09-11-2015, 09:52 AM
(09-11-2015, 09:39 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but you love to compare QB's who have played 6 or 7 years in the NFL or more to AD who has played 4 years in the NFL. By your own admission, if you compare AD years 1 to 4 to Flacco (apples to apples), they are very similar with the slight edge going to AD overall in my opinion.
We can't compare AD yet in years 5 and beyond fairly. It is all hypothetical right now.
Once you factor in later years and Joe's Super Bowl run, he gets the edge in my opinion overall and a wide margin strictly in the playoffs (AD has the slight advantage in the regular season which is important as it could be argued AD did more to get his team into the playoffs in a one on one match up against Flacco.
The facts are all there and AD has to play better in the playoffs (also rest of team) and now in year 5, youth or inexperience or no longer an excuse. 2014 was a weird abnormality as most QB's or teams don't lose their #2 and #3 for most of the year and then also have their #1 miss almost 6 games of playing time. So, it is not an excuse, but I want to see how AD does in 2015 hopefully with his weapons more in tact as normal (some injuries are normal, but losing your top 3 in a playoff game) so we can see if he progresses or he has peaked.
When you're talking about QB rankings, you don't say "well let's compare them all by their first 4 years!". With that logic, it's only "apples to apples" if you use Andy's rookie season because otherwise it's not fair to Bortles, Bridgewater, and Carr. That doesn't make any sense at all, so instead we're going to talk about careers and most recent accomplishments when talking about QB rankings.
I do love to compare QBs who have played 6+ years to young QBs, because guess what? Those are Andy's peers. Those are Blake Bortle's peers. Those are Ryan Tannehill's peers. It's entirely irrelevant to compare what Blake Bortles did in 2015 to what Tom Brady did in 2001. It's actually NOT apples to apples to compare their first X years only. It makes the most sense when talking about QB rankings to compare them to their peers, which is exactly what a ranking system is doing.
I find it hilarious that Bengals fans think it's only "fair" and "apples to apples" to compare exactly the first 4 years of a career as if that makes any sense whatsoever in this type of discussion. Forget that other guys have played less than 4 years and it doesn't make any sense to begin with. Save that for the people who are dumb enough to go along with that shit logic. This is a QB ranking thread, not a "Who had a better first 4 years?" thread.
