Elaborate, please.Originally Posted by Shea Zellweger
Elaborate, please.
1) I think Brees is further from Rodgers and closer to Brady
2) There is no way (IMO) Flacco deserves to be even considered to be at Roethlisberger's level, or even Eli Manning's.
3) Manning isn't even the best QB in his division (see my previous post), so I really don't think he gets to be in the consideration for #4 (or 5) overall if Romo doesn't get the sa,e consideration.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingDavid Morris - "thanks" for this post
2011 Stat Comparisons:
Romo: 245/380 = 64.5% - 3,026yds - 21TD/9INT - Rating 97.5pts 12th ranked DEF
Manning: 253/402 = 62.9% - 3,358yds - 20TD/10INT - Rating 95.6pts 16th ranked DEF
Roethlisberger: 245/385 = 63.6% - 3,070yds - 17TD/10INT - Rating 92.2pts 4th ranked DEF
Flacco: 230/411 = 56.0% - 2,737yds - 13TD/8INT - Rating 78.9pts 3rd ranked DEF
1. You may be on to something with Brees being closer to Brady. The first game of the season (Packers vs. Saints) was a slug fest, with the Packers defense overcoming for a 42-34 win. Brees went for over 400yds with 3 TDs and Rodgers just over 300yds with 3 TDs. Neither threw interceptions. For the Saints two losses outside of that, Brees has not performed well, throwing 5 INT's overall in those two losses. Brady has thrown 6 INT's in his 3 losses. What I haven't seen out of Brady is the fire that was there from a few years back, which is where I give Brees the edge. He still looks hungry.
2 & 3. Manning and Romo are pretty much neck and neck as best QB's for their division. A less than 2% difference in QB rating is minimal, and Romo plays with a slightly better defense, and has more offensive playmakers around him than Manning. Romo's name didn't even come to mind when I was making the list, and you're right, Flacco doesn't belong there. In some ways, that makes my point. Aaron Rodgers is the clear cut leader of the QB field right now, with Brees and Brady behind him...after that, it's a total toss up.
Last edited by David Morris; December 1st, 2011 at 09:56 PM. Reason: new insights into QB rating being pts, not %
Yeah, I could go either way on Brees/Brady, but Rodgers is clearly above them.
yeah, it's closer than I thought (btw, PR is not in %, it's in points). Looks like Ryan is above them both.2 & 3. Manning and Romo are pretty much neck and neck as best QB's for their division
A less than 2% difference in QB rating is minimal, and Romo plays with a slightly better defense, and has more offensive playmakers around him than Manning..
Definitely notRomo's name didn't even come to mind when I was making the list, and you're right, Flacco doesn't belong there.
I think it's a little more definitive than all that. Actually, as much as I'm inclined to discount Passer Rating, I'd say if you took the top 8 QBs in Passer Rating, stuck Cam Newton in at 7, and moved Matt Ryan up to round it out, you'd more or less have the top 10 QBs in the league this year as far as individual success goes, although Newton's the only one on that list whose individual success hasn't translated to team success. Since Schaub is out for the season, you could give Stafford his spot back in the top 10, in which case you'd also have the top 10 QB in passing yardage.In some ways, that makes my point. Aaron Rodgers is the clear cut leader of the QB field right now, with Brees and Brady behind him...after that, it's a total toss up.
Big Ben, ... er, Ben B., you hit the nail on the head with the part of your post that I have highlighted in bold. Football is absolutely a team sport and mostly should be evaluated in that light. Sometimes a player can have fabulous statistics, but it doesn't translate into helping the team win overall. The player may be great, but so what?
The success that Tim Tebow is having right now should remind everyone that a great running game is sometimes the best friend a defense can have and vice versa. It is the combination of acquiring players, planning, practice and teamwork that ultimately make a team successful. I just watched a clip on ESPN.com where they were heatedly discussing if Tebow deserves his current 4th place in fan voting for the Pro Bowl. Winning stat: He's 5-1 as a starter.
As for the further discussion about ranking the qb's in the league, why would anyone bring up Romo or Flacco? Wake me up when they win the Super Bowl. (Actually, Flacco is on a team that could do that soon.)
The 84 posts before it will answer that for you.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 1 LaughingDavid Lyons - thanks for this funny post
I was just perusing a list of Super Bowl Champions, and a couple things stand out.
Tom Brady and the Patriots won 3 in 4 years (the last one in 2005!) and have been to one more. (losing to the Giants and Eli)
Peyton Manning and the Colts have been to 2 SB's, winning one.
Big Ben has completed 7 seasons. He only lost one regular season game in his rookie year. In the next six seasons, the Steelers have been to 3 SB's, winning 2.
No other active starting quarterback has been to more than one Super Bowl.
Conclusion: As of right now, the most successful active qb's are Brady, Ben, Peyton, in that order. Brady and Peyton are nearing the end of their careers, Rodgers and Brees could very well infiltrate this list, but I am more than happy as a Steelers fan to have Big Ben for the next decade.
Big Ben, IMO, will begin to decline in the next few years. He is a very good QB, who is incredibly fortunate to have played on a team with an incredible defense.
That's just not a logical conclusion. The active QBs on the most successful teams are Brady, Roethlisberger, and P Manning. This is not a valid statistic for determining their individual successes.
I'm writing this as the Broncos trail by 3 with 3 minutes to go. Today was Tebow's best performance as a quarterback to date, regardless of the outcome of the game. It also happens to be his lowest rushing day (counting sacks, he's actually lost a yard on the ground, and also lost a fumble). This is the way he will need to play to have sustained success in the NFL. His team has put up 22 points on offense, and it looks like they might make it 25 in a short while. That's the kind of offensive output and QB play that will ultimately give him a shot at keeping the starting job.
Not logical? Just ask Dan Marino and Warren Moon and many others how many stats they would be willing to give up to have won a championship ring in the NFL! I submit to you that it is not logical to rate a quarterback as great just because he throws the ball for a lot of yards, since that typically happens when teams are behind. What matters in a team sport like football is doing what the team needs you to do at the right time. The best quarterbacks make the best fast decisions at the most important times.
“There were a lot of questions on the outside. Sometimes it gets built up like they were on the inside, but the one thing I will say is the guy wins,” [Denver] coach John Fox said. “He does it with his feet. He does it with his arm. He’s young. He’s just going to get better.”
Friend,
Wes
Last edited by Wes Smith; December 4th, 2011 at 07:53 PM.
Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Of course Dan Marino and Warren Moon would've been glad to have championship rings. That doesn't nullify what they accomplished as QBs, or make them automatically inferior to the likes of Elway and Montana. And we do not "Rate a quarterback as great because he throws the ball for a lot of yards." We rate a quarterback as great for a high completion percentage, a high number of yards per attempt, low turnover rates, and other factors which assess his overall contribution to the offense. Nobody bats an eye when we do this for Running Backs- the top 5 Running Backs in the league right now are playing for teams which probably will not make the playoffs, The Best RB in the league over the last five years has never won a championship. We could look at every other position, and most likely find that some of the best to play the game never won a championship. Why, then, would a QB be held to the standard of winning, regardless of his individual performance? It just doesn't make sense.
Also, your statement about yardage happening when teams are behind is not the case in today's NFL. In previous eras, this was so, but today, most teams throw to win.
Tebow had a 149 QB rating. He completed 66% of his passes and only ran twice? Over 200 yards passing and NO interceptions! He's protecting the ball very well. And he is winning on the road consistently. I think it is time we take him seriously.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Running backs aren't in control of the decision making, and their careers are usually a lot shorter than star quarterbacks, so we rightfully evaluate them based on different criteria.
I understand that the NFL is now a pass-first league, which certainly throws off historical statistical comparisons, but teams with quality running backs, like the Texans, will use them to eat up the clock and maintain a lead. A lot of the top yardage games by qb's are in losses still. Also, teams in the AFC North will not gain as many yards in a season as in some other divisions, due to all four teams having very solid defenses. Stats can be goofy, wins are what counts in the long run.
But the best quarterbacks cannot make up for bad teams, and great teams make up for bad quarterbacks regularly. Your thought process here simply ignores reality. Great teams wi with bad QB's regularly. Bad teams lose with great QB's regularly.
Just because Dan Marino would rather have a championship than his stats doesn't mean he wasn't as great because he didn't win when he played on garbage teams for over a decade. Judging one player based upon championships when there are 40 guys who earn that championship is the type of thinking that ruins sports, imo.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
My point in starting this thread was based on the fact that Tebow has lots of desire, reportedly has great leadership influence and has an inordinate amount of talent. Since the thread was started Denver has 2 more wins. I just find the trash talk about Tebow simply amazing. And, I find it hard to understand why people would not believe in him and his future soley based on what he has done in the past.
Before this thread, I "thought" I was pretty into football. Not any more. You guys have insights and stats that are not even a fractional part of my cosmic awareness!!! So, as a "lay person," I would lean in the direction of the greater qb being the one who has led a team to the Super Bowl once or multiple times.
Have had some tangental thoughts about the development of a system of pastoral stats that could be useful when placing pastors, associates, etc.
Have a great week.
Friend,
Wes
www.nazarenesabroad.com
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, yeah :P.
Pastor Rating Calculation:
a=(Amens/Sermon minute + 1) * 6
b= (Tithe Dollars/Sermon minute - 20) * .1
c= (Conversions/Service) * 18
d= 36 - (Heretical Statements/Service * 12)
If any of the above numbers is less than 0, it should be 0. If above 36, it should be 36. a Perfect Pastor rating is 144, and is achieved with 5 Amens per sermon minute, $380 raised/ minute preached, 2 conversions/ service, and 0 heretical statements. Clearly, pastors who preach shorter sermons have their results skewed because they need to raise less money, hear fewer amens, and have less opportunity to say something heretical, so ESPN has been working on the "Total Clergyman Rating," but their complications are way too complicated for anyone to care.
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 3 Laughing
The strength (or lack thereof) of the church board needs to somehow play into your Pastor Rating formula. A great pastor with a poor church board would be like Marino. A great pastor with a church board that drops the ball right before a major event (like Easter or Christmas), would be Peyton Manning. A church board that can cover the major weaknesses of a Pastor, even though he comes through in big moments would be Tim Tebow.
Draft position and all-pro nods could perhaps play a role as well. Ever been nominated to a district board or committee, bonus points! Or negative points depending on how you look at that. Were you in the minors (staff/associate role) prior to becoming a senior pastor, or did you go straight to the majors from college or course of study. We also need to choose which Nazarene colleges and universities are in the BCS, and which are not.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 4 Laughing
Wes,
Coach John Fox is truly an example of leadership. I was not in favor of him coming to Denver and he immediately named Orton as the starter. It took him only 4 1/2 games to figure out that Orton has a great arm, but no leadership. Since then Fox shifted to Tebow and developed a unique system to help him succeed and the Broncos are winning as a result. Even John Elway is signing on and he is no fan of Tim's wildhorse play making. Right now Tebow is the best closer in the NFL, well besides Tom Brady. Rodgers doesn't have to make the last minute closes because he usually has his team up with the exception of Sunday. Either way, some are saying Fox should be the coach of the year. I don't know about that, but there is no doubt this brand of football is fun to watch. And I think it is rather amazing that Tebow will not take much credit, he is humble, he heaps the praise on his team. And look who is in the backfield? People we never heard of (practice squad players). He's throwing to receivers that have been cut. Apart from a good kicker and a few notables on Defense, this is a team of nobodies and they are winning with class. That's what I call leadership that lifts.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
On football, I am a very interested fan, and you know I agree with your opinion on these matters.
Concerning pastoral stats, one of my favorite statistics in my ministry is that all but one church that I ministered at grew after I left under the next pastor! That should count for something.
Outstanding article re. Elway's estimation of Tebow. Encouraging, as far as I'm concerned.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/D...succeed-121011
Friend,
Wes
Brady is nearing the end of his career and Roethlisberger has another decade? No. Big Ben may indeed play longer than Brady, but it could go the other way too. Because of the different systems in which they play, Big Ben gets beat up a whole lot more. Brady could be more susceptible to major injury if and when he gets hit, but Big Ben takes a regular beating because of the role he plays for Pittsburgh. He is sacked significantly more than Brady, and if memory serves me well, has had a number of concussions. I doubt that he will play significantly longer than Brady, if at all longer. Manning sure seems to be winding down, but I still yet hope he can play. As much as I am a Pats/Brady fan and despise the Colts/Manning, I'd still like to see Peyton tear down Favre's records (and to a lesser degree, Marino's).
The Steelers have been the best team in the NFL in the last 6.5 seasons.
Big Ben is a very good quarterback.
But he is not in the league of Brady, Manning, Brees, and soon-to-be: Rodgers.
As of right now, Rodgers is unbelievable. Whether he will be a Kurt Warner or a Manning/Brees/Brady is yet to be seen and cannot be determined right now. There is at least some voice that Brady is the MVP over Rodgers this year, but I rejected that kind of argument ("MVP to his team") for Manning in the past, and I reject it for my favorite player of all time (Brady) right now. Rodgers is the current MVP and it's very hard for me to see how he could lose it.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm pretty sure that by that logic, Peyton Manning is this year's MVP.
He responds to that notion in a follow-up column. Not convincingly though.I'm pretty sure that by that logic, Peyton Manning is this year's MVP
Nope, not at all.
This is based purely on conjecture, and IMO is fairly biased. Matt Flynn has not spent much time at QB, and Ryan Mallett was pretty good in college. The author is assuming one would succeed and the other would fail, based on... what? His main argument seems to be that the person who is the most irreplaceable in the NFL deserves the MVP, so it's not so much about the quality of the backup, but the fact that no backup could necessarily replace Brady.
Ok, but...
-The Eagles have not won without Vick. They've actually more or less imploded.
-The Saints would probabl lose without Brees.
-The Colts have not won without Manning.
-I'm sure there are others.
He also argues that the pieces around Rodgers are better than those around Brady. The Packers' defense is not much better, if at all (in ypg, Packers are 31 and Pats are 32, in ppg, Pats rank higher). And I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to take Jennings/Nelson over Welker/Branch. Other than the run game, I'm having difficulty seeing the basis for his argument... Even if you agree with his premise (the MVP award goes to the player who is most valuable to his team), reaching his conclusions takes a lot of convoluted logic.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote