(09-10-2015, 04:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000524987/article/qb-index-ranking-the-starters-132?campaign=fb-nf-sf12966187-sf12966187

Interesting, sort of.

He puts Aaron Rodgers at 1 by himself.

This is the "top shelf" under Rodgers.

2. Ben Roethlisberger
3. Andrew Luck
4. Tom Brady
5. Matt Ryan
6. Philip Rivers
7. Drew Brees
8. Tony Romo
9. Russell Wilson
10. Peyton Manning

This is the "next level".

11. Cam Newton
12. Joe Flacco
13. Matthew Stafford
14. Ryan Tannehill
15. Eli Manning
16. Sam Bradford
17. Carson Palmer
18. Teddy Bridgewater
19. Colin Kaepernick

Andy is included with the "stuck in the middle" crowd.

20. Alex Smith
21. Jay Cutler
22. Andy Dalton
23. Blake Bortles
24. Nick Foles

"The rookies"

25. Jameis Winston
26. Marcus Mariota

Finally, "the question marks"

27. Derek Carr
28. Kirk Cousins
29. Ryan Fitzpatrick
30. Tyrod Taylor
31. Josh McCown
32. Brian Hoyer

People always seem to have interesting things to say about Rosenthal's objectivity. I'm not sure if he's being biased, but I disagree with a handful of his rankings. Some of these seem strange. I won't get to really look much more into this until later though, but figured I'd post it before I had to go for a while.

His 1 simple statement about Andy Dalton is "Dalton is a poor man's Smith", and I'm not so sure how accurate that is.

Looks about right.

(09-10-2015, 06:00 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Why is Flacco "above average" when he is below Dalton in career rating, yards per game, and TD%?  

SB and vastly superior in big games.

(09-11-2015, 12:06 AM)BengalChris Wrote: SB and vastly superior in big games.

He certainly wasn't in his first 4.  

(09-11-2015, 12:25 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: He certainly wasn't in his first 4.  

He was 4-0.

(09-11-2015, 12:26 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: He was 4-0.

No he wasn't. He was 3-2 in his first 5, and wins are team stats. Plus in Flaccos first 5 playoff games he was 1 TD and 6 INT. He didn't pass for over 200 yards in any of those and he only had above 50% completion once in those games. He played worse than Dalton.

(09-10-2015, 04:24 PM)djs7685 Wrote: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000524987/article/qb-index-ranking-the-starters-132?campaign=fb-nf-sf12966187-sf12966187

Interesting, sort of.

He puts Aaron Rodgers at 1 by himself.

This is the "top shelf" under Rodgers.

2. Ben Roethlisberger - over Luck and Brady? Heck, over Brees, Peyton and Rivers? Rosenthal always was a Steelers homer.
3. Andrew Luck
4. Tom Brady
5. Matt Ryan
6. Philip Rivers
7. Drew Brees
8. Tony Romo
9. Russell Wilson
10. Peyton Manning - I'm not ready to drop Manning this low yet. This is ridiculous IMO. Manning is still winning games with an average team around him. He's 90% of why the Broncos have been dominant.

This is the "next level".

11. Cam Newton - I like Newton, but this is a bit high.
12. Joe Flacco - Probably a couple spots too high.
13. Matthew Stafford - Too high. Still living off the reputation from his 2011 season.
14. Ryan Tannehill 
15. Eli Manning - I'd move him up a couple spots. He's been great lately.
16. Sam Bradford - I think Bradford can be solid when healthy, but he hasn't earned a spot this high yet.
17. Carson Palmer
18. Teddy Bridgewater - Was his rookie season really that impressive?
19. Colin Kaepernick

Andy is included with the "stuck in the middle" crowd.

20. Alex Smith - I like him more than Bradford and Teddy at this point.
21. Jay Cutler - Same here.
22. Andy Dalton - This is really on the low end of where any reasonable person would rank Dalton. I'd take him over Bradford, Teddy (right now), Smith or Cutler. Rosenthal has long been a critic of Dalton though, so I'm surprised he's not lower.

23. Blake Bortles
24. Nick Foles

"The rookies"

25. Jameis Winston
26. Marcus Mariota

Finally, "the question marks"

27. Derek Carr - Carr is a "question mark" while Teddy and Bortles are not? He's automatically behind the rookies?
28. Kirk Cousins
29. Ryan Fitzpatrick
30. Tyrod Taylor
31. Josh McCown
32. Brian Hoyer

People always seem to have interesting things to say about Rosenthal's objectivity. I'm not sure if he's being biased, but I disagree with a handful of his rankings. Some of these seem strange. I won't get to really look much more into this until later though, but figured I'd post it before I had to go for a while.

His 1 simple statement about Andy Dalton is "Dalton is a poor man's Smith", and I'm not so sure how accurate that is.

:snark:

I don't care about Rosenthal. He's an idiot anyways.

(09-11-2015, 12:31 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No he wasn't. He was 3-2 in his first 5, and wins are team stats. Plus in Flaccos first 5 playoff games he was 1 TD and 6 INT. He didn't pass for over 200 yards in any of those and he only had above 50% completion once in those games. He played worse than Dalton.

Are you serious? Flacco played worse than Dalton in the playoffs? His postseason record surely doesn't show it.

(09-11-2015, 01:09 AM)Fresno B Wrote: Are you serious? Flacco played worse than Dalton in the playoffs? His postseason record surely doesn't show it.

You just answered your own question bud.

(09-11-2015, 01:09 AM)Fresno B Wrote: Are you serious? Flacco played worse than Dalton in the playoffs? His postseason record surely doesn't show it.

I'm talking about Flaccos first 5 games. Flacco didn't play good in the playoffs until his 5th year in the league.

(09-11-2015, 12:31 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: No he wasn't. He was 3-2 in his first 5, and wins are team stats. Plus in Flaccos first 5 playoff games he was 1 TD and 6 INT. He didn't pass for over 200 yards in any of those and he only had above 50% completion once in those games. He played worse than Dalton.

I meant in his first four years, he was 4-0 in the first round.  I thought you were comparing his playoff performance to Dalton's?

And I'll remember that wins are team stats the next you use them to hold up Andy.  ie "Andy won 40 games in his first four years" or "Andy made the playoffs four straight years".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either Andy gets credit for those and Flacco gets the same for getting to where he did in years 1-4, or neither do.  You don't get to pick and choose, solely to support your argument.

(09-11-2015, 01:42 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I meant in his first four years, he was 4-0 in the first round.  I thought you were comparing his playoff performance to Dalton's?

And I'll remember that wins are team stats the next you use them to hold up Andy.  ie "Andy won 40 games in his first four years" or "Andy made the playoffs four straight years".

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  Either Andy gets credit for those and Flacco gets the same for getting to where he did in years 1-4, or neither do.  You don't get to pick and choose, solely to support your argument.

Flacco had no part in winning those games. The Ravens won in spite of Flacco. Here let me give you a few stat lines

4/10 (40%) 34 yards 0 TDs 1 INT. Won the playoff game.

9/23 (39.13%)  134 yards 0 TDs 0 INTs. Won the playoff game.

Yeah... we should totaly give credit to Flacco for those wins

(09-11-2015, 01:27 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Flacco didn't play good in the playoffs until his 5th year in the league.

In year 3 he was 25-34 (73%), threw for 265 yards and 2 TD, with no INT's, good for a 115 QB rating, in a 31-7 rout of the Chiefs.

In year four he posted 97.1 rating in a win, followed by 95.4, in a close loss to the Patriots, in which he threw for over 300 yards.  He averaged 240 yards, with 2 TD's to .5 INTs for 96.1 rating in that postseason.

I thought you said he didn't play well until year 5?  Those look like pretty solid numbers to me.

(09-11-2015, 01:49 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Flacco had no part in winning those games. The Ravens won in spite of Flacco. Here let me give you a few stat lines

4/10 (40%) 34 yards 0 TDs 1 INT. Won the playoff game.

9/23 (39.13%)  134 yards 0 TDs 0 INTs. Won the playoff game.

Yeah... we should totaly give credit to Flacco for those wins

See my very next post.

How does a QB post a 115 QB rating and "play no part in the win"? 

And I don't recall ever saying he should get all the credit for all their wins.  I simply said that if you're going to credit Andy for team stats then you need to do the same for others.

You seem awfully defensive. Touchy subject?

(09-11-2015, 01:51 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: In year 3 he was 25-34 (73%), threw for 265 yards and 2 TD, with no INT's, good for a 115 QB rating, in a 31-7 rout of the Chiefs.

In year four he posted 97.1 rating in a win, followed by 95.4, in a close loss to the Patriots, in which he threw for over 300 yards.  He averaged 240 yards, with 2 TD's to .5 INTs for 96.1 rating in that postseason.

I thought you said he didn't play well until year 5?  Those look like pretty solid numbers to me.

He had 3 fumbles against the chiefs. I guess you like leaving that out.

He had less than 200 yards and a fumble in the 97.1 rating win... You do realize that rating means how efficient he was, and not how well he played right?

Oh good job he had a good game against the Patriots 31st ranked defense

(09-11-2015, 01:54 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: See my very next post.

How does a QB post a 115 QB rating and "play no part in the win"? 

And I don't recall ever saying he should get all the credit for all their wins.  I simply said that if you're going to credit Andy for team stats then you need to do the same for others.

You seem awfully defensive. Touchy subject?

I guess Dalton did pretty good against SD with 334 yards and 1 TD if you want to ignore the turnovers.

(09-11-2015, 01:56 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: He had 3 fumbles against the chiefs. I guess you like leaving that out.

Why are you lying?  Serious question.  Why are you going out of your way to make things up?

According to the box score he had two fumbles, AND ONE OF THEM HE DIDN'T EVEN LOSE.  He lost one fumble.  Want to see it?  Here ya go:

50 sec mark: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81d92589/Wild-card-Playoffs-Ravens-vs-Chiefs-highlights

Does that look like his fault?

Why can't you admit that was a solid game?  Are you so desperate that you need to resort to lying to make other QB's look bad?  Why are  some you so hell bent on making opposing QB's look worse?  I've never seen anything like it.

(09-11-2015, 01:58 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: I guess Dalton did pretty good against SD with 334 yards and 1 TD if you want to ignore the turnovers.

Yeah, I guess if you're going to ignore 2 picks, a 56% completion percentage, and a 52.1 QB rating.  Although that would be kind of odd, as those are all PASSING STATISTICS. 

One would think that passing stats would be relevant in critiquing a quarterback.  But I guess your imaginary fumbles that you just plain made up carry equal weight.

(09-11-2015, 02:28 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: Why are you lying?  Serious question.  Why are you going out of your way to make things up?

According to the box score he had two fumbles, AND ONE OF THEM HE DIDN'T EVEN LOSE.  He lost one fumble.  Want to see it?  Here ya go:

50 sec mark: http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d81d92589/Wild-card-Playoffs-Ravens-vs-Chiefs-highlights

Does that look like his fault?

Why can't you admit that was a solid game?  Are you so desperate that you need to resort to lying to make other QB's look bad?  Why are  some you so hell bent on making opposing QB's look worse?  I've never seen anything like it.

Oh my bad he had 2 fumbles not 3. Good job he had a decent game in his first 8 playoff games. Nothing great. just decent.

Why are people shitting on Flacco for his first few years when he has clearly been amazing in the postseason since then?

QB rankings aren't about their first 4 years in the league, they're about where that QB is at right now. As of this moment, Joe Flacco is better than Andy and it isn't even debatable because of his absurd playoff performances over the last few years.

I don't like Joe more than the next Bengals fan, but let's be a little realistic here. If Andy did what Flacco has been doing in the playoffs we'd be locking him in a top 10 spot and calling everybody stupid that would disagree.

There are a lot of things wrong with this list, and IMO one of them is Andy being so low. What isn't wrong with the list though is Flacco being above Andy. He deserves it until he slows down in the playoffs or Andy starts lighting it up when he gets there.