Jump to content

Rank your 2017 starting QBs


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

So, if Rodgers is the better talent, how come he only has 1 SB win??? Brady is the greatest clutch player I have ever seen in my 65 years of following the game, his teams have been just as banged up during the playoffs as many other teams including the Packers and his WR outside of one season, have very average talent at best, yet he wins, wins and wins. Rodgers for all his talent, simply does not get the job done as consistently as Brady, or he would have the SB rings to show it.

I don't even think it is a contest. Brady gets the job done and when he actually has a healthy star at receiver, he is sensational beyond words and practically unbeatable. Take out the miracle  catch by a Giant's receiver and he has even another SB ring???? It is no contest IMO and I am not a NE fan.

Because he's played on better overall teams with better coaching. Not really much more to it than that - would you say Marino is a great QB? he has precisely zero SB wins, he's still a Hall of Fame QB. Teams win Superbowls not individual quarterbacks.

Also, If we're going to say Brady should have had one more SB win if we take away a circus catch then can we also say he would have won one less if Lynch gets the ball for Seahawks which is what most of us would have done, or two less if Atlanta makes a crucial play on third down or does it not work that way? :)

It's ok to have a differnece of opinion, it's a forum after all and if we all had the same opinions it'd be pretty boring around here. Something that is nonsensical to me that I've noticed is a few lists have Prescott over Carr............. I can understand rating Brady over Rodgers and visa versa but there's simply no way Carr isn't vastly superior to Prescott O.o

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darbsk said:

Because he's played on better overall teams with better coaching. Not really much more to it than that - would you say Marino is a great QB? he has precisely zero SB wins, he's still a Hall of Fame QB. Teams win Superbowls not individual quarterbacks.

Also, If we're going to say Brady should have had one more SB win if we take away a circus catch then can we also say he would have won one less if Lynch gets the ball for Seahawks which is what most of us would have done, or two less if Atlanta makes a crucial play on third down or does it not work that way? :)

It's ok to have a differnece of opinion, it's a forum after all and if we all had the same opinions it'd be pretty boring around here. Something that is nonsensical to me that I've noticed is a few lists have Prescott over Carr............. I can understand rating Brady over Rodgers and visa versa but there's simply no way Carr isn't vastly superior to Prescott O.o

Well let's look at Marino, yes, he had fabulous stats, but when Miami hired Jimmy Johnson, the ex great HC of Dallas, Jimmy tried to change the way Miami played the game so they could win championships. According to Johnson, Marino would not carry out the changes and insisted that he be allowed to play like he had always played. Jimmy said he tried to explain to Marino that you could not win championship back then by playing that style of football, but that did not matter to Marino, he constantly changed the play call at the line of scrimmage, to a pass from a running play and Johnson got so frustrated, he quite the next season. So, just maybe, Marino was the reason why he never won a SB.

I disagree, QB's are the main moving force in winning in football, especially pro football. Are there exceptions, of course, but they are quite rare. I would also disagree that NE consistently had better personnel than other teams, outside of Moss, Brady's WR's were rather mediocre in talent and he only had Moss for one season. BB also changes up his personnel quite often as he does not like to pay average players solid money. I will give you that BB is a special HC, but the other teams that played NE in Super Bowls were not exactly coached by slouches either or they would not have made it to the SB.

PS, I completely agree that Carr at this point has proven, he is a far superior QB than Dak. I also agree that we can have differences of opinion, as long as you can back them up with facts and not just assumptions. I have been around pro football for 65 years and a draftnik for most of that time, even when it was an unknown hobby, so it is pretty hard to out fact me, although my memory isn't what it once was and I now, sometimes forget the odd fact being 74.9_9

As for winning out against the Seahawks and Atlanta, they did not win on a miracle play, perhaps just bad play calling by their opponents, while losing to the Giants was definitely a miracle play.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Well let's look at Marino, yes, he had fabulous stats, but when Miami hired Jimmy Johnson, the ex great HC of Dallas, Jimmy tried to change the way Miami played the game so they could win championships. According to Johnson, Marino would not carry out the changes and insisted that he be allowed to play like he had always played. Jimmy said he tried to explain to Marino that you could not win championship back then by playing that style of football, but that did not matter to Marino, he constantly changed the play call at the line of scrimmage, to a pass from a running play and Johnson got so frustrated, he quite the next season. So, just maybe, Marino was the reason why he never won a SB.

I disagree, QB's are the main moving force in winning in football, especially pro football. Are there exceptions, of course, but they are quite rare. I would also disagree that NE consistently had better personnel than other teams, outside of Moss, Brady's WR's were rather mediocre in talent and he only had Moss for one season. BB also changes up his personnel quite often as he does not like to pay average players solid money. I will give you that BB is a special HC, but the other teams that played NE in Super Bowls were not exactly coached by slouches either or they would not have made it to the SB.

PS, I completely agree that Carr at this point has proven, he is a far superior QB than Dak. I also agree that we can have differences of opinion, as long as you can back them up with facts and not just assumptions. I have been around pro football for 65 years and a draftnik for most of that time, even when it was an unknown hobby, so it is pretty hard to out fact me, although my memory isn't what it once was and I now, sometimes forget the odd fact being 74.9_9

As for winning out against the Seahawks and Atlanta, they did not win on a miracle play, perhaps just bad play calling by their opponents, while losing to the Giants was definitely a miracle play.

I need to save this in case I ever find myself taking part in an all time mock draft and end up in a Drew Brees vs. Dan Marino argument again.  B|

 

Also, I really need to learn to let things go. 

Edited by Crickett
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Well let's look at Marino, yes, he had fabulous stats, but when Miami hired Jimmy Johnson, the ex great HC of Dallas, Jimmy tried to change the way Miami played the game so they could win championships. According to Johnson, Marino would not carry out the changes and insisted that he be allowed to play like he had always played. Jimmy said he tried to explain to Marino that you could not win championship back then by playing that style of football, but that did not matter to Marino, he constantly changed the play call at the line of scrimmage, to a pass from a running play and Johnson got so frustrated, he quite the next season. So, just maybe, Marino was the reason why he never won a SB.

I disagree, QB's are the main moving force in winning in football, especially pro football. Are there exceptions, of course, but they are quite rare. I would also disagree that NE consistently had better personnel than other teams, outside of Moss, Brady's WR's were rather mediocre in talent and he only had Moss for one season. BB also changes up his personnel quite often as he does not like to pay average players solid money. I will give you that BB is a special HC, but the other teams that played NE in Super Bowls were not exactly coached by slouches either or they would not have made it to the SB.

PS, I completely agree that Carr at this point has proven, he is a far superior QB than Dak. I also agree that we can have differences of opinion, as long as you can back them up with facts and not just assumptions. I have been around pro football for 65 years and a draftnik for most of that time, even when it was an unknown hobby, so it is pretty hard to out fact me, although my memory isn't what it once was and I now, sometimes forget the odd fact being 74.9_9

As for winning out against the Seahawks and Atlanta, they did not win on a miracle play, perhaps just bad play calling by their opponents, while losing to the Giants was definitely a miracle play.

I enjoyed reading this informative post, very interesting to hear your thoughts on Marino - never heard that slant before honestly.

However, it actually kind of backs up what I'm saying, that despite having one of the best QBs of all time Miami when they had a truly great coach wanted to rely more on the whole team - the Oline and RBs in this case. There is no doubt that the QB is the keystone position in football, but usually IMO the best team wins the Superbowl rather than the best QB. New England last year went 3-1 with it's second and third string rookie QBs and had a 10 win season (or was it 11 even) with Matt Cassell O.o - yet looked what happened to the Colts or the Raiders when their signal caller went out. The Raiders could best be described as listless and the Colts are an abomination - their QB clearly means more to them than Brady does ultimately to the Patriots (that's not to demean Brady at all but just facts). 

No such things as miracles or miracle plays, it's just a play - same as the crazy decision to not run Lynch IMO. One last thing, just curious if you regard Montana as better than Brady then as he has clearly better stats and win percentage in the big game?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Darbsk said:

 New England last year went 3-1 with it's second and third string rookie QBs and had a 10 win season (or was it 11 even) with Matt Cassell O.o - yet looked what happened to the Colts or the Raiders when their signal caller went out. The Raiders could best be described as listless and the Colts are an abomination - their QB clearly means more to them than Brady does ultimately to the Patriots (that's not to demean Brady at all but just facts)

So because the Colts and Raiders had horrible backups that somehow translates to Brady not being as important to the Patriots???

 

Matt Cassel went on to make the Pro-Bowl the year after he was traded to the Chiefs, he wasn't an absolute bum like the Colts backup.

Cassel also didn't produce anywhere near as well as Brady the year before with the same team, won 6 less games, all the while Brady faced the hardest strength of schedule in 2007, while Cassel had the easiest in the league.

Last year New England lost to the Bills with their 3rd string QB, then blowing that same team out with Brady. 

The 2nd string QB that couldn't stay healthy for two full games but looked really good, is looking like the Pats next franchise QB. 

Are we going to discredit Farves importance to his team every year Rodgers was on the bench behind him?

 

If you want to say Rodgers is better than Brady, hey that's your prerogative, but your reasoning above isn't one that holds much weight.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pats#1 said:

So because the Colts and Raiders had horrible backups that somehow translates to Brady not being as important to the Patriots???

 

Matt Cassel went on to make the Pro-Bowl the year after he was traded to the Chiefs, he wasn't an absolute bum like the Colts backup.

Cassel also didn't produce anywhere near as well as Brady the year before with the same team, won 6 less games, all the while Brady faced the hardest strength of schedule in 2007, while Cassel had the easiest in the league.

Last year New England lost to the Bills with their 3rd string QB, then blowing that same team out with Brady. 

The 2nd string QB that couldn't stay healthy for two full games but looked really good, is looking like the Pats next franchise QB. 

Are we going to discredit Farves importance to his team every year Rodgers was on the bench behind him?

 

If you want to say Rodgers is better than Brady, hey that's your prerogative, but your reasoning above isn't one that holds much weight.

Absolutely - he isn't as important to the Pats as Carr and Luck are to their respective teams, it's pretty obvious despite how good he actually is!

The point is that great TEAMS win championships and the starting QB is a part of that team, Brady is a great QB no doubt but it is patently clear that the Patriots are still a good team without him whereas a number of other teams are poor minus their starting QB.

This is not to argue that Brady is somehow a lesser QB - if you read the above posts in order you will see that I am advocating that great TEAMS win championships not just great QBs (IamCanadian was of the opinion it was primarily the QB who dictated championship wins) and this is an example to show that I think it's more team dependant. The Pats are a great team and could compensate for the loss of perhaps the best QB of all time, the Packers for example I don't think could compensate for the loss of Rodgers nearly so well. 

I just happen to think Brady is the GOAT but that Rodgers is better right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Brady doesn't mean as much to the Patriots as Rodgers does to the Packers Brady is still the GOAT and top QB in the NFL. 11 appearances in the AFC Championship. One season ever in the NFL that Brady didn't lead his team to the playoffs... Brady may not be as physically gifted as Rodgers but he makes up for that with his preparation, work ethic and leadership. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Brady 
2) Rodgers
3) Brees
4) Rivers
5) Ben
6) Wilson
7) Ryan
8) Stafford
9) Carr
10) Luck
11) Prescott
12) Winston 
13) Wentz
14) Cam
15) Mariota
16) Smith
17) Cousins 
18) Flacco
19) Bradford 
20) Simeon
21) Cutler
22) Taylor
23) Manning
24) Goff
25) Watson
26) Palmer
27) Dalton
28) Kizer
29) Brissett
30) Bortles 
31) Hoyer
32) Glennon
33) McCown

I did this a few days ago I have some noticeable tweaks of a few players that I'll have to look at and adjust. 

I guess if anyone comments the team I root for may have the QB a little high on the list or (insert team you root for) QB is too low on the list. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2017 at 3:44 AM, Darbsk said:

I enjoyed reading this informative post, very interesting to hear your thoughts on Marino - never heard that slant before honestly.

However, it actually kind of backs up what I'm saying, that despite having one of the best QBs of all time Miami when they had a truly great coach wanted to rely more on the whole team - the Oline and RBs in this case. There is no doubt that the QB is the keystone position in football, but usually IMO the best team wins the Superbowl rather than the best QB. New England last year went 3-1 with it's second and third string rookie QBs and had a 10 win season (or was it 11 even) with Matt Cassell O.o - yet looked what happened to the Colts or the Raiders when their signal caller went out. The Raiders could best be described as listless and the Colts are an abomination - their QB clearly means more to them than Brady does ultimately to the Patriots (that's not to demean Brady at all but just facts). 

No such things as miracles or miracle plays, it's just a play - same as the crazy decision to not run Lynch IMO. One last thing, just curious if you regard Montana as better than Brady then as he has clearly better stats and win percentage in the big game?

 

 

 

Look what happened to GB when Rodgers went down with a broken collarbone in 2013.  The only reason we won that division was because the other teams played poorly.  Brady is in a unique situation with a superior coach who surrounds him with great teams.  I seriously doubt we'll see another team match what NE has done any time soon after BB and TB hang it up.

If multiple rings are the bench mark for superior QB play are Eli, Big Ben, Jim Plunkett, Bradshaw or Bob Griese better than Rodgers?  If just winning one ring labels a QB as great are Brad Johnson, Hostestler, Doug Williams and Dilfer just as good as AR?  Sometimes you have to trust your eyes to tell you you are watching a special player.  AR might not win another ring but in all of my 50+ years of watching football I've never seen another QB like him.

Edited by Pugger
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...