1-32: Who Ya Got?

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Interested to see a ranking of the quarterbacks, 1-32, in the NFL.

Criteria: This season, and 3-5 seasons into the future. If a team has had two QBs (like the 49ers) give them a combined rank (like the 49ers would be #32 on my list).

Here is a link that should help you order your list: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/pi/share/mG40K

Thanks for your help.
 

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
I would just group them by status, with overall rank in parenthesis:

Established QBs who are going to be here a while, and are probably not on their last contract. It would take multiple premium assets to get one of these guys in a trade and you have no problem paying them $15M+ over several years:
1. Rogers (1)
2. Wilson (4)
3. Cam (5)
4. Luck (assumes full recovery) (7)
5. Cutler (13)
6. Red BB Gun / Rifle (16)
7. Ryan (17)
8. Tannehill (18)
9. Flacco (assumes full recovery) (21)
10. Stafford(22)


Old, Established QBs on their last contract. They are at most 3-4 years from being P Manning, but you can win a Superbowl with them right now:
1. Brady (2)
2. Ben (3)
3. Palmer (6)
4. Romo (9)
5. Brees (10)
6. Eli (11)
7. Rivers (12)

Potential Franchise QBs. A couple of these guys are going into the top group, a couple might still be washouts.
1. Carr (8)
2. Jameis (14)
3. Bridgewater (15)
4. Marriotta (19)
5. Tyrod Taylor (20)
6. Bortles (23)

I have no idea how to classify this guy, he is going to be the starter here for multiple seasons and he has minimal trade value
1. Alex Smith (24)

This group sucks to be in, you are actively looking for a QB this offseason. One of these teams are going to win the Kaepernick sweepstakes and a couple are going to draft QBs in the first round. Manning will probably be a caddy for one of these teams next year:
1. Denver - 20% chance Osweiller is good (25)
2. Philly - Bradford and Sanchize both are probably terrible (26)
3. Washington - I don't like that. (27)
4. Cleveland - Johnny Football probably sucks (28)
5. Texans - Hoyer is not good (29)
6. 49ers- Gabbert is not good, and there is no way you can bring Kaepernick back now. (30)
7. Rams (31)
8. Jets (32)
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
So do you want two separate lists for now and the future? Or some nebulous combination of the two?
However you choose. We're not gonna publish it. ;-)

More looking to generate a consensus list, and thus the fewer rules the better to get more data.

ETA: Nice list , GF09. That's a nice way of looking at it.
 

thehitcat

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,376
Windham, ME
I did my list to answer the question "Is XXXXX Elite?" which gets tossed around in my house every time Joe Flacco lobs up another PI ball. Anyway I broke it up into 8 categories but unlike Gunfighter09's list I didn't specify within the group who was where. Also I did this earlier in the year and listed everyone who had started or is RGIII, so when I look at it now I wonder things like, is Foles is too high and Cousins too low and can I just for once see clearly on Eli (I can't. He's the luckiest SOB ever in my mind and I can't shake it), anyway here it is.

Elite: Brady, Rodgers
First Rank: Luck, Rothlisberger, Romo, Rivers, Ryan, Wilson, Brees, Palmer
Second Rank: Peyton Manning, Flacco, Carr, Newton
Third Rank: Eli Manning, Cutler, Foles, Dalton, Stafford
Young: Tannehill, Taylor, Mariota, Bortles, Bridgewater, Winston, Manziel
Broken: Kaepernick, RG III
Bad: Bradford, Cousins
Worse: Fitzgerald, McCowns (both), Alex Smith, Mallett, Hoyer, Geno Smith, Manuel, Vick, Weeden, Cassel, Sanchez, Clausen
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,453
Super elite: Brady, Rodgers

Semi elite: Brees, Wilson, Romo, Rivers, Luck

Very good: Newton, Palmer, Big Ben, Ryan, Flacco

Moments of goodness: Stafford, Eli, Dalton

Too young but potential to be great: MM, Winston, Bridgewater, Bortles

Too young but potential to be good: Taylor, Manziel

Used to be super elite, but needs to be put down: Peyton

Flotsam and jetsam: The rest
 

Stitch01

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
18,155
Boston
Gunfighter's list is a pretty good jumping point. Id make a handful of personal opinion changes, but I like the framework.
---I think Cutler is decent, but doubt he'd take premium assets to move.
---Potential franchise QB values probably all a shade low. Id argue the first four guys on that list aren't ever traded for anyone below Luck on the first list. Id split Taylor and probably Bortles into another category (maybe Bridgewater as well and Tannehill).
---Brady is clearly 1 or 2 today by value for this season. Taking into account future value, Id have him below at least the Cam/Luck/Wilson group. We all want to believe he can play another five years, but the odds get heavier every year.
---Romo probably slightly underrated. If I had to win a game today with a random team he's probably 3rd on my list.
---Sort of a SCALDING EYETEST HOT TAKE but I think Stafford and Matt Ryan both might be bad at this point. Particularly Stafford who Im not sure was ever good at anything besides throwing downfield a million times and hoping Calvin Johnson catches a lot of them.
---Washington tying its fortunes to Kirk Cousins on purpose long-term will be a legit lol moment
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
I'll play, just ranking #1-32 like a dumb ass without a whole lot of fancy words 'n stuff.

Going on the proposed criteria of "now and 3-5 years into the future"

1. Rodgers
2. Cam (yup, I went there)
3. TB12
4. Rapelistberger
5. Luck (on the assumption he can't be as bad as he looks now, but isn't as good as he looked the last 2 years)
6. Romo (assuming he's not broken)
7. Ryan (still improving, I think, but I'm probably too high here)
8. Brees
9. Rivers
10. Wilson (I think he's really overrated, but this is as low as I can go because he's been healthy and should get better)
11. Eli (uncommonly capable of beating any team, anywhere. He's been sturdy too)
12. Palmer (maybe the #2 or #3 this year, but no faith in his health going forward)
13. Carr
14. Dalton (based on the last couple of games he could drop a few spots by year end)
15. Cutler (if he could ever make his way to a good team... although maybe that's the point)
16. Winston (coming on. Great arm, and not as much a knucklehead on the field as he has been off it.)
17. Flacco (is he so overrated he's underrated?)
18. Mariota (needs a whole new team/system, but I still like the talent)
19. Taylor
20. Bortles
21. Stafford (feel pretty confident in saying we've already seen his best.)
22. Alex Smith (still remember the playoff game with SF -- he has more skill in him)
23. Tannehill (from this point forward I doubt anybody's ever all-Pro. I think Tannehill is most capable of winning a game his team doesn't deserve to win)
24. Bridgewater (wish he were higher, but I just haven't seen it yet)
25. Cousins/RG3
26. Manziel/McCown
27. Peyton/Osweiler (I respect Chicken Parm, really I do, but he's done.)
28. Kaepernick
29. Foles
30. Fitzy/Geno (But Fitzy would be 4-5 spots higher this year only.
31. Bradford/Sanchize
32. Hoyer
 
Last edited:

Gunfighter 09

wants to be caribou ken
Moderator
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2005
8,548
KPWT
2. Cam (yup, I went there)
\

Hell yes. He is top 5, no question, in my book.


10. Wilson (I think he's really overrated, but this is as low as I can go because he's been healthy and should get better)
What the fuck? He is an incredible play away from winning two Superbowls in three years.


Really, the fun part of this conversation, in terms of variance of opinion, is these guys:

- Cam
-Russell Wilson
- the two accused rapists who are basically the same player; Ben and Jameis
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,839
Thanks GF. I was trying to figure out the right way to approach the Wilson ranking Mugsy did without coming across like a complete homer.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
What the fuck? He is an incredible play away from winning two Superbowls in three years.
To be fair, he was one atrocious decision to throw the ball on second down away from riding an all-time defense to two Super Bowls in three years.

I'll take Earl Thomas as the key player on those teams and meet wibi out back. ;-)
 

wibi

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
11,839
To be fair, he was one atrocious decision to throw the ball on second down away from riding an all-time defense to two Super Bowls in three years.

I'll take Earl Thomas as the key player on those teams and meet wibi out back. ;-)
If we are meeting out back then I dont want Wilson as I dont think he's the best player on the team. I want Wagner or Chancellor on my side for the outback "chat"
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
If we are meeting out back then I dont want Wilson as I dont think he's the best player on the team. I want Wagner or Chancellor on my side for the outback "chat"
Good choices - any of the three are more responsible for the Seahawks being one play away.

And to be clear, I was kidding as I am well aware that you know who stirs the drink in Seattle. I find Wilson's ranking to be one of the most fascinating things about this little exercise, which is obviously not just being conducted here, because Pats fans are hardly an objective sample on the matter.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
Good choices - any of the three are more responsible for the Seahawks being one play away.

And to be clear, I was kidding as I am well aware that you know who stirs the drink in Seattle. I find Wilson's ranking to be one of the most fascinating things about this little exercise, which is obviously not just being conducted here, because Pats fans are hardly an objective sample on the matter.
Honest question, is there animosity towards the Seahawks or Wilson that is that prevalent in our fan base? I mean, I know we don't care for their fan base, mostly because of the "12" nonsense, but I guess it missed it that their would be some kind of bias against him or their team. I mean, we won; they didn't talk shit; they're not a rival; even Sherman came out and backed Brady...I guess I just haven't noticed it anymore than any other team. I mean, I would say NYJ, NYG, IND, BAL, BUF, MIA, DEN, PIT would have to rank ahead of them by default (in no particular order). Frankly I don't have the energy to be irrational about many more teams than that.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
I don't know about all that. I was referring to my expectation on the 1-32 results (that admittedly thus far isn't in evidence) that Pats fans are going to rate Brady over Rodgers, which is most definitely not the case in other locations.

ETA: I did a shitty job of communicating that, though.
 

NortheasternPJ

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2004
19,271
Honest question, is there animosity towards the Seahawks or Wilson that is that prevalent in our fan base? I mean, I know we don't care for their fan base, mostly because of the "12" nonsense, but I guess it missed it that their would be some kind of bias against him or their team. I mean, we won; they didn't talk shit; they're not a rival; even Sherman came out and backed Brady...I guess I just haven't noticed it anymore than any other team. I mean, I would say NYJ, NYG, IND, BAL, BUF, MIA, DEN, PIT would have to rank ahead of them by default (in no particular order). Frankly I don't have the energy to be irrational about many more teams than that.
I don't think there's anything against Wilson, but there's a fair amount of hate around New England towards Carroll and Sherman. From Pete's coaching tenure here and then Sherman's You Mad Bro stuff and then the 2-4 during the Super Bowl is what i mostly hear.

I love when Seattle loses because i want nothing to do with them in the post season but I think there's a decent amount of irrational NE fan hate towards them. I notice it quite a bit amongst Pats fans.
 

j-man

Member
Dec 19, 2012
3,646
Arkansas
1 Brady
2 Rodgers
3 Newton
4 Romo
5 Palmer
6 big ben
7 Willson
8 luck
9 E Manning
10 Rivers
11 Wintson
12 teddy b
13 datlon
14 a smith
15 flacco
16 m ryan
17 cutler
18 d carr
19 bortles
20 oz
21 t taylor
22 marucs M
23 stafford
24 hoyer
25 brees
26 tannyhill
27 couins
28 bradford
29 filtz
30 Maziel/ mccown
31 p manning
32 gabbart
33 foles/keeum
 

DanoooME

above replacement level
SoSH Member
Mar 16, 2008
19,831
Henderson, NV
OK here's my shot at it. I tend to be optimistic about younger talent even though the old farts are at the top.

1. Rodgers (basically slightly over Brady because he's got a longer future, Brady might be done in 3 years)
2. Brady
3. Roethlisberger
4. Romo
5. Luck
6. Wilson
7. Brees
8. Newton
9. Rivers
10. Ryan
11. Palmer
12. Dalton
13. E Manning
14. Flacco
15. Carr
16. Bortles
17. Mariota
18. Bridgewater
19. Winston
20. Stafford
21. Tannehill
22. Cutler
23. A Smith
24. P Manning/Osweiler
25. Taylor
26. Fitzpatrick/Geno
27. McCown/Manziel
28. Cousins/RG III
29. Bradford/Sanchez
30. Foles/Keenum
31. Hoyer/Yates
32. Kaepernick/Gabbert

I think 24-32 are screwed totally and 20-23 are barely above screwed. The top 14 really are the only ones with a serious chance of leading a team to a Super Bowl right now (and the last two need a ton of help and are only getting the benefit of the doubt because they have done it).and 15-19 may get there at some point.

Edit: Oh, and best Seahawks: Thomas, Wagner, Bennett, Chancellor, Sherman, Wilson
 
Last edited:

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Lots of people listing Cam Newton as a top 5 QB. Has he ever even been top 15 in DVOA, DYAR, QBR or traditional passer rating? Amazing what good defenses and short memories can do for a guy.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I would just group them by status, with overall rank in parenthesis:

Established QBs who are going to be here a while, and are probably not on their last contract. It would take multiple premium assets to get one of these guys in a trade and you have no problem paying them $15M+ over several years:
1. Rogers (1)
2. Wilson (4)
3. Cam (5)
4. Luck (assumes full recovery) (7)
5. Cutler (13)
6. Red BB Gun / Rifle (16)
7. Ryan (17)
8. Tannehill (18)
9. Flacco (assumes full recovery) (21)
10. Stafford(22)


Old, Established QBs on their last contract. They are at most 3-4 years from being P Manning, but you can win a Superbowl with them right now:
1. Brady (2)
2. Ben (3)
3. Palmer (6)
4. Romo (9)
5. Brees (10)
6. Eli (11)
7. Rivers (12)

Potential Franchise QBs. A couple of these guys are going into the top group, a couple might still be washouts.
1. Carr (8)
2. Jameis (14)
3. Bridgewater (15)
4. Marriotta (19)
5. Tyrod Taylor (20)
6. Bortles (23)
I like this approach. One thing this perspective really drives home is that there are a ton of pretty old QBs (32 and older, Rodgers gets here in about 10 days), an impressive crop of young QBs (26 and less), and then a pretty awful set of QBs in the 27-31 range.

Who knows how well the young guys will fare and what new talents will enter the league. But in 2-3 years when Brady, Palmer, Romo, Brees, and Eli have all either retired or begun to suck (and Ben might join them given the punishment he has taken in his career), the QB talent league-wide could be pretty crappy.
 
Lots of people listing Cam Newton as a top 5 QB. Has he ever even been top 15 in DVOA, DYAR, QBR or traditional passer rating? Amazing what good defenses and short memories can do for a guy.
Don't give me that DVOA bullshit. Cam leads the league in CCoC (Changed Culture of City) and GKB (Giving Kids Balls).

Btw, Nice outfit on Ray. Definitely not a stabbing suit and hat.

 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Lots of people listing Cam Newton as a top 5 QB. Has he ever even been top 15 in DVOA, DYAR, QBR or traditional passer rating? Amazing what good defenses and short memories can do for a guy.
As Gunfighter said, I think Wilson vs Newton is one of the fascinating debates here. On the surface, a lot of similarities - day one starters, running a big part of their game, a lot of team success. Along with Luck, they're pretty clearly two of the three most accomplished QBs in their age brackets (with the 2014 and 2015 draftees having a chance to join them in a couple years). I think there's kind of a stats vs scouting divide with Wilson and Newton. Wilson has superior statistics pretty much anyway you want to slice it, but a lot of his production is outside of structure. Seattle has some of the most primitive passing concepts in the league, and it's hard to know how much is Darrell Bevell, how much is the receivers, and how much is Wilson himself. And while Carolina does a lot off read option and using Newton's running ability, too, Newton's shown more ability to make plays in structure, stuff like this and this.

Some of this is prejudice against short QBs - does the 5'11" Wilson have trouble seeing the field because he literally has trouble seeing over the big bodies at the line of scrimmage? I'm guessing there's a degree to which that's unfair, and a degree to which it really does limit his ceiling. And obviously there's no such concern for the 6'5" Newton.

I think there's also a (partially founded) perception that the Carolina offense runs through Newton, while Wilson's Seahawks have run through Lynch traditionally, and Newton is "doing more with less" given a no-name OL and WR corps.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
The divide is so large statistically and in terms of team success between the two, claims about "ability to make plays in structure" sound like reaching for an intangibles justification of some kind to declare these players comparable. Until two weeks ago, Newton's team was 8-0 despite his having completed just 54% of his passes, with a 14:9 TD:INT ratio. Prior to this season, he was on pretty much everyone's all overrated team. Suddenly it seems after two good games he's neck and neck for the MVP, and is considered a top 5 qb by many around here. It just strikes me as very Joe Morgan.

As to perceptions about the offense. Carolina leads the league in rushing attempts, and is 27th in passing attempts, which is a major reason why they're 10-0. Despite Newton.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
His surrounding talent really isn't comparable to Wilson's though. Their #1 WR hasn't played a snap all year. And Cam went into Wilson's house and came back from two scores down to win. Stats don't tell the complete picture sometimes. It has little to do with "structure".

Also, Wilson has still never won a game in which he needed to score more than 25 points. Talk about being a product of his defense.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
So he's better because of the one time his team beat Wilson's team? In a game in which he threw two interceptions that both led to scores? Wilson has a few fourth quarter comebacks himself, you know.

Sometimes stats don't tell the complete picture, but when EVERY single statistical ranking or grading system has a QB outside the top 15, it paints a pretty good chunk of the canvas.

Also. Newton has only won one game in his career where he needed to score more than 28 points. Talk about fun with numbers.
 
Last edited:

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
If I had to start a team from scratch, I would take Newton over Wilson, and I think a lot of other folks here would too. I think Wilson is a good player, maybe even very good, but it is hard to separate him from that defense and running game. He doesn't carry that team - the stat about not having a single career win when his team has given up more than 24 points is jarring to me.

Also, Tom Brady barely cracked the top 10 in most passing categories in 2004. Doesn't mean he wasn't excellent.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Again, until this year, Newton had only a single win when his team had given up 28 points or more. It's a silly arbitrary stat. Seattle has had a good defense. Newsflash.

And Tom Brady was 4th in DVOA in 2004.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Interesting that you mention DVOA. Wilson has ranked 8th, 9th, 13th, and now 17th in his 4 years in the league. You can make a pretty good argument he has regressed based on that, and that is pretty close to middle of the pack.

FWIW, Cam has ranked 14th, 17th, 36th, and now 18th this year.

Regarding the silly arbitrary stat, yes, Seattle has a good D. But the point is that when the D doesn't play well Wilson doesn't ever win. Newton has won 4 of those such games in his career, including 2 this year (using the same > 24 point cutoff).

Look, I think both players are pretty good, they have somewhat different skillsets, and you could do a heck of a lot worse than both of them. I personally would take Newton and maybe that makes me an idiot, I dunno.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
You're right. Wilson can't win if his defense doesn't play well. That's why the Seahawks lost the Super Bowl, and his only other playoff loss. Because the defense gave up more than 24 points.
 

Mugsy's Jock

Eli apologist
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 28, 2000
15,069
UWS, NYC
\
[RE: my relatively poor rating for R. Wilson]

What the fuck? He is an incredible play away from winning two Superbowls in three years.
I never said I didn't hold a grudge...

But to address the point raised earlier, any contempt I may have toward Wilson is steered more at his own personality than at the Seahawks. I gave Big Ben a very high rank, and the Steelers generally and Ben specifically land in the Top Ten for Pats fans nemeses (subject for another thread).
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Right, like that time in the playoffs when he threw for 385 yards (plus 60 rushing and a TD) and marched his team 60 yards downfield for a touchdown to give his team a 28-27 lead with 34 seconds left in the game. If he were a winner like Newton, he would have won that game.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
Sometimes you simply gotta outscore the other team. Doesn't mean he isn't clutch, doesn't mean he's not a winner, doesn't mean he's not good, doesn't mean he is incapable of it. I would just like to see it.

And again, to reiterate, I think this is a debate about preferences moreso than stats or anything quantifiable / tangible.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Sometimes you simply gotta outscore the other team.
Yes, and he's done that in 47 of the 66 games he's played, your arbitrary and bizarre 24-point threshold notwithstanding.

And YOU are relying on "intangibles," there's no question about that. I am not debating any such thing.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,059
Hingham, MA
So what is your point - that statistically Wilson is better than Newton? I mean, that's not even an argument. Through 2004 Peyton blew away Brady in terms of stats. We are discussing opinions on which QB you'd rather have for the next 3-5 years. I am basing my opinion on more than stats.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
My point is, based on anything other than his height, his smile or his wins (but not losses, because he's got like twice as many of those) in games where his defense gives up 24 points or more, there is nothing to suggest Newton is or will be a better QB than Russell Wilson. By every other metric, advanced and traditional, Wilson is a far superior player.

And yeah, Peyton had stats through 2004 but at least Brady had wins, playoff wins, and Super Bowl rings. Here, those are also heavily in Wilson's favor. There's nothing there. You're arguing for a guy who had below replacement level value just last year.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
These guys did an aging curve (based on pro-football-reference's approximate value statistic) for every offensive position.

Here's the chart for quarterbacks:

aging_curve_for_nfl_offensive_players_quarterbacks.png

Approximate value is calculated at the end of the season, but using a back of the envelope calculation, it can be derived from adjusted net yards (ANYA times attempts): approximately 270 adjusted net yards per "approximate value" unit.

So far this season, Brady is on pace for ~5350 adjusted net yards. I don't think he gets there, because of the injuries to the receiving corps and the colder weather, but even if we knock off 500 yards from that total, we're looking at an approximate value estimation of 18 or 19.

If you peg everything to his peak (age thirty) season, which was -- you guessed it -- 2007, you conveniently get back a -5 or -6 for Brady's adjusted value versus peak. So it would appear that he's following the normal aging trajectory, except for the fact that 2007 was basically an outlier. Outside of 2007, Brady's performance has been remarkably consistent, as you can see in the chart below:

:bradyav.png

Who else has performed similarly to what Brady is doing in his late thirties? It's a short list: Manning, Elway, Favre. Let's stretch a little and add Flutie (!), Warner, Garcia, Simms, Montana, and Moon.

Now let's scratch off everyone who retired (or otherwise never played another down) after their age 38 season. That leaves us with Favre, Manning, Flutie, and Moon. In the seasons following their age 38 season, these guys had the following performances (by AV):

Favre (14 AV at 38): 12, 16, 5 AV
Manning (16 AV at 38): looking like 6-8 AV this year
Moon (11 AV at 38): 13, 4 (injured), 12 AV
Flutie (6 AV at 38, backup to Rob Johnson): 11, 0 (backup), 5 (backup) AV

Manning is the cautionary tale, here: a whopping 10-point drop in AV between his age 38 and 39 seasons. But guys like Favre, Moon, and to a lesser extent, Flutie, all seemed to maintain their level of play for another two seasons or so. So it's entirely possible that Brady might suffer catastrophic collapse in his level of play in the near future, but he doesn't really have Manning's red flags (neck injury). He should be able to sustain, with some decline, for another two seasons or so. On the other hand, if he wins another Super Bowl, he could abruptly retire, like Elway did.

Why all this long rigamarole? Because I'm trying to figure out how to rate older QBs like Brady in this exercise. The risk of total collapse is very real, but Brady's talent is extremely rare. At the end of the day:

Rodgers
Brady

Wilson
Newton
Brees
Luck
Dalton
Winston
Carr
Roethlisberger

Romo
Ryan
Rivers
Palmer
Cutler
E. Manning

.. after that, I'm not going to bother.

Maybe I'm overrating the old guys, but young players are risky, too. Andrew Luck is a great example of that.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
These guys did an aging curve (based on pro-football-reference's approximate value statistic) for every offensive position.

Here's the chart for quarterbacks:

View attachment 1002

Approximate value is calculated at the end of the season, but using a back of the envelope calculation, it can be derived from adjusted net yards (ANYA times attempts): approximately 270 adjusted net yards per "approximate value" unit.

So far this season, Brady is on pace for ~5350 adjusted net yards. I don't think he gets there, because of the injuries to the receiving corps and the colder weather, but even if we knock off 500 yards from that total, we're looking at an approximate value estimation of 18 or 19.

If you peg everything to his peak (age thirty) season, which was -- you guessed it -- 2007, you conveniently get back a -5 or -6 for Brady's adjusted value versus peak. So it would appear that he's following the normal aging trajectory, except for the fact that 2007 was basically an outlier. Outside of 2007, Brady's performance has been remarkably consistent, as you can see in the chart below:

:View attachment 1001

Who else has performed similarly to what Brady is doing in his late thirties? It's a short list: Manning, Elway, Favre. Let's stretch a little and add Flutie (!), Warner, Garcia, Simms, Montana, and Moon.

Now let's scratch off everyone who retired (or otherwise never played another down) after their age 38 season. That leaves us with Favre, Manning, Flutie, and Moon. In the seasons following their age 38 season, these guys had the following performances (by AV):

Favre (14 AV at 38): 12, 16, 5 AV
Manning (16 AV at 38): looking like 6-8 AV this year
Moon (11 AV at 38): 13, 4 (injured), 12 AV
Flutie (6 AV at 38, backup to Rob Johnson): 11, 0 (backup), 5 (backup) AV

Manning is the cautionary tale, here: a whopping 10-point drop in AV between his age 38 and 39 seasons. But guys like Favre, Moon, and to a lesser extent, Flutie, all seemed to maintain their level of play for another two seasons or so. So it's entirely possible that Brady might suffer catastrophic collapse in his level of play in the near future, but he doesn't really have Manning's red flags (neck injury). He should be able to sustain, with some decline, for another two seasons or so. On the other hand, if he wins another Super Bowl, he could abruptly retire, like Elway did.

Why all this long rigamarole? Because I'm trying to figure out how to rate older QBs like Brady in this exercise. The risk of total collapse is very real, but Brady's talent is extremely rare. At the end of the day:

Rodgers
Brady

Wilson
Newton
Brees
Luck
Dalton
Winston
Carr
Roethlisberger

Romo
Ryan
Rivers
Palmer
Cutler
E. Manning

.. after that, I'm not going to bother.

Maybe I'm overrating the old guys, but young players are risky, too. Andrew Luck is a great example of that.
If anything, you are underrating the old guys, and I would include others above the mediocre Cam Newton. Take out the last year of a QB's career and your first graph becomes flat. Calculate the difference in the drop in QB quality (i.e. the difference at each age in performance between the two methods; doesn't really matter what metric is used), and you'll find that it is not larger than the normal year-to-year variation.
In other words, QBs retire because they have a bad season and are getting older; though the two might be related, it is unclear that a causal, or even predictive, relationship exists between them.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,376
A little wary of entering into a conversation where we are ranking players, but I'll take the risk and offer a few thoughts.

The list would probably be impacted if we took contracts into consideration. Because player X might be a little better than player Y, but player X may also have a salary that is much higher than player Y. So moving forward, given that this is the real world of the NFL, where a salary cap exists, player Y might be preferable, all things considered.

That said, I won't bother to try to rank everyone, but just the top 10, the criteria being, who would I want for the seasons 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 combined?

1. Aaron Rodgers - At 32, still should have 5 premier years left.
2. Tom Brady - 38, but still elite, and should be elite for another few years before tailing off to being merely pretty darned good.
3. Russell Wilson - 27, already an excellent QB, entering his prime years.
4. Cam Newton - 26, see Wilson
5. Ben Roethlisberger - Feels much older than 33, he should still have some excellent seasons ahead.
6. Matt Ryan - Also feels much older than 30. Still in his prime.
7. Andy Dalton - Rising quickly up this chart, just 28 years of age. Best football is ahead of him.
8. Derek Carr - A young guy with a lot of talent. At 24, he should be entering his prime at the end of this time frame.
9. Philip Rivers - 34 and I don't know how much he has left, but I think his next 2-3 years should be pretty good still before tailing off to merely being average.
10. Jameis Winston or Marcus Mariota - Only 21 and 22, respectively, with a world of talent. Couldn't decide between these two. But I like the prospects of them realizing their upside within a couple of years. A risk going with guys this young, but the talent is there for both of them to become great.
 
Last edited:

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
The divide is so large statistically and in terms of team success between the two, claims about "ability to make plays in structure" sound like reaching for an intangibles justification of some kind to declare these players comparable. Until two weeks ago, Newton's team was 8-0 despite his having completed just 54% of his passes, with a 14:9 TD:INT ratio. Prior to this season, he was on pretty much everyone's all overrated team. Suddenly it seems after two good games he's neck and neck for the MVP, and is considered a top 5 qb by many around here. It just strikes me as very Joe Morgan.
The "sound like" arguments cut both ways. Your intuitive sense that the statistical divide is too large statistically to be explained by other factors "sounds like" people dismissive of park factors or positional adjustments or defensive value and the large role that they can play in influencing statistics. Frankly the field of football analytics is out of its depth in terms of our ability to understand what factors into this sort of comparison. But what I would say in response is:
  • The stats do not always correlate very well to success. Despite your assessment that Newton's season is mediocre, the Panthers are 10-0, 3rd in the NFL in points scored, and 4th in points per drive. Their team yards per carry is just about dead average at 4.1 YPC (including Newton's 4.4). Part of this is good field position from defense and special teams, but it's clear that the stats don't capture 100% of what's going on.
  • Statistics that are assigned to a quarterback are not purely a part of the quarterback's play - they involve the offensive scheme, the receiver, the protection, opposing defenses, the weather, etc. There has been little effort to control for these factors and adjust statistics accordingly. Film study can help assess these factors, though it is still imperfect. Most folks thought Carolina's offense would be garbage this year with Michael Oher - a failure at RT - at LT and a receiving corps led by Greg Olsen and nobody. Instead, it is very good. They are 11th in NY/A passing. That seems like a minor miracle with these receivers and it's not implausible to me that, if we could adjust for receiver quality, Newton's performance would rank near the top statistically. Consider that Brady's NY/A declined by 0.9 in 2013 when his receivers were decimated by injuries; if we added 0.9 to Newton's NY/A, he'd be #2 in the NFL.
  • As far as statistical evidence for the "make plays in structure" argument, Wilson has always had a terrible sack rate and holds the ball among the longest of any QB (I know he was #1 in holding the ball the longest last year, but I don't have my PFF subscription anymore). Newton's sack rate is historically a little high but better. And Seattle, despite adding Jimmy Graham, is awful in the red zone, where there's less time and space to make plays out of structure.
The divide is so large statistically and in terms of team success between the two, claims about "ability to
As to perceptions about the offense. Carolina leads the league in rushing attempts, and is 27th in passing attempts, which is a major reason why they're 10-0. Despite Newton.
Carolina's 10-0 with the third best point differential in football. Teams that are ahead run more. The Panthers are run-heavy even accounting for that, but part of that is Newton and his excellent running (obviously part of the package with Wilson as well).

Sometimes stats don't tell the complete picture, but when EVERY single statistical ranking or grading system has a QB outside the top 15, it paints a pretty good chunk of the canvas.
There's a ton of overlap between the stats, though. It's not like they're looking at different things and coming to the same conclusion - the stats are all looking at basically the same things, weighting them maybe slightly differently, and coming to the same conclusion. None of the stats are adjusting for Ted Ginn / Michael Oher / Jerricho Cotchery.

I do think you make fair points that we shouldn't overreact to Newton's 2015. I think you're far too dismissive of his performance this year, however.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
  • The stats do not always correlate very well to success. Despite your assessment that Newton's season is mediocre, the Panthers are 10-0, 3rd in the NFL in points scored, and 4th in points per drive. Their team yards per carry is just about dead average at 4.1 YPC (including Newton's 4.4). Part of this is good field position from defense and special teams, but it's clear that the stats don't capture 100% of what's going on.
"Part of this" is putting it lightly. The Panthers are 20th in yards per drive at under 30 yards.
  • Statistics that are assigned to a quarterback are not purely a part of the quarterback's play - they involve the offensive scheme, the receiver, the protection, opposing defenses, the weather, etc. There has been little effort to control for these factors and adjust statistics accordingly. Film study can help assess these factors, though it is still imperfect. Most folks thought Carolina's offense would be garbage this year with Michael Oher - a failure at RT - at LT and a receiving corps led by Greg Olsen and nobody. Instead, it is very good. They are 11th in NY/A passing. That seems like a minor miracle with these receivers and it's not implausible to me that, if we could adjust for receiver quality, Newton's performance would rank near the top statistically. Consider that Brady's NY/A declined by 0.9 in 2013 when his receivers were decimated by injuries; if we added 0.9 to Newton's NY/A, he'd be #2 in the NFL.
Yes, and Carolina has also played one of the easiest schedules in the league thus far.
  • As far as statistical evidence for the "make plays in structure" argument, Wilson has always had a terrible sack rate and holds the ball among the longest of any QB (I know he was #1 in holding the ball the longest last year, but I don't have my PFF subscription anymore). Newton's sack rate is historically a little high but better. And Seattle, despite adding Jimmy Graham, is awful in the red zone, where there's less time and space to make plays out of structure.
Newton's sack rate is not not historically "a little high." It's very high, and in any event when compared to Wilson, if there is going to be an inverse relationship between sake rate and interception rate, I'd take Wilson's higher sack rate.

Carolina's 10-0 with the third best point differential in football. Teams that are ahead run more. The Panthers are run-heavy even accounting for that, but part of that is Newton and his excellent running (obviously part of the package with Wilson as well).

I do think you make fair points that we shouldn't overreact to Newton's 2015. I think you're far too dismissive of his performance this year, however.

I don't think he's been very good this year outside of the last two games, and I fully expect by the end of the season he'll be in the bottom half of every rating and metric.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
"Part of this" is putting it lightly. The Panthers are 20th in yards per drive at under 30 yards.
That doesn't really explain it. They're 4.0 yards better than average in averaging starting position, 2.4 yards worse than average in yards per drive. That doesn't logically add up to being #4 in points per drive. Something about the shape of their performance is causing this. One piece of it is red zone excellence, but I'm not sure that fully explains it either.

Yes, and Carolina has also played one of the easiest schedules in the league thus far.
This is fair - and I don't see an above-average defense remaining on the schedule, either.

Newton's sack rate is not not historically "a little high." It's very high, and in any event when compared to Wilson, if there is going to be an inverse relationship between sake rate and interception rate, I'd take Wilson's higher sack rate.
Newton's sack%+ is 94. This year he's a tick better than average at 101. I think "a little high" is fair. Wilson's is 80. Wilson is better at avoiding interceptions, but Newton is better at avoiding fumbles - Wilson actually has four more career fumbles in one less season. That makes sense, because ~20% of sacks end in fumbles and Wilson takes a ton of sacks. Newton has only fumbled twice in 2015, which looks like a misprint. Overall I think Wilson gets the checkmark in ball security, but a lot of that is the way their respective teams ask them to play.

I don't think he's been very good this year outside of the last two games, and I fully expect by the end of the season he'll be in the bottom half of every rating and metric.
I agree he'll probably be in the bottom half of most of the ratings and metric; where we disagree is on the significance of that. If the Panthers continue to rank among the best offenses in the league, you have to at least entertain the possibility that the ratings and metrics do a poor job of capturing Newton's value. And again, ratings and metrics reflect not just Newton's performance but those of his (weak) supporting cast.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
I agree he'll probably be in the bottom half of most of the ratings and metric; where we disagree is on the significance of that. If the Panthers continue to rank among the best offenses in the league, you have to at least entertain the possibility that the ratings and metrics do a poor job of capturing Newton's value. And again, ratings and metrics reflect not just Newton's performance but those of his (weak) supporting cast.
Actually, if the Panthers continue to rank among the best offenses, you should entertain the possibility that his supporting cast is not as weak as you make it out to be. Interestingly, while Newton is a mainstay in the bottom half of the DVOA rankings, those rankings would tell you that Olson in a top 5-10 TE, Stewart is a top 10 RB, and the OL is in the top 10-15 as well.
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
That doesn't really explain it. They're 4.0 yards better than average in averaging starting position, 2.4 yards worse than average in yards per drive. That doesn't logically add up to being #4 in points per drive. Something about the shape of their performance is causing this. One piece of it is red zone excellence, but I'm not sure that fully explains it either.
.
The Panthers are a weird team this year, which makes me suspect that their offensive performance is a fluke combined with an easy schedule. However, Cam is playing much better this year than in 2014 and 2013, perhaps this linear increase in performance may have non-linear effects on scoring. In any case, variation in the drive progression could help explain their scoring performance. One could use markov chains to model the Panthers drives this year to see if there's something interesting in the shape of the drive itself. Of course, you'd need access to that information via a database to do so quickly (i.e. programmatically).
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Actually, if the Panthers continue to rank among the best offenses, you should entertain the possibility that his supporting cast is not as weak as you make it out to be. Interestingly, while Newton is a mainstay in the bottom half of the DVOA rankings, those rankings would tell you that Olson in a top 5-10 TE, Stewart is a top 10 RB, and the OL is in the top 10-15 as well.
Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us very much because DVOA has to ascribe the offensive scoring to other positions if Newton is not receiving the credit.


EDIT: Just in case you're curious, I think Cam Newton is an average NFL QB. I think any QB metric is hopelessly confounded by variation in the supporting cast and difficult to interpret because of small sample size problems, so it is always difficult to compare QBs who perform at similar levels. In 2015, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are performing at very similar levels.
 

WayBackVazquez

white knight against high school nookie
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2006
8,294
Los Angeles
Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us very much because DVOA has to ascribe the offensive scoring to other positions if Newton is not receiving the credit.
Of course. That's exactly my point. When the metric says x is the cause for success rather than y, it begs the question to just say the metrics must be wrong, because y is better than x.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
14,012
Mansfield MA
Actually, if the Panthers continue to rank among the best offenses, you should entertain the possibility that his supporting cast is not as weak as you make it out to be. Interestingly, while Newton is a mainstay in the bottom half of the DVOA rankings, those rankings would tell you that Olson in a top 5-10 TE, Stewart is a top 10 RB, and the OL is in the top 10-15 as well.
Unfortunately, that doesn't tell us very much because DVOA has to ascribe the offensive scoring to other positions if Newton is not receiving the credit.
It doesn't - DVOA is not bound to ascribe anything anywhere, avoid double-counting, or correlate to actual offensive production.

I have some issues with DVOA (mostly these), but I agree the cast might be better than expected, particularly the OL. But ultimately we would expect the supporting cast to show up in the passing stats - if Olsen is having success, who is throwing to him but Newton? If the OL is pass blocking well (and FO's stats can't be disambiguated from the QB's performance), that should show up in better passing, too. And if Olsen's good, and the OL is good, and Newton is holding them back, how the f*** are they 3rd in points scored?

The Panthers are a weird team this year, which makes me suspect that their offensive performance is a fluke combined with an easy schedule. However, Cam is playing much better this year than in 2014 and 2013, perhaps this linear increase in performance may have non-linear effects on scoring. In any case, variation in the drive progression could help explain their scoring performance. One could use markov chains to model the Panthers drives this year to see if there's something interesting in the shape of the drive itself. Of course, you'd need access to that information via a database to do so quickly (i.e. programmatically).
I think this is an interesting question and a reasonable hypothesis. On a per-drive level, inconsistency is essentially a good thing. Carolina's performance against Seattle is a great example: they had four 80-yard TD drives and none of their other drives gained more than 22 yards. There's probably some flukiness to it, but they also have a high-variance passing attack, ranking 29th in completion percentage and 3rd in yards per completion.

EDIT: Just in case you're curious, I think Cam Newton is an average NFL QB. I think any QB metric is hopelessly confounded by variation in the supporting cast and difficult to interpret because of small sample size problems, so it is always difficult to compare QBs who perform at similar levels. In 2015, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are performing at very similar levels.
If Newton and Wilson are performing at similar levels, why is Carolina 3rd in scoring and Seattle 16th?
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,470
Somewhere
Take out the last year of a QB's career and your first graph becomes flat.
Eliminating the catastrophic collapse at the end of every quarterback's career defeats the point of the exercise; yes, decline is not a "steady" process, but the increasing likelihood of collapse is captured (albeit imperfectly) in the average. And that's the risk that we face with Brady.

Even with that risk, the likelihood of an even very good young quarterback playing up to Brady's level is not very high. Plenty of recent candidates have failed to do so (thinking Ryan, Stafford, for two).
 

EricFeczko

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 26, 2014
4,823
Eliminating the catastrophic collapse at the end of every quarterback's career defeats the point of the exercise; yes, decline is not a "steady" process, but the increasing likelihood of collapse is captured (albeit imperfectly) in the average. And that's the risk that we face with Brady.

Even with that risk, the likelihood of an even very good young quarterback playing up to Brady's level is not very high. Plenty of recent candidates have failed to do so (thinking Ryan, Stafford, for two).
Absolutely, which is why I think your list is the best I've seen so far.