Ron Jaworski's top 32 QB's 2013

[5aiah]

Sigh ... 10 pages later and you are still missing the point

We agree to disagree. I didn't miss your point, just debating that you use a less effective criteria for what we are discussing.

 

I love when people try to make opinion objective...clearly there are a thousand different arguments from a thousand different people. That's why ranking QBs is always a debate and always will be. 

It will be. But there is a reason there are a few at the top each time. I was just saying it can be done without bias toward players on the team you root for. I even mentioned the bias against generations. Back to the point, the fact remains Arod is the better thrower and most attempts to paint Flacco as the best are usually done by devaluing the job our defense did and making him out to be alot greater than what he is. Which I think is what he will become by the way.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I love when people try to make opinion objective...clearly there are a thousand different arguments from a thousand different people. That's why ranking QBs is always a debate and always will be. There is no defined set of criteria. I would say for me its a balance if raw talent, statistical production, performance in the clutch, winning the big games, and then there are intangibles that can't really be defined on paper.

 

 

Youre right, but it only becomes a problem when someone tries to say there is a definitive answer.

 

Will I argue Flacco? For sure. Will I understand if someone says Rodgers or Brady or Manning? Absolutely. I may disagree and try to convince them otherwise, but I cant prove anything.

 

The other problem is, even with your criteria as you pointed out how do you define or measure the stuff. And what carries the most weight? Even if there was a universally accepted criteria, youd still have debate over what matters most, and how to measure "clutch" and "arm talent."

 

It's ALL opinion, and should be respected so long as the person can put together a reasonable argument supported by actual evidence that is relevant to the topic.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

We agree to disagree. I didn't miss your point, just debating that you use a less effective criteria for what we are discussing.

 

It will be. But there is a reason there are a few at the top each time. I was just saying it can be done without bias toward players on the team you root for. I even mentioned the bias against generations. Back to the point, the fact remains Arod is the better thrower and most attempts to paint Flacco as the best are usually done by devaluing the job our defense did and making him out to be alot greater than what he is. Which I think is what he will become by the way.

 

 

And I would say most attempts to say Rodgers is the best are done by overvaluing the role passing yards, touchdown and QBR play in QB evaluation.

 

By the way please read my response to your "criteria" which you say is way more effective than mine or fly's. Pretty sure most people that agree in saying Rodgers is the best QB would say your criteria is in no way effective.

[atljbo]

He messed up there. Brees is still better than Ryan for sure. But enjoy it.

 

Jeff Saturday just said he would take Bree's and Ryan over Flacco but enjoy

 

 

But in all seriousness... Just seeing Brees last year.. His stats looks the same because he passed ALOT but he wasnt the same QB that he is when he has sean payton in his ear... Saying that i can understand Jaws (who look at EVERY SNAP)

 

 

But i would put Brees over Flacco and Ryan .... I just like this because it pisses the Saints fans off on a unhealthy level.

[beanfigger]

Support? what does that mean? How do you measure skill set and intangibles? Is strength arm strength like bicep curls? Pushups? Or how far one can throw the ball? If that's it, what if the guy can throw it 100 yds from his knees (Jamarcus Russell anyone? but cant hit an open man)...

 

Point is, first your criteria is ridiculous, but that's an opinion. But then getting into it, how do you measure each, who's measuring them, and how much weight does each carry in the evaluation?

 

Bc using YOUR criteria I could still make an argument for Flacco. He has an elite skill set, can make every throw in the pocket or on the run and reads the field incredibly well. has great touch. Point Rodgers

 

Hes a great leader, the most clutch in the game right now, and is the best in the league at bouncing back after a bad performance, throw or drive. Point Flacco.

 

His supporting cast was weaker on offense than was Rodgers yet Joe won. Point Flacco.

 

Strength, not sure Rodgers may be able to bench more but Joe throws a better more accurate deep ball. Point Flacco

 

They've both played 5 years, but Rodgers had 3 years of clipboard holding. So longevity is a wash, although Flacco has had more playoff and winning success than Rodgers in his 5 years of playing - so point Flacco.

 

Success - Both have a Super Bowl win, but Flacco has 3 AFCCG appearances, more playoff appearances and wins.. Point Flacco.

 

So based on YOUR criteria I just formulated an argument where Flacco is the clear better QB.

 

But then you could say well skill set weighs 10X as much as any other criteria so Rodgers is better.

 

ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE AND OPINIONATED.

 

I like how you broke this all down.  I'll just make one argument to your post that I mostly agree with.  You said Rodgers has the better support.  It's obvious he has an embarrassment of riches at the WR position, but I think I would argue that Flacco has had much better RBs to work with, a better defense for most of his career, and probably even a better OL, which is hard to believe, but that has been a weakness of GB for most of Rodgers' career.  Coaching is kind of a wash, although Cameron clearly held Flacco back up until he was fired last season.  I'm just adding my $0.2.  I'd still take Flacco over anyone right now.

[atljbo]

Im not reading all the posts ....If someone is legitly trying to to say FLacco is on the same level as Rodgers.... Come on man..lol.. I mean come on.

 

I love Matt Ryan but im not that crazy..lol

[5aiah]

Support? what does that mean? How do you measure skill set and intangibles? Is strength arm strength like bicep curls? Pushups? Or how far one can throw the ball? If that's it, what if the guy can throw it 100 yds from his knees (Jamarcus Russell anyone? but cant hit an open man)...

 

Point is, first your criteria is ridiculous, but that's an opinion. But then getting into it, how do you measure each, who's measuring them, and how much weight does each carry in the evaluation?

 

Bc using YOUR criteria I could still make an argument for Flacco. He has an elite skill set, can make every throw in the pocket or on the run and reads the field incredibly well. has great touch. Point Rodgers

 

Hes a great leader, the most clutch in the game right now, and is the best in the league at bouncing back after a bad performance, throw or drive. Point Flacco.

 

His supporting cast was weaker on offense than was Rodgers yet Joe won. Point Flacco.

 

Strength, not sure Rodgers may be able to bench more but Joe throws a better more accurate deep ball. Point Flacco

 

They've both played 5 years, but Rodgers had 3 years of clipboard holding. So longevity is a wash, although Flacco has had more playoff and winning success than Rodgers in his 5 years of playing - so point Flacco.

 

Success - Both have a Super Bowl win, but Flacco has 3 AFCCG appearances, more playoff appearances and wins.. Point Flacco.

 

So based on YOUR criteria I just formulated an argument where Flacco is the clear better QB.

 

But then you could say well skill set weighs 10X as much as any other criteria so Rodgers is better.

 

ITS ALL SUBJECTIVE AND OPINIONATED.

Of course its an opinion. You are missing the point while just throwing stuff out just for the sake of it.

1.Of course Rodgers wins in skill set.

2.Clutch wise looking at both of them I would say a tie. Most clutch he is not.

3.Flacco had a weaker offense sure but that defense was there when it mattered most, as were his receivers deep.

4.Flacco is barely stronger and Rodgers more accurate all over the field.

5.Longevity can go to Flacco especially since Arod takes alot more hits.

6. They both have a SB. I guess for almost making it the other times you can give a point to Flacco.

I think really a lot of the points you gave to Flacco was based on perception more so than truth.

That is what I mean by a biased/uninformed opinion.

[beanfigger]

Im not reading all the posts ....If someone is legitly trying to to say FLacco is on the same level as Rodgers.... Come on man..lol.. I mean come on.

 

I love Matt Ryan but im not that crazy..lol

 

I don't think it's crazy.  Personally, I think Rodgers is the best QB at this very moment.  I am a huge Flacco fan, though, and I wouldn't trade him for anyone.  I also believe it isn't too far out of the realm of possibility to say that Flacco could be regarded as the number one guy in the league after the next few seasons.  The same could be said about Ryan, I guess.  It isn't crazy.

[5aiah]

And I would say most attempts to say Rodgers is the best are done by overvaluing the role passing yards, touchdown and QBR play in QB evaluation.

 

By the way please read my response to your "criteria" which you say is way more effective than mine or fly's. Pretty sure most people that agree in saying Rodgers is the best QB would say your criteria is in no way effective.

I never used any of those so it doesn't apply to me. The criteria I use is pretty standard so I doubt people would say its not effective since it is based on watching these guys myself. I watch Packers games and Ravens games btw. I just see a huge difference. Arod has a crappy line always has and takes a lot of punishment while still running the offense like a well oiled machine usually. The offense is always on his back. If he has a bad game they usually lose, whereas here Flacco can do bad and we still win. Especially when he was younger. Arod still had it all on his shoulders even when he was first starting, unlike Flacco. They are different QBs is all.

[ratedr]

I wouldn't trade Flacco for anyone because he's shown himself to be the best QB for this team. But he's absolutely not better than Rodgers. Not even close. I know we just won it all but damn, the homerism is out of control.

[atljbo]

I don't think it's crazy.  Personally, I think Rodgers is the best QB at this very moment.  I am a huge Flacco fan, though, and I wouldn't trade him for anyone.  I also believe it isn't too far out of the realm of possibility to say that Flacco could be regarded as the number one guy in the league after the next few seasons.  The same could be said about Ryan, I guess.  It isn't crazy.

Im not talking abbout the future... Im talking about as of now.... If Matt Ryan won a Championship next year.. He would have the production and a ring and i still wouldnt put him over Rodgers... Unless Rodgers just have a HORRIBLE season and Matt Ryan break records...

 

Rodgers is the most complete QB in my mind in the NFL right now.... skill set wise and football production wise...

 

I do think the system helps Rodgers some but i would never diminish his production.... He is still putting up those stats with wins with his arm.

 

The difference between his stats and Brees stats to Rodger stats is that Brees pad his stats like no other.....Similar to Ryan... Ive seen the Packers take out Rodgers when the game is out of control so his stats could be even higher.

 

 

Not saying Flacco and Ryan cant pass Rodgers...... Right now they are not  there tho

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Of course its an opinion. You are missing the point while just throwing stuff out just for the sake of it.

1.Of course Rodgers wins in skill set.

2.Clutch wise looking at both of them I would say a tie. Most clutch he is not.

3.Flacco had a weaker offense sure but that defense was there when it mattered most, as were his receivers deep.

4.Flacco is barely stronger and Rodgers more accurate all over the field.

5.Longevity can go to Flacco especially since Arod takes alot more hits.

6. They both have a SB. I guess for almost making it the other times you can give a point to Flacco.

I think really a lot of the points you gave to Flacco was based on perception more so than truth.

That is what I mean by a biased/uninformed opinion.

 

 

Lol.

 

In one breath, "of course its opinion..." and in the next" my opinions are facts while yours are absurd."

 

Any if you look back... I see even with your rebuttals 2 points you give clearly to Rodgers. 2 points clearly to Flacco. One you say is a tie, and then strength to flacco by a little but say Rodgers is more accurate all over the field (what does that have to do with strength? uhhhhhh....)

 

So even if im generous and call "strength" a tie by allowing Rodgers accuracy affect your grading of strength (what!?!) according to your very own criteria you just added up a tie, but youre intelligent for saying Rodgers hands down and I'm biased/uninformed for saying Flacco?

 

I cant do this any more because now youre not even being logical.

[atljbo]

I wouldn't trade Flacco for anyone because he's shown himself to be the best QB for this team. But he's absolutely not better than Rodgers. Not even close. I know we just won it all but damn, the homerism is out of control.

 

 

Slow calp

 

 

 

I agree.. Wouldnt trade Ryan for any QB either but Rodgers is the most complete QB in the league right now.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I never used any of those so it doesn't apply to me. The criteria I use is pretty standard so I doubt people would say its not effective since it is based on watching these guys myself. I watch Packers games and Ravens games btw. I just see a huge difference. Arod has a crappy line always has and takes a lot of punishment while still running the offense like a well oiled machine usually. The offense is always on his back. If he has a bad game they usually lose, whereas here Flacco can do bad and we still win. Especially when he was younger. Arod still had it all on his shoulders even when he was first starting, unlike Flacco. They are different QBs is all.

 No, when Rodgers started, the only thing he was holding up was a clipboard.

[5aiah]

I wouldn't trade Flacco for anyone because he's shown himself to be the best QB for this team. But he's absolutely not better than Rodgers. Not even close. I know we just won it all but damn, the homerism is out of control.

Thank you. Lol. It sucks to have to be the rational ones because it seems like you are talking down your guys. But I love my team and have been a fan since they existed, thats why it hurt me more to see dudes blasting our defense just to make Flacco look better.

[hawkprey]

Im not reading all the posts ....If someone is legitly trying to to say FLacco is on the same level as Rodgers.... Come on man..lol.. I mean come on.

 

I love Matt Ryan but im not that crazy..lol

I can explain: sometimes when people crown someone the best, it takes a lot to mentally unseat them. Rodgers will be considered #1 by most fans years after he actually stops being the best. As Ravens fans, we'll let you know the DAY Flacco POSSIBLY edges out Rodgers (if it happens), because we want it to be true. Most other fans would need years of definitive proof before they bother to change their minds. Winning the Super Bowl is that day and that's why some people would argue Flacco #1. It's saying "From this moment on, our QB is gathering proof that he is the best". It doesn't mean that proof is there yet.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

I wouldn't trade Flacco for anyone because he's shown himself to be the best QB for this team. But he's absolutely not better than Rodgers. Not even close. I know we just won it all but damn, the homerism is out of control.

 

So the best type of QB for the best team isn't the best?

 

So the knock on Joe is that he is willing to hand the ball off if that's what it takes to win the game bc his team has a running game?

 

Again its an opinion and impossible to judge on fact bc how do you know what Flacco would do with that offense, those WR's and free reign to throw the ball as much as he wants? How do we know that Rodgers would have been just as good under Cam? In fact, the only evidence, Drew Brees, shows that even the best QBs don't play well in his system.

 

And the only games we can evaluate of Joe's without Cam he played on par with anyone and everyone, and did so under the brightest lights, in the biggest games against the best teams.

[ratedr]

Thank you. Lol. It sucks to have to be the rational ones because it seems like you are talking down your guys. But I love my team and have been a fan since they existed, thats why it hurt me more to see dudes blasting our defense just to make Flacco look better.

I've blasted the defense my fair share (and it was deserved), but they did step up in the playoffs. Basically the whole team did minus Ray Rice lol.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Thank you. Lol. It sucks to have to be the rational ones because it seems like you are talking down your guys. But I love my team and have been a fan since they existed, thats why it hurt me more to see dudes blasting our defense just to make Flacco look better.

 

Keep calling yourself rational buddy. But you put out the criteria and did the evaluation yourself and came up to a tie at best, and that took slanting the evaluation of strength on your part.

 

So, evaluating the 2 to a tie yet still proclaiming Rodgers as far superior is rationality now? Contradicting yourself is rational? I do need to get my head checked I guess.

 

And no one that I recall blasted the defense. In fact I stated many times we don't win the super bowl without them stepping up.

[BirdWatcher]

Jaws' latest installment is coming up in a few minutes on NFL Live. Maybe we'll get some answers.

[ratedr]

So the best type of QB for the best team isn't the best?

So the knock on Joe is that he is willing to hand the ball off if that's what it takes to win the game bc his team has a running game?

Again its an opinion and impossible to judge on fact bc how do you know what Flacco would do with that offense, those WR's and free reign to throw the ball as much as he wants? How do we know that Rodgers would have been just as good under Cam? In fact, the only evidence, Drew Brees, shows that even the best QBs don't play well in his system.

And the only games we can evaluate of Joe's without Cam he played on par with anyone and everyone, and did so under the brightest lights, in the biggest games against the best teams.

Rodgers has better mobility, better anticipation, and a ridiculously low turnover rate for someone who throws as much as he does.

I give Flacco the edge on arm talent, but that's not even a huge edge, because Rodgers also has a very strong arm.

I'm taking Flacco for the Ravens because his arm talent is ideal for the harsh conditions in a Baltimore, a Pittsburgh, a Foxboro, etc. I also trust his health more, and his deep ball prowess is fantastic for the specific type of offense we run...I'm not sure there's a QB who could execute it better outside of maybe a healthy Big Ben (healthy being the key word). But if I were starting a new team no way am I taking Flacco over Rodgers.

[5aiah]

I've blasted the defense my fair share (and it was deserved), but they did step up in the playoffs. Basically the whole team did minus Ray Rice lol.

Agreed.

 

Keep calling yourself rational buddy. But you put out the criteria and did the evaluation yourself and came up to a tie at best, and that took slanting the evaluation of strength on your part.

 

So, evaluating the 2 to a tie yet still proclaiming Rodgers as far superior is rationality now? Contradicting yourself is rational? I do need to get my head checked I guess.

Where do you see me give a tie between Arod and Flacco? And I think you guys didn't even pay attention to opponents strength.

[atljbo]

I can explain: sometimes when people crown someone the best, it takes a lot to mentally unseat them. Rodgers will be considered #1 by most fans years after he actually stops being the best. As Ravens fans, we'll let you know the DAY Flacco POSSIBLY edges out Rodgers (if it happens), because we want it to be true. Most other fans would need years of definitive proof before they bother to change their minds. Winning the Super Bowl is that day and that's why some people would argue Flacco #1. It's saying "From this moment on, our QB is gathering proof that he is the best". It doesn't mean that proof is there yet.

 

 

No .. Its not that ... Rodgers had a great year last year... If you pass a guy you pass a guy... Not even bringing up stats or wins... Rodgers is a better QB then both... He is more accurant, a great deep ball, top tier on 3rd downs, doesnt turn the ball over,... He has the most complete football skillset right now... His stats could have been even better...

 

By the way... The guy O-Line was the WORST (GAVE UP 51 SACKS)

 

I was really glad when they drafted QB's because i rather deal with them being more blance then Ridgers throwing it.... Run the ball.

 

 

I hate giving Rodgers this much props trust me.... TRUST ME... The guy is the best QB in the league right now tho... Doesnt mean he cant be surpassed... If he is the best right now that means he has surpassed Brady and Manning.... He can be surpassed.

[ratedr]

Now, if Flacco keeps up his play at playoff level he has a better argument. I think he will be better than he was under Cam but that playoff run was unheard of, so I do expect some regression. How much remains to be seen.

[gabefergy]

Im not reading all the posts ....If someone is legitly trying to to say FLacco is on the same level as Rodgers.... Come on man..lol.. I mean come on.

I love Matt Ryan but im not that crazy..lol

Its not crazy, and that is the whole point of the discussion. An argument could be made for Flacco as the top QB in the NFL right now. I don't necessarily agree with that sentiment, but I would definitely put him in the top 5. That's based purely for off his performance, and if you look at his postseason success its not that far fetched to put him at #1. There are a million different debate points that could be argued all day and I think there could be a case made for several QBs as the best. Its not an objective debate though, and never will be.

[BOLDnPurPnBlacK]

Agreed.

 

Where do you see me give a tie between Arod and Flacco? And I think you guys didn't even pay attention to opponents strength.

 

I think maybe youre just sour that Andy Dalton and the Bengals just cant ever seem the wrestle the AFC north away from either the Ravens or Steelers.

 

Or maybe my spidey senses are wrong and you just love Green.

 

Anyways,

pretty sure theres not stronger opponents than in the playoffs, where flacco has faced more and won more. There was no tougher playoff run in recent memory than Colts w/ Luck/Pagano/Arians both of who know the ravens all too well, then @Denver, @New England and then the 49ers.

 

Not to mention the AFC north is a much more difficult division than the NFC north. So idk where youre going with the whole opponents thing but I really do feel like pulling up schedules and doing a side-by-side career analysis.

 

If you need to do that to prove your point its not quite as black and white as you think.

[5aiah]

Lol.

 

In one breath, "of course its opinion..." and in the next" my opinions are facts while yours are absurd."

 

Any if you look back... I see even with your rebuttals 2 points you give clearly to Rodgers. 2 points clearly to Flacco. One you say is a tie, and then strength to flacco by a little but say Rodgers is more accurate all over the field (what does that have to do with strength? uhhhhhh....)

 

So even if im generous and call "strength" a tie by allowing Rodgers accuracy affect your grading of strength (what!?!) according to your very own criteria you just added up a tie, but youre intelligent for saying Rodgers hands down and I'm biased/uninformed for saying Flacco?

 

I cant do this any more because now youre not even being logical.

Deep Ball accuracy I was referring to as well. What does power matter if your not accurate. You just misunderstood. Also the one given to Flacco,longevity, is also mainly used over a persons whole career not for deciding the best current QB. Remember we veered off to another subject with that, and then i listed my criteria.

[5aiah]

Rodgers has better mobility, better anticipation, and a ridiculously low turnover rate for someone who throws as much as he does.

I give Flacco the edge on arm talent, but that's not even a huge edge, because Rodgers also has a very strong arm.

I'm taking Flacco for the Ravens because his arm talent is ideal for the harsh conditions in a Baltimore, a Pittsburgh, a Foxboro, etc. I also trust his health more, and his deep ball prowess is fantastic for the specific type of offense we run...I'm not sure there's a QB who could execute it better outside of maybe a healthy Big Ben (healthy being the key word). But if I were starting a new team no way am I taking Flacco over Rodgers.

Yeah Rodgers is a true field general and he could excel in any system, though his current one allows him to put up super efficient stats with all those attempts. Flacco is the guy for us, yes of course, but it doesn't mean he is the better QB overall.

 

 

So the best type of QB for the best team isn't the best?

 

So the knock on Joe is that he is willing to hand the ball off if that's what it takes to win the game bc his team has a running game?

 

Again its an opinion and impossible to judge on fact bc how do you know what Flacco would do with that offense, those WR's and free reign to throw the ball as much as he wants? How do we know that Rodgers would have been just as good under Cam? In fact, the only evidence, Drew Brees, shows that even the best QBs don't play well in his system.

 

And the only games we can evaluate of Joe's without Cam he played on par with anyone and everyone, and did so under the brightest lights, in the biggest games against the best teams.

Because we know he isn't as accurate as Arod. He can't do what Arod does. He doesn't need to.

[hawkprey]

No .. Its not that ... Rodgers had a great year last year... If you pass a guy you pass a guy... Not even bringing up stats or wins... Rodgers is a better QB then both... He is more accurant, a great deep ball, top tier on 3rd downs, doesnt turn the ball over,... He has the most complete football skillset right now... His stats could have been even better...

 

By the way... The guy O-Line was the WORST (GAVE UP 51 SACKS)

 

I was really glad when they drafted QB's because i rather deal with them being more blance then Ridgers throwing it.... Run the ball.

 

 

I hate giving Rodgers this much props trust me.... TRUST ME... The guy is the best QB in the league right now tho... Doesnt mean he cant be surpassed... If he is the best right now that means he has surpassed Brady and Manning.... He can be surpassed.

Yes but QB play is also a factor in sacks. Rodgers' biggest criticism is that he holds onto the ball too long. And Flacco won the Super Bowl with worse playoff rushing production than Rodgers. I'm also not saying that Flacco is better. I'm saying if you go completely by the "What have you done for me lately" premise, then Flacco obviously has a case for #1 just like Eli Manning had last year. 

[flynismo]

We agree to disagree. I didn't miss your point, just debating that you use a less effective criteria for what we are discussing.

Fair enough.