And in a low scoring game like hockey or soccer, goal keeping is more important and valuable than even your best scorer. In hockey or soccer, a goalie makes more stops per game than your leading scorer scores in a season.

 

And I don't watch a lot of hockey, but the common refrain in the playoffs is that the hottest goalie propels his team deep in the postseason. There's a phrase -- he was standing on his head -- that illustrates how important a hot goalie is. And in recent years, guys like Jonathan Quick and other goalies have been the closest thing to a force field that you'll ever see. 

 

Also, just a nitpick, but soccer goalies don't score goals, but they do contribute to offense when they put the ball back in play. Tim Howard has an amazing arm, and at times completely flips the field for his offense.

[Valpo2004]

I'm not talking about their role; I'm talking about their importance, relative to wins and losses. And in a low scoring game like hockey or soccer, goal keeping is more important and valuable than even your best scorer. In hockey or soccer, a goalie makes more stops per game than your leading scorer scores in a season.

 

And I don't watch a lot of hockey, but the common refrain in the playoffs is that the hottest goalie propels his team deep in the postseason. There's a phrase -- he was standing on his head -- that illustrates how important a hot goalie is. And in recent years, guys like Jonathan Quick and other goalies have been the closest thing to a force field that you'll ever see. 

 

Also, just a nitpick, but soccer goalies don't score goals, but they do contribute to offense when they put the ball back in play. Tim Howard has an amazing arm, and at times completely flips the field for his offense.

 

True but I still don't see there importance as being at the same level as a QB.  The best player playing his best game ever can't stop everything.  (For the record there is good reason to believe that Howard is overall a top 5 keeper in the world)

 

Howard played one of the best games of his life and still lost because Belgium shot the ball like 32 times with 18 shots on goal.  The US shot the ball like 8 times or something like that.  They gave up a ton of chances and they didn't get very many of their own.

 

In football if your top 5 quarterback plays the best game of his life. . . how often does that team lose?

 

I have yet to see a QB throw like 6 TD passes and no picks in one game and his team lose.   

[Superman]

True but I still don't see there importance as being at the same level as a QB.  The best player playing his best game ever can't stop everything.  (For the record there is good reason to believe that Howard is overall a top 5 keeper in the world)

 

Howard played one of the best games of his life and still lost because Belgium shot the ball like 32 times with 18 shots on goal.  The US shot the ball like 8 times or something like that.  They gave up a ton of chances and they didn't get very many of their own.

 

In football if your top 5 quarterback plays the best game of his life. . . how often does that team lose?

 

I have yet to see a QB throw like 6 TD passes and no picks in one game and his team lose.   

 

Conversely, usually when your goalie plays one of the best games anyone has ever seen, his team wins.

 

And since we're talking about Rodgers, he played his butt off in the wild card game against the Cardinals in 2009. Problem is the defense gave up 45 points in regulation. Both QBs played great games, and neither deserved to lose. (To the point about Rodgers losing some close games, he fumbled in OT, costing them the game.)

 

Brett Favre played his butt off against the Colts in 2004, but his defense gave up 45 points. 

 

There are other examples, admittedly rare. But it's also rare that your goalie plays the game of his life and still loses.

 

By the way, before we parse this to death, I do think the QB is more important. I'm just saying that goalies are close, IMO.

[RGIII]

Like your list for the most part, Supes, but I'd tweak a few things at the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels.  I think you're doing a disservice to the other T2 QBs by including Eli among them (I'd put him in the middle of the pack in T3 at best) and are probably being a bit biased towards Luck, who is without question on the rise but seems better suited to be in the company of Newton, Romo, and Foles at present (all guys who I'd unquestionably put at the top of the T3 group).  I'm a little iffy on Palmer being T3, I'm not sure I'd call him "solid" these days and he's definitely not a riser.

 

Eli, Flacco, and Stafford probably should just be removed entirely as they all deserve their own special place on the outside of the list as oft overrated, wildly inconsistent volume passers.  It would be a special QB purgatory, if you will, for a group of guys who regularly dance between T2 greatness and T5 atrociousness for no discernible reason.

[lollygagger8]

Tier 1 order: 

Brady/P. Manning (tie), Brees, Rodgers

 

Tier 2 order: 

Luck, Rivers, Wilson, Kaepernick, Ryan, Roethlisberger (on decline)

 

Tier 3 order: *I had a really hard time putting Romo in where he is*

Foles (on the rise), Newton, E. Manning, Flacco, Cutler, Stafford, Griffin, Romo, A. Smith, Dalton, Tannehill, Palmer

 

Tier 4 and down are pretty lumped together so I'll just leave that up to ya'll. 

[ViriLudant]

I absolutely love this. Brady in the same group as those guys when some act like he is in God mode every week.

If Brees and Peyton had the WRs and TEs that Brady had last year, they'd be in the 4 th tier.

But haterz gotta hate.

[RGIII]

If Brees and Peyton had the WRs and TEs that Brady had last year, they'd be in the 4 th tier.

But haterz gotta hate.

 

So... what you're trying to say is that you're a crazy person?

[amfootball]

So... what you're trying to say is that you're a crazy person?

No, what he is trying to say is putting Brady in tier 2 is crazy.

[Valpo2004]

Conversely, usually when your goalie plays one of the best games anyone has ever seen, his team wins.

 

And since we're talking about Rodgers, he played his butt off in the wild card game against the Cardinals in 2009. Problem is the defense gave up 45 points in regulation. Both QBs played great games, and neither deserved to lose. (To the point about Rodgers losing some close games, he fumbled in OT, costing them the game.)

 

Brett Favre played his butt off against the Colts in 2004, but his defense gave up 45 points. 

 

There are other examples, admittedly rare. But it's also rare that your goalie plays the game of his life and still loses.

 

By the way, before we parse this to death, I do think the QB is more important. I'm just saying that goalies are close, IMO.

 

Regarding the bolded.  Nope it's pretty typical to lose in that case.  

 

A goal keeper can't have the best game of his life without having the ball being shot his way a lot of times.  

 

And teams that can generate that many shots usually are able to do so because the other team isn't generating much of an offensive threat.  

[Dustin]

1. Rodgers, Manning, Brees, Rivers - Elite

2. Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Roethlisberger- Great

2.5. Romo - Romo

3. Wilson, Luck, Kaepernick, Foles, Cutler, Newton, Tannehill - Great/Good either young or inconsistent

4. Stafford, Dalton, Alex Smith, Eli, RG3, McCown- Meh

5. Flacco, Schaub, Palmer, Locker, Vick, Bradford- Below average

6. EJ Manuel, Geno Smith, Fitzpatrick, Cassell, Henne - Bad

None of the tiers are in order btw

Fixed it.

[RGIII]

No, what he is trying to say is putting Brady in tier 2 is crazy.

 

The more obvious implication is that they're BOTH crazy.

[Superman]

Regarding the bolded.  Nope it's pretty typical to lose in that case.  

 

A goal keeper can't have the best game of his life without having the ball being shot his way a lot of times.  

 

And teams that can generate that many shots usually are able to do so because the other team isn't generating much of an offensive threat.  

 

I disagree, but I don't watch enough hockey or soccer to really argue the point effectively. I just know that I've seen several matches where the goalie is on fire, and typically, his team wins. That's very anecdotal, though, so that might not be the norm.

 

Still, my point was just that I think goalie is one of the most important positions in team sports, but not as important as QB.

[Dustin]

No, what he is trying to say is putting Brady in tier 2 is crazy.

 

Since he and Luck performed virtually the same last season, you have no problem with Luck being in tier 1 either?

[Superman]

Like your list for the most part, Supes, but I'd tweak a few things at the Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels.  I think you're doing a disservice to the other T2 QBs by including Eli among them (I'd put him in the middle of the pack in T3 at best) and are probably being a bit biased towards Luck, who is without question on the rise but seems better suited to be in the company of Newton, Romo, and Foles at present (all guys who I'd unquestionably put at the top of the T3 group).  I'm a little iffy on Palmer being T3, I'm not sure I'd call him "solid" these days and he's definitely not a riser.

 

Eli, Flacco, and Stafford probably should just be removed entirely as they all deserve their own special place on the outside of the list as oft overrated, wildly inconsistent volume passers.  It would be a special QB purgatory, if you will, for a group of guys who regularly dance between T2 greatness and T5 atrociousness for no discernible reason.

 

No anti-Eli bias there? ;)

 

He's tough to grade. I thought about where I would have ranked Eli a year ago, two years ago. And I thought about the reasons he played so poorly last year. I think he's on the fence between 2 and 3, for sure, but decided to give him more credit for his highs. (Your mileage may vary, as I mentioned.)

 

Not sure why you default to me being biased toward Luck. Look around the Internet at the way non-Colts fans talk about him. The ESPN study from yesterday put him at #5. I put him at #8 overall. I think he's better than Newton, Foles, and Romo, and I don't think there's much question about that; there was lots of pushback when Newton was ranked above him in the NFL100. I guess it's arguable, but it's not simple bias that I'd call him better than those guys. You'll notice I put Wilson in Tier 2 as well, right behind Luck. My opinion, they're better than the other young guys.

 

I probably did get a little ambitious in suggesting that they could be Tier 1 by next year; it would likely take an MVP type season from either of them to even be close, and I'd probably still hold them back. 

 

Palmer has definitely been solid the last two years. Never called him a riser. He might be on the fringe.

 

I wouldn't call Stafford inconsistent. I wouldn't call Flacco a volume passer. But I do agree that there are several guys who are inconsistent, with the ability to play really well at times, but also sometimes completely self-destruct. I chose to use a "body of work" approach, but they typically get a little bit of a ding for repeated wild fluctuations like that. Everyone has a dry spell every now and then, but some of these guys hit a wall two or three times a year. 

[amfootball]

Since he and Luck performed virtually the same last season, you have no problem with Luck being in tier 1 either?

They did? I don't recall Brady throwing 7 picks in the playoffs. Or any for that matter.

[Dustin]

They did? I don't recall Brady throwing 7 picks in the playoffs. Or any for that matter.

 

I don't recall him scoring 7 TDs either. But the point remains the same, Brady didn't play at a tier 1 level last year. He didn't do anything in the playoffs other than cost his team a super bowl berth. 

[Valpo2004]

Since he and Luck performed virtually the same last season, you have no problem with Luck being in tier 1 either?

 

To be fair you have to figure in more then 1 season when you can.  Sample size is important.

 

Otherwise if you go by just 1 season of stats then Nick Foles is an elite quarterback already.

 

If you look at his efficiency numbers he's the best quarterback in the league.

 

64% completion puts him at #8, 9.1 yards per attempt puts him at #1, 119.2 Passer rating is #1, and his 8.5% TD percentage and his ridiculously low .6% Int percentage put him ahead of Brees, Manning, Brady, Rodgers and Luck  (And I'm guessing everyone else too but I can't find complete rankings on that.)

[amfootball]

I don't recall him throwing 6 TDs either. But the point remains the same, Brady didn't play at a tier 1 level last year. He didn't do anything in the playoffs other than cost his team a super bowl berth. 

"Brady didn't play at a tier 1 level last year."  Key words being "last year" when his entire receiver base turned over and then was decimated by injury. I took Superman's criteria of ranking QBs to be more than one year but more of a totality of the player. When Luck has achieved even 10 percent of what Brady has then we can talk about him as being in the super elite category that is reserved for Brady and Manning alone. Right now I would put Luck in tier 3 with the new wave QBs - Wilson, Kaep, Newton.

[Dustin]

To be fair you have to figure in more then 1 season when you can.  Sample size is important.

 

Otherwise if you go by just 1 season of stats then Nick Foles is an elite quarterback already.

 

I don't. What he did 2 seasons ago doesn't mean anything to how good a QB he is now.

 

As for Foles, he played with arguably the best supporting cast in the NFL and a system that hid his weaknesses (hey more power 2 him), if he had played for more than half the season, he would probably;y be in the tier with Romo.

[Dustin]

in the super elite category that is reserved for Brady and Manning alone

 

The thing is, that's it's not. Brady is maybe tier 2 at this point in his career. I'll put him in the elite category when he plays like he belongs there. Not because of what he did in the past. 

[amfootball]

The thing is, that's it's not. Brady is maybe tier 2 at this point in his career. I'll put him in the elite category when he plays like he belongs there. Not because of what he did in the past. 

This whole thread disagrees with you but to each his own. When Gronk was on the field last year, the Pats had the highest scoring offense for those games. If you want to somehow chalk up his numbers to a decline go right ahead but even ESPN acknowledged that there was no decline in his play when he actually had healthy receivers to throw to.

[Dustin]

This whole board disagrees with you but to each his own. When Gronk was on the field last year, the Pats had the highest scoring offense for those games. If you want to somehow chalk up his numbers to a decline go right ahead but even ESPN acknowledged that there was no decline in his play when he actually had healthy receivers to throw to.

 

So he plays better when he has the most dominant TE in the NFL playing? Color me shocked. What happened to "Brady can turn any scrub into a pro-bowler!" talk that I was hearing before last season?

[Dustin]

ESPN acknowledged that there was no decline in his play when he actually had healthy receivers to throw to.

 

[Citation needed]

[amfootball]

So he plays better when he has the most dominant TE in the NFL playing? Color me shocked. What happened to "Brady can trn any scrub into a pro-bowler!" talk that I was hearing before last season?

I guess it depends what you are judging it on. If you are talking about volume stats and such then heck yeah, Gronk is instrumental. But if you are talking about winning then Brady didn't miss a beat from two years ago to last season as he led the league in fourth quarter comebacks to help propel the Pats to 12 wins and the second seed. Any other Qb with the exception of Manning, would have been fortunate to win 6-7 games and have half the stats Brady put up given who he was throwing to all season.