QB Index by Gregg Rosenthal

[Luvnit2]

(09-11-2015, 09:52 AM)djs7685 Wrote: 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.

Well explain to me then if you go back in time and look at Flacco just years 1-4 against AD, you would project Flacco to get better, yet you project AD to not get better. I don't understand your logic of how you compare AD to his peers using a standard format of years AD has yet to play.

It is easy to see Flacco got better after those first 4 years, Manning got better after years 1-4 and same for Ben R.

You discuss hypotheticals all of the time and how dumb other people using them make them. Yet, you do the exact same thing.

The facts and apples to apples comparision is using their 1st 4 years because there is no comparision after that for AD, it is a hypothetical by you regardeless of how you spin it comparing anything after year 4 to other QB's.

Flacco was very inconsitent his 4 years, that is a fact. AD has been inconsistent his first 4 years, that is also a fact.

[WhoDeyWho]

(09-11-2015, 11:20 AM)djs7685 Wrote: They look like "not elite but better than Andy Dalton" numbers to me. The postseason speaks for itself, and his regular seasons have been regularly solid enough outside of one year to not take his ranking down as much as you want it to.

Your obsession with Andy is honestly pretty sad.

You obsession with propping up other QBs seems just as sad.  If his numbers were so great, one season shouldn't have dropped him below "mediocre" Dalton.  

I'll admit the guy has been good in the playoffs lately, but so has Alex Smith if that's going to be the metric by which "next level" QBs are judged.  

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 11:24 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: He's had Steve Smith from 2011-2013, He's had Brandon Lafell from 2011-2013, He's had Greg Olsen from 2011-2015, He's had DeAngelo Williams from 2011-2014, and Jonathan Stewart 2011-2015, and Benjamin for 2014. He's had solid weapons. Williams and Stewart are better than people like BJGE.

Forgot about Lafell, but he didn't make much noise in their system for whatever reason. Olsen has been underrated by a lot of people over the years. Their RBs have been solid, but both have spent their time injured and Williams and Stewart both had down years while Cam has been around. Steve Smith is obviously good.

This isn't about whether the Bengals or Panthers have better weapons or whatever, so not trying to start that up again. I just think Williams and Stewart were both only really good in Cam's rookie year. Past that, they've both had issues with either injury or just seemingly declining.

[Brownshoe]

(09-11-2015, 11:34 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Forgot about Lafell, but he didn't make much noise in their system for whatever reason. Olsen has been underrated by a lot of people over the years. Their RBs have been solid, but both have spent their time injured and Williams and Stewart both had down years while Cam has been around. Steve Smith is obviously good.

This isn't about whether the Bengals or Panthers have better weapons or whatever, so not trying to start that up again. I just think Williams and Stewart were both only really good in Cam's rookie year. Past that, they've both had issues with either injury or just seemingly declining.

Well for the Panthers RBs it's hard to get much production out of one person when you have 2 RBs plus a QB that likes to run as much as Newton does.

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 11:25 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Well explain to me then if you go back in time and look at Flacco just years 1-4 against AD, you would project Flacco to get better, yet you project AD to not get better. I don't understand your logic of how you compare AD to his peers using a standard format of years AD has yet to play.

It is easy to see Flacco got better after those first 4 years, Manning got better after years 1-4 and same for Ben R.

You discuss hypotheticals all of the time and how dumb other people using them make them. Yet, you do the exact same thing.

The facts and apples to apples comparision is using their 1st 4 years because there is no comparision after that for AD, it is a hypothetical by you regardeless of how you soin it comparing anything after year 4 to other QB's.

Flacco was very inconsitent his 4 years, that is a fact. AD has been inconsistent his first 4 years, that is also a fact.

Where did I ever project Andy to not get better? You're just making shit up out of nowhere to make a nonexistent point.

I'm on record saying Andy has a career year in 2015, sooooo I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm saying the exact opposite.

In QB rankings, you compare them to their peers and their respective careers, not ONLY their peer's first X amount of years. That's stupid to do that.

It's not a hypothetical to compare Andy's career to someone else's career, you're sort of not bright for saying that. You can very much so compare someone's 7 year career to Andy's 4 year career. It's not "unfair". You're free to mention that Andy has only played for 4 seasons and that he can improve, and I'll agree with you! There's nothing made up or hypothetical or "unfair" about it though. I feel like you're not understanding the words that I'm saying very clearly.

You don't seem to know how QB rankings work. I'm positive that you don't know what the word "hypothetical" means. It's not "only fair" to compare what Tom Brady did 15 years ago to what Andy Dalton did 4 years ago, that doesn't make any sense and you're one of the only people trying to argue that awful point. There's a reason for that. You're one of the most frustrating people to argue with because you don't understand some of the most simple shit that people try to explain to you, and you constantly put words in peoples' mouths as well. Stop using terminology if you don't even know what it actually means. There is NOTHING hypothetical about me comparing Joe Flacco's 7 year career to Andy Dalton's 4 year career. Nothing.

(09-11-2015, 11:29 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: You obsession with propping up other QBs seems just as sad.  If his numbers were so great, one season shouldn't have dropped him below "mediocre" Dalton.  

I'll admit the guy has been good in the playoffs lately, but so has Alex Smith if that's going to be the metric by which "next level" QBs are judged.  

Alex Smith has something like 196/327, 2,563 yards, 24 TD, 4 INT, and a Super Bowl ring?? Very interesting and fresh news! Oh, wait, he doesn't and you're just making shit up again. Alex Smith has played in a whopping 3 playoff games. Flacco has been great in the last 10 with only 1 bad game mixed in. Same thing though I guess.

How am I propping anybody up? I don't think Joe is amazing, but he's clearly better than Andy. It's not unnecessarily propping somebody up when you are one of the only people that are silly enough to continue to argue a losing argument. Joe Flacco's 7 year career trumps Andy Dalton's 4 year career SO FAR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAREERS. Joe Flacco played better than Andy Dalton in 2014, the most recent NFL season. I cut Andy slack for his performances due to injuries around him, but hey, Flacco proved to bounce back from his down season, so there's no good reason to say that he is worse than Andy right now.

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 11:38 AM)Brownshoe Wrote: Well for the Panthers RBs it's hard to get much production out of one person when you have 2 RBs plus a QB that likes to run as much as Newton does.

Even their efficiency declined though. DeAngelo decided to stop rushing for 5+ YPC after Cam's rookie year and Jonathan Stewart couldn't stay healthy after that point either. I wasn't only talking about their volume, because yeah it makes sense that total yards would go down with a committee running the ball.

[WhoDeyWho]

(09-11-2015, 11:42 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Where did I ever project Andy to not get better? You're just making shit up out of nowhere to make a nonexistent point.

I'm on record saying Andy has a career year in 2015, sooooo I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm saying the exact opposite.

In QB rankings, you compare them to their peers and their respective careers, not ONLY their peer's first X amount of years. That's stupid to do that.

It's not a hypothetical to compare Andy's career to someone else's career, you're sort of not bright for saying that. You can very much so compare someone's 7 year career to Andy's 4 year career. It's not "unfair". You're free to mention that Andy has only played for 4 seasons and that he can improve, and I'll agree with you! There's nothing made up or hypothetical or "unfair" about it though. I feel like you're not understanding the words that I'm saying very clearly.

You don't seem to know how QB rankings work.


Alex Smith has something like 196/327, 2,563 yards, 24 TD, 4 INT, and a Super Bowl ring?? Very interesting and fresh news! Oh, wait, he doesn't and you're just making shit up again. Alex Smith has played in a whopping 3 playoff games. Flacco has been great in the last 10 with only 1 bad game mixed in. Same thing though I guess.

How am I propping anybody up? I don't think Joe is amazing, but he's clearly better than Andy. It's not unnecessarily propping somebody up when you are one of the only people that are silly enough to continue to argue a losing argument. Joe Flacco's 7 year career trumps Andy Dalton's 4 year career SO FAR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAREERS. Joe Flacco played better than Andy Dalton in 2014, the most recent NFL season. I cut Andy slack for his performances due to injuries around him, but hey, Flacco proved to bounce back from his down season, so there's no good reason to say that he is worse than Andy right now.

"Clearly", which is why when you add all his numbers up over his career they are lower than Dalton's.  "Clearly" he's been a better playoff QB than Dalton has.  However, the playoffs are only a fraction of a player's career.  It's as if with QBs the only games that seem to matter as far as actual QB talent is playoff games.  If that's the case, just rank players by playoff performances and call it a day.    

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 11:57 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: "Clearly", which is why when you add all his numbers up over his career they are lower than Dalton's.  "Clearly" he's been a better playoff QB than Dalton has.  However, the playoffs are only a fraction of a player's career.  It's as if with QBs the only games that seem to matter as far as actual QB talent is playoff games.  If that's the case, just rank players by playoff performances and call it a day.    

But that's not the case at all, you're just making shit up to be your usual condescending self.

I could completely understand your point if Flacco has been putting up 70 passer ratings every year of his career in the regular season and then lighting it up like he has in the playoffs. Then I'd be in agreement with everything you're saying. His regular seasons haven't been BAD though.

Joe Flacco - mediocre to solid regular seasons (1 good and 1 bad mixed in) and amazing playoff performances

Andy Dalton - mediocre to solid regular seasons (1 good mixed in) and bad playoff performances

I mean, just look at it that way. It's not a slight against Andy, Joe deserves to be ranked higher than a lot of guys because he turns it up a notch in the playoffs for whatever reason. He's good enough in the regular season and REALLY good in the playoffs. I hate the guy, but it is what it is man.

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-11-2015, 11:57 AM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: "Clearly", which is why when you add all his numbers up over his career they are lower than Dalton's.  "Clearly" he's been a better playoff QB than Dalton has.  However, the playoffs are only a fraction of a player's career.  It's as if with QBs the only games that seem to matter as far as actual QB talent is playoff games.  If that's the case, just rank players by playoff performances and call it a day.    

Flacco has a Super Bowl ring.  So yes, in the eyes of anyone outside of Bengaldom, that makes him a clearly better quarterback.  Like it or not, the playoffs is what truly define a player.  Those are the biggest games, on the biggest stage.

[WhoDeyWho]

(09-11-2015, 12:05 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Flacco has a Super Bowl ring.  So yes, in the eyes of anyone outside of Bengaldom, that makes him a clearly better quarterback.  Like it or not, the playoffs is what truly define a player.  Those are the biggest games, on the biggest stage.

I don't have a problem with that, but just come out and say it.  Don't try to analyze performance during the regular season because it doesn't appear to matter much.  At least not by the guys ranking QBs.  

[OrlandoBengal]

(09-11-2015, 12:12 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I don't have a problem with that, but just come out and say it.  Don't try to analyze performance during the regular season because it doesn't appear to matter much.  At least not by the guys ranking QBs.  

Agreed.  They heavily weight performance in the playoffs, which I don't necessarily have a problem with.  If the Bengals would have won a playoff game or two, or if Andy had put up better numbers, I think he would be ranked much higher.  Unfortunately, those playoff numbers stick out like a sore thumb.

[WhoDeyWho]

(09-11-2015, 12:18 PM)OrlandoBengal Wrote: Agreed.  They heavily weight performance in the playoffs, which I don't necessarily have a problem with.  If the Bengals would have won a playoff game or two, or if Andy had put up better numbers, I think he would be ranked much higher.  Unfortunately, those playoff numbers stick out like a sore thumb.

I agree, but does Dalton really change that much as a QB if he happens to win a couple playoff games?  Or is it just a perception thing?  

[GreenCornBengal]

I'll say this about Flacco. He makes chicken soup out of chicken shit at times. Just like Dalton, somehow he finds a way to win games. Pretty similar guys before Flaccos playoff gonads dropped.

[Luvnit2]

(09-11-2015, 11:42 AM)djs7685 Wrote: Where did I ever project Andy to not get better? You're just making shit up out of nowhere to make a nonexistent point.

I'm on record saying Andy has a career year in 2015, sooooo I'm not sure why you're claiming that I'm saying the exact opposite.

In QB rankings, you compare them to their peers and their respective careers, not ONLY their peer's first X amount of years. That's stupid to do that.

It's not a hypothetical to compare Andy's career to someone else's career, you're sort of not bright for saying that. You can very much so compare someone's 7 year career to Andy's 4 year career. It's not "unfair". You're free to mention that Andy has only played for 4 seasons and that he can improve, and I'll agree with you! There's nothing made up or hypothetical or "unfair" about it though. I feel like you're not understanding the words that I'm saying very clearly.

You don't seem to know how QB rankings work. I'm positive that you don't know what the word "hypothetical" means. It's not "only fair" to compare what Tom Brady did 15 years ago to what Andy Dalton did 4 years ago, that doesn't make any sense and you're one of the only people trying to argue that awful point. There's a reason for that. You're one of the most frustrating people to argue with because you don't understand some of the most simple shit that people try to explain to you, and you constantly put words in peoples' mouths as well. Stop using terminology if you don't even know what it actually means. There is NOTHING hypothetical about me comparing Joe Flacco's 7 year career to Andy Dalton's 4 year career. Nothing.


Alex Smith has something like 196/327, 2,563 yards, 24 TD, 4 INT, and a Super Bowl ring?? Very interesting and fresh news! Oh, wait, he doesn't and you're just making shit up again. Alex Smith has played in a whopping 3 playoff games. Flacco has been great in the last 10 with only 1 bad game mixed in. Same thing though I guess.

How am I propping anybody up? I don't think Joe is amazing, but he's clearly better than Andy. It's not unnecessarily propping somebody up when you are one of the only people that are silly enough to continue to argue a losing argument. Joe Flacco's 7 year career trumps Andy Dalton's 4 year career SO FAR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAREERS. Joe Flacco played better than Andy Dalton in 2014, the most recent NFL season. I cut Andy slack for his performances due to injuries around him, but hey, Flacco proved to bounce back from his down season, so there's no good reason to say that he is worse than Andy right now.

I don't think most people want to continue to try have an intelligent conversation with another who personally attacks them and in particular their intellect.

But you keep up with your I am the smartest poster in the forum mantra by trying to dismiss others thoughts and opinions. It is who you are and those of us who know it, expect it from you.

[XenoMorph]

(09-10-2015, 05:15 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: For the life of me I don't get why everyone is so down on Peyton Manning. He threw 4700 yards, 39 TD's and had a 101 rating last season and everyone is acting like he's fallen off so much. That yardage total is the 2nd highest of his career. The TD total is the 3rd highest of his career. The rating is the 5th highest.

He's one year removed from the greatest season in the history. His last three years maybe the greatest stretch ever player by a QB. How the hell is he 10th? Cuz he's old? So is Brady, so is Brees. Peyton Manning ranked at 10 is a joke.

you could see visiable decline towards the end of the season last year. he claims he was hurt.

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 01:43 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I don't think most people want to continue to try have an intelligent conversation with another who personally attacks them and in particular their intellect.

But you keep up with your I am the smartest poster in the forum mantra by trying to dismiss others thoughts and opinions. It is who you are and those of us who know it, expect it from you.

I don't have much tolerance for people saying dumb shit.

If that makes me a horrible person in your eyes, I'm fine with that. Stop responding to me if you don't like the retaliation when you say something that doesn't make sense.

There's nothing "hypothetical" about comparing Joe Flacco's 7 year career and Andy Dalton's 4 year career. Nothing you say will change the definition of that word. I'm twisting a total of 0 things, I'm just using words with their given definitions.

Your "apples to apples" comparison also doesn't make any sense at all. If you could only "fairly" compare guys the way you want to, it would mean that you could only compare guys like Carr and Bridgewater to other QB's rookie season, and it wouldn't "be fair" to rank them considering anything else. SO, by the means of YOUR logic, I'm assuming you have Blake Bortles ahead of Aaron Rodgers on your QB rankings? I mean, you'd have to if you want to be consistent here.

Thanks for playing. I'm sure you'll respond with shit that has nothing to do with what I just said though.

[*Nately120*]

(09-10-2015, 05:48 PM)PlayerFormerlyKnownAsMousecop Wrote: Gotta love how "stuck in the middle" is very clearly not in the middle.

Hmm, well this thing just lists the 32 starters but by the end of the year many teams have gone through backups or rookies via injuries and/or benchings so a guy ranked 22 could be "in the middle" if we see 40-45 QBs play per year.  The Browns only have 1 QB on that list but they always end up starting 3.

[*Nately120*]

(09-11-2015, 12:19 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I agree, but does Dalton really change that much as a QB if he happens to win a couple playoff games?  Or is it just a perception thing?  

I can safely saw if Dalton went on a Flacco-like tear in the post-season and won the Super Bowl and was the MVP that would probably shut some people up, yes.

[djs7685]

(09-11-2015, 02:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I can safely saw if Dalton went on a Flacco-like tear in the post-season and won the Super Bowl and was the MVP that would probably shut some people up, yes.

I can also safely say that if Dalton went on a Flacco-like tear that some other people would NEVER shut up about it.

Honestly. If Andy went on a historically great playoff run, had a statline of 2,500+ yards with a 24/4 TD/INT ratio over a 10 game span, and won a Super Bowl MVP.....would people be vehemently discrediting his QB ranking on here regardless of how medium his regular season performances were? I have a hard time pretending that Flacco didn't also just have a pretty damn good 2014 regular season too.

[jj22]

(09-11-2015, 09:18 AM)djs7685 Wrote: I don't know about him being #5 exactly, but some of the ass backwards logic around here astounds me.


Andy loses 2 guys that a lot of people around here refuse to give much  credit to, constantly reminding everyone they're "unproven" and can't be considered good yet....but somehow it's a huge deal and the end of the world that caused his stats to crumble? HE made the playoffs despite that...GTFO with that garbage, teams make the playoffs, not QBs.

Matt Ryan loses some of the better receivers in the entire NFL, and we poke fun at him for his TEAM going 4-12? Again, QBs don't make the playoffs, teams do.

That year that Matt Ryan "lost all his weapons", he threw for over 4,500 yards, 26 TDs, completed 67% of his passes, and had a higher passer rating than everyone but 11 other guys and it also happened to be higher than any season in Andy's career. He did that with an ancient Tony Gonazlez, a broken Roddy White, and Harry freakin' Douglas leading the team in basically everything. Sure, let's poo-poo on Matt Ryan because of that

If you can't understand that their 4-12 season had more to do with having a bottom 5 defense and their lead rushers not being able to get over 3.5 YPC, then hey, that's on you for not understanding how to evaluate things other than taking an extremely broad view of the game.

I know, I know. Teams make playoffs, but a qb loses them I remember the rules. But remember all Dalton had most of the season/playoffs was Hill. And still got 10 wins. And you can't credit the defense. So if you can't understand how crazy it is that a below average qb can do what an elite qb can't then sorry about that.

And by the way Dalton never had the benefit of the defenses Flacco had during his playoff runs/wins early in his career.