BmoreBird22

Top 65 Quarterbacks

94 posts in this topic

So, the Bleacher Report Top 1000 list for the NFL is starting. I'll probably post a link to each one to discuss it. The guy is a huge 49er, Patriot, and Andrew Luck lover, as a note. Here's this list: http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1949452-br-nfl-1000-top-65-quarterbacks

Because it's the Ravens board, I'll start with Joe. I found it curious that Joe gets knocked because he often put the ball in a place where receivers had to go up and get the ball, but where only they could get it, but guys like Stafford, Cutler, and Ben get a pass on it. He also gives Brady a pass for new faces on the team and Luck a pass for the lack of talent, but Joe is downgraded for not overcoming it.

As for the rest of the list, I found it interesting that we saw Foles lower than Cutler and Rome despite his impressive play and Russell Wilson at 3? Really?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After I saw Flacco at 27, clicked next and saw Thad Lewis, clicked next and saw Brian Hoyer, I stopped reading. At this point as a Ravens fan, I don't listen to outsiders. It is truly inevitable that Flacco will always get knocked and hated on. For whatever reason, people critique Flacco down to the very smallest of details, but like you said, other quarterbacks get passes for their wrong-doings. It makes me mad, and confuses me, but it is what it is. Wins don't lie. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the Bleacher Report Top 1000 list for the NFL is starting. I'll probably post a link to each one to discuss it. The guy is a huge 49er, Patriot, and Andrew Luck lover, as a note. Here's this list: http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/1949452-br-nfl-1000-top-65-quarterbacks

Because it's the Ravens board, I'll start with Joe. I found it curious that Joe gets knocked because he often put the ball in a place where receivers had to go up and get the ball, but where only they could get it, but guys like Stafford, Cutler, and Ben get a pass on it. He also gives Brady a pass for new faces on the team and Luck a pass for the lack of talent, but Joe is downgraded for not overcoming it.

As for the rest of the list, I found it interesting that we saw Foles lower than Cutler and Rome despite his impressive play and Russell Wilson at 3? Really?

yeah i saw this and just laughed i know he had a bad season but wth was he smoking while writeing this. he also said joe is very slow and that peyton manning s more mobile than him. lol. and i see this all the time is great fo QB to throw it up and be great but when Joe  does it its bad like what? that makes zero freaking sense. but its ok if matthew stafford does it but Joe flacco better not do it. please.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't of put Thad Lewis or Hoyer ahead of Flacco, the whole country might be on to something when they see him as an average QB. Outside of Baltimore he has very few supporters, there is nothing wrong with average. He hasn't been terrible enough to give us a losing season so is say that's pretty good

-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bleacher Report is joke............. 

 

Phillip Rivers at 2? Russel Wilson at 3? Both are good but seriously?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was so close to putting this up. I had a whole thread typed and all. Instead I thought it would be better not to give them more page views.

I don't understand how he can put Matt Ryan so far ahead of him. Flacco didn't play like a top 10 QB but putting a few other names like Hoyer and Lewis infront of him loses all credibility.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wouldn't of put Thad Lewis or Hoyer ahead of Flacco, the whole country might be on to something when they see him as an average QB. Outside of Baltimore he has very few supporters, there is nothing wrong with average. He hasn't been terrible enough to give us a losing season so is say that's pretty good

 

I agree with this list also. Peyton Manning has great mechanics and accuracy, if only he could take a snap properly.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was so close to putting this up. I had a whole thread typed and all. Instead I thought it would be better not to give them more page views.

I don't understand how he can put Matt Ryan so far ahead of him. Flacco didn't play like a top 10 QB but putting a few other names like Hoyer and Lewis infront of him loses all credibility.

 

"The Falcons had a terrible year in 2013, but that wasn’t on Ryan. He remains one of the 10 best quarterbacks in the league."

 

"The Cowboys are heavily invested in their quarterback, and he appears to still have a few more good years left in him."

 

"The Ravens are probably regretting that massive contract extension they gave Flacco last offseason. He didn't have much help in 2013, but he was also a part of the team's problem on offense."

 

So, Tony Romo, who got more garanteed money than Flacco and has only 1 playoff win was well worth the money and Matt Ryan had a bad season, because he simply didn't have enough surrounding him.

Yet in the same time Flacco's contract was a waste in spite of him being a proven winner and the offense as whole having problems is no excuse for Joe's performance.

 

I wouldn't mind this, if this "review" of Flacco's performance was consistent with how the "writer" sees other QBs, but all this looks like is just a very badly researched opinion piece aka BleacherReport article.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After I saw Flacco at 27, clicked next and saw Thad Lewis, clicked next and saw Brian Hoyer, I stopped reading. At this point as a Ravens fan, I don't listen to outsiders. It is truly inevitable that Flacco will always get knocked and hated on. For whatever reason, people critique Flacco down to the very smallest of details, but like you said, other quarterbacks get passes for their wrong-doings. It makes me mad, and confuses me, but it is what it is. Wins don't lie.

  

yeah i saw this and just laughed i know he had a bad season but wth was he smoking while writeing this. he also said joe is very slow and that peyton manning s more mobile than him. lol. and i see this all the time is great fo QB to throw it up and be great but when Joe  does it its bad like what? that makes zero freaking sense. but its ok if matthew stafford does it but Joe flacco better not do it. please.

I don't like lists like this because they have too many variables, one being the talent around you. Someone like Stafford van throw into triple coverage and Johnson will bail him out. He'll get praised for a great throw and putting the ball where only Johnson could get it. Joe makes the exact same throw yo Torrey and it gets intercepted, but now it's what the hell were you thinking?
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Falcons had a terrible year in 2013, but that wasn’t on Ryan. He remains one of the 10 best quarterbacks in the league."

"The Cowboys are heavily invested in their quarterback, and he appears to still have a few more good years left in him."

"The Ravens are probably regretting that massive contract extension they gave Flacco last offseason. He didn't have much help in 2013, but he was also a part of the team's problem on offense."

So, Tony Romo, who got more garanteed money than Flacco and has only 1 playoff win was well worth the money and Matt Ryan had a bad season, because he simply didn't have enough surrounding him.

Yet in the same time Flacco's contract was a waste in spite of him being a proven winner and the offense as whole having problems is no excuse for Joe's performance.

I wouldn't mind this, if this "review" of Flacco's performance was consistent with how the "writer" sees other QBs, but all this looks like is just a very badly researched opinion piece aka BleacherReport article.

Agreed.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they are speaking in terms of 2013 production...yea Flacco sucked I could take rank 27. If we are talking in terms of true skill Flacco is top 10.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess they are speaking in terms of 2013 production...yea Flacco sucked I could take rank 27. If we are talking in terms of true skill Flacco is top 10.

But why does Ryan and Romo get passes? And Hoyer had a better year in like 4 games than Flacco did? when he was 1 game away from missing the playoffs while Certainly not getting help from anyone else on offense.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   I don't like lists like this because they have too many variables, one being the talent around you. Someone like Stafford van throw into triple coverage and Johnson will bail him out. He'll get praised for a great throw and putting the ball where only Johnson could get it. Joe makes the exact same throw yo Torrey and it gets intercepted, but now it's what the hell were you thinking?

 

That's why I think, that comparing QBs directly statistically is nonsensical. They don't throw to the same receivers, stay behind the same OL and play against the same defenses. Heck, sometimes a great defense can have really bad day and vice versa, so their impact on the QBs accuracy for example can fluctuate in a big way.

 

Stats are good for evaluating a QBs development and Joe certainly took a big step backwards, but does that mean Matt Ryan or Tony Romo would've played better behind the Ravens OL?

The Ravens never really build around the QB (ever!) or gave Joe alot of weapons to work with, while the OL was pretty average most of the time during Flacco's carreer and Joe never seemed on the same page with his OCs (which is why his stats aren't usually eyepopping). Well, except once and he ended up leading the team to the SB atleast.

 

The same way as detractors can take credit away from Flacco, because this team was build on defense and running the ball for so long, Flacco supporters can point towards this focus on defense as a prime reason why Joe is underrated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why does Ryan and Romo get passes? And Hoyer had a better year in like 4 games than Flacco did? when he was 1 game away from missing the playoffs while Certainly not getting help from anyone else on offense.

Im not even sure why the hell 2 starts gives Brian Hoyer the ability to be on the list at all. He played 2 games than got injured in his 3rd start. In his 2 full games he only put up 321yds/3TDs/3INTs.....and 269yds/2TDs, not overly respectable.

 

And yea I had Matt Ryan and Romo on my fantasy team...I LOST haha

Edited by Purple_ICE 81
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Falcons had a terrible year in 2013, but that wasn’t on Ryan. He remains one of the 10 best quarterbacks in the league."

 

"The Cowboys are heavily invested in their quarterback, and he appears to still have a few more good years left in him."

 

"The Ravens are probably regretting that massive contract extension they gave Flacco last offseason. He didn't have much help in 2013, but he was also a part of the team's problem on offense."

 

So, Tony Romo, who got more garanteed money than Flacco and has only 1 playoff win was well worth the money and Matt Ryan had a bad season, because he simply didn't have enough surrounding him.

Yet in the same time Flacco's contract was a waste in spite of him being a proven winner and the offense as whole having problems is no excuse for Joe's performance.

 

I wouldn't mind this, if this "review" of Flacco's performance was consistent with how the "writer" sees other QBs, but all this looks like is just a very badly researched opinion piece aka BleacherReport article.

Couldn't have said it any better. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with his mobility ranking, but agree with everything else, though I think he was generous with his ranking on decision making.  Pretty fair analysis in my book.

 

Let me say I might not agree with where he was ranked, but that's on the system he used.

Edited by redrum52
-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bleacher Report is joke............. 

 

Phillip Rivers at 2? Russel Wilson at 3? Both are good but seriously?

Rivers had a good season and Wilson just won a SB.  Both were more accurate and better decision makers than Joe this season.  Rivers honestly didn't have much to work with on offense either and Wilsons wr corps is overrated if you ask me.

Edited by redrum52
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's why I think, that comparing QBs directly statistically is nonsensical. They don't throw to the same receivers, stay behind the same OL and play against the same defenses. Heck, sometimes a great defense can have really bad day and vice versa, so their impact on the QBs accuracy for example can fluctuate in a big way.

 

Stats are good for evaluating a QBs development and Joe certainly took a big step backwards, but does that mean Matt Ryan or Tony Romo would've played better behind the Ravens OL?

The Ravens never really build around the QB (ever!) or gave Joe alot of weapons to work with, while the OL was pretty average most of the time during Flacco's carreer and Joe never seemed on the same page with his OCs (which is why his stats aren't usually eyepopping). Well, except once and he ended up leading the team to the SB atleast.

 

The same way as detractors can take credit away from Flacco, because this team was build on defense and running the ball for so long, Flacco supporters can point towards this focus on defense as a prime reason why Joe is underrated.

This article just completely was bogus. 

Furthermore, what about the effects of a good running game and defense? Russell Wilson rides the coattails of that that defense and running game. There are several games where he is asked to complete 8, 9 passes and the Seahawks win by 30+ points because of that elite defense and running game. That makes him the third best quarterback in the NFL?
I watched him closely in the Super Bowl (since I'm not a Russell Wilson fan at all) and I didn't see any difficult or spectacular throws. I saw his receivers getting open and then making some big plays, like on the Kearse touchdown. 

Edited by BmoreBird22
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers had a good season and Wilson just won a SB.  Both were more accurate and better decision makers than Joe this season.  Rivers honestly didn't have much to work with on offense either and Wilsons wr corps is overrated if you ask me.

Keenan Allen, Gates, Royal........

 

Wilson was good but not the reason they won..

 

I'm ok with them being ranked higher, they had better years.. But at 2 and 3??? Really?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying that Joe should be higher (but he's behind Thad Lewis and Brian Hoyer, who played in 2 and a half games?), but this list isn't fair. 

Double standards and bias are all over the place and it's abundantly clear. If he were ranked 27th and it there was no bias or double standards, fine. But that isn't the case and it's just awful

Edited by BmoreBird22
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB hype and Rivers really did have a good season.  I also guarantee if those were our players people would be complaining about Flaccos lack of weapons still.  Gates has been on the decline, Allen is a rook and Royal isn't that good.  The best weapon from that bunch was probably Keenan, who I think was suppose to be the 3rd wr.  Rivers still made it work and a lot probably had to do with Whisenhut.

 

Also, why the HELL are people in an uproar about an article ANY OF US COULD'VE WRITTEN.  You all realize how BR works right?  Some of y'all are real sensitive.

Edited by redrum52
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SB hype and Rivers really did have a good season.  I also guarantee if those were our players people would be complaining about Flaccos lack of weapons still.  Gates has been on the decline, Allen is a rook and Royal isn't that good.  The best weapon from that bunch was probably Keenan, who I think was suppose to be the 3rd wr.  Rivers still made it work and a lot probably had to do with Whisenhut.

 

Also, why the HELL are people in an uproar about an article ANY OF US COULD'VE WRITTEN.  You all realize how BR works right?  Some of y'all are real sensitive.

I might complain if we had the same weapons that Seattle had just because Zach Miller isn't that great, but you'd be dumb to sell Golden Tate and Doug Baldwin short. Sure, they aren't these really big name receivers, but they are very solid. The Seahawks aren't a very pass reliant system (part of the reason I have a problem with Russell being so high), but if those two were, they'd be doing much better. Still, I'd take Zach Miller over Dallas Clark.

As for the Chargers, if Antonio Gates is on the decline, what is Dallas Clark? He may not be this young blood anymore, but at 33, he's still really capable of putting up good numbers. Tony Gonzalez was doing it until he was 37, so I don't think we can call Gates over the hill or anything like that. Allen was a top 15 talent, but a supposed lack of speed and injuries really took a hit on his draft stock. I am deeply upset the Ravens passed on him (and Alshon Jeffrey), but there wasn't a question of whether or not he could play. He was going to come in and ball. He runs great routes, has good hands, and knows how to get separation. Eddie Royal may not be great (I think injuries really did him in), but would I'd still take him over Jacoby Jones. 

I mean, why not put them with the Ravens weapons and coordinators and see how they do? I don't think they do nearly as well.

 

By the way, I don't think anyone is in an uproar. It's a board for discussing differing things in the football world, and you know, we're discussing.

Edited by BmoreBird22
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SB hype and Rivers really did have a good season.  I also guarantee if those were our players people would be complaining about Flaccos lack of weapons still.  Gates has been on the decline, Allen is a rook and Royal isn't that good.  The best weapon from that bunch was probably Keenan, who I think was suppose to be the 3rd wr.  Rivers still made it work and a lot probably had to do with Whisenhut.

 

Also, why the HELL are people in an uproar about an article ANY OF US COULD'VE WRITTEN.  You all realize how BR works right?  Some of y'all are real sensitive.

Matt Miller is one of the few guys they pay.....

 

Royal is still better than any of our #2(sad IK).

 

Gates was better then Clark was....

 

Allen is a good WR. Better then any of our #2 WRs....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matt Miller is one of the few guys they pay.....

 

Royal is still better than any of our #2(sad IK).

 

Gates was better then Clark was....

 

Allen is a good WR. Better then any of our #2 WRs....

Holy crap, I forgot Matt Miller was the one who does these off season break downs, so I'll give you that.

 

My guess is a lot teams would take Jacoby and I think that's debatable.  Gates>Clark.  Torrey is still better than Allen.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys, we like to have fun here, but a Bleacher Report article? Let's stick to more serious and analytical sources, like The Onion and ProFootballMock.

Edited by IH EART DA RAVENS
5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rivers had a REALLY good season this year. I wouldn't say #2 but definitely in the top 10 if not top 5. As for Flacco at 27, it makes absolutely no sense to have those guys ahead of him. People say the talent around Flacco is why he won, yet Andy Dalton with all that talent around him can't even win a playoff game and Matt Ryan only won 1. I don't think Wilson is #3 but he did just win the Super Bowl so I will give him a pass. But then again, this is bleacherreport so it makes sense. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahaha. 

 

I stopped looking at the list when I saw Thaddeus and Hoyer in front of him.

 

I generally respect Matt Miller's opinion but this is a joke. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much wrong with this, but they clearly don't take into account what was around the QB's. From Flacco's inept oline and receivers who can't consistently get open to Russel Wilson having an amazing defense and running game to rely upon.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

List was done by Cian fahey.. Have followed him on twitter for a long time.. He seems to play favorites at times and has a weird outlook on certain players.

He got started somehow doing stuff for steelers I believe. I honestly never see anything positive about flacco from him.. Ever.. and that's with me trying my best to take the purple glasses off

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list is flawed but im no joe flacco fan. If he pulls of the same crap next year or doesnt perform ...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahahaha. 

 

I stopped looking at the list when I saw Thaddeus and Hoyer in front of him.

 

I generally respect Matt Miller's opinion but this is a joke. 

 

Ditto.  He's pretty good with players come out of college and scouting.  Guys in the NFL, not so much.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto.  He's pretty good with players come out of college and scouting.  Guys in the NFL, not so much.

 

Some of his NFL 1000 stuff is good but some of it is bad. Like you said, he's best at scouting and evaluating college players.

 

I think he plays favorites with NFL players. I've also noticed from following him that he rarely pays attention to the Ravens. Might be an anti-Raven bias there.

Edited by The Raven
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with most of the comments on this thread-- it's an opinion piece and we, as Raven/Flacco fans, disagree with the author's opinion. First off, who'd a thought there were 65 QBs worth rating? Not me. Then there is the numerical ranking. Splitting hairs between 15th best vs 19th best is silly. Some QBs are winners and some never will be.

Personally, I would rate them A, B, C, D, or F. Take the QBs on the 32 teams, I'd rate 5 or so as an "A," 10 or so more are winners I'd give them a "B" and the remainder somewhere lower.

So I say let BR have their fun with their rating system, we'll agree to disagree with their opinion and lets get on with our lives.

I'd rate Joe a solid "B." He's not average by any means and certainly not below average or one of the top QBs in the NFL either. Here's hoping Joe returns next season to his winning ways.

Go Ravens

Edited by Bruce_Almty
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This article just completely was bogus. 

Furthermore, what about the effects of a good running game and defense? ... 

 

You missed the first slide of the presentation... "Potential is not taken into consideration. Nor are career accomplishments.

Quarterbacks are judged on accuracy (35 points), arm strength (15), decision making (30), mechanics (15) and mobility (5)." End of story.

Many of the complaints people are talking about are not of consideration.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You missed the first slide of the presentation... "Potential is not taken into consideration. Nor are career accomplishments.

Quarterbacks are judged on accuracy (35 points), arm strength (15), decision making (30), mechanics (15) and mobility (5)." End of story.

Many of the complaints people are talking about are not of consideration.

I'm saying it can make the job of the quarterback much easier and alleviate a lot of the pressure to go for the big play or throw that make result in a an incompletion or interception. When RGIII was a rookie and a true running threat with the read option, it was a real problem for defenses. They had to come up and respect it for fear of getting burned. That always meant he would have an open receiver to throw to and meant he didn't have to work through his progressions. Now that he didn't have that, we see that without an open man, his decision making is a real question mark.

Similarly, teams have to fear Lynch and that forces more into the box and makes the throws less contested or difficult to make for Russell. Plus, Lynch is almost always a good 3 or 4 yards per play, at the least, so he had easier distances to work with and easier throws could be made.

That's what I meant.

Edited by BmoreBird22
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Idc about completion %

They basically said Joe is one of the most inaccurate passers in the league. They have Tolzein, Seneca Wallace, Yates, Tavaris Jackson, Dominque Davis, Locker and plenty other undeserving QB's ahead of him in that catergory. I bet they don't even account for drops, or who has been pressured/sacked the most. They also disrespected his mobility.....

One could say...

*takes off glasses*

Their analysis is inaccurate.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll be the first to admit that Flacco isn't as good as many on this board claim he his or want him to be, but 27 is kinda ridiculous...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its too early in the offseason for me to pretend to be mad about something a random fan wrote on bleacher report to get article views....

Edited by HomeoftheBRAVENS
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

... teams have to fear Lynch and that forces more into the box and makes the throws less contested or difficult to make for Russell. ....

 

Lynch has nothing to do with Russell's accuracy, arm strength, decision making, mechanics, and mobility. Try to understand the author's parameters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Lynch has nothing to do with Russell's accuracy, arm strength, decision making, mechanics, and mobility. Try to understand the author's parameters.

No, it doesn't have to do with mobility or arm strength, but decision making and accuracy, yes. 

Joe didn't have a running game to lean on. Teams just didn't fear it, so they sat back in coverage. They routinely doubled Torrey or put bracket coverage on. That makes the throw a lot harder to make. 

What's easier to hit: a wide open receiver or one in very tight coverage? I think we can agree any quarterback in the NFL can hit a wide open receiver on a consistent basis, and in turn that makes them "accurate". If a receiver is in tight coverage, the window is tiny and difficult to hit (did you see the sports science for that Marlon touchdown against the Vikings?). Contested throws like that aren't going to be made routinely and they'll often be off, so it'll look like inaccuracy. 

As for decision making, I encourage you to look at what he wrote about RGIII both year's. He praises RGIII's decision making from his rookie year. RGIII didn't throw many interceptions because he almost always had an open man (already discussed why). This year without being nearly as big a running threat and being asked to be a drop back passer, the author calls out the decision making of RGIII. 

Edited by BmoreBird22
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now