NFL QB ratings

[Administrator]

Didn't a certain forum punching bag have AR rated 18th in the league?

What's your point? This isn't a ranking of QBs. It's a ranking of "QB packages." I'm sure Matt Flynn holds the Packers rank down quite a bit. In this ranking, if you paired Jon Kitna with Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would be ranked quite a bit higher. Don't get him started again.

If your theory is correct, then how do you explain the #16 ranking with Flacco, Troy Smith and John Beck? They don't exactly inspire confidence as capable backups either.

It is not a theory so much as a clear statement made by the author of the article. It seems pretty clear that the author is of the opinion that the problem is not Rodgers, but the lack of a backup. He also clearly states that he believes Kitna is a capable backup. Thus, if you were to replace the Flynn with Kitna and the author believes that the Packer's would be improved...

In terms of game day experience, perhaps. In terms of upside, no. I understand what the author was trying to get at, but the only way Harvey's point works is that Flacco and Rodgers are essentially even, and that Smith is ranked above Flynn. Otherwise, Flacco clearly has the edge over Rodgers in this authors mind. I find that to be an interesting point, that I certainly don't agree with, but he's paid for his opinion (presumably).

[Administrator]

If your theory is correct, then how do you explain the #16 ranking with Flacco, Troy Smith and John Beck? They don't exactly inspire confidence as capable backups either.

Ravens fan? He likes Flacco too much? He also has Eli Manning and David Carr (at #17) ranked below Flacco and Smith.

Actually I kind of agreed with the Giants ranking. I think Eli has peaked, and you've got what you've got, and Carr? Plenty of starting experience, but serving as a human pinball for 5 years has most likely ruined him.

I was slightly surprised that Eli wasn't at 18 and Rodgers at 17, but again, I don't know the motivation of the author. It might be personal, but I'd hope not.

[Zool]

Does Cutler always look like he's about to cry?

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-qbrankings/15/

[Administrator]

Does Cutler always look like he's about to cry?

http://www.comcast.net/slideshow/sports-qbrankings/15/

I'm hoping to see a lot more of that dazed look. I kind of like it.

[sharpe1027]

Didn't a certain forum punching bag have AR rated 18th in the league?

What's your point? This isn't a ranking of QBs. It's a ranking of "QB packages." I'm sure Matt Flynn holds the Packers rank down quite a bit. In this ranking, if you paired Jon Kitna with Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would be ranked quite a bit higher. Don't get him started again.

If your theory is correct, then how do you explain the #16 ranking with Flacco, Troy Smith and John Beck? They don't exactly inspire confidence as capable backups either.

It is not a theory so much as a clear statement made by the author of the article. It seems pretty clear that the author is of the opinion that the problem is not Rodgers, but the lack of a backup. He also clearly states that he believes Kitna is a capable backup. Thus, if you were to replace the Flynn with Kitna and the author believes that the Packer's would be improved...

In terms of game day experience, perhaps. In terms of upside, no. I understand what the author was trying to get at, but the only way Harvey's point works is that Flacco and Rodgers are essentially even, and that Smith is ranked above Flynn. Otherwise, Flacco clearly has the edge over Rodgers in this authors mind. I find that to be an interesting point, that I certainly don't agree with, but he's paid for his opinion (presumably).

I am puzzled how this is even debatable. Flacco really has nothing to do with what I or Harvey said.

The facts are:
1.) The author gives credit to Rodgers.
2.) The author rips on the Packer's backups.
3.) The author praises Kitna as a backup.

Logic dictates that replacing Flynn with Kitna improves the Packers in the view of the author. This can include a jump of Rodgers over Flacco regardless of whom is believed to be better.

The author makes it clear that while he would prefer more experience, the Ravens back QBs have a combined six starts. How many starts do the Packer's backups have?

To put it simply, just because the author likes backups for neither the Packers nor the Ravens, that doesn't mean he thinks they are equivalent. Instead, he seems to suggest that the Ravens backups have an edge.

[Administrator]

I am puzzled how this is even debatable. Flacco really has nothing to do with what I or Harvey said.

The facts are:
1.) The author gives credit to Rodgers.
2.) The author rips on the Packer's backups.
3.) The author praises Kitna as a backup.

Logic dictates that replacing Flynn with Kitna improves the Packers in the view of the author. This can include a jump of Rodgers over Flacco regardless of whom is believed to be better.

The author makes it clear that while he would prefer more experience, the Ravens back QBs have a combined six starts. How many starts do the Packer's backups have?

To put it simply, just because the author likes backups for neither the Packers nor the Ravens, that doesn't mean he thinks they are equivalent. Instead, he seems to suggest that the Ravens backups have an edge.

But your logical argument disappears when you look at the Giants which are ranked inbetween the packers & Ravens. Carr has 5 seasons worth of game experience, yet, the author talks about him being "ruined" from the experience.

So, if you look at it on pure logic, the author appears to like Flacco better than both Rodgers & Manning. That would negate the importance of the "backup analysis" despite the "inconsistencies" you find in the things the author said.

I'm just wondering what the author was thinking, that didn't get written down, or got eliminated from his one paragraph analysis.

[sharpe1027]

But your logical argument disappears when you look at the Giants which are ranked inbetween the packers & Ravens. Carr has 5 seasons worth of game experience, yet, the author talks about him being "ruined" from the experience.

So, if you look at it on pure logic, the author appears to like Flacco better than both Rodgers & Manning. That would negate the importance of the "backup analysis" despite the "inconsistencies" you find in the things the author said.

I'm just wondering what the author was thinking, that didn't get written down, or got eliminated from his one paragraph analysis.

The author doesn't like Carr, he doesn't like Flynn and he doesn't like Smith. If the any of those teams were to replace any one of those QBs with Kitna, whom he likes, the team's rating will go up. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Your hypothetical arugments about how the author would have rated of individual QBs is at best a guess. I don't know whether he thinks Flacco, Rodgers or Manning is better and your "logic" certainly doesn't prove anything in that regard. Frankly, it doesn't matter. The point is, he clearly indicated that his reason for ranking the Packers low was because of their backups and not Rodgers.

Replace Flynn and the author would have ranked the Packers higher. Pretty simple and frankly about as clear-cut as it could be.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could read his review of the Packers and argue otherwise.

[Administrator]

The author doesn't like Carr, he doesn't like Flynn and he doesn't like Smith. If the any of those teams were to replace any one of those QBs with Kitna, whom he likes, the team's rating will go up. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Your hypothetical arugments about how the author would have rated of individual QBs is at best a guess. I don't know whether he thinks Flacco, Rodgers or Manning is better and your "logic" certainly doesn't prove anything in that regard. Frankly, it doesn't matter. The point is, he clearly indicated that his reason for ranking the Packers low was because of their backups and not Rodgers.

Replace Flynn and the author would have ranked the Packers higher. Pretty simple and frankly about as clear-cut as it could be.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could read his review of the Packers and argue otherwise.

Ah, yes. The old, "the only way you could see this rationally is to agree with me analysis". Got it. Duly noted. Though quite honestly, I could have done without the judgement and the sarcasm.

My opinion of the analysis is only a "guess", but yours is clearly supported by the "facts" as you posted in your earlier post. Please use those facts to explain to me why he likes Carr and Smith better than Flynn. Also please show me what specific criteria he used to rank 16-17-18. Because quite honestly, I found the whole "backup" analysis as more supporting of his decisions than the main deciding factor. Frankly, Kitna is a red herring, and not really germane to the point at hand. Besides, your assumption that the Packers would move up if they signed them, is a "guess" also.

I was commenting on the subjectivity of the analysis. That's the part that interested me. I wasn't interested, and still am not, interested in a bunch of rationalizations or denials about Rodgers awesome performance or the lack thereof. Nonetheless, if you look at the "gap" between this analysis and the decidely biased analysis found in this forum over the last 6 months, there is clearly an issue other than the quality of the backups that explain the difference of opinion. I'm focused there, because I see value in reading, and understanding an analysis by someone who doesn't own green and gold goggles.

If you don't see the need to debate, then don't debate. It is really quite simple.

[sharpe1027]

Ah, yes. The old, "the only way you could see this rationally is to agree with me analysis". Got it. Duly noted. Though quite honestly, I could have done without the judgement and the sarcasm.

My opinion of the analysis is only a "guess", but yours is clearly supported by the "facts" as you posted in your earlier post. Please use those facts to explain to me why he likes Carr and Smith better than Flynn. Also please show me what specific criteria he used to rank 16-17-18. Because quite honestly, I found the whole "backup" analysis as more supporting of his decisions than the main deciding factor. Frankly, Kitna is a red herring, and not really germane to the point at hand. Besides, your assumption that the Packers would move up if they signed them, is a "guess" also.

I was commenting on the subjectivity of the analysis. That's the part that interested me. I wasn't interested, and still am not, interested in a bunch of rationalizations or denials about Rodgers awesome performance or the lack thereof. Nonetheless, if you look at the "gap" between this analysis and the decidely biased analysis found in this forum over the last 6 months, there is clearly an issue other than the quality of the backups that explain the difference of opinion. I'm focused there, because I see value in reading, and understanding an analysis by someone who doesn't own green and gold goggles.

If you don't see the need to debate, then don't debate. It is really quite simple.

I take offense to you mischaracterization of my posts. I apologize if I hurt your feelings, but I stand by exactly what I wrote and there was no sarcasm, just honest disbelief.

It is difficult for me to understand how, after reading the assessment of the Packers, one could reasonably come to the conclusion that improving the Packers backup situation would not have resulted in a corresponding increase in rating. I never foreclosed the possibility that I am wrong. I simply see nothing to suggest that the author was not basing his ranking of the Packers "QB CORPS" rather than ranking pretty much only on the starting QB.

I refuse to tell you why he likes Carr and Smith better than Flynn, because I have no idea if he does and only your argument requires this analysis.

I also refuse to show you what specific criteria he used to rank 16-17-18, because again I do not know and only your argument requires this analysis.

You are technically correct, that my assertion that the Packers would move up if they signed them, is a "guess". However, just read what he wrote and be honest. He praises Rodgers and completely blasts the backups. You could be right that he barely factored the backups in his consideration; however, it just seems to go against common sense.

You believe that the backups were merely supportive, yet:

1.) The title of the piece is QB CORPs.
2.) The substance of the piece talks extensively about backups.
3.) Teams having starting QBs that were given good reviews, were ranked relatively low when the author disapproved of the backups.

Finally, your opinion that the discussion in this forum is decidedly biased proves nothing other than you feel the need to dismiss opinions you disagree with as biased.

[sharpe1027]

Page one of the article:

In the modern NFL, forget about your starting quarterback lasting the entire season.

Quarterback is still king and rates as the most important position on the field, but in today's NFL teams often go through as many as three QBs in simply surviving the regular season. Even with rules slanted to protect the passer, a strong benefits package is suggested if you're an NFL quarterback.

So which teams are best positioned to not just survive, but flourish at quarterback in 2009? For the purposes of our rankings, the goal for every team is to find two, if not three, guys who can come in and start in case of injury emergencies. Ideally, the backups would include a veteran who has been through the NFL battles and a young, talented prodigy the team is grooming for the future.

A great starting QB alone is most important, but a lack of solid backups can mean a steep drop. Super Bowl experience definitely helps, since it's all about winning.

[KYPack]

Didn't a certain forum punching bag have AR rated 18th in the league?

What's your point? This isn't a ranking of QBs. It's a ranking of "QB packages." I'm sure Matt Flynn holds the Packers rank down quite a bit. In this ranking, if you paired Jon Kitna with Aaron Rodgers, the Packers would be ranked quite a bit higher. Don't get him started again.

Just tossing the boy a bone.
The fact that both P and this writer came up with the number 18 was ironic. I know it's two different deals.
A little "satire" on my part.

[Lurker64]

How sure are we that Partial didn't write this article? Can anybody confirm?

[Administrator]

We certainly disagree with the importance placed on backups.

What I read shows that the author violated his own points in a couple of places, most notably with the Giants at 17, despite the "importance" he placed on Super Bowl experience. Also, secondly, Carr has 5 years of starting experience, and he states he views an "experience backup" as critical for stepping in related to injury. How much more experience can one have?

Next, He ranks New Orleans #1, yet says "ideally" you'll have a proven starter, a capable backup and a develpmental QB for the future. Harrington doesn't qualify for the development position in my mind, and it is certainly debatable that Brunell is the top qualified backup.

So, again, I'm focused in trying to understand other thoughts on how he arrived at his subjective ranking.

As to the forum people, you've read the same comments about Rodgers that I have. There are more than a few here who see no warts, and no possibility of warts in the future. No matter whether you agree or disagree, it is clearly not unbiased. I again, want to emphasize that I like Rodgers, and am very encouraged by what we saw last year. That being said, I'm not yet ready to induct him into the HOF, and am certainly not willing to say he's a top 10 qb. Though last years numbers clearly support a quality ranking. We as a fan base, couldn't have reasonable expected any more from Rodgers than what we received last season. We knew that there would be growing pains and those were certainly minimized, and as a plus we found out he isn't afraid of playing hurt, which is relatively rare in today's NFL.

As to what you "meant" or didn't mean, I let your first comment go. Then later when you did it again, and twice in the very same post, I called you on it. I don't care whether you liked it or not, FWIW, I didn't enjoy it either. I also find it very difficult to interpret your comments in any other manner than the way I did even considering your later explanation.

[sharpe1027]

We certainly disagree with the importance placed on backups.

What I read shows that the author violated his own points in a couple of places, most notably with the Giants at 17, despite the "importance" he placed on Super Bowl experience. Also, secondly, Carr has 5 years of starting experience, and he states he views an "experience backup" as critical for stepping in related to injury. How much more experience can one have?

Placing importance on a issue does not preclude one from making a decision based on other factors. The author knows Carr has experience, but still does not like him. That proves nothing other than the author probalby watched enough of Carr's play to think he sucks even though he played a lot of downs.

Next, He ranks New Orleans #1, yet says "ideally" you'll have a proven starter, a capable backup and a develpmental QB for the future. Harrington doesn't qualify for the development position in my mind, and it is certainly debatable that Brunell is the top qualified backup.

It clearly is debatable, but the author is not out-of-bounds in looking at those three QBs and feeling they are the best combination. You can quibble about details, but trying to pigeon hole a ranking in the manner you did is an oversimplification.

Frankly, even I take nearly everything you say as gospel, I see nothing to suggest that improving the Packer's backup situation in the eyes of the author would have no effect on his rankings.

So, again, I'm focused in trying to understand other thoughts on how he arrived at his subjective ranking.

Read the opening paragraph of the article. Besides, what you are "focused" on is straying quite a bit from the original point that the Packer's QB CORP would be ranked higher with Kitna as backup.

As to the forum people, you've read the same comments about Rodgers that I have. There are more than a few here who see no warts, and no possibility of warts in the future. No matter whether you agree or disagree, it is clearly not unbiased. I again, want to emphasize that I like Rodgers, and am very encouraged by what we saw last year. That being said, I'm not yet ready to induct him into the HOF, and am certainly not willing to say he's a top 10 qb. Though last years numbers clearly support a quality ranking. We as a fan base, couldn't have reasonable expected any more from Rodgers than what we received last season. We knew that there would be growing pains and those were certainly minimized, and as a plus we found out he isn't afraid of playing hurt, which is relatively rare in today's NFL.

I am unaware of even single poster that believes that Rodgers has no warts. Please show me one single poster that believes this. Just one, eventhough you claim there are more than a few. Your mischaracterization again shows that it is YOU who is biased.

As to what you "meant" or didn't mean, I let your first comment go. Then later when you did it again, and twice in the very same post, I called you on it. I don't care whether you liked it or not, FWIW, I didn't enjoy it either. I also find it very difficult to interpret your comments in any other manner than the way I did even considering your later explanation.

I have no idea what you "called me on" other than some unfounded allegation that I was being sarcastic and said only my opinion was correct.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could read that article and conclude that the ranking of the Packer QB CORP did not suffer because of their backups. If you have a problem with that simple statement, sobeit.

[Administrator]

I see. Again, I ask you to define something, you tell me no. Then you tell me to prove what I see.

Can't you see the double standard?

Sharpe, the archives are there. Have at it. Should make for some good reading for you. The "tone" should be pretty clear, if you look at it objectively.

Thanks for the debate, but I'm done. Should be interesting to watch this season unfold.