Q.B. Ratings??
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4044
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
- Location: Northeast, Iowa
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Jay Cutler at 14?
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3168
- Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:23 pm
- x 139
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
always curious what exactly eli manning has to do to get a little more respect? 3 rings maybe?
i'm ready for a beer.
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Kinda surprised Micheal Vick was not lower. He had a terrible season and lots of turnovers
no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
-
- Hall of Fame Candidate
- Posts: 3382
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:32 pm
- Location: nodakoda
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
I got a chuckle out of RG3, Wilson, and Kaepernick at #13-11 but I like that Luck is at #10. Jaws is guilty of being infatuated with young QBs but in a way he's "covering his ####" here by placing the more traditional QB above the three "hybrid QBs"
Also...Cam Newton is too low and he seriously has Flacco as #4? AHEAD of Drew Brees? Pffff
Also...Cam Newton is too low and he seriously has Flacco as #4? AHEAD of Drew Brees? Pffff
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Luck may well prove out better, but right now, I don't see how he's on top of that list. His INT rate last year was so much higher than the others.HornedMessiah wrote:I got a chuckle out of RG3, Wilson, and Kaepernick at #13-11 but I like that Luck is at #10. Jaws is guilty of being infatuated with young QBs but in a way he's "covering his ####" here by placing the more traditional QB above the three "hybrid QBs"
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4016
- Joined: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:14 pm
- Location: So. Utah
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Regardless of the order of these rankings, I'm really impressed with the amount of quality QBs in the league right now. Of course that quality is based on my own perception and others may or may not agree,... but I think that since QBs are so much more protected these days many of these guys will be around for a long time. It's really set up for the league to have a great decade of rivalries going forward.
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
No doubt about the extended lengths of many QB careers these days. Not just rules that give greater protection, but you have bigger players, with better training, better nutrition and much improved medical procedures and advice.
I'm not so sure about better quality, though. Maybe by extending the careers of some QBs, it's improved the overall quality a little, but I think that the situation is much as it's always been, with talent levels that are all across the board. You have superstars, established veterans, up-and-comers, journeymen, guys who are on the bubble, and guys who just plain shouldn't be starting, except that teams get stuck with no other choices.
I'm not so sure about better quality, though. Maybe by extending the careers of some QBs, it's improved the overall quality a little, but I think that the situation is much as it's always been, with talent levels that are all across the board. You have superstars, established veterans, up-and-comers, journeymen, guys who are on the bubble, and guys who just plain shouldn't be starting, except that teams get stuck with no other choices.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4044
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
- Location: Northeast, Iowa
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
I still can't get over Cutler being at 14, especially above Stafford. He's barely (statistically) better than Ponder. And I do mean barely.
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
But he makes players, move the ball, especially downfield. Dink and Dunk all you want, a 40 yard gain is points. A 3 yard and a cloud of dust check down isn't.MelanieMFunk wrote:I still can't get over Cutler being at 14, especially above Stafford. He's barely (statistically) better than Ponder. And I do mean barely.
I'd definitely rather have Cutler than Ponder. Potential can mean nothing. Ponder has shown nothing. At least Cutler has shown he can make plays. One big play to wide open receivers isn't anything to get worked up about.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4044
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
- Location: Northeast, Iowa
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Most probably would prefer Cutler over Ponder. I was just saying I can't believe Cutler is so high on the list. He really isn't very good statistically. He's actually comparable to Ponder in a lot of areas. What happened over there in Bear world during the offseason to make him the #14 QB? I must have missed something.Demi wrote: But he makes players, move the ball, especially downfield. Dink and Dunk all you want, a 40 yard gain is points. A 3 yard and a cloud of dust check down isn't.
I'd definitely rather have Cutler than Ponder. Potential can mean nothing. Ponder has shown nothing. At least Cutler has shown he can make plays. One big play to wide open receivers isn't anything to get worked up about.
2012 Season Overview: NFC North QBs
Passer rating/ NFL rank/ QBR/ NFL rank
Aaron Rodgers 108.0/ 1/ 72.5/ 5
Jay Cutler 81.3/ 20/ 51.9/ 20
Christian Ponder 81.2/ 21/ 53.8/ 17
Matthew Stafford 79.8/ 22/ 58.9/ 15
Stafford isn't so hot either. He just gets a ton of yards. But, he's good. These stats don't prove that, though. Going by statistics from last year, Ponder shouldn't be ranked so far behind these guys...just sayin'. But considering everything, I can see why he's so low. I still don't think Cutler should be 14, though. That's my story, and I'm stickin to it!
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
There's a lot more to consider than just stats.MelanieMFunk wrote:I still can't get over Cutler being at 14, especially above Stafford. He's barely (statistically) better than Ponder. And I do mean barely.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4044
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
- Location: Northeast, Iowa
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
Thank you, Captain Obvious. What else do you got for me? lol Just playin. I know that you know that I don't think statistics are everything. You should have been able to gather that by my comments here--and elsewhere. I was just simply saying, I don't believe Cutler should be that high, 13 slots better than Ponder, OR ahead of Stafford. I'm going by stats and OTHER things to form this opinion. Yeesh! I just included some stats to help validate my opinion(s)--they aren't the sole reason I have that opinion. Get it?Mothman wrote: There's a lot more to consider than just stats.
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
I get it but I could do without the "get it"? Show a little respect for your elders!MelanieMFunk wrote: Thank you, Captain Obvious. What else do you got for me? lol Just playin. I know that you know that I don't think statistics are everything. You should have been able to gather that by my comments here--and elsewhere. I was just simply saying, I don't believe Cutler should be that high, 13 slots better than Ponder, OR ahead of Stafford. I'm going by stats and OTHER things to form this opinion. Yeesh! I just included some stats to help validate my opinion(s)--they aren't the sole reason I have that opinion. Get it?
Seriously Melanie, I understand what you're saying and there's certainly an argument to be made that Stafford is a better QB than Cutler.
-
- Hall of Fame Inductee
- Posts: 4044
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 8:26 pm
- Location: Northeast, Iowa
- x 1
- Contact:
Re: Q.B. Ratings??
No disrespect. Just making sure you're getting it. I'm not a super huge fan of over explaining things if I don't have to.