Jump to content

Where would prime Matt Hasselbeck rank in the current NFL?


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

No it wasn’t. It was like dark ages. Better than 99-02 but not great. 

Yeah I don't agree at all. When did you start watching ball? Brady and Peyton were in their prime. Culpepper, McNabb were playing great along with Trent Green, McNair, Hasselbeck, Palmer, Rivers, Bulger, Romo, Favre, Brees, and Roethlisberger. Pennington was good when healthy. Delhomme and Eli Manning were decent. Plummer and Brooks were serviceable. This was an era that was harder to throw the football. 2004 was one of the best passing seasons ever. If Hasselbeck was playing today he'd still be a fringe top ten QB with better numbers. So then what would that say about today's QBs?

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Yeah I don't agree at all. When did you start watching ball? Brady and Peyton were in their prime. Culpepper, McNabb were playing great along with Trent Green, McNair, Hasselbeck, Palmer, Rivers, Bulger, Romo, Favre, Brees, and Roethlisberger. Pennington was good when healthy. Delhomme and Eli Manning were decent. Plummer and Brooks were serviceable. This was an era that was harder to throw the football. 2004 was one of the best passing seasons ever. If Hasselbeck was playing today he'd still be a fringe top ten QB with better numbers. So then what would that say about today's QBs?

Yeah brady and Peyton and that’s pretty much it. Favre sucked in 05 and 06 and I never really valued a Daunte Mcnabb Hasselbeck Or Palmer. Neither of those guys would be top ten Qbs today. Lol at Bulger Brooks and Plummer pre prime romo/Ben/rivers.

 

You’re  grasping for straws now lol. The QB pool is deeper and more talented than at any point in NFL history. 

Edited by CP3MVP
Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, CP3MVP said:

Yeah brady and Peyton and that’s pretty much it. Favre sucked in 05 and 06 and I never really valued a Daunte Mcnabb Hasselbeck Or Palmer. Neither of those guys would be top ten Qbs today. Lol at Bulger Brooks and Plummer pre prime romo/Ben/rivers.

 

You’re  grasping for straws now lol. The QB pool is deeper and more talented than at any point in NFL history. 

wow

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

wow

These kids today I tell ya. Guessing he wasn't watching ball back then. I'll just go ahead and file this one under #NephewHotTakes :)

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

These kids today I tell ya. Guessing he wasn't watching ball back then. I'll just go ahead and file this one under #NephewHotTakes :)

Delete This Nephew | Know Your Meme

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

These kids today I tell ya. Guessing he wasn't watching ball back then. I'll just go ahead and file this one under #NephewHotTakes :)

I started watching in 1992. Lol at Pre prime romo Ben and rivers. Rivers didn’t even play till 2006 and he wasn’t elite. Ben was flat out horrible in 2006. 
 

the QB pool is so much better now. 

Edited by CP3MVP
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

Yeah brady and Peyton and that’s pretty much it. Favre sucked in 05 and 06 and I never really valued a Daunte Mcnabb Hasselbeck Or Palmer. Neither of those guys would be top ten Qbs today. Lol at Bulger Brooks and Plummer pre prime romo/Ben/rivers.

 

You’re  grasping for straws now lol. The QB pool is deeper and more talented than at any point in NFL history. 

And here I thought the NFL was undergoing a crisis with the retirement of the 04 Class, Romo, Manning, Brees, and Luck while Brady, the 05 Class, and Ryan reach their end, Watson has his career in jeopardy, and highly touted QBs like Wentz/Goff/Winston/Mariota wash out... I thought the QB shortage was reaching the point where someone like Dak Prescott can tear his knee and still appreciate in value as his competition folds with poor performances on the field or retirement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, patriotsheatyan said:

And here I thought the NFL was undergoing a crisis with the retirement of the 04 Class, Romo, Manning, Brees, and Luck while Brady, the 05 Class, and Ryan reach their end, Watson has his career in jeopardy, and highly touted QBs like Wentz/Goff/Winston/Mariota wash out... I thought the QB shortage was reaching the point where someone like Dak Prescott can tear his knee and still appreciate in value as his competition folds with poor performances on the field or retirement.

Peyton and Romo retired 5 years ago (okay, 4 for Romo, but he threw 4 passes in 2016.) In that time, the league has added Mahomes, Watson, Murray, Jackson, Burrow, Herbert, Mayfield, Goff, Wentz, and Prescott. I don't think either of them are really relevant at all to the QB discussion, but the hole has definitely been filled in that time. Ryan and Brady are still playing now. Busts like Mariota/Winston happen all the time. 20ish years ago a highly touted QB like Tim Couch washed out. Same deal.

The current QB crop is phenomenal, from a mix of players reaching high levels of play faster than they used to (Mahomes, Watson, Murray, Jackson, Herbert all putting up big numbers in year one and/or two) and players playing a high level longer than they used to (Brady, Rodgers, Ben, Brees, and Rivers all really wouldn't have played last year going by when QBs used to retire.) It was believed that there would be a downturn in QB play once Manning/Brees/Brady/Rodgers moved on, but that belief didn't predict Mahomes and Jackson winning MVPs in year two, or even like what Herbert did last year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very highly. Hasselbeck at his best was never more than average and benefited from the NFC West being a total joke for practically his entire time on SEA.

He, Delhomme and post-SB McNabb would be journeymen in today's NFL.

Edited by Nut
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

I started watching in 1992. Lol at Pre prime romo Ben and rivers. Rivers didn’t even play till 2006 and he wasn’t elite. Ben was flat out horrible in 2006. 
 

the QB pool is so much better now. 

Ben wasn't good in 2006 (after his motorcycle accident), but I said 2004-2006. He was good in 2005, and ranked 2nd in DVOA that season, and 7th in DYAR. Romo's first season he was 5th, and 8th. And both had better years of ahead of them. Didn't mean they weren't good out of the box. In particular for Romo, there wasn't a huge efficiency increase from his first year to his last. 

We take 2004, the first year I mentioned, the top 8 had a DVOA of over 20%. In 2020, you only had 5 over 20%. 

The talent pool may have increased, but what is more apparent is that it's way easier for any QB to put up better numbers, because it's easier to throw now with the advent of better offenses. That has increased more than the talent selection. Some players like Vick also wouldn't be underutilized like they were 15 years ago, shoehorned into a WCO. Saying Peyton and Brady were the only good quarterbacks from that stretch is just heehaw. So McNabb wouldn't be good today? Trent Green wouldn't be good today? McNair wouldn't be good? 1st Team All Pro Brees was never really good? 

Better talent pool now ≠ Brady and Peyton were the only good quarterbacks from the mid 2000's. Also doesn't mean that Hasselbeck couldn't be a good starter today. I don't see how his game doesn't translate to the modern era, when guys like Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, and Jimmy G have been fringe top 10 quarterbacks the last couple of years. Transport those three back 15 years, I have a hard time buying that they'd be leapfrogging everyone in the metric rankings due to "better talent", but Hasselbeck today in his prime, would essentially be a journeyman. This was a guy who threw over 300 yards and 5 touchdowns on a Ravens defense with Ray/Ed/Suggs in their prime. 

BTW, side note, heck of a time to bring up talent pool when a potential top 5 QB drafted looks like he's been living off Taco Bell. Neither here or there, but just something funny I had to spotlight in light of the discussion. :)

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Ben wasn't good in 2006 (after his motorcycle accident), but I said 2004-2006. He was good in 2005, and ranked 2nd in DVOA that season, and 7th in DYAR. Romo's first season he was 5th, and 8th. And both had better years of ahead of them. Didn't mean they weren't good out of the box. In particular for Romo, there wasn't a huge efficiency increase from his first year to his last. 

We take 2004, the first year I mentioned, the top 8 had a DVOA of over 20%. In 2020, you only had 5 over 20%. 

The talent pool may have increased, but what is more apparent is that it's way easier for any QB to put up better numbers, because it's easier to throw now with the advent of better offenses. That has increased more than the talent selection. Some players like Vick also wouldn't be underutilized like they were 15 years ago, shoehorned into a WCO. Saying Peyton and Brady were the only good quarterbacks from that stretch is just heehaw. So McNabb wouldn't be good today? Trent Green wouldn't be good today? McNair wouldn't be good? 1st Team All Pro Brees was never really good? 

Better talent pool now ≠ Brady and Peyton were the only good quarterbacks from the mid 2000's. Also doesn't mean that Hasselbeck couldn't be a good starter today. I don't see how his game doesn't translate to the modern era, when guys like Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, and Jimmy G have been fringe top 10 quarterbacks the last couple of years. Transport those three back 15 years, I have a hard time buying that they'd be leapfrogging everyone in the metric rankings due to "better talent", but Hasselbeck today in his prime, would essentially be a journeyman. This was a guy who threw over 300 yards and 5 touchdowns on a Ravens defense with Ray/Ed/Suggs in their prime. 

BTW, side note, heck of a time to bring up talent pool when a potential top 5 QB drafted looks like he's been living off Taco Bell. Neither here or there, but just something funny I had to spotlight in light of the discussion. :)

Using their rankings statistically in 2005 like Ben is irrelevant to me because again  the argument is that the top end and overall talent pool is higher today. Being the 6th best QB in 2005 is not as impressive as being the 6th best QB in 2021, because again I think there is more top ten talent and depth. For example who was the 18th best QB in football in 2006, would you take him over Jimmy Garapolo? What about Jared Goff? Hell no. The 13th best QB in 2004, is he better than current Matt Stafford? No. Daunte Culpepper was a top 5 QB in 2004, no chance today. That’s my point. Same thing in  regards to Donovan mcnabb, I never said he couldn’t play today, he just wouldn’t be top 5 like he was in 2004.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

People really forget the garbage QBs that use to be starters for teams lol. Rex Grossman in 2006 started for a team that went to the Superbowl. The only team in 2021 I think he starts on is MAYBE the Broncos because lock is so bad lol

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 11:53 PM, TecmoSuperJoe said:

Ben wasn't good in 2006 (after his motorcycle accident), but I said 2004-2006. He was good in 2005, and ranked 2nd in DVOA that season, and 7th in DYAR. Romo's first season he was 5th, and 8th. And both had better years of ahead of them. Didn't mean they weren't good out of the box. In particular for Romo, there wasn't a huge efficiency increase from his first year to his last. 

We take 2004, the first year I mentioned, the top 8 had a DVOA of over 20%. In 2020, you only had 5 over 20%. 

DVOA does not work this way. It's normalized based on the specific year, so you can't really use it this way to compare overall quality of QB play across eras. If there is a year where the average QB is terrible, then terrible will be set as the baseline for DVOA at 0%. If there is a year where the average QB plays like 2011 Aaron Rodgers, that will be used as the baseline and will be set at 0% for that season. Comparing the number of QBs over 20% between one year and another doesn't mean there were more good QBs in that one year, it's really just measuring the gap between that group of QBs and the average that year. If overall play is higher, you may have fewer QBs ranked very highly because there is more good QB play, so the average is higher, and it's harder to stand out by DVOA.

So 8 QBs being over 20% in DVOA means 8 QBs were 20 percentage points above the 2004 average. And likewise, there were 5 QBs 20 percentage points the 2020 average. The 2020 raw average was still likely dramatically higher than the 2004 raw average, though. 2004 Trent Green was not a better QB than 2020 Tom Brady. Seriously, you can trust me on that one. He was just more better than the average 04 QB than Brady was better than the average 2020 QB. Same kind of deal with, for instance, 2005 Ben Roethlisberger having higher DVOA than 2020 Aaron Rodgers. He was not, by any analysis known to man, a better QB that year. And this can work in the opposite direction for positions that have aged poorly, as well. J.K. Dobbins had a better DVOA this year than LT's record setting 2006 season. But you just had more RBs performing at a higher level back then in the workhorse era for the position.

You just can't use a stat like DVOA across seasons. PFF has the same issue with normalizing their grades. It makes sense if you want to avoid just constant inflation. DVOA for QBs would have escalated dramatically over the years if they didn't do this, just the same way completion % and passer rating and any of the core passing stats had. And it makes it a little more era proof. We pass more now, so most QBs now will have better passing stats than they did back in the day. So it will let you see how much better Steve Young was than his peers, and compare that to how much better Patrick Mahomes was than his, rather than just having Mahomes's stats way higher than all of Young's seasons because we just pass more aggressively and efficiently nowadays. But it means that a 20% in 2004 does not equal a 20% in 2020 in terms of actual QB play. Like, the baseline in 04 was somewhere between the Cowboy corpse of Vinny Testaverde and David Carr. They were the average QBs in DVOA in 2004. They were who you're talking about being 20% better than. In 2020, it was between Big Ben and Lamar Jackson. That's a big difference.

Quote

 

The final step in calculating DVOA involves normalizing each year's ratings. As you may know, offensive levels in the NFL have gone up and down over the years. Right now, the overall level of offense in the league is probably at its highest level of all time. Therefore, we need to ensure that DVOA in a given season isn't skewed by league environment.

For teams, DVOA is normalized so that league averages for offense and defense are 0%. (However, because pass plays are more efficient than run plays, league averages for team passing and team rushing are not zero.) For players, DVOA is normalized separately for individual passing, individual rushing, and the three individual receiving groups (wide receivers, tight ends, and running backs) so that the league average for each is 0%.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jakuvious said:

DVOA does not work this way. It's normalized based on the specific year, so you can't really use it this way to compare overall quality of QB play across eras. If there is a year where the average QB is terrible, then terrible will be set as the baseline for DVOA at 0%. If there is a year where the average QB plays like 2011 Aaron Rodgers, that will be used as the baseline and will be set at 0% for that season. Comparing the number of QBs over 20% between one year and another doesn't mean there were more good QBs in that one year, it's really just measuring the gap between that group of QBs and the average that year. If overall play is higher, you may have fewer QBs ranked very highly because there is more good QB play, so the average is higher, and it's harder to stand out by DVOA.

So 8 QBs being over 20% in DVOA means 8 QBs were 20 percentage points above the 2004 average. And likewise, there were 5 QBs 20 percentage points the 2020 average. The 2020 raw average was still likely dramatically higher than the 2004 raw average, though. 2004 Trent Green was not a better QB than 2020 Tom Brady. Seriously, you can trust me on that one. He was just more better than the average 04 QB than Brady was better than the average 2020 QB. Same kind of deal with, for instance, 2005 Ben Roethlisberger having higher DVOA than 2020 Aaron Rodgers. He was not, by any analysis known to man, a better QB that year. And this can work in the opposite direction for positions that have aged poorly, as well. J.K. Dobbins had a better DVOA this year than LT's record setting 2006 season. But you just had more RBs performing at a higher level back then in the workhorse era for the position.

You just can't use a stat like DVOA across seasons. PFF has the same issue with normalizing their grades. It makes sense if you want to avoid just constant inflation. DVOA for QBs would have escalated dramatically over the years if they didn't do this, just the same way completion % and passer rating and any of the core passing stats had. And it makes it a little more era proof. We pass more now, so most QBs now will have better passing stats than they did back in the day. So it will let you see how much better Steve Young was than his peers, and compare that to how much better Patrick Mahomes was than his, rather than just having Mahomes's stats way higher than all of Young's seasons because we just pass more aggressively and efficiently nowadays. But it means that a 20% in 2004 does not equal a 20% in 2020 in terms of actual QB play. Like, the baseline in 04 was somewhere between the Cowboy corpse of Vinny Testaverde and David Carr. They were the average QBs in DVOA in 2004. They were who you're talking about being 20% better than. In 2020, it was between Big Ben and Lamar Jackson. That's a big difference.

 

I see what you're saying. Regardless, as I stated, there isn't anything specific about Hasselbeck's game that wouldn't translate to today that wouldn't make him as efficient as a Derek Carr, Kirk Cousins, or Jimmy Garoppolo, who have both been fringe top ten quarterbacks the last two years. And if they were playing in 2004, they wouldn't be top three quarterbacks most likely even in the best of circumstances due to "better talent" advantage. So, the talent pool now has increased, but it wasn't a dystopian landscape like other dude was insinuating with only two good passers 15 years ago that could play now. There are a lot of guys back then, that could play just as well now with the rules in place, as they did then. A better talent pool wouldn't mean they would automatically suck. 

Edited by TecmoSuperJoe
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...