New NFL Top 10 QB Poll

[jeemie]

nor from the ones you cited to make the conclusions about the defenses

But I'm not arguing either for or against Rodgers' clutchness.

Just that the arguments that he is not clutch that I have seen are weak.

[lifelongsteel]

For those arguing that Rodgers is not #1, who is your #1?

[bradshaw2ben]

We weren't even arguing that he isn't deserving of the #1 opinion-- just that he has a flaw: he's not as good as some at recovering nor winning without his best stuff or when things don't go his way. Some statistical evidence would appear to support that conclusion.

Strangely, I think anti-bias bias has swung the pendulum to the position where those of us here can't even fully appreciate the outlier QB we have playing for our own team. No player is perfect-- one can only imagine what this board would have been like trying to contemporaneously analyze Terry Bradshaw's career. It would have been ugly. When we look back from the end of Ben's career and 20 years into the future, I hope you're all around to see how ridiculous the gnashing of teeth over anyone who sees him as great or even greater than his contemporaries.

[lifelongsteel]

We weren't even arguing that he isn't deserving of the #1 opinion-- just that he has a flaw: he's not as good as some at recovering nor winning without his best stuff or when things don't go his way. Some statistical evidence would appear to support that conclusion.

Strangely, I think anti-bias bias has swung the pendulum to the position where those of us here can't even fully appreciate the outlier QB we have playing for our own team. No player is perfect-- one can only imagine what this board would have been like trying to contemporaneously analyze Terry Bradshaw's career. It would have been ugly. When we look back from the end of Ben's career and 20 years into the future, I hope you're all around to see how ridiculous the gnashing of teeth over anyone who sees him as great or even greater than his contemporaries.

Makes sense. They are all flawed in one way or another, and the guy you watch every day is easier to pick apart because the flaws become readily apparent.

I'll need some time to unpack anti-bias bias. Hard to do after a long weekend.

[V DUB]

I'll say it, I wouldn't take Rodgers over Ben for this team. I'm not in full on fellatio mode, but I think his mental gave keeps improving to go along with his arm. And if a QB's like Brady & Manning can play almost into their 40's, with far inferior physical gifts. I think Ben can eclipse that.

[bradshaw2ben]

In a nutshell: our self-awareness that we'll be labeled a homer if we think our guy is the best, regardless of the objectivity of our argument/opinion.

In some ways, seeing so much more of our guy makes our sense of him valid and in some ways distorts the image.

I still say my highlight reel measurement is a pretty good ranking system. Go on youtube right now and try to find the best highlight reels of all-time QBs and even the current guys.

The greatest highlight QBs of all time, in something like an order would be:

1. Bradshaw
2. Ben
2a. Elway
4. Favre
5. Staubach
6. Montana
7. Johnny Unitas
8. Aaron Rodgers
9.Fran Tarkenton
10. Andrew Luck

Peyton highlights are pretty telling.

[V DUB]

In a nutshell: our self-awareness that we'll be labeled a homer if we think our guy is the best, regardless of the objectivity of our argument/opinion.

In some ways, seeing so much more of our guy makes our sense of him valid and in some ways distorts the image.

I still say my highlight reel measurement is a pretty good ranking system. Go on youtube right now and try to find the best highlight reels of all-time QBs and even the current guys.

The greatest highlight QBs of all time, in something like an order would be:

1. Bradshaw
2. Ben
2a. Elway
4. Favre
5. Staubach
6. Montana
7. Johnny Unitas
8. Aaron Rodgers
9.Fran Tarkenton
10. Andrew Luck

Peyton highlights are pretty telling.

I'd agree. I made the same argument as far as his WOW moments.

The thing is, he keeps improving...he wasn't a coaches kid growing up in the position. Shit, he sat behind the coaches kid in HS.

[Legacy User]

We weren't even arguing that he isn't deserving of the #1 opinion-- just that he has a flaw: he's not as good as some at recovering nor winning without his best stuff or when things don't go his way. Some statistical evidence would appear to support that conclusion.

Strangely, I think anti-bias bias has swung the pendulum to the position where those of us here can't even fully appreciate the outlier QB we have playing for our own team. No player is perfect-- one can only imagine what this board would have been like trying to contemporaneously analyze Terry Bradshaw's career. It would have been ugly. When we look back from the end of Ben's career and 20 years into the future, I hope you're all around to see how ridiculous the gnashing of teeth over anyone who sees him as great or even greater than his contemporaries.

Brad and now would have been more than ugly.

Oh yeah, he won 4 SB's, making huge plays in each when it mattered most, BUT...

yeah.

All that matters baby. Winning in the biggest games.

[bradshaw2ben]

I just watched a few QBs highlights (yawn) and then I watched Ben career package, his 2014, his 6 TD games, and his 503 yd game vs Green Bay... lol

[lifelongsteel]

In a nutshell: our self-awareness that we'll be labeled a homer if we think our guy is the best, regardless of the objectivity of our argument/opinion.

In some ways, seeing so much more of our guy makes our sense of him valid and in some ways distorts the image.

I still say my highlight reel measurement is a pretty good ranking system. Go on youtube right now and try to find the best highlight reels of all-time QBs and even the current guys.

The greatest highlight QBs of all time, in something like an order would be:

1. Bradshaw
2. Ben
2a. Elway
4. Favre
5. Staubach
6. Montana
7. Johnny Unitas
8. Aaron Rodgers
9.Fran Tarkenton
10. Andrew Luck

Peyton highlights are pretty telling.

Your a homer if you label Ben #1. You're a hater if you rank him #3 or worse. #2 is the only safe spot right now Funny that no one gets bent out of shape about AB or Bell. Put them wherever you want and there will be no blood.

imo the highlight reel evaluation falls down once you watch Colin Kaepernick or Kordell. Every play counts, not just your best.

[bradshaw2ben]

I almost included Kordell near the bottom, based on my own standard.

I think if you combine WOW with winning football, leadership, and elevated play in meaningful situations/games/postseason... that's how you come to a list. Can you begin to see why I might not have Peyton Manning at the top of my list? Missing two of those 4.

[Jobu]

Is Ben the best???
Here's my answer to the test...
Ben is the best, IMO...because he's the only one I give a shit about!

[V DUB]

In a nutshell: our self-awareness that we'll be labeled a homer if we think our guy is the best, regardless of the objectivity of our argument/opinion.

In some ways, seeing so much more of our guy makes our sense of him valid and in some ways distorts the image.

I still say my highlight reel measurement is a pretty good ranking system. Go on youtube right now and try to find the best highlight reels of all-time QBs and even the current guys.

The greatest highlight QBs of all time, in something like an order would be:

1. Bradshaw
2. Ben
2a. Elway
4. Favre
5. Staubach
6. Montana
7. Johnny Unitas
8. Aaron Rodgers
9.Fran Tarkenton
10. Andrew Luck

Peyton highlights are pretty telling.

Your a homer if you label Ben #1. You're a hater if you rank him #3 or worse. #2 is the only safe spot right now Funny that no one gets bent out of shape about AB or Bell. Put them wherever you want and there will be no blood.

imo the highlight reel evaluation falls down once you watch Colin Kaepernick or Kordell. Every play counts, not just your best.

The length of the tape is what set's it apart. Not to mention the situations on a lot of them. I'd argue, from his rookie season, Ben's highbrow tape is already twice as long as the 2nd place guy. It's like Eli's throw to Tyree on loop, on a weekly basis. We see it so much it's the norm, & as such expect it & underappreciate his play.

[Legacy User]

Alright, here's my list:

1. Aaron Rodgers - Best in the world, not much more needs to be said.

2. Tom Brady - So yeah, after the balls were deflated and then reinflated he went out against the Seahawks and was 37-50 (74% completion) for 328 yards, and 4 TDs, including an incredibly clutch 11 play 4th quarter drive to re-take the lead late. He was 9-9 on the drive. Haters are out in force this season, mainly people who spent the last decade plus getting beat by the Patriots, but his legacy stands. He's the best/most overall accomplished QB of the modern era and is still playing at a very high level.

3. Tony Romo - The guy only completed 70% of his passes last year, threw 34 TDs to 9 picks, 8.5 YPA, won a road playoff game, and damn near beat Rodgers and the Packers in Green Bay if not for a bogus overturned call on a 31 yard completion down on a fourth down. He was efficient, clutch, accurate... don't see how anyone could not be impressed with his play last year. Deserved the MVP talk he was getting.

4. Ben Roethlisberger - How does everyone feel about Todd Haley now? He's helped Ben reach new heights, as 2014 was easily the best season of Ben's career IMO. He got the ball out quicker consistently better than he ever has, and it was probably his most impressive season in both accuracy and decision making. Tied for the league lead in total passing yards, 32 TDs to 9 INTs, and over 8 YPA. But, bad play in the playoffs plagued him once again. He hasn't won a playoff game in over four years and in that win he had a QB rating of 35.5. The second half of his career has been mired with ugly postseason INTs at bad moments, and last year's quick playoff exit at home against the Ravens was no exception.

5. Andrew Luck - What a freaking football player. Who knew the well spoken, #1 pick from Stanford was such a tough son of a bitch? Total team leader who dragged his, let's be honest now, mediocre at best team to the AFC title game. Played behind a terrible offensive line with no running game, with their version of Mike Wallace (T.Y. Hilton) and a bunch of meh skill players and led the league in TDs. Also notched another road playoff win and two total last year before the rainy disaster in New England. No reason not to expect even bigger and better things from him going forward, and clearly the best young QB in the league.

6. Philip Rivers - Was arguably the MVP of the first half of the season last year and gutted through the second half of the season playing with a back injury. Another guy with not much around him who kept battling and performing at a high level. 31 TDs but 18 INTs . A week 17 road loss in Kansas City kept the Chargers out of the playoffs preventing them from back-to-back appearances.

7. Drew Brees - Age is starting to catch up with Brees but when he's on his game (see the Green Bay and Pittsburgh games last year) there's not many, if any, who are as efficient and productive. Stumbled down the stretch with a couple of surprisingly bad performances, but he's still a damn good QB.

8. Joe Flacco - Playoff stud. Outplayed Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh for another road playoff win, and outplayed Brady in New England (yet again) in a game the Ravens won on the field but lost on the scoreboard. Best long ball and one of the best arms in the league. His playoff run in 2013 was arguably the best QB playoff run/performance ever. Seven career road playoff wins, most ever. He still doesn't show up consistently enough on Sundays to be considered at a higher level, but there's nobody more unflappable in the playoffs. If I'm needing a drive late in a huge game, there's not a QB I trust more at this point to make the plays needed. 24 TDs to 3 INTs in the playoffs going back to 2010. Like Roethlisberger, has never had a losing season.

9. Russell Wilson - Finally got humbled in the NFC Championship game at home against the Packers, where the pressure finally got to him and he threw 4 picks, but threw a beautiful game winner in OT. Was so-so in the SB this year, but of course all that will be remember is the game losing INT. It will be interesting to see if there's any one step back/two steps forward periods going forward as he gets asked to take on more responsibility in their offense. So far he's been hugely efficient and helped guide his team to deep playoff runs in a tough division. Still needs to improve on his decision making in the pocket. Hard to compare with the other top guys given his role.

10. Eli Manning - Just nudges out his big brother for the 10th spot here. OBJ saved his season last year, as that kid already looks like a top 5 WR in the NFL. We all know Eli's problems with accuracy and decision making and talking, but you can't discount what he's done in the past. Outside of the San Francisco game last year he was pretty great in the second half of the season. I expect a big season from him this year. Almost quietly threw for 30 TDs last year and had over a 2:1 TD to INT ratio.

So you are one of those apologists who think that was the first game the patriots ever deflated footballs, and that since they won convincingly after they were re inflated that it somehow doesn't matter what their intent was. Cute. Maybe consider they may have not even been in the playoffs without a list of underhanded cheats they take part in on a weekly basis. Consider their game against the Ravens the week prior was BARELY won, oh but I'm sure they didn't deflate balls in that game right. Outside of that piece of shit even being in the top 10 the only other issue I have is flacco being under rivers. Maybe I'm biased but I've never felt rivers was worth a damn. Even brees is better than rivers.

[Legacy User]

2. Tom Brady - So yeah, after the balls were deflated and then reinflated he went out against the Seahawks and was 37-50 (74% completion) for 328 yards, and 4 TDs, including an incredibly clutch 11 play 4th quarter drive to re-take the lead late. He was 9-9 on the drive. Haters are out in force this season, mainly people who spent the last decade plus getting beat by the Patriots, but his legacy stands. He's the best/most overall accomplished QB of the modern era and is still playing at a very high level.

So you are one of those apologists who think that was the first game the patriots ever deflated footballs

Nope, TB never says this. You seem to think he's a Pats defender, but he does not defend the Pats or Brady's actions. He makes a case that despite these things, Brady is still a top QB. He absolves Brady of nothing.

and that since they won convincingly after they were re inflated that it somehow doesn't matter what their intent was. Cute.

Where does TB ever mention intent or say it doesn't matter?

Maybe consider they may have not even been in the playoffs without a list of underhanded cheats they take part in on a weekly basis.

TB and others can consider, but we'll never know b/c it is not testable or verifiable at this point.

Consider their game against the Ravens the week prior was BARELY won, oh but I'm sure they didn't deflate balls in that game right.

TB made a top QB list, not a post on whether the Pats deflated balls in the Ravens game.

Thanks for posting a rant that disproves nothing TB said.

[zeke5123]

2. Tom Brady - So yeah, after the balls were deflated and then reinflated he went out against the Seahawks and was 37-50 (74% completion) for 328 yards, and 4 TDs, including an incredibly clutch 11 play 4th quarter drive to re-take the lead late. He was 9-9 on the drive. Haters are out in force this season, mainly people who spent the last decade plus getting beat by the Patriots, but his legacy stands. He's the best/most overall accomplished QB of the modern era and is still playing at a very high level.

So you are one of those apologists who think that was the first game the patriots ever deflated footballs

Nope, TB never says this. You seem to think he's a Pats defender, but he does not defend the Pats or Brady's actions. He makes a case that despite these things, Brady is still a top QB. He absolves Brady of nothing.

and that since they won convincingly after they were re inflated that it somehow doesn't matter what their intent was. Cute.

Where does TB ever mention intent or say it doesn't matter?

Maybe consider they may have not even been in the playoffs without a list of underhanded cheats they take part in on a weekly basis.

TB and others can consider, but we'll never know b/c it is not testable or verifiable at this point.

Consider their game against the Ravens the week prior was BARELY won, oh but I'm sure they didn't deflate balls in that game right.

TB made a top QB list, not a post on whether the Pats deflated balls in the Ravens game.

Thanks for posting a rant that disproves nothing TB said.

It's all Bayesian reasoning really Lit. The more we find out the Pats cheat, they note likely it is to attribute their success to cheating. In the same way, Brady's accomplishments are tarnished. Sure, it's possible he has the same career absent the cheating. But the more cheating scandals are uncovered, the more likely it is to assume his performance was aided via cheating.

It pains me to find Brady apologists on this board.

[Legacy User]

It's all Bayesian reasoning really Lit. The more we find out the Pats cheat, they note likely it is to attribute their success to cheating. In the same way, Brady's accomplishments are tarnished. Sure, it's possible he has the same career absent the cheating. But the more cheating scandals are uncovered, the more likely it is to assume his performance was aided via cheating.

It pains me to find Brady apologists on this board.[/quote]

Pain explains, but does not excuse non sequitur reasoning, which is what I'm going to call it.

I'll point this out for the zillionth time:
Were Brady truly among the most talented QBs ever, he would not have cheated.
He cheated.
Therefore he is not among the most talented.

Here we have a valid modus tollens. The conclusion follows with necessity if the first two premises are accepted. The second premise is easily accepted. The first may or may not be sound. But it is unclear to me that it must be accepted. And if people think I'm a Brady apologist for pointing this out, I could care less. Mind you, I embrace the second premise and so does TB.

[jeemie]

The more we find out the Pats cheat, they more likely it is to attribute their success to cheating.

It may be Bayesian reasoning.

It doesn't make it right to reason in such a manner, absent any information on the type of advantage the Patriots are getting from what they are known to have done.

[zeke5123]

It's all Bayesian reasoning really Lit. The more we find out the Pats cheat, they note likely it is to attribute their success to cheating. In the same way, Brady's accomplishments are tarnished. Sure, it's possible he has the same career absent the cheating. But the more cheating scandals are uncovered, the more likely it is to assume his performance was aided via cheating.

It pains me to find Brady apologists on this board.

Pain explains, but does not excuse non sequitur reasoning, which is what I'm going to call it.

I'll point this out for the zillionth time:
Were Brady truly among the most talented QBs ever, he would not have cheated.
He cheated.
Therefore he is not among the most talented.

Here we have a valid modus tollens. The conclusion follows with necessity if the first two premises are accepted. The second premise is easily accepted. The first may or may not be sound. But it is unclear to me that it must be accepted. And if people think I'm a Brady apologist for pointing this out, I could care less. Mind you, I embrace the second premise and so does TB.[/quote]

No. That isn't the argument I am advancing. My argument is:

1. We identify greatness by what a player accomplished on the field (I.e. Statistical performance + W/L)

2. As there are now two proven cheating scandals in Brady's career, then it casts significant doubt on whether his record on the field accurately reflects his greatness.

3. As this is not a criminal trial, I don't need to know with 100% certain (or 90%) that cheating helped Brady, we can infer that the more people cheat the more likely their success is tied to cheating.

4. Therefore, once we discount Brady's accomplishments because of his cheating, his field record doesn't match up.

[zeke5123]

The more we find out the Pats cheat, they more likely it is to attribute their success to cheating.

It may be Bayesian reasoning.

It doesn't make it right to reason in such a manner, absent any information on the type of advantage the Patriots are getting from what they are known to have done.

On the contrary. If someone is successful and they keep breaking rules that clearly could give them an advantage, it is more than reasonable to infer the cheating helped. And the more they cheat, the stronger that inference becomes. Otherwise, you need to infer that (a) cheating doesn't help but (b) they do it anyway because (c) they are mentally deranged.

I think my inference (they cheat because it helps) is a stronger inference.

[lifelongsteel]

It sure is fun to believe that they won because they cheated, and that Brady, sans cheating, is just an average QB.

Doubtful it's true. But fun nonetheless.

I have a sinking feeling that Brady and the Pats are about to drop an FU bomb on the NFL and go 15-0 with Brady at the helm this season.

[Legacy User]

1. We identify greatness by what a player accomplished on the field (I.e. Statistical performance + W/L)

2. As there are now two proven cheating scandals in Brady's career, then it casts significant doubt on whether his record on the field accurately reflects his greatness.

3. As this is not a criminal trial, I don't need to know with 100% certain (or 90%) that cheating helped Brady, we can infer that the more people cheat the more likely their success is tied to cheating.

4. Therefore, once we discount Brady's accomplishments because of his cheating, his field record doesn't match up.

Since I don't know the extent to which deflation has influenced his play, I'm not going to form precipitate judgments.

And your argument is essentially the same as the one alluded to. Cheating precludes greatness. What you have done is to present an argument to confirm the initial premise.

I know this: Brady's legacy is pretty much screwed. He has only himself to blame.

[zeke5123]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

[jeemie]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Why do addicts keep doing the things they are addicted to to the ruin of themselves?

And the Pats aren't even at that point- the marginal cost of cheating...even factoring in getting caught twice...has also been incredibly low.

But your reasoning is faulty- there are studies out there that show the more success and wealth you have, the more likely you are to cheat and flout the rules.

Those who rely greatly upon societal cooperation tend to stick to society's norms.

Those that do not rely on it as much (or perceive that they do not rely on it as much) tend to flout those norms more often.

You are judging the motives of people by your norms and motivations...these people are not even remotely in the same situation as you that you can claim with confidence that they have the same motivations as you.

[Legacy User]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Supposing one derives more than marginal benefit and actually deriving more than marginal benefit are different propositions.

[zeke5123]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Why do addicts keep doing the things they are addicted to to the ruin of themselves?

And the Pats aren't even at that point- the marginal cost of cheating...even factoring in getting caught twice...has also been incredibly low.

But your reasoning is faulty- there are studies out there that show the more success and wealth you have, the more likely you are to cheat and flout the rules.

Those who rely greatly upon societal cooperation tend to stick to society's norms.

Those that do not rely on it as much (or perceive that they do not rely on it as much) tend to flout those norms more often.

You are judging the motives of people by your norms and motivations...these people are not even remotely in the same situation as you that you can claim with confidence that they have the same motivations as you.

Alternatively, perhaps they are successful because they cheat. Or they cheat at the same rate as ordinary people but more chances to cheat pop up? There are a million causal arguments to be made on your study. And you are missing the point in relation to the Pats. Your study suggest wealthier people cheat more often. It doesn't make the argument wealthier people cheat more often for no additional benefit. That is your claim with the Pats.

The idea that NE derives no benefit from cheating but does so anyway is a pretty fantastical claim. The more measured claim is that NE cheats because they benefit from it.

[Legacy User]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Why do addicts keep doing the things they are addicted to to the ruin of themselves?

And the Pats aren't even at that point- the marginal cost of cheating...even factoring in getting caught twice...has also been incredibly low.

But your reasoning is faulty- there are studies out there that show the more success and wealth you have, the more likely you are to cheat and flout the rules.

Those who rely greatly upon societal cooperation tend to stick to society's norms.

Those that do not rely on it as much (or perceive that they do not rely on it as much) tend to flout those norms more often.

You are judging the motives of people by your norms and motivations...these people are not even remotely in the same situation as you that you can claim with confidence that they have the same motivations as you.

[Legacy User]

It sure is fun to believe that they won because they cheated, and that Brady, sans cheating, is just an average QB.

Doubtful it's true. But fun nonetheless.

I have a sinking feeling that Brady and the Pats are about to drop an FU bomb on the NFL and go 15-0 with Brady at the helm this season.

[zeke5123]

Why do they cheat if they derive marginal at best benefit from cheating?

Supposing one derives more than marginal benefit and actually deriving more than marginal benefit are different propositions.

True. But there is more than a minimal cost to cheating (when discovered) for the Pats. You think their subjective belief is that far off? Also, why put the rules in in the first place? Sure, you could create an example where the Pats substantially overstated their cheating advantages and one where the rules policed nothing, but the more likely answer is that the cheating provided more than a small benefit.

[zeke5123]

It sure is fun to believe that they won because they cheated, and that Brady, sans cheating, is just an average QB.

Doubtful it's true. But fun nonetheless.

I have a sinking feeling that Brady and the Pats are about to drop an FU bomb on the NFL and go 15-0 with Brady at the helm this season.

Well, can't disagree with you on this. Or the one for Jeemie. Even in your sarcasm, you tell the truth. Truly a virtuos man.