Dave sees Bill Simmons' top-32 QBs and raises him with his top-32 QBs (NFL)

[Warner2BruceTD]

Pretty good list overall. Only big problem I have, like many others, is Brees at #4. In your explanations, you give Payton major props for "getting the monkey off his back," then criticize Brees for "only" winning one superbowl. Big Ben, IMO, is top five because of his rings, but there is no way that I'd take Ben on my team ahead of Brees. Brees is every bit as important to the Saints as Payton is to the Colts -- the same can't be said about Big Ben.

While I don't think Ben The Raper is as good as the upper tier guys, I disagree with the last statement. Watch Dennis Dixon or Byron Leftwich "run" the Steelers offense, and tell me The Raper isnt as important as the others. He has a knack for making something out of nothing, like few others do in the league. The Steelers, despite the stereotype, have largely been a passing team during the Raper era.

 

[Pitty]

I explained my position in the original post.
I am not for a second denying that Brees is a great QB.
But I think Roethlisberger is getting downgraded these days because his stats are not as sexy and because he's a fucking jerk.
If I'm a coach and need a QB in a playoff game, I take Roethlisberger over Brees ... and, sorry, that's how I rank my QBs.
If you pass for 5,000 yards in a season and do nothing in the playoffs, I don't care.
If you're Troy Aikman and get lousy stats and keep winning in the playoffs, I want you behind the center.

This is the dumbest fucking post of the century. Brees just won the last Super Bowl and the Steelers didn't even make the playoffs.

 

[dope]

I explained my position in the original post.
I am not for a second denying that Brees is a great QB.
But I think Roethlisberger is getting downgraded these days because his stats are not as sexy and because he's a fucking jerk.
If I'm a coach and need a QB in a playoff game, I take Roethlisberger over Brees ... and, sorry, that's how I rank my QBs.
If you pass for 5,000 yards in a season and do nothing in the playoffs, I don't care.
If you're Troy Aikman and get lousy stats and keep winning in the playoffs, I want you behind the center.

you forget bree's has taken the saints to two nfc championships?

its also a team game so to sit here and put it all on the qb's shoulder is ridiculous (like you did with aaron rodgers...he played one of the best qb duels against kurt warner last year) as someone who claims they are a "real nfl fan" you'd realize that would adjust your rankings accordingly or stop weighing the playoff victories so high.

 

[Aso]

I honestly don't like ranking guys 1-10, there are tiers. I feel Rodgers made the jump from Tier 2 to Tier 1. Brady is basically about to drop from Tier 1 to Tier 2 pretty soon. In a similar situation, I think Joe Flacco could jump into Tier 2 after this season.

Tier 1
Manning
Brees
Rodgers
Brady

Tier 2
Romo
Rivers
Roethlisberger

Thats also a good way to list guys but I would have to list Rivers in that tier 1 group as well.

 

[dave]

Some of you guys are really getting your panties in a knot over one man's opinion.
Last time I checked, I didn't get to vote these guys into the pro bowl.

 

[Rayman]

Some of you guys are really getting your panties in a knot over one man's opinion.
Last time I checked, I didn't get to vote these guys into the pro bowl.

If you can't handle the criticism, I would suggest you stop making threads touting your expertise on all the starting QB's in the NFL.

Can't have it both ways where you do that and then say "I don't put these guys in the Pro Bowl" when people pick it apart.

 

[Aso]

Some of you guys are really getting your panties in a knot over one man's opinion.
Last time I checked, I didn't get to vote these guys into the pro bowl.

Maybe it's just me but you seemed condescending when I was reading this thread.

 

[dave]

If you can't handle the criticism, I would suggest you stop making threads touting your expertise on all the starting QB's in the NFL.

Can't have it both ways where you do that and then say "I don't put these guys in the Pro Bowl" when people pick it apart.

The second anyone says anything anti-Cowboy, you jump like a fat kid on a plate of french fries.
You take homerism to an entirely new level.

 

[Rayman]

The second anyone says anything anti-Cowboy, you jump like a fat kid on a plate of french fries.
You take homerism to an entirely new level.

The second anyone says anything anti-Cowboy that is false, I do indeed jump all over it. But if it's something that's warrented (i.e. the OL is old and slow, or Garrett outsmarts himself, or Wade doesn't inspire greatness, among many others) I'm open to the criticism. That being said, if you're gonna knock my team you better damn well have a clue what you're talking about.

You can call it homerism if you want, at least I'm up front about it unlike someone who attempts to hide his barbs in condescending "real fan" takes and then gets mad when he gets called on it.

 

[dave]

-So the supporting cast that is put around each QB is a determining factor or which QB is better?

Rodgers produces more with less than Romo, IMO.
No QB in the league has the luxury of that three-headed RB monster Romo has.
And Romo's WRs and TE are better than Rodgers'.
Because of that, Romo's numbers should be significantly better than Rodgers.
And, Romo only won one playoff game. Yes, I weighted playoff success into this, but one playoff win does not equal playoff success.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Hasselbeck, Palmer, and Cutler are not better than Joe Flacco, not at this stage of their careers.

I'll just add your comments on him are spoken like someone who hasn't seen the Ravens play recently. They were a passing team last year, not a running team, and that will probably be even more true this year now that they have Boldin. So saying Flacco is just Trent Dilfer with a stronger arm is completely wrong.

I didn't even notice this.

I'm the biggest Hasselbeck homer on this board and even I would trade Hass for Joe Flacco in .012091209 seconds

 

[dave]

I wouldn't give up on Hasselbeck yet.
My gut tells me he's going to have a big-time rebound year in Seattle and that team could make noise in that lousy division.
Hasselbeck doesn't get the respect he deserves.
And of course you'd take Flacco over Hasselbeck now. So would I. He's 10 years or so younger and has upside.
But I am not completely sold on Flacco yet.

 

[Aso]

I wouldn't give up on Hasselbeck yet.
My gut tells me he's going to have a big-time rebound year in Seattle and that team could make noise in that lousy division.
Hasselbeck doesn't get the respect he deserves.
And of course you'd take Flacco over Hasselbeck now. So would I. He's 10 years or so younger and has upside.
But I am not completely sold on Flacco yet.

What exactly is your list about? I thought this was suppose to be a list about who is the better QB right now?

 

[wr50l]

I love that Manning has proven himself with one Superbowl win, yet Brees needs two or maybe three. This whole thread is jokes, I highly recommend it.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I wouldn't give up on Hasselbeck yet.
My gut tells me he's going to have a big-time rebound year in Seattle and that team could make noise in that lousy division.
Hasselbeck doesn't get the respect he deserves.
And of course you'd take Flacco over Hasselbeck now. So would I. He's 10 years or so younger and has upside.
But I am not completely sold on Flacco yet.

You contradict your rankings with this post Dave, lol.

 

[Rayman]

Rodgers produces more with less than Romo, IMO.
No QB in the league has the luxury of that three-headed RB monster Romo has.
And Romo's WRs and TE are better than Rodgers'.
Because of that, Romo's numbers should be significantly better than Rodgers.
And, Romo only won one playoff game. Yes, I weighted playoff success into this, but one playoff win does not equal playoff success.

lol @ Romo's numbers should be significantly better. How much better would you like them to be?

Yeah, Romo has little to do with the success of his receivers, one of which has been a miserable failure as a Dallas Cowboy, the other an UDFA who before 2009, no one outside of Cowboy fans could've picked out in a lineup. The third receiver was a 6th round pick whose mouth was bigger than his game followed by a couple more UDFAs.

Yep, that receiving corps is All-World next to Green Bay's. Nevermind the fact that Green Bay's guys were all drafted by the organization and were major contributors to the Packer offense by the time Rodgers got under center, with the exception of Jordy Nelson - who was a 2nd round pick himself. Top to bottom, before the arrival of Dez Bryant, Rodgers' receivers shat all over Romo's from a pedigree standpoint. Rodgers' guys were already in place for him and he went 6-10. With the exception of Roy Williams, Romo's guys have grown with him, not before him.

The only place you can make an argument Romo has better talent is TE, where Witten has the best all-around game. But Jermichael Finley is no scrub.

As far as the "luxury of a three headed monster" Green Bay's running backs are far from trash, and Marion Barber has been a mess the last two years. Felix Jones has been banged up in that time frame. I want to see him become great, and he's shown the ability, but he hasn't shown he can stay healthy. Tashard Choice rarely gets to touch the ball. Not one of these three has ever rushed for 1000 yards...tell me again how they're such a "luxury"?

Offensive Line - please. The only reason those guys have looked as good as they have the last few years is Romo. He's bought himself time back there more times than I care to admit. It's a miracle he hasn't taken more killshots than he has already.

This is a prime example of what I mean when I say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. If the criteria has to apply to one QB, it should apply to all of the others that are in similar situations.

Oh, yeah, Romo's beaten Rodgers twice. But I'm sure that was more his supporting cast's doing. How convenient.

 

[Aso]

I don't think you can say with absolute conviction that either Dallas or Green Bay has a better supporting cast for their QB's than the other.

 

[dave]

\
Oh, yeah, Romo's beaten Rodgers twice. But I'm sure that was more his supporting cast's doing. How convenient.

OK, I may not be Gil Brandt, but if you put a poll to 32 NFL coaches and asked them who to choose between Rodgers and Romo, I think we know who wins.
And the stupid part is, I'm not knocking Romo. I think he's a good guy and a top-10 QB in the NFL. I put him ahead of McNabb.
I have nothing but respect for Romo, but if you put 32 NFL coaches or 32 NFL GM's on a hotseat and told them to pick between the two, Rodgers would win.

 

[Rayman]

I don't think you can say with absolute conviction that either Dallas or Green Bay has a better supporting cast for their QB's than the other.

I don't even care.

Be consistent in your arguments is all I'm saying.

 

[Rayman]

OK, I may not be Gil Brandt, but if you put a poll to 32 NFL coaches and asked them who to choose between Rodgers and Romo, I think we know who wins.
And the stupid part is, I'm not knocking Romo. I think he's a good guy and a top-10 QB in the NFL. I put him ahead of McNabb.
I have nothing but respect for Romo, but if you put 32 NFL coaches or 32 NFL GM's on a hotseat and told them to pick between the two, Rodgers would win.

I don't think you do know. Nor do I think you're sincere when you say you're not knocking him. You put put Eli freaking Manning ahead of him, and I'd be willing to bet that's based off nothing more than what happened over the span of a month in early 2008. Then you have the nerve to say you rank Rodgers ahead of him because he "Romo has a better supporting cast". Rodgers has a career .500 record and has accomplished less than Romo, yet the consensus is he's better. I don't understand it. I'm 100% convinced if Romo played for the Packers, or any other team for that matter, that wouldn't be the case.