Top 5 QB's in the NFL

[fringe]

That's right all star. objectivity is not something you can have about one QB and not the other. The mere fact that he can't be objective about Eli, mean he's not objective.

 

Maybe we should stat a new thread.

 

TOP 5 MOST OBJECTIVE POSTERS

[BIGBLUE01]

That's right all star. objectivity is not something you can have about one QB and not the other. The mere fact that he can't be objective about Eli, mean he's not objective.

 

Maybe we should stat a new thread.

 

TOP 5 MOST OBJECTIVE POSTERS

 

1. Lubeck

2. Golfer

3. Nemesis

4. allstar

5.socal

 

 

Im just kidding peeps.

[ksm7]

That's right all star. objectivity is not something you can have about one QB and not the other. The mere fact that he can't be objective about Eli, mean he's not objective.

 

Maybe we should stat a new thread.

 

TOP 5 MOST OBJECTIVE POSTERS

 

the dog has been objective about eli. he is a good QB that is inconsistent and is getting a lot of credit here ignoring circumstances surrounding him, while diminshing other QBs by considering the circumstances around them. what the dog is maintaining is there is no way to successfully rank QBs without accounting for everything, which means you can have a very talented QB that skill wise, preparation, ability to diagnose defenses and make the appropriate reads etc...etc...gets ranked lower because despite their best efforts, the team doesn't win. orton is the current example, although he is not the only example.

 

people praise eli for being a winner. he has been a winner. but he has been the beneficiary of a great o-line (sorry David Carr), a strong running game (easier to win when you have 2 thousand yard backs on your team, see strong o-line) and a great defense as they did in the super bowl run. people choose to ignore all of that when ranking him that high, yet continue to lower roethlisberger's ranking BECAUSE he has all of that...in he end, you have three elite QBs - peyton manning, brady, and brees (despite jim's efforts to diminish his talents because he plays in a dome...silly). after that, you have a number of QBs that are good, but are not clearly ahead of any of the others. if you look at Orton and his productivity in the last two years or so, the only thing clearly seperating him from manning is the wins and losses, but it is relatively close (manning is 14-10 in the last year and a half, Orton is 10-12 as a starter). why dismiss him so easily, yet say manning is a top 5 QB? orton's losses are due to a weak defense, poor coaching, and the absence of a run game...how did eli do last year without all of those things? he went 3-5 down the stretch...the dog is being objective...just because the dog has kyle orton on his fantasy team doesn't mean he is playing favorites....

[Allstarjim]

Dog, your arguments fly in the face of any objectivity. You do exactly what you claim others of doing. You are manipulating criteria so that it suits your argument.

 

I have been consistent. First, I have not in any way dismissed Roethlisberger's accomplishments. But while you claim that everyone has done this and how wrong it is, then you do the same regarding Eli by saying he has a great defense, good o-line, and good running backs.

 

Joe Montana... great O-line, had Jerry Rice and John Taylor, had Roger Craig, and a very good defense. Nobody says that they won in spite of Joe Montana. Every great QB needs help. In football, there are so many simbiotic relationships. A great receiver makes his QB look good, but a great QB makes his receivers look good. A great defense can make an offense look good, and a time consuming run oriented offense might make a defense look good by simply keeping them off the field and with fresh legs. The logic is so circular. So what you do is you look at the entire picture.

 

Last year, the Giants had a HISTORICALLY bad defense. The Giants suffered through some terrible defenses and teams in the mid to late 90's and even earlier this decade. But last year's defense was the worst in something like 40 to 50 years for the franchise. Yet Eli managed his best statistical season, throwing for 4000 yards. That run game was not so good either. It was Brandon Jacobs worst season as a pro, questioned every week and he was flat out not getting it done. But Eli still produced. So you have a QB with a terrible defense, and a bad running game, with a offensive line that was banged up all year and also not performing up to their standard. Yet Eli had a career year. You take your boy Orton and put him on that team last year and he doesn't win 5 games. And they would struggle to get to 4 wins. Even more than the Super Bowl season, Eli proved his value and what he means to this team. By the way, this year Eli is on pace for a 4100+ yard season, and a 65% completion.

 

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins... combine all these and Eli is not a good QB but a GREAT one. What Eli suffers from is that it took him a little longer for the light bulb to go off than it did Rivers and Roethlisberger. Sometime during that Super Bowl run, that's when Eli got it. He hasn't looked back. People still think it's '06 Eli or early '07 Eli. But he's a different QB today. TODAY, Eli is a pro bowl caliber QB. All you have are excuses, but the evidence overwhelmingly says you're out of your mind.

[JMFP]

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins... combine all these and Eli is not a good QB but a GREAT one. What Eli suffers from is that it took him a little longer for the light bulb to go off than it did Rivers and Roethlisberger. Sometime during that Super Bowl run, that's when Eli got it. He hasn't looked back. People still think it's '06 Eli or early '07 Eli. But he's a different QB today. TODAY, Eli is a pro bowl caliber QB. All you have are excuses, but the evidence overwhelmingly says you're out of your mind.

 

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins....this is "objective" when The Dog argues for Kyle Orton.

 

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins....this is "subjective" when you or anyone else argues for Eli Manning.

 

 

Thanks again for playing, Jim.

[fishgutmartyr]

You want objective, how about this? With the level of play Dallas has shown since Kitna has started, it's pretty clear that Romo's value to that team has been severely underrated by me, and that he does belong in the top ten, without question.

 

His w/l record is pretty lousy this year, but Romo won against a decent Houston team, and Dallas never lost by more than 7 pts. Considering a very unimpressive defense this year, you have to give Romo credit for even keeping them competitive. This is clearly not happening with Kitna replacing him even with all the offensive weapons available to Romo still there, although that team may have simply given up at this point.

 

And Kitna isn't a horrible QB, either. He's old now, but he did some good things on really miserable teams. 4,000 yard seasons in Detroit for two years? Garbage time or not, that's still impressive.

 

But Romo has a very high-value to the Cowboys, just like Eli, Peyton, and Brady have high value to their respective teams. Peyton and Brady speak for themselves--Manning was winning games early in the past decade with no defense at all (and through that, he's the ONLY QB I've ever seen that could "lead a defense"), and Brady has won so handily with so many different players that it goes without saying. They are both first-ballot HOF'ers, so this should not be surprising. Nobody else touches them in value.

 

Eli has a lot of responsibility in Gilbride's offense, and if he ever went down, you'd see a serious drop-off in offensive play, good oline or not. Rosenfels is a competent QB from what little I've seen of him, but nobody in their right mind would expect him to make the reads and play call at the line with the success that Manning has over the years. So with Rosenfels starting, you would see a much more limited playbook, far more running, our oline getting exposed (Sean O'Hara has played how many games this year? Seubert playing center? Koets and Diehl possibly out?), and our WRs not getting the stats we are quickly getting accustomed to. That indicates some very serious value to this team.

 

This is the same point I was trying to make with Roethlisberger earlier in the thread. He was out 4 games this season--they won three of them with 2 QBs starting. His value to the team simply isn't as high as the others in the discussion--it's not even as high as Troy Palamalu on his own team!

 

Brees is interesting--on one hand, he's got great accuracy, and a winning record. On the other, he's had weapons on both teams he's played on, has played most of his seasons in favorable conditions; and Sean Payton had Kerry Collins look good for a couple of seasons. So I'm not sure what to say about him. He has the ring, his unit played much better with him in the game than it did with his predecessor, so you have to give it to him.

[Allstarjim]

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins....this is "objective" when The Dog argues for Kyle Orton.

 

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins....this is "subjective" when you or anyone else argues for Eli Manning.

 

 

Thanks again for playing, Jim.

 

I forgot durability.

[Allstarjim]

Fish, while I do think Romo is a very good QB and does hold value to the Cowboys, I won't say that the way the Cowboys have played since he's been hurt is a reflection of that. That team has quit on their coach, no matter who is under center. When the Giants knocked Romo out of the game, that whole team just quit. They just outright gave up on the season.

 

The one knock I have on Romo is that I don't think he puts in the effort BETWEEN Sundays that guys like Peyton, Eli, and Brady do, and because of that he makes critical mistakes on the field when he doesn't read a zone blitz correctly, for example. I think there is a lot to like about Romo's ability, but he just seems to lose when the chips are down, and especially in December games, and I can only attribute that to off the field preparation. But I will concur with you in so much that I think he is a top 10 QB in the NFL.

 

Roethlisberger, now, I can't say I agree with you on him. It's not as if that offense was lighting up the scoreboard in Ben's abscence. The only good game for that offense in that stretch was the Tampa game, a game they piled up 201 yards rushing. They are a much better team in my estimation with Big Ben in there than Charlie Batch. The guy did throw for 4300 yards last year at a 66% clip with 26 TD's/12 INT and a 100.4 QB Rating. Chalk up the first 4 games of this year to an amazing Steeler defense and a small sample size.

[fishgutmartyr]

Fish, while I do think Romo is a very good QB and does hold value to the Cowboys, I won't say that the way the Cowboys have played since he's been hurt is a reflection of that. That team has quit on their coach, no matter who is under center. When the Giants knocked Romo out of the game, that whole team just quit. They just outright gave up on the season.

 

The one knock I have on Romo is that I don't think he puts in the effort BETWEEN Sundays that guys like Peyton, Eli, and Brady do, and because of that he makes critical mistakes on the field when he doesn't read a zone blitz correctly, for example. I think there is a lot to like about Romo's ability, but he just seems to lose when the chips are down, and especially in December games, and I can only attribute that to off the field preparation. But I will concur with you in so much that I think he is a top 10 QB in the NFL.

 

Roethlisberger, now, I can't say I agree with you on him. It's not as if that offense was lighting up the scoreboard in Ben's abscence. The only good game for that offense in that stretch was the Tampa game, a game they piled up 201 yards rushing. They are a much better team in my estimation with Big Ben in there than Charlie Batch. The guy did throw for 4300 yards last year at a 66% clip with 26 TD's/12 INT and a 100.4 QB Rating. Chalk up the first 4 games of this year to an amazing Steeler defense and a small sample size.

 

That might very well be true with Dallas this year, but a very similar result occurred when it happened in 2008(?) and Brad Johnson had to step in for a few games. Regardless of what happens between games, Romo on the field has a psychological impact on that team. Just like McMahon had with the 80's Bears. And Romo is a better QB than McMahon ever was.

 

As for Pittsburgh, two words: Neil O'Donnell. The system they use there got to the Superbowl with Neil O'Donnell. Are they better with Roethlisberger in the lineup? Sure. But the QB position isn't as integral a part of that system as it is in a San Diego or (to make Dog happy) Denver. (I won't use Indy as an example because that's an extreme, and it's geared to work with an obvious Hall of Fame player.) With a much lower level of pressure, and the ability to pass more judiciously, it's no wonder that a very good QB can create fantastic statistics within that system. Remember, Jim, I'm not calling the guy a hack by any means--I'm just saying that he's a bit overrated.

[ksm7]

Dog, your arguments fly in the face of any objectivity. You do exactly what you claim others of doing. You are manipulating criteria so that it suits your argument.

 

I have been consistent. First, I have not in any way dismissed Roethlisberger's accomplishments. But while you claim that everyone has done this and how wrong it is, then you do the same regarding Eli by saying he has a great defense, good o-line, and good running backs.

 

Joe Montana... great O-line, had Jerry Rice and John Taylor, had Roger Craig, and a very good defense. Nobody says that they won in spite of Joe Montana. Every great QB needs help. In football, there are so many simbiotic relationships. A great receiver makes his QB look good, but a great QB makes his receivers look good. A great defense can make an offense look good, and a time consuming run oriented offense might make a defense look good by simply keeping them off the field and with fresh legs. The logic is so circular. So what you do is you look at the entire picture.

 

Last year, the Giants had a HISTORICALLY bad defense. The Giants suffered through some terrible defenses and teams in the mid to late 90's and even earlier this decade. But last year's defense was the worst in something like 40 to 50 years for the franchise. Yet Eli managed his best statistical season, throwing for 4000 yards. That run game was not so good either. It was Brandon Jacobs worst season as a pro, questioned every week and he was flat out not getting it done. But Eli still produced. So you have a QB with a terrible defense, and a bad running game, with a offensive line that was banged up all year and also not performing up to their standard. Yet Eli had a career year. You take your boy Orton and put him on that team last year and he doesn't win 5 games. And they would struggle to get to 4 wins. Even more than the Super Bowl season, Eli proved his value and what he means to this team. By the way, this year Eli is on pace for a 4100+ yard season, and a 65% completion.

 

Work ethic, character, intelligence, physical attributes, leadership, statistics, and wins... combine all these and Eli is not a good QB but a GREAT one. What Eli suffers from is that it took him a little longer for the light bulb to go off than it did Rivers and Roethlisberger. Sometime during that Super Bowl run, that's when Eli got it. He hasn't looked back. People still think it's '06 Eli or early '07 Eli. But he's a different QB today. TODAY, Eli is a pro bowl caliber QB. All you have are excuses, but the evidence overwhelmingly says you're out of your mind.

 

the dog is only manipulating the criteria to prove the obvious point that there is no justifiable criteria that exists. the dog never claimed the giants won in spite of eli manning. but before we elevate him to top status, let's look at the entire picture...that is all the dog is doing. despite what a steelers fan would argue, the dog wouldn't put roethlisberger ahead of brees, brady or peyton, nor would the dog mention him in the same breath...but he has two rings, does nothing but win games...etc...

 

the dog also doesn't care that eli is a probowl QB...so are about half the QBs in the league. you want to paint him as this consistent winner. he has been in the regular season. not in the post season (4 wins in 4 post seasons all coming in one year) doesn't make him all that successful as a post season QB. yet again, rivers gets ranked lower. the dog isn't saying rivers is better, the dog wouldn't pretend to be able to rank those two QBs in an order that makes sense. you know why? there is no criteria in which to separate them.

 

drew brees last two seasons with the chargers: 24 tds and 15 ints, and 27 tds and 9 ints. that would be prior to him going to an offense that you argue builds QB numbers. he has won in both places, in all climates, is known to be as accurate a passer as you can get, and last year was mentioned in the same breath as peyton manning in terms of the mental prep work, film work, and ability to reaad defenses as fast. by not putting him in with peyton and brady, you are ignoring evidence of how great a QB he is.

[ksm7]

 

 

Eli has a lot of responsibility in Gilbride's offense, and if he ever went down, you'd see a serious drop-off in offensive play, good oline or not. Rosenfels is a competent QB from what little I've seen of him, but nobody in their right mind would expect him to make the reads and play call at the line with the success that Manning has over the years. So with Rosenfels starting, you would see a much more limited playbook, far more running, our oline getting exposed (Sean O'Hara has played how many games this year? Seubert playing center? Koets and Diehl possibly out?), and our WRs not getting the stats we are quickly getting accustomed to. That indicates some very serious value to this team.

 

 

 

and yet, he gets none of the blame when the offense struggles and the kill gillbride threads go full force. the dog wouldn't blame him either, but objectively, he is not the top 3-5 material you all believe him to be. there is nothing wrong with that. he has a ring which is more than the majority of starting qbs has, and he earned that. but let's keep it legit when we start discussing his greatness. that is the dog's issue and always was whenever joe starts these threads (which he knows will draw the dog out into this debate, thus adding some life to the boards now and then)....he is a solid QB with some inconsistencies that has benefited from a great o-line, and strong supporting cast. so be it. the dog isn't saying he is bad or in the bottom of the pack...he is solid. there you go.

[Allstarjim]

That might very well be true with Dallas this year, but a very similar result occurred when it happened in 2008(?) and Brad Johnson had to step in for a few games. Regardless of what happens between games, Romo on the field has a psychological impact on that team. Just like McMahon had with the 80's Bears. And Romo is a better QB than McMahon ever was.

 

As for Pittsburgh, two words: Neil O'Donnell. The system they use there got to the Superbowl with Neil O'Donnell. Are they better with Roethlisberger in the lineup? Sure. But the QB position isn't as integral a part of that system as it is in a San Diego or (to make Dog happy) Denver. (I won't use Indy as an example because that's an extreme, and it's geared to work with an obvious Hall of Fame player.) With a much lower level of pressure, and the ability to pass more judiciously, it's no wonder that a very good QB can create fantastic statistics within that system. Remember, Jim, I'm not calling the guy a hack by any means--I'm just saying that he's a bit overrated.

 

 

Right, I think we agree on these guys more than we disagree.

[fishgutmartyr]

and yet, he gets none of the blame when the offense struggles and the kill gillbride threads go full force. the dog wouldn't blame him either, but objectively, he is not the top 3-5 material you all believe him to be. there is nothing wrong with that. he has a ring which is more than the majority of starting qbs has, and he earned that. but let's keep it legit when we start discussing his greatness. that is the dog's issue and always was whenever joe starts these threads (which he knows will draw the dog out into this debate, thus adding some life to the boards now and then)....he is a solid QB with some inconsistencies that has benefited from a great o-line, and strong supporting cast. so be it. the dog isn't saying he is bad or in the bottom of the pack...he is solid. there you go.

You know where I stand in those "Kill Gilbride" threads. I don't think the offense has been an issue with this team for years now.

 

Conversely, you are still looking at Manning like the QB from before 2007--not the one that has performed very well for the past 3 years. And in those three years, this offensive line has not been as completely dominant as it was from 2006-2008. The last two years they've played with significant injuries, and had major components out at times. Frankly, I'm a little nervous about what happens when they go against the defensive lines of Philly and Minnesota if Diehl is out for significant time, and O'Hara doesn't get back on the field.

 

Does Manning still have bad games--sure. So does the other one. But they are becoming less frequent with every year, and only emphasize just how important this guy is to that offense.

[ksm7]

You know where I stand in those "Kill Gilbride" threads. I don't think the offense has been an issue with this team for years now.

 

Conversely, you are still looking at Manning like the QB from before 2007--not the one that has performed very well for the past 3 years. And in those three years, this offensive line has not been as completely dominant as it was from 2006-2008. The last two years they've played with significant injuries, and had major components out at times. Frankly, I'm a little nervous about what happens when they go against the defensive lines of Philly and Minnesota if Diehl is out for significant time, and O'Hara doesn't get back on the field.

 

Does Manning still have bad games--sure. So does the other one. But they are becoming less frequent with every year, and only emphasize just how important this guy is to that offense.

 

true, you have been one that has joined in the misdirected kill gilbride joy that has been oddly quiet now for 4 weeks, but will no doubt resurface the next time the giants lose after putting up 30 points. as for the o-line, last year has been the only time in recent years that the dog would recall it being an issue. this year it has regained some of its form over time. look, manning is a solid starter, nobody would argue that. and people don't want to hear it from the dog, but objectively, he is not a top 5, if that can even be established at all. people may think the dog is just arguing for the sake of arguing, but really, putting him in the same category as his brother, brady and brees is turning a blind eye to the overall picture. debates about this stuff are crazy b/c manning fans are going to twist information to justify putting him ahead of others...just be satisfied with results, stop trying to justify his value, and the dog can quietly remove himself from the boards.

[fringe]

true, you have been one that has joined in the misdirected kill gilbride joy that has been oddly quiet now for 4 weeks, but will no doubt resurface the next time the giants lose after putting up 30 points. as for the o-line, last year has been the only time in recent years that the dog would recall it being an issue. this year it has regained some of its form over time. look, manning is a solid starter, nobody would argue that. and people don't want to hear it from the dog, but objectively, he is not a top 5, if that can even be established at all. people may think the dog is just arguing for the sake of arguing, but really, putting him in the same category as his brother, brady and brees is turning a blind eye to the overall picture. debates about this stuff are crazy b/c manning fans are going to twist information to justify putting him ahead of others...just be satisfied with results, stop trying to justify his value, and the dog can quietly remove himself from the boards.

 

lol, stop disagreeing with me, admit i'm right and i'll go way. you're a riot.

[JMFP]

that is the dog's issue and always was whenever joe starts these threads (which he knows will draw the dog out into this debate, thus adding some life to the boards now and then

 

Who, me?

[JMFP]

I will admit that nobody tops Orton when it comes to partying....the guy is an animal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Iceman_NYG]

Ice -

 

Clarification on my comment about Rodgers... I don't want Eli going anywhere. As a fan, Eli is a SB hero and I want him to finish his career as a Giant. I would be pissed if they traded Eli for anyone, because he is the face of the franchise and he is a perfect fit on this team in this city. The comment was made more on a talent for talent level... The QB's we've been talking about after Peyton and Brady, I meant the only one that I think would be as good or better playing in NY is Aaron Rodgers. After Peyton and Brady retire one day, after he's had a few more seasons to put up numbers and convert doubters, Rodgers, IMO, will be widely considered the best QB in the NFL, as Peyton is right now. Watching him play, it's hard to believe he's only played 2 and a half seasons of professional football. Yes, he did have time holding a clipboard for a couple of seasons, but what he's accomplished in a short period of time rivals any QB in history, and he does it playing in Lambeau, also not the greatest place for a QB to put up big numbers.

 

The only thing where I disagree with some of you guys is that I don't think Brees is the clear cut #3 QB in the NFL. I am much more impressed by what Rodgers does in Green Bay and what Eli does in NY than I am with what Brees does in that offense on a fast track indoors... and he does it 9 games a year, minimum, playing on turf indoors. Also playing in the west coast offense, an offense conducive to big stats at the QB position. I think if you put Brees up there based on the information above, then the Dog's argument about Orton is valid (which it isn't). Difference is Brees won the SB... but the way I see it, if Eli and Brees traded teams and offensive systems, who would be better off? Would Brees be better than Eli playing in our system, in our stadium 8 games a year? I personally do not think his game would translate as well. But I think Eli could be just as good as Brees playing in the SuperDome. And that's why I think Brees is among that second tier of QB's from 3-7 after Peyton and Brady.

 

 

 

But anyways Iceman, I don't get your opening of your first paragraph. You claim that the dog has been objective (hilarious) and others haven't, specifically quoting me. But you are citing my being ok with a Rodgers for Eli swap as evidence of not being objective... and then saying you wouldn't be ok with it... I think that supports my objectivity than the reverse. Then you go on to say in the next paragraph that the Dog HASN'T been objective in his assessment of Eli... basically, I can't follow who is being objective and who is not here, according to you.

 

 

No Jim. You misunderstood me. I didnt cite you as not being objective. That was directed more towards people who were putting Eli and Peyton in the same breath or ranking Peyton 4th and shit like that. I only cited you as an example of people having their personal preferences once it comes to the QB carousel - for example - you feel Rodgers is better, some might think Brees is better, I feel Roethlisberger and Rivers are over-rated, Dallas douchebags think Romo is the greatest thing since canned beer etc etc.

 

The Dog has been objective to the extent of not mentioning something retarded like Matt Moore has got the best skill set or some other horseshit - he called a lot of things as he saw it. But then again, he doesnt want to admit which team he is a fan of, and without contributing anything significant to any conversation, he just sits around 'critiquing' others' posts. I disagreed with him coming out of the wood work to say that Eli was inconsistent and he started putting Kyle Orton in the same breath as Eli while at the same time saying putting Eli and Peyton in the same breath was stupid. He says some incredibly stupid things as well while belligerently insisting that he is objective etc. But in this thread, for the most part I wont argue with his analysis except for a few areas which I highlighted in my previous post.

[Virginia Giant]

Dog, if after the big 3, the list is an interchangable 23 players long, who is your bottom 7?

[ksm7]

Dog, if after the big 3, the list is an interchangable 23 players long, who is your bottom 7?

 

the 23 number is arbitrary. and yes, the dog would argue that it is a fine line to set aside the bottom group, as opinion factors in there as well. trying to take the whole picture into account, some QBs that at this stage of their careers the dog would separate out are as followed:

 

alex smith - although no longer starting, he has had a number of years to develop, and hasn't progressed. he has had access to a great run game and a stingy defense, but still seems to play like a rookie. of course in a new environment, he may make some progress...but he was also one of the first to come out of college playing in a system that rolled up big numbers but is not conducive to NFL play.

 

hasselback - again, at this stage of his career, he is on the downward and would no longer make the cut. he is consistently injured, and is inconsistent in his performance. to be fair, his o-line has diminshed and they have lacked a running threat in recent times, but he seems to have become more careless with the ball. seems to be better suited as a veteran back-up for a contending team rather than an everyday starter that can take a team deep into the playoffs.

 

d. anderson - possibly shell shocked from his time in cleveland, but he went to a team that has an aresenal and he hasn't been able to demonstrate growth.

 

c. henne - the dog wants to believe that henne is a good QB, and he may still evolve, but he is dissapointing at this time. he has a strong run game, solid defense, and now has a premiere wr, and yet he is drowning in mediocrity currently.

 

m. moore - the dog wants to give him a pass, as he is young and stuck in a franchise going nowhere. the dog struggles with him the most right now, because he still is young and should be given time to develop, but right now he is at the bottom of the pack.

 

garrard - his numbers are decent, but given that he has a strong run game and decent defense, he too seems to settle in at a mediocre average.

 

b. favre - the dog just doesn't like favre, so he makes any negative list the dog can find. truthfully, the dog has always felt he was overrated. not bad, just overrated. as tony dungy told his team when coaching in tampa, brett favre will give you 4-7 interceptions a game, it is just that teams don't convert them. his team then went out on a monday night and picked him off 4 times and upset them at the time. and this was when favre was still considered in his prime.

 

again, this list is as arbitrary as ranking QBs in the top, because there are probably arguments that can be made in defense of these players (i.e., moore being young...etc...), but looking at the big picture, these are the guys the dog would be hard pressed to mention in the second tier when looking at rivers...roethlisberger....manning....romo....etc...etc...

[fishgutmartyr]

Oh, look. Eli is top 5 in completion percentage (#4), top five in TDs(#3), 6th in yds/attempt, and top 10 in any other ranking of significance in the NFL including QB rating (where he's tied with Orton). You know what? I don't even CARE if he's top 5 or not anymore--He's easily the best Giant's QB I've ever seen, and I loved Phil Simms.

[ksm7]

Oh, look. Eli is top 5 in completion percentage (#4), top five in TDs(#3), 6th in yds/attempt, and top 10 in any other ranking of significance in the NFL including QB rating (where he's tied with Orton). You know what? I don't even CARE if he's top 5 or not anymore--He's easily the best Giant's QB I've ever seen, and I loved Phil Simms.

 

good for you. you put your foot down and go with it. stats, stats, stats. the dog again is saying take all into account. david garrard has a higher rating than either of them. should he then not be considered in the top 5? rivers has superior numbers across the board, has done it with a patchwork receiving core and young rbs that have yet to come into there own (not to mention a shakey coach and a less effective defense, all things preventing him from accumulating wins to date...), why does manning get the nod over him? and for the record, the dog has never argued that orton is the better QB, just that if you are going to take a look at the big picture, he is in the same category as eli as far as QB production...etc...it is why ranking qb's is an excercie in futility...

[fishgutmartyr]

good for you. you put your foot down and go with it. stats, stats, stats. the dog again is saying take all into account. david garrard has a higher rating than either of them. should he then not be considered in the top 5? rivers has superior numbers across the board, has done it with a patchwork receiving core and young rbs that have yet to come into there own (not to mention a shakey coach and a less effective defense, all things preventing him from accumulating wins to date...), why does manning get the nod over him? and for the record, the dog has never argued that orton is the better QB, just that if you are going to take a look at the big picture, he is in the same category as eli as far as QB production...etc...it is why ranking qb's is an excercie in futility...

I'm thrilled to death for Garrard, Orton, and Rivers. Truly.

[Mr. P]

I will admit that nobody tops Orton when it comes to partying....the guy is an animal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[boohyah]

1. Lubeck

2. Golfer

3. Nemesis

4. allstar

5.socal

 

 

Im just kidding peeps.

 

WTF!!!