NFL Quarterback Rankings
by MattMiller
on May 20, 2008 1:22 PM EDT
in NFL Position Rankings
With nothing better to do until the college football season starts, here are our grades for every player in the NFL. We begin with the quarterbacks.
Please note that the grades given are our own. Each player is ranked in order of who we would want as our starting quarterback for the 2008 NFL Season only. We have taken in to account age, production and potential in grading the players below. Only drafted rookies are listed.
Name- Team- Grade- Stats (TD/INT/Yards/Rating)
1. Tom Brady -NE -10 - 50/8/4806/117.2
2. Peyton Manning -IND- 10- 31/14/4040/98.0
3. Drew Brees -NO -9 -28/18/4423/89.4
4. Matt Hasselbeck- SEA- 9- 28/12/3966/91.4
5. Ben Roethlisberger -PIT -8 - 32/11/3154/104.1
6. Carson Palmer -CIN- 8 26/20/4131/86.7
7. Donovan McNabb -PHI- 8 19/7/3324/89.9
8. Tony Romo -DAL -8 -36/19/4211/97.4
9. Derek Anderson- CLE- 8- 29-19-3787-82.5
10. Marc Bulger -STL -8 -11/15/2392/70.3
11. Eli Manning -NYG- 8- 23/20/3336/73.9
12. David Garrard -JAC -7 -18/3/2509/102.2
13. Jake Delhomme- CAR- 7- 8/1/624/111.8
14. Jay Cutler -DEN -7 -20/14/3497/88.1
15. Jeff Garcia - TB- 7- 13/4/2440/94.6
16. Philip Rivers - SD -7 -21/15/3152/82.4
17. Kurt Warner - ARZ- 7- 27/17/3417/89.8
18. Matt Schaub - HOU -7 - 9/9/2241/87.2
19. Jason Campbell- WAS- 7 - 12/11/2700/7736
20. Vince Young -TEN - 7 -9/17/2546/71.1
21. Jon Kitna - DET- 6- 18/20/4068/80.9
22. Aaron Rodgers - GB- 6- 1/0/218/106.0
23. Kyle Boller - BAL - 6 - 9/10/1743/75.2
24. Trent Edwards- BUF- 6- 7/8/1630/70.4
25. Kellen Clemens - NYJ - 6 - 5/10/1529/60.9
26. Matt Leinart - ARZ- 6- 2/4/647/61.9
27. JP Losman - BUF - 6 - 4/6/1204/76.9
28. Quinn Gray - FA- 6- 10/5/986/85.6
29. Chad Pennington- NYJ- 6- 10/9/1765/86.1
30. Tarvaris Jackson - MIN- 6- 9/12/1911/70.8
31. Brady Quinn - CLE - 6 - 0/0/45/56.8
32. Rex Grossman- CHI- 6- 4/7/1411/66.4
33. Daunte Culpepper - FA - 6 - 5/5/1331/78.0
34. Matt Ryan - ATL - 6 - Rookie
35. JaMarcus Russell- OAK- 6- 2/4/373/55.9
36. Alex Smith - SF - 6 - 2/4/914/57.2
37. Chris Simms- TB- 6- None
38. David Carr - NYG - 6 - 3/5/635/58.3
39. Billy Volek - SD- 6- 0/1/6/0.0
40. Michael Vick - ATL - 6 - Suspended
41. Shaun Hill - SF- 5- 5/1/501/101.3
42. Todd Collins - WAS - 5- 5/0/888/106.4
43. Chris Redman - ATL- 5- 10/5/1079/90.4
44. Brian Griese - TB - 5 - 10/12/1803/75.6
45. Joey Harrington - ATL- 5- 7/8/2215/77.2
46. Brodie Croyle - KC - 5 - 6/6/1227/69.9
47. Chad Henne - MIA- 5- Rookie
48. Trent Green - STL - 5 - 5/7/987/72.6
49. Matt Cassell - NE- 5- 0/1/38/32.7
50. Brian Brohm - GB - 5 - Rookie
51. Joe Flacco - BAL- 5- Rookie
52. Damon Huard - KC - 5- 11/13/2257/76.8
53. Brad Johnson - DAL- 5- 0/0/79/85.0
54. Kevin Kolb - PHI - 5 - None
55. John Beck - MIA- 5- 1/3/559/62.0
56. Cleo Lemon -JAC - 5 - 6/6/1773/71.0
57. Josh McCown- MIA- 5- 10/11/1151/69.4
58. Matt Moore - CAR - 5 - 3/5/730/67.0
59. Kyle Orton - CHI- 5- 3/2/478/73.9
60. Troy Smith - BAL - 5 - 2/0/452/79.5
61. Charlie Frye - SEA- 5- 0/1/34/10.0
62. Drew Stanton -DET - 5- None
63. Vinny Testaverde- CAR- 5- 5/6/952/65.8
64. Bryon Leftwich - FA - 5 - 1/2/279/59.5
65. Mark Brunell - NO- 5- None
66. Patrick Ramsey- DEN - 4- 1/1/262/73.4
67. Charlie Batch - PIT- 4- 2/3/232/52.1
68. Sage Rosenfels - HOU - 4 - 15/12/1684/84.8
69. Seneca Wallace - SEA- 4- 2/1/215/99.6
70. Brooks Bollinger - MIN - 4 - 1/1/391/88.0
71. Todd Bouman - JAC- 4- None
72. Erik Ainge - NYJ - 4 - Rookie
73. Kerry Collins- TEN- 4 - 0/0/531/79.9
74. Trent Dilfer - FA - 4 - 7/12/1166/55.1
75. AJ Feeley - PHI- 4- 5/8/681/61.2
76. Gus Frerotte - STL - 4 - 7/12/1014/58.3
77. Bruce Gradkowski- TB- 4- 0/1/130/52.4
78. Matt Gutierrez - NE - 4 - 0/0/15/118.8
79. Kelly Holcomb - MIN- 4- 2/1/515/73.1
80. John David Booty - MIN - 4 - Rookie
81. Luke McCown - TB- 4 - 5/3/1009/91.7
82. Dan Orlovsky - DET - 4 - None
83. Jim Sorgi - IND - 4- 1/0/132/68.3
84. Andrew Walter- OAK- 4- 0/0/38/74.0
85. DJ Shockley - ATL - 4 - None
86. Marques Tuiasosopo- NYJ- 4- None
87. Charlie Whitehurst - SD - 4 - None
88. Anthony Wright - NYG- 4 - 0/0/12/39.6
89. Jared Lorenzen- NYG- 4- 0/0/28/58.3
90. J.T. O’Sullivan -SF - 3 - 1/2/148/48.2
91. Brian St. Pierre - PIT- 3- None
92. Ken Dorsey - CLE - 3 - None
93. Brett Basanez- CAR- 3- None
94. Brock Berlin - STL - 3 - 0/1/153/60.6
95. Shane Boyd - HOU - 3- None
96. Casey Bramlet - MIA- 3 - None
97. Tyler Thigpen - KC- 3- 0/1/41/18.7
98. Cullen Finnerty - BAL - 3 - None
99. Ryan Fitzpatrick - CIN- 3- None
100. David Greene - KC - 3 - None
101. Darrell Hackney - DEN- 3- None
102. Gibran Hamdan - BUF - 3 - None
103. Tim Hasselbeck - ARZ- 3- None
104. Sam Hollenbach - WAS - 3 - None
105. Travis Lulay - SEA - 3- None
106. Jamie Martin - NO- 3- None
107. Craig Nall - GB- 3- 1/0/88/87.6
108. Kevin O’Connell- NE- 3- Rookie
109. Tim Rattay - ARZ- 3- 3/3/164/71.1
110. Lester Ricard- JAC- 3- None
111. Dennis Dixon -PIT - 3 - Rookie
112. Matt Baker - FA - 3- None
113. Josh Johnson - TB- 3- Rookie
114. André Woodson - NYG - 3- Rookie
115. Jared Zabransky - PIT- 3- None
116. Alex Brink - HOU - 3 - Rookie
117. Tyler Palko - NO- 3- None
118. Chris Weinke - SF - 3 - 1/0/104/86.2
119. Jeff Rowe - CIN - 3- None
120. Paul Thompson- TEN- 3- None
121. Matt Flynn - GB - 2 - Rookie
122. Drew Olson - SF- 2- None
123. Josh Betts - IND - 2 - None
124. Ingle Martin- TEN- 2- None
125. Richard Bartel - DAL - 2- None
126. Jordan Palmer - CIN- 2- None
127. Jerry Babb - GB - 2 - None
128. Colt Brennan - WAS- 2- Rookie
129. Dalton Bell - GB - 1 - None
130. Brett Ratliff - NYJ- 1- None
0 recs |
45
comments
Read Related
Email
PrintComments
Initial gut reaction
Wow, you really don’t like Joe Flacco. Ranking him under Henne and Brohm was surprising. I’m guessing 30 out of 32 clubs would disagree with that part of the rankings.
My second response was that you had JP Losman rated way too high at #27, then I saw that you had Kyle Boller ranked at #23, and that helped me remember how bad quarterbacks in the NFL really are. Trent Edwards is still better than Boller, however., as Boller fumbles something fierce.
Daunte Culpepper is rated too high however. Guys like Billy Volek, Sage Rosenfels, and Todd Collins are much better right now.
by math_geek on May 20, 2008 1:32 PM EDT 0 recs
Thanks
The rankings are a list of who I would want as my starter in ‘08. Flacco is not as ready to start as Henne or Brohm, and I had both players ranked higher than him pre-draft.
Boller and Losman have been busts compared to their draft status, but both have talent as a short-term option for a team.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on May 20, 2008 1:38 PM EDT 0 recs
Oh yeah
wow, i totally missed the bit about starting the 2008 season. It’s been a long week and I’m still recovering. You’re absolutely right about Flacco not being ready to start as Henne or Brohm, but I’ll pass along that he absolutely dominated the other QBs in the mandatory minicamp. Reports of his lack of mobility may have been greatly exaggerated. I still would prefer Boller to start in 2008.
I also agree with the Losman and Boller comments, I wasn’t really criticizing their ranking, only on what it implied about the rest of the QBs in the NFL.
by math_geek on
May 20, 2008 2:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hasselback vs. Roethlisberger
Would you really rather have Hasselback in 2008 over Roethlisberger?
Ben had a higher completion percentage (66.4 to 62.6), higher yards per attempt (7.8 to 7.1) as well as a significantly better TD/INT ration and QB rating. All while playing behind a much worse offensive line.
by cgolden on
May 20, 2008 3:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That is absurd
Matt Hasselbeck is an above average QB at best, and Palmer has never had as good a season as Romo had last year. Also, McNappy’s career is going downhill. Romo should be fifth at worst.
by quincyyyyy on May 20, 2008 4:01 PM EDT 0 recs
Romo
Romo has to play better in the playoffs to be a top 5 QB. One good regular season doesn’t make you a top 5 QB.
McNabb healthy is an MVP style quarterback.
Palmer:
2007 Cincinnati Bengals 16 575 373 64.9 35.9 4,131 7.2 258.2 26 4.5 20 3.5 70T 51 8 17 119 86.7
2006 Cincinnati Bengals 16 520 324 62.3 32.5 4,035 7.8 252.2 28 5.4 13 2.5 74T 52 15 36 233 93.9
2005 Cincinnati Bengals 16 509 345 67.8 31.8 3,836 7.5 239.8 32 6.3 12 2.4 70T 43 9 19 105 101.1
2004 Cincinnati Bengals 13 432 263 60.9 33.2 2,897 6.7 222.8 18 4.2 18 4.2 76T 34 8 25 178 77.3
Romo:
2007 Dallas Cowboys 16 16 335 520 64.4 4,211 8.1 36 19 24 176 97.4 31 129 4.2 2 10 2
2006 Dallas Cowboys 16 10 220 337 65.3 2,903 8.6 19 13 21 124 95.1 34 102 3.0 0 9 3
The numbers speak for themselves here.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 20, 2008 4:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The fact is
Palmer’s gone gradually and pronouncedly downhill since his second year, and It’s not like he’s lacked talent around him. Romo’s got a great supporting cast as well, but he hasn’t had that decline yet and there’s no reason to foresee one.
He had a pretty good game during game #1 against Seattle, and when you take into account what the Giants did to EVERY QB they came up against one could definitely say that he did alright for himself in round one, especially considering that the receiving corps and offensive line took a collective nap during the second half of the game.
Hasselbeck at 4? Daang.
by BudLight on
May 20, 2008 4:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
'07
Throwing for 4100 yds with 26 TDs has never been considered downhill. If Brady doesn’t throw 51 TDs next year he will have regressed, but we can all admit that he’s still a damn good QB. Palmer had a magnificent year in 2005, and then got hurt. Let’s give him time to bounce back and a good running game, something he did not have in 2007.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 20, 2008 4:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I like Palmer
But ranking him above Romo seems baseless, Matt. He had a terrific 2005, but it wasn’t all that much better than Romo’s 2007. And then this past year, he threw only six more touchdowns than he did interceptions. Romo gets railed on for being reckless and not taking care of the ball when the truth is that he threw one less interception than Palmer last year.
And while your argument on the lack of a Bengal running game is valid, It’s hard to argue that the Bengals’ overall offense is substantially less talented than the Cowboys’.
Maybe I’m being a homer, but It’s hard for me to see Palmer at 6 and Romo at 8 based on the most recent evidence.
by BudLight on
May 20, 2008 6:24 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Romo v. Palmer
The preference for Palmer is because he has done this for 4 seasons, while Romo has been a starter for 26 regular season games. Should Romo continue to play at the level he has consistency for another season, many will place him behind only Brady and Manning.
He has an amazing future and a lot of talent, I just want to see him do it on a larger scale.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 20, 2008 6:43 PM EDT
up
0 recs
And Dan Morgan remained healthy he'd be a future HOFer
and if my Aunt had a pair of nuts she’d be my uncle… whats your point?
by quincyyyyy on
May 20, 2008 7:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
On the otherhand...
What is your’s? I’ve seen enough of you here to know that you do not debate, you argue. Please make a valid post or don’t post at all. Try to answer rebuttals instead of being “funny”.
The point is that Romo has started 26 games. Until he has played as well as he did in 2007 consistently, he will not be ranked above other players who have. As I said in reply to BudLight:
“Should Romo continue to play at the level he has consistency for another season, many will place him behind only Brady and Manning.
He has an amazing future and a lot of talent, I just want to see him do it on a larger scale.”
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 20, 2008 7:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You said McNabb healthy is an MVP style QB
Well McNabb recently can’t last a whole season. That should be taken into account, but you refrain from doing so. Dispense with the If’s. McNabb can’t stay healthy and that should affect his ranking. Would you trade Romo for McNabb straight up? I wouldn’t and I doubt you would.
by quincyyyyy on
May 20, 2008 9:04 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Hmm
If I could get McNabb healthy, I may. You also have to factor their supporting casts. Dallas has much better talent around Romo.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 20, 2008 9:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
a supporting cast doesn't mean much if you can't last
for more than 8 games. Right Matt?
If I could get McNabb healthy, I may.
You love those hypotheticals Matt. In reality, McNappy is as fragile as a china doll.
by quincyyyyy on
May 20, 2008 9:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yikes...
That is a tough one. I’ll take Hasselbeck in the playoffs as a passer. Roethlisberger is one of my favorites, I’m just hoping for another big year from him. I think if that happens, he’s in the top 4.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on May 20, 2008 4:01 PM EDT 0 recs
Here are some of my question marks
Eli – 11 and Grossman – 32: compare there stats. Eli isn’t as great as you think. He just had a hot streak. If that continues awesome, but he has way more starts with better talent and only has a good 4 game stretch at the end of last year to show for it. Either Rex is very low or Eli is very high.
Hassleback higher than Palmer and Rothlesburger: I thought age mattered as well. I’d drop Hassleback to 7 on your list.
How does age come into your rankings if you are only looking at 2008 as a starter?
Kick it to me... I'm open!
by #23 on May 20, 2008 5:06 PM EDT 0 recs
Stats
Stats cannot and do not tell the whole story. You will notice that we didn’t rank these players in terms of numbers. They are ranked by potential, productivity and intangibles.
No one outside Chicago considers Rex Grossman a starter.
Age is considered mostly when a player’s age could cause him to breakdown or become injured. A one-year starter, or 2008 player rankings, shouldn’t consider age in any other way. It’s how they will perform in 2008, not who I’d want if starting a team tomorrow.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on May 20, 2008 6:20 PM EDT 0 recs
#1/#2
I disagree but everyone is sick of that argument so I’ll leave it at that.
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on May 21, 2008 12:17 AM EDT 0 recs
As a Steeler's fan....
How can you prefer some rookies (including a DII guy) ahead of Charlie Batch, the Steeler’s very capable, durable and experienced backup to start the 2008 season?
I think the QB the Steeler’s drafted in the fifth round to compete for the #3 position, Dennis Dixon, is probably closer to being game ready than any of the other rookie QBs, never mind a 34 year old who has half a dozen years of experience as a starter and the same as a backup.
Dixon was the most successful quarterback in college when he injured his knee last season. His long term potential may not be as high as some of the other guys drafted this year, but for the near term, his scrambling ability combined with a strong and accurate throwing arm would give him a greater chance for success than the pocket passers drafted ahead of him.
by robert ethan on May 21, 2008 1:56 AM EDT 0 recs
just to expand a bit
Dennis Dixon’s passing numbers for one of the top ranked teams in the nation were better than Joe Flacco’s for Division 1AA Delaware last season. Dixon’s career numbers (essentially two seasons) at Oregon are also better than Flacco’s two seasons in the Colonial Conference. Plus Dixon has the speed and athleticism to make him an all round threat as a QB. Joe Flacco MIGHT be a better QB than Dennis Dixon five years from now, but there is no way he is even close in 2008.
by robert ethan on
May 21, 2008 2:30 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Ok
Why was Joe Flacco a top 20 pick and Dennis Dixon was selected on Day Two?
Dixon’s injury wasn’t the only problem, he is not an accurate passer. Until his senior season he was never considered a passing threat. In fact, as late as March, some teams considered moving him to receiver.
As for Batch, again, it’s a starter for one season. I know what I’m getting with Batch, who is a good, proven veteran. I’d rather take my chances with a rookie who can light a fire.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on May 21, 2008 12:45 PM EDT 0 recs
I could ask the same question...
Dixon’s completion percentage in his senior season and in his career overall were both higher than Flacco’s. How does that make him a less accurate passer?
I’m pretty skeptical about some guy who comes out of nowhere, at a low level of competition, has a decent track workout, then suddenly rockets up the charts. Flacco has bust written all over him. He was too slow to beat out Tyler Palko and play at Pitt, he will be nothing more than a glorified tackling dummy in the NFL. It wasn’t like he even put up great numbers at the combine. His vertical (28”) and horizontal (9’) are the norm for 350 pound linemen, not 230 pound backfield players.
Dixon was having a better senior season at Oregon than Akili Smith, Joey Harrington, (both 3rd overall picks) and Kellen Clemens (mid second rounder) had before him. When Dixon and Flacco were still playing football on the field, their draft rankings were pretty much reversed from the final result. Dixon was considered a likely second round pick and Flacco a second day pick. Neither got substantially better or worse since the season ended, unless Dixon’s injury proves to be a chronic thing. But pretty well every player taken in the draft has had to overcome an injury at some point in his high school or college career, and a goodly portion of them have had knee surgery.
by robert ethan on
May 21, 2008 9:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Dixon seems like he might be a quicker learner as well
Even though Flacco is a bit older and has spent the past 5 years at two different colleges, he has yet to earn a degree. So he has to sit on his big dumb butt and wait for his contemporaries to graduate before he can participate in organized NFL activities.
Dixon earned his degree in 3 1/2 years at Oregon and carried a 3.27 GPA, good enough to make him a finalist for the Draddy Award for outstanding academic acheivement among college athletes nation wide.
Beleive me as a Steeler’s fan, there is no place to hide in the NFL for a slower, dumber, version of Ben Roethlisberger.
by robert ethan on
May 21, 2008 10:03 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Good thing for the Ravens
That Joe Flacco is quick (with a 4.7 40 yard dash at the combine), and was picked specifically for his smarts. Certainly, he is still a pocket passer, but all the best QBs are, so I don’t see that as a knock against him at all. You pick out worthless combine numbers for a QB (if a QB frickin jumps into the air during a play, i think i might kill him), and ignore that Flacco moved quite well at the combine, turning in the BEST 3-cone agility drill of any QB at the combine for the past three years. Flacco is no Drew Bledsoe, although, as Bledsoe showed, mobility can be overrated.
The judge of the great debate between Palko and Flacco was Dave Wannstadt, hardly a great football mind (although he’ll be the first person I ask if I think of growing a mustache). Palko was also a more typical college FB player because he could move better. The one thing that doesn’t translate from College to the NFL for a QB is speed. Unless you’re Mike Vick, it really doesn’t matter, and Vick wasn’t that good either. I give some credit to Flacco for wanting to play football badly enough that he payed for a full year of college tuition and moved down into AA ball just to play.
I actually liked Dennis Dixon, but that was a nasty knee injury. He won’t move as well as he used to, and the idea of a spread offense QB adapting quickly to the NFL is absurd (see how it worked for Alex Smith). Plenty of excellent college QBs fall into the later rounds and don’t amount to much because their skills don’t translate to the NFL game. We drafted Troy Smith, who was a much better college QB than Dixon, and the team still drafted Flacco in the first round.
by math_geek on
May 22, 2008 12:10 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Uuuuuhhhh....
I think you’re being overly generous to Flacco concerning his timed speed. The numbers I’ve seen range between 4.8 and 5.0 for the 40. As to his smarts, that is a bit harder to ascertain, but it is not a good sign that after 5 years of college HE DROPPED OUT WITHOUT COMPLETING HIS DEGREE.
I have no problem with pocket passers, but Matt was talking about a rookie stepping in immediately. For that, with a young QB, I would much rather use a mobile guy who can keep the defense off balance with his scrambing ability. Flacco isn’t very mobile, and doesn’t get rid of the ball quickly. Opposing defenses would just tee off on him with impunity.
I didn’t intend to imply that Dixon was a better long term prospect at the position, I think both of them are long shots, but in the near term, (in a pinch) I would go with Dixon sooner than any of the other rookies. Like Vince Young a couple years back, Dixon was THE MOST PRODUCTIVE QB (aside from Tim Tebow) at the HIGHEST LEVEL OF COMPETITION below the NFL, at the end of the college season. Given those three factors, logic tells me that he would be the best bet at the next level starting out.
by robert ethan on
May 22, 2008 4:16 PM EDT
up
0 recs
40
Timed at 4.84 at the Combine in Indy.
Hard to say Dixon was the most productive, but even so, that does not make someone a good QB. Danny Wuerrfel, Timmy Chang, Kliff Kingsbury, Colt Brennan, etc, etc, etc.
Again, if Dixon were the best option of all rookies, he would have been a 1st round pick. Regardless of any injury.
Production can never be the tell-all for a QB.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 22, 2008 4:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
whoops, sorry about the wrong combine time
I can’t even remember where I read the 4.7 now, although looking for the 3-cone numbers I saw a website post a 4.78 – either way it’s not a bad 40 time for a QB. Flacco does not have mobility issues.
http://www.fftoolbox.com/nfl_draft/profile_display.cfm?Prospect_ID=1274
robert ethan, As for not completing your degree, I’m guessing you’ve never attempted to transfer colleges. We have no idea how many credits he lost in the transfer, and how many requirements he had not met when he went to Delaware. It is not uncommon to lose half or more of your college work during a transfer, and some places are far more cooperative than others. Not to mention he spent at least half of his “fifth year” withdrawn from school to prepare for the draft, which is not uncommon for athletes. Half a semester may have simply not been enough to make up for lost credits and requirements.
by math_geek on
May 23, 2008 12:36 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Degrees
Most NFL players do not graduate from college. Even seniors spend most of their last semester preparing for the Draft. The large majority of players get their degree in the summer or once they are in the League.
Flacco not having a degree doesn’t make him less intelligent. He actually scored a 30 on the Wonderlic test. Dennis Dixon, with his degree, scored a 29.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 23, 2008 9:33 AM EDT
up
0 recs
A degree is not a sign of pure intellect, necessarily...
...but it is relevent in terms of discipline, and application to completing a task. Learning an NFL playbook isn’t rocket sceince, but it is tougher for QBs. I’m sure most of it is really boring and requires more effort than brilliance. That applies to your standard here of rating QBs on their likelyhood of success in the short term. Completing a degree in less than 4 years, vs. more than 5 years (or possibly never), is a better yardstick for success than a Wonderlic score I would think. As for Flacco transferring schools, that was certainly his own choice, Pittsburgh didn’t release him from his scholarship. Dixon was behind Kellen Clemens his first couple of seasons in Oregon, and didn’t see a lot of playing time, but he stuck it out, honored his commitment, completed his degree, and ultimately was very successful.
by robert ethan on
May 24, 2008 5:13 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ok
No comment on that Wonderlic score, though?
The simple, and plain, fact is that Dixon was a 4th round pick for a very good reason.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 24, 2008 8:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm not big on Wonderlic scores...
A lot of the reports that come out are false. It isn’t a case of open testing like the physical metrics. All scores have to be “leaked” with no attribution as to the source. Besides which, there is a lot of “cheating”. Agents get ahold of old tests and have their clients study them. There are lots of cases of athletes scoring single digit tests, then retaking them and scoring in the high 30s. Is his Wonderlic a 9 or a 37?
Dixon was a 5th round pick. Mike Mayock, prior to the draft thought he would go in the 4th round, but due to his knee injury and missing the post season scouting process. He thought that Dixon could have been a second round pick without the injury.
by robert ethan on
May 25, 2008 2:38 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Flacco
Numbers from Blesto, the people who run the Combine.
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on
May 26, 2008 5:33 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Oregon
I wouldn’t use Dixon being better than two busts and one iffy player as a positive.
Dixon was also playing in a spread offense that allows the QB to complete a high % of passes.
Check out the rankings, I’m not a big fan of Flacco either (behind Ryan, Henne and Brohm), but I’m not going to argue with NFL GM’s when Dixon wasn’t considered a starting caliber QB.
Also, would you be supporting him if he weren’t a Steeler?
www.newerascouting.com www.mockingthedraft.com
by MattMiller on May 21, 2008 10:04 PM EDT 0 recs
Dixon has the best qualities of Akili Smith and Joey Pennington
...as far as I can tell, without the aspects that held those from making an impact in the NFL. Smith washed out because of his personality and questionable intellect. He had the body but not the head. Harrington has been mediocre because he was a limited athlete. Good character, work ethic, and aptitude for learning the postion, but poor throwing arm and almost no mobility. He has the head but not the body. Dixon seems to have both.
by robert ethan on
May 21, 2008 10:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Here's Mine.
I made this top ten real quick, but it’s pretty different and I’ll give some explanations as to why:
1) Tom Brady
2) Peyton Manning
3) Ben Roethlisberger
4) Matt Hasselbeck
5) Tony Romo
6) Jay Cutler
7) David Gerrard
8) Dree Brees
9) Kurt Warner
10) Donovan McNabb
My top four have all been to the Super Bowl, as have a majority of the guys on this list. I don’t have to say much about the top two, other than Brady showed last season that he can do more with equal weapons, so he gets the nod at the top. Say what you want about Big Ben, but his only unexceptional season came when he rushed back from a motorcycle accident that almost cost his his life. Hasselbeck remains underrated, but not by me. Romo is excellent in the regular season, has all the tools for greatness, but still has something to show me in the post season. Write this down: Jay Cutler is the NFL’s next great QB. Gerrard impressed me greatly last season, working with subpar targets; he won’t cost you games and he’s more experienced than most one-year starters. Honestly, I struggled to pick between Brees and Palmer, but I went with the healthier guy. Warner and McNabb are two high upside guys with SB experience, but they always seem to get hurt. I left Carson off because, if I had to win the SB in 2008, he’d be the 11th QB I’d call. Derek Anderson impressed me about as much as Colt Brennen did playing for Hawai’i. Marc Bulger is interesting because last season was a waste for the Rams, but he got hurt too and that worries me. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!
by ejruiz on May 21, 2008 11:41 PM EDT 0 recs
"Brady showed last season that he can do more with equal weapons"
One thing that hasn’t gotten near enough attention about Brady’s 08 vs Manning’s 04 is that Brady needed an extra game and 40-50 more attempts to throw 49 TDs and ended with 70 more attempts but only one more TD.
I can understand (but disagree with) why some put Brady on top, but throwing more TDs in more games/attempts doesn’t prove anything.
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on
May 22, 2008 3:11 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Brady's 07
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on
May 22, 2008 3:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It's Certainly Close.
Brady’s 2007 and Peyton’s 2004 are certainly close (after further review, I’d call it a toss-up) but Tom’s is more recent, he’s younger (more likely to be in his prime) and he has more postseason success. The point of this list (as per Matt Miller’s original post) was to rank current NFL QB for a Super Bowl run in 2008 and I feel as though Brady’s the top choice, albeit narrowly, in that.
Honestly, if I had to pick one QB to start a franchise today that would go on in perpetuity, I’d have to take Big Ben. He’s just 26, his only non-spectacular year was the 2006 season where he was coming off the motorcycle accident.
Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!
by ejruiz on
May 23, 2008 2:41 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Brady vs Manning
It’s really about how much you credit the QB with postseason success and how much you believe in clutch ability. Manning has been clearly and consistently better over the whole of their careers, but Brady has played better in the playoffs and had more success.
I think playoffs success is much more about the team around a QB and that clutch ability doesn’t exist in any meaningful way once you get to that high of a level of pro sports (If they couldn’t handle the pressure they wouldn’t have made it into the NFL). So obviously I prefer Manning.
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on
May 23, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Clutch.
Just because you can’t measure it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. I believe in clutch and I respect your right not to, but it’s certainly debatable.
Peyton has had better numbers than Brady because the Colts have always invested more heavily in his direct supporting cast (i.e. offensive players) than the Pats have for Brady. 2007 was the first time their surrounding players were truly comparable and Tom had a season about as good as any Peyton has had in his amazing career.
In the end, I completely agree with how you phrased your decision and it gives this debate it’s proper context: it’s a matter of preference. If they had swapped places, they would have likely had each other’s career. That said, if I had to pick one for the 2008 season, I’d prefer Brady. You can have Peyton. I’ll see you in the Super Bowl, cause the rest aren’t all that close!
Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!
by ejruiz on
May 23, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Wait, A Manning v Brady agrument that ends on a respectful note
!
my blog http://shakennbaken.blogspot.com
by shake n bake on
May 24, 2008 12:07 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Indeed!
This was a debate, not an argument, and it was a pleasure. I’m sure we’ll get a chance to do it again (different topic, though) in the future. Cheers!
Please check out my blog at http://thefulldeck.blogspot.com/ , now redesigned and recommited!
by ejruiz on
May 24, 2008 2:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
this is what really gets me testy
when people dicuss manning and brady.
When people say brady never had what manning had, I keep getting the feeling that what people are trying to say is “manning had it all, brady did something with nothing”
What people constantly failed to acknowledge is while Manning had all the fire power, Brady was given a top notch defense. A top end defense can give an offense all sorts of opportunities with turnovers and giving an offense good field positioning.
Also, im not trying to perceive them as great or even good, but I always thought the supporting cast around brady before Moss and Co. was above average to decent. they weren’t flashy but efficient. I believe in the patriot superbowl years they did enough to complement their defense
by metal_militia on
May 25, 2008 4:04 AM EDT
up
0 recs
New FanPost
