Re: NFL Off Topic
They're rankings.
From ESPN.
They're rankings.
From ESPN.
-
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
That's just the nature of these player rankings, especially QBs. Someone's always gonna disagree.
A few weeks ago, a certain football analyst I follow on Twitter came out with some QB rankings in which he had Geno Smith ahead of Flacco. Geno Smith. I was ****ing appalled.Comment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
Rodgers and Luck will probably be battling for the MVQB this year.Comment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
I'm the biggest Cowboy fan in the world, and Tony Romo is one of my absolute favorite professional athletes of all time, but if you take away the Baltimore Ravens from Joe Flacco and take away the Dallas Cowboys from Tony Romo and are just picking one of the two today to start a team and win a Super Bowl tomorrow, Joe Flacco is probably the more talented quarterback by most individual measures and is probably the correct pick.
Unfortunately for us fans, game statistics in professional football - even the more advanced metrics that have been developed over the past five years - can be pretty useless in judging an individual player's talent level relative to another player at his position. The results of so many individual efforts are necessary just to complete even a simple drop-back pass, for example.Comment
-
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
I'd take Flacco over Romo. Flacco is a guy who has all the tools you'd want. He's tough in the pocket, has a fairly good arm, is decisive and doesn't make too many mistakes. He probably can't be THE main cog of an offense for an extended time but he's shown in playoffs and big games that he can take over and play like a man possessed.
Romo OTOH puts up great numbers but there's always been that nagging question about him. In the past when there hasn't been that much of a running game the Cowboys have put the load on his shoulders and that leads to him trying to do too much, throwing the ball in tight spaces and making very poor decisions. This is why I think the loss of DeMarco Murray is going to hurt him. I really think the Cowboys are underestimating his importance to the team and how much more effective Romo can be when he doesn't have to always be the man.
If I had to start a franchise right now and picking between those two i'd go with Flacco easily.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
Yeah, I appreciate what the people at PFF and elsewhere do, and find the stats interesting, but I don't take it as gospel. Too many assignments that the success of the play is contingent on to break the numbers down that far. There's definitely been some great advanced stats developed that make for good discussion though.Comment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
The ESPN rankings weren't too bad but man they're too inconsistent with the measures. So Flacco gets demoted because of stats but Bridgewater who has nearly EVERY stastical advantage over Carr by a pretty wide margin is ranked below him.
Also how can you objectively put Wilson in a tier below Luck? That just doesn't make any sense at all. I would probably take Luck because of his pure passing skills but Wilson has made more clutch plays and won against superior competition and i don't think Luck has a super advantage in QBR or other advanced statistics.
In some alternative universe where Wilson is on the Colts and Luck is on the Seahawks, Seattle would be beating teams 55-0 every week while the Colts would struggle to make the playoffs but I think we're smart enough to know it doesn't work like that. So why not rank them a little more objectively?-Rocky Balboa"Maybe I can't win. But to beat me, he's going to have to kill me. And to kill me, he's gonna have to have the heart to stand in front of me. And to do that, he's got to be willing to die himself. I don't know if he's ready to do that."Comment
-
Wolverines Wings Same Old Lions Tigers Pistons Erika ChristensenComment
-
Comment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
It's probably not the discussion but it's only a hop, skip and throw towards that debate. The age thing wasn't a consideration when I said that. I'm talking pure talent and how they fit into the grand scheme of things.
Don't get me wrong, Romo is a pretty damn good QB and there are stretches where he looks elite but there are issues that I pointed out before that puts doubt into my mind as to how good he truly is.Member of the Official OS Bills Backers Club
"Baseball is the most important thing that doesn't matter at all" - Robert B. ParkerComment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
I think Wilson is placed correctly as far as being in tier 2, though I would actually take Romo and possibly Flacco before him. I think he's right around that Flacco-Stafford range of half the time I'd love to have you as a QB, but the other half they look terrible. I'm also surprised they didn't put him in tier 1 just because. I think Luck is slightly overrated. Not that he doesn't belong in the top tier, but I think he gets more passes that a lot of QBs. Would definitely place Big Ben ahead of him. Then again, I don't think Roethlisberger gets the credit he deserves usually.Originally posted by BlueNGoldComment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
So glad training camp is upon us.Comment
-
Re: NFL Off Topic
And he still thinks Cutler is a lot better than Orton so that tells you how he feels about Orton, lol.
One has playoff wins in every year he's been in the league besides one, a superbowl ring and a superbowl MVP trophy (for those that want to focus on the teams around them). The other has been allowed to throw 30-40/game and has arguably the best WR in the league as a target.
But it's whatever, I hate rankings. I'd draft Romo before Flacco for my fantasy league but that's about it.Comment
Comment