10-21-2015, 02:23 PM
(10-21-2015, 01:15 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: :
Let's take a look at the guys you mentioned their 1st 4 years starting in the NFL
Brady did not start year 1 so I will compare years 2 through 5
#1 - 86.5
#2 - 85.7
#3 - 85.9
#4 - 92.6
Average is 87.67 and had one year on bench to prepare
Brees - Did not start year one so again years 2 through5
#1 - 76.9
#2 - 67.5
# 3 - 104.8
#4 - 89.2
Average is 84.60 and had one year on the bench to prepare
Peyton Manning - started immediately
#1- 71.2
#2 - 90.7
#3 - 94.7
#4 - 84.1
Average is 85.17 over 1st 4 years and then had 2 more years under 100 QBR
Rodgers - sat 1st 3 years (played sparingly and had QBR of 62, but very little playing time)
Year #1 (first year starting year #4) - 106
#2 - 93.8
#3 - 103.2
#4 - 101.2
Average of 101.05
Rodgers was obviously groomed and ready after getting 3 years under Favre to be ready and without a doubt on everyone's discussion for the HOF already
Dalton - started immediately
#1 - 80.4
#2 - 87.4
#3 - 88.8
#4 - 83.5
Overall AD is 85.02 first 4 years
These are the facts and yes all kinds of debate as some on this list started careers in less friendly rules for QB's and receivers
But of the guys you mentioned only Manning and Dalton started year #1 and the rest had time to hone their skills and learn on the bench for at least one year.
We can argue to talent and many other factors that surround(ed) them, but that is very subjective and a lot of research needed to gather accurate facts like we already know about our Bengals (injuries in 2014 to WR and TE position) so to me it may all be a wash if trying to figure out if AD had advantage over any of them.
I am not saying AD is elite or even in that discussion (career) right now, but looking back at these great QB's, he could be someday if he continues to progress.
I also noticed only Brady and Rodgers were consistent while the rest did not have a steady progression in years 1 to 4.
You are having an entirely different discussion than what was being discussed earlier. Fwiw, it's gone like this:
1.) I mentioned that I currently ranked Andy in the 6-10 range of QB's. I thought he is a QB worthy to be considered in that group.
2.) Someone asked me why I didn't have him as "elite" and what my top 3 were.
3.) I responded with my 3 (Rodgers, Brady, Rivers) and explained why I have him where I do, and agreed with the idea of his elite level of play we're seeing currently.
4.) For some reason, someone else mentioned that you can't expect any elite QB to keep up this pace. (Not really sure what that has to do with anything, but whatever)
5.) Someone simply reminded them that plenty of elite QB have done just that (See multiple 110 plus years, 40, 50 TD's, 5,000 yards, etc.) I don't think they did this to detract from Dalton, just to clarify further what constitutes elite play and it's sustainability.
Somehow we're now here. Talking about the first four years of QB's careers. This was never an Andy's career vs anyone else debate though. It started as a simple explanation as to why someone regards his current level of play elite, while regarding his talent level good to very good (6-10).
I could mistaken, but I do think some of you are hyper-sensitive when it comes to the team you root for. If anything this has been a praise Andy thread. Why go to all the trouble of finding stats to defend Andy's first four years when it's not even a discussion.
Andy has played absolutely great to start the season. No doubt. But Andy is not great (elite) yet. If you're building a team, and you start going down the list of the guys you want at QB, Rodgers and Brady are going to top that list right now. Most likely guys like Rivers, Rapes McGee and Brees and going to go next. And there's a very good chance Andy goes in the next group, among names like Ryan and Wilson. There is nothing wrong with saying that. It's no knock on Andy.
Great start. Good QB. Can we all just agree on that?
