NFL QB ratings

[Scott Campbell]

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.

I think that's a gross exaggeration.

[sharpe1027]

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.

Fine you are done. I apologize for having to get the last word in, but I'm rather annoyed at your continued allegations and tone.

When you ask me to define something that has nothing to do with my point and is clearly designed to be unprovable, exactly what should I say? You asked me to prove something that you knew could not be proven, but which I never claimed to know, I refused to take the bait. I asked you to backup what you said since I believe it is false. Double standard? Hardly.

There is not a single poster that believes Rodgers "has no warts." Therer are plenty that believe he played very well for a first year guy and even some that expect him to improve and maybe end up being a HoFer. If that is the "tone" you refer to, then I disagree that it is "decidedly biased." Maybe they are wrong, but maybe you are wrong. Who is to say what is biased? Do you really want to put youself out as being more correct/unbiased than others who post here?

[retailguy]

I apologize for having to get the last word in, but ...

:P

[Joemailman]

Re: NFL QB ratings

When you scroll to the Riaders, Jamarcus Russell looks overweight and out of shape.

Holy crap.

He must outweigh Garcia by 100 pounds.

[sharpe1027]

I apologize for having to get the last word in, but ...

:P

Yah. The first step is admitting the problem, I forget the rest.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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.

Reason: Until Smith was injured many considered him the starting QB. Flynn nor any other backup on the pack was ever remotely close to starting.

As for Carr...it is pretty evident that even a ruined Carr is better than our two backups..and most GMs would want a former starter..one who is perhaps being rehabilitated..over our backups who have not one start between them.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

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

Because the author didn't waste 5000 words on why VY is #1?

[Pugger]

If the author was ranking QB Corps then he should have listed his rankings by TEAM and not by the individual starter.

[Patler]

If the author was ranking QB Corps then he should have listed his rankings by TEAM and not by the individual starter.

He did. At least in the article I pulled up and read from the link. Even in the picture sequence the caption begins with the team, then lists the QBs.

The chart in the article:
Column 1 - "No." (i.e.rank)
Column 2 - "TEAM"
Column 3 - "Depth Chart" (Obviously the starter will be at the top of the list)
Column 4 - "Breakdown" (Generally starts with the starter and works down the depth chart)

[Fritz]

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.

I think that's a gross exaggeration.

One can never discount the possibility of warts in the future. Even if you're careful when you're walking around in the lockerroom and you make sure you're wearing flip-flops.

However, I am one of the ones who sees no warts on Rodgers. Having said that, if you look closely you can see a few zits. Most of them are tiny blackheads, but there is one big puffy whitehead on his lower left cheek, between his ear and his mouth. I wish he'd pop it already.

[Guiness]

that was rankings? Holy....

There seem to be two - the slideshow and the chart.

But the chart put New England at #5. wtf? a guy who hasn't played in a year and three guys I've never heard of? Reason seems to be that Bilichick can get the most out of them?