Ranking the QB Situations
- Thread starter soxfan121
- Start date
Well, I look forward to the rest of these....but Tony Romo as bottom 4 seems highly contentious, to say the least. 8th in the traditional rating for the year so far and 4th in QBR -- both problematic stats, to be sure -- but ...at a minimum not indicative of a bottom of the barrel guy. Romo can throw deep (great completion % on passes over 15 yards), is looking healthier as the season goes on, illustrated by his rather amazing escape from Watt, and if we're penalizing guys for ill-timed interceptions over the years, then Jay Cutler would have to be right with him...except Romo is a ton better, albeit overpaid.
And I think the set-up of the article implies that he's in the bottom rung -- worse than Geno/Michael and/or EJ/Kyle (I'm a first name basis with these guys, don't ya know), etc. Correct? And, if so...really?
And I think the set-up of the article implies that he's in the bottom rung -- worse than Geno/Michael and/or EJ/Kyle (I'm a first name basis with these guys, don't ya know), etc. Correct? And, if so...really?
Aren't the Cowboys being penalized for the horrid contract rather than just about Romo?
It says in there romo is actually a good qb.
It says in there romo is actually a good qb.
NortheasternPJ said:
It doesn't really state anywhere how they were actually rating the QB's. The Cowboys section indicates that salary is part of the equation, but the intro paragraph generally just discusses QB depth. I'd be interested in clarification as well.
I'd echo the thought that this is good stuff but you really should have some more explanation about the nature of the exercise. What are the criteria? Are you doing a 1-32 ranking or is the goal to break teams into qualitatively different groups whose ranking relative to each other is not firm? I think there are many ways to do this that would be fine but right now its just kind of confusing. Are these the worst four in the league or not? And why?
Eric van is offended by this post. You clearly just don't understand.Morgan's Magic Snowplow said:
Tony C said:
Good feedback here and I will definitely take steps to more clearly lay out the methodology in upcoming installments.
Briefly, this not about starting quarterbacks. It is about the entire QB depth chart. Dallas (and Romo) is ranked so high because A.) Romo has an injury history, B.) his contract is awful, C.) if he gets hurt, Brandon Weeden is the backup and D.) Dustin Vaughan apparently played his college ball in the witness protection program.
If Romo is lost, Dallas is screwed. Weeden is terrible. The Cowboys, who otherwise look like playoff contenders, would quickly disappear from contention if Weeden has to play for any stretch of time. Coupled with the insane cap hits the Cowboys would take if Romo suffers a career ending injury, the Dallas QB Situation is among the worst in the league. Teams ranked above them (i.e. 5-32) all have at least a slightly better backup option and/or flexibility to address the position if the starter suffers a career-ending injury.
Buffalo has a worse set of QBs overall (because Romo is, while healthy, still a very good QB) but Orton is magnitudes better as a backup and now that he's the starter, Manuel is not nearly as putrid a backup as Weeden.
There will be more controversial rankings to come. I will do my best to address the methodology in the next installment. And everyone should feel free to argue about it.
I think this is going to dramatically underweight the importance of having an average to above average type starter given the first four listed and that explanation. Sub Flacco/Taylor, Cutler/Claussen, and Stafford/Orvolsky into that paragraph and it still works. None of those teams belong close to a discussion about the worst four QB situations in the league, even after accounting for salaries.
Romo has been a top ten NFL quarterback for years, is fifth in QBR (to use as a shorthand), and leads a 4-1 team. Its not credible to call that a worse QB situation than Buffalo, NYJ, TB, Houston, Tenn, SL.
The best QB assets on those six teams are probably Mike Glennon, a guy that was out of football a month ago, and either a guy given away for a 7th rounder a month ago or whoever you like of the Manual/Smith busts. Give me Romo, Cutler, Stafford, Flacco on bad cap numbers over those abortions every day and twice on Sunday.
Romo has been a top ten NFL quarterback for years, is fifth in QBR (to use as a shorthand), and leads a 4-1 team. Its not credible to call that a worse QB situation than Buffalo, NYJ, TB, Houston, Tenn, SL.
The best QB assets on those six teams are probably Mike Glennon, a guy that was out of football a month ago, and either a guy given away for a 7th rounder a month ago or whoever you like of the Manual/Smith busts. Give me Romo, Cutler, Stafford, Flacco on bad cap numbers over those abortions every day and twice on Sunday.
Romo is a top fifteen QB (top third in my book at the minimum most years). But Romo is one bad hit from re-injuring his back and missing significant time. He's a huge injury red flag and their backup is beyond terrible. That's just poor GM'ing there. If Orton is discontented then find another decent backup! As per Romo's cap hit... apparently because JJ is so bad managing the cap they HAD to restructure his contract to save cap room in the short run.
While I agree with the serious nature of the multiple red flags by the Cowboys you're still left with Tony Romo until he breaks down. Seems a bit harsh to me but all of those counter-points are poignant and valid.
While I agree with the serious nature of the multiple red flags by the Cowboys you're still left with Tony Romo until he breaks down. Seems a bit harsh to me but all of those counter-points are poignant and valid.
Stitch01 said:
None of the veterans you cite would cost $36M against the cap next season if they had to be cut or were permanently injured and unable to continue their careers. Nor are they 34 and coming off back surgery with noticeable after-effects, as observed by Rick Gosselin - link in the piece.
It is entirely my fault for not making that factor more explicit in the published piece and I will absolutely address it.
Dallas is "behind" Tennessee & St. Louis, so I obviously agree. The other four are featured in Part 2 (early next week) and there will be an explanation behind the thinking. Your assessment is actually very close to the order of first eight teams reviewed - with Dallas being a point of contention.
Thanks for helping me refine the piece; it may turn out that I'm the only one who thinks Dallas' situation is worse than the others cited. That said...discussions and disagreements are good.
SMU_Sox said:
soxfan121 said:
Flacco would cost $36.4MM, so almost exactly the same amount actually.
Stafford is $27MM, Cutler $19MM (his contract is structured so he's cuttable easily in '16, not as onerous as the other three).
Romo is older and a bigger injury risk, but the difference between the Cowboys and Ravens is pretty marginal.
I don't fault the Cowboys specifically for not having a decent backup this year given how the Orton thing played and their cap situation (managing their cap, more generally, is obviously a massive, massive problem). What backup solution did you think they missed out on? That team doesnt exactly have cap space and draft assets to spare on a backup.SMU_Sox said:
If Romo gets seriously hurt the Cowboys might have to start someone as bad as Charlie Whitehurst, Kyle Orton, Geno Smith, Austin Davis, EJ Manual, or Ryan Fitzpatrick next year. Its just an entirely different-tier of QB situation than a team without any sort of legitimate QB solution.
Stitch01 said:
Yeah, but add a Super Bowl. I know we like to pretend it didn't happen but it did. Whereas Romo's playoff record is...not elite.
And I may be wrong but back surgery and one of the best football writers in the world saying he looks much different post-surgery is not "marginal". Further, Taylor is an unknown, which has to be considered when comparing him as a backup to a known suckhole.
If Romo gets hurt this year, they have to start Brandon Weeden. The only guys you list worse than Weeden are Whitehurst and Davis...and their employers appear higher in the rankings. Again - thanks for confirming the thinking behind the rankings despite my poor introduction of the criteria.
I dont give much weight to four playoff games or find rangz arguments very compelling, but people have different views on that. Happy to concede that the Ravens situation is marginally better anyways because of the age/injury factor, although Im not sure what basis we have for saying that Tyrod Taylor is better than Brandon Weeden. They both seem like bad options to me, but I'll be damned at predicting who would be worse if they actually had to play.
Romo looked pretty stiff in week one but has played great since then. Stats are great, team is winning. Didnt look like his back hurt much last week when he avoided JJ Watt then threw a downfield strike for a TD
Just doesnt make a lot of sense to me to have Dallas down here with the teams with no QB assets on the roster.
Arizona is bad but not bottom four, IMO, given they can move on from Palmer and he's not that expensive and a decent starter when healthy (that offensive line was the worst last year skewing his numbers some).
Romo looked pretty stiff in week one but has played great since then. Stats are great, team is winning. Didnt look like his back hurt much last week when he avoided JJ Watt then threw a downfield strike for a TD
Just doesnt make a lot of sense to me to have Dallas down here with the teams with no QB assets on the roster.
Arizona is bad but not bottom four, IMO, given they can move on from Palmer and he's not that expensive and a decent starter when healthy (that offensive line was the worst last year skewing his numbers some).
soxfan121 said:
I enjoy bashing Romo as much as the next guy, but to lay the Cowboys' recent playoff record at his feet is a bridge too far. Yes, he made the signature play that ended many a game on numerous occasions (much to my chagrin), but proper roster construction would have kept the Cowboys out of those situations. The loss in the playoffs to the Seahawks was aided by his drop of the snap, but that was not indicative of his ability as a QB. Of all the things wrong with the Cowboys over the past decade, Romo isn't even in the top five. And he still isn't, despite his age, cap hit and injury concerns.
Stitch beat me to the rest, so I'll leave it at that.
Stitch01 said:
We know Weeden can't play; Taylor at least still has that air of mystery about him. ;-)
And while Bosoxen makes an EXCELLENT point, at some point the amount of variables being considered has to be limited. Factoring in defense would have been a Bridge to Nowhere.
soxfan121 said:
Indeed, that's outside of the scope of the topic at hand. I was mostly responding to your quip about Romo's eliteness (the guys at Pro Football Mock would be proud).
Frankly, my biggest issue with the Cowboys' ranking is that any team is in jeopardy because their quarterback is a hit away from suffering a season-ending injury (imagine how Seattle would feel having to rely on the horror show known as Tarvaris fucking Jackson). But I won't quibble with it because the biggest factor working against that fear is their much-improved offensive line, which is, as you mentioned, one variable too many.
Taking that completely literally, I think all the teams have QB assets, but I was thinking Buffalo, NYJ, Tennessee, Houston, and SL are pretty unlikely to current have anyone on their roster who will be an average NFL starting QB in the future at this point. Dallas has a good QB on the roster and is likely to have one, albeit at a big cap number, for the next couple of seasons.
Yep, clearly the back-up is being overrated in this system. What happens with any of the top teams in the league if their QB goes down? Claussen, Flynn, Tav Jackson etc etc are not leading any of these teams anywhere, any more/less than Brandon Wheeden is. I don't see how Wheeden pushes the Cowboys beneath teams that have starting QBs that are inarguably (!) not near the class of Romo.
SF121 is learning the first lesson of sports journalism, a lesson that probably explains a lot of the shit out there: write a good article (like virtually all of the stuff on FC) and people note it and move on. Write a crappy article and it'll get a ton of attention. Explains a lot.
SF121 is learning the first lesson of sports journalism, a lesson that probably explains a lot of the shit out there: write a good article (like virtually all of the stuff on FC) and people note it and move on. Write a crappy article and it'll get a ton of attention. Explains a lot.
Bosoxen said:
I thought you'd like that. And, in your honor, Jerruh's name will always have "noted football genius" next to it. I care about FC's readers.
And thanks for bringing this up because it came up in editing; to truly do this "right" you have to include OL, skill players, offensive coordinator...there's not an aspect of the team that goes unaffected by the QB. Time of possession problems can KILL a defense (see Patriots, every year since 09 or so) and a good defense can help a QB (see Patriots, 01-05).
But then it's a book on every team. And the amount of variables is huge. And like, I still have to keep a job and stuff...;-)
This isn't a piece I'll publish in the future because it is hard to do it right. I have done some version of it in BBtL the last few years and we're trying to figure out how this thing works, so... it has problems. And BBtL will let me (and us) know what they are.
Stitch01 said:
Bradford could average for another team; he should move on because of the contract. So, St. Louis will have no one who is average, now or in the future.
Tennessee has a real wild card with Mettenberger. As Dr. Awesome will tell you, ACL injuries can be recovered from and his scouting reports are intriguing. And I think Tennessee is playing it smart, pushing Locker and Whitehurst out there early to make sure Mettenberger gets a good, healthy audition in the second half.
Completely agree here.Stitch01 said:
Not only that but Tony Romo is a very, very, good QB; playoffs non-withstanding. Others have cited some crude ratings, but even the advanced metrics agree here.
There are many other teams that have large uncertainty across their entire QB depth that should be ranked ahead of Dallas here. Cleveland, Tampa Bay, Washington (the team called the "Redskins"), Miami, Oakland, Carolina should all be included as well. Combined with Stitch's list, that's 11 teams that need to be addressed/explained as to why Dallas' situation is worse.
Completely agree that measuring QB ability is really difficult to do; worse, the year-to-year-variation in QB performance is great due to SSS problems (16 games/year) and massive year-to-year variation in surrounding talent level. This is why I was a big fan of the approach taken by QBR and guys like Brian Burke, which attempt to separate out those factors. Solid contributions regarding the NFL is really, really, hard work.soxfan121 said:
This is where I think you need to explain your evaluation better.
EDITED: Took out the Tennessee stuff, as I clearly wasn't paying attention.
EricFeczko said:
This is a big part of it and yeah, though probably more like a 3 year period (I mean, average career length is like 3.5 years, right?). And yeah, that needs to be made more clear by sf121.
What's really interesting going through these is just how many organizations have twisted themselves in knots over the QB and how it pertains to long term organizational strategy. I think in a lot of ways, looking at the whole organization has been emphasized more and more in sports where it used to be more micro-analysis on star power. In that vein, "holistic 3 year QB situation" becomes an interesting lens through which to look at how an organization is run.
I mean, pre-season is pre-season, but how many organizations have as much or more money tied up in a guy who might be worse than Garoppollo next year than Brady makes, to say nothing of cap hit risk in case of injury?
Bracketing specific placement in the rankings, just looking over the posts, I'm mesmerized by how many teams are have dug themselves into really tough situations here--that's my big take-away. Man, if Garoppollo pans out... fist-bumps for everyone!!
Like many, I'm having trouble with the Dallas and, to a lesser extent, the Arizona rankings. Comparing Houston to Arizona, for instance - both have mediocre veteran starting quarterbacks, but Palmer's significantly better than Ryan Fitzpatrick. Is Tom Savage far superior to Logan Thomas in the battle of the rookie fourth-rounders, or is it a preference for Ryan Mallett over John Skelton? Or compare the Giants' situation to Dallas' - Eli's just a year younger than Romo and was much worse in 2013. Sure, unlike with Romo's contract, the Giants can get out of Eli's after 2015 - but then who's their quarterback? Ryan Nassib, who showed so little that New York brought in Curtis Painter to compete with him? I think you're overrating the risk the contracts will go sour and underrating the risk that teams won't be able to find good quarterbacks even when they have cap space to work with. I think you're probably overrating potential - history tells us that it's unlikely guys like Carr, Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles are ever as good as Romo is likely to be over the next 2-3 seasons. Those teams will have cap space to work with because of their contracts - but if those guys are the next Ponders, Lockers, or Gabberts, who cares about $15 MM in cap space?
Yeah, I think one thing we would get out of this discussion if we took today's list and looked at what this list would have looked like in 2011 or 2012 is that, as fun as it is to laugh at the cap crippling contracts guys like Flacco and Romo get (and its fun and Im a prime offender here), finding a consistently above average QB is really hard and your QB situation, when you have one is pretty good relative to league average and hard to let go of. Like its obviously best to have Aaron Rodgers or Russell Wilson/Andrew Luck on a rookie deal, but there's a tendency to look at Jacksonville, Minnesota, and Cleveland and put them somewhat high on this list because they have high draft picks at QB. There's a good chance we sit here two years from now, one or two of those QBs really sucks (looking at you Johnny Football), and Dallas goes into 2016 as a playoff contender because Romo is still a good QB while the Browns and Raiders have fired everyone in their organization and are waiting for a new great hope to develop.
Since this is a Pats centric site, Im curious where the Pats end up on this list. Id clearly take the Pats QB situation over Dallas, but I have a feeling the rankings difference is going to overrate the gulf between the two given Brady and Romo are probably locked onto their respective teams for the next three seasons (most likely as the starter), Brady's age compared to Romo's, the recent performance of Brady/Romo, and the fact that even though I join most people here in being bullish on Jimmy G there's still a pretty sizeable chance that he's not going to be a good NFL QB and the difference between the two situations comes down to Brady's slightly friendlier cap number in a rising cap environment and Jimmy G's potential as Im not sure Id bet on Brady being the better QB going forward. Both matter, of course, but that's not the difference between like the 7th best QB situation in the league or w/e and the 30th.
Since this is a Pats centric site, Im curious where the Pats end up on this list. Id clearly take the Pats QB situation over Dallas, but I have a feeling the rankings difference is going to overrate the gulf between the two given Brady and Romo are probably locked onto their respective teams for the next three seasons (most likely as the starter), Brady's age compared to Romo's, the recent performance of Brady/Romo, and the fact that even though I join most people here in being bullish on Jimmy G there's still a pretty sizeable chance that he's not going to be a good NFL QB and the difference between the two situations comes down to Brady's slightly friendlier cap number in a rising cap environment and Jimmy G's potential as Im not sure Id bet on Brady being the better QB going forward. Both matter, of course, but that's not the difference between like the 7th best QB situation in the league or w/e and the 30th.
Tony C said:
Tony, Tony, Tony...need I remind you of 2008? I should not have to - this is the aspect of the methodology that was explicitly covered in the introduction to Part 1. I should dig up the game thread for the fourth preseason game of 2008, when Matt Gutierrez was seen as the least-bad option. Contrast that with the 2012 Colts and you should be able to see the foundation of the idea being worked here, even if you don't agree with the specific rankings.
Chicago, Green Bay and Seattle (to respond to your list) are all more talented teams than Dallas. And while Cutler is clearly inferior to Romo, Rodgers and Wilson are decidedly better.
Lastly, I am sad to hear you think it's a "crappy article". I think you can reasonably argue with the choices made and think the rankings being flawed but if the writing is not up to snuff, that is truly worrisome and distressing. FC tries very hard to make sure that our work is not "crappy". And, FWIW, this isn't in the top ten of viewed articles, nor was it intended to be "click-bait". That's some harsh criticism and I assure you we'll try to do better in the future.
Stitch01 said:
Stitch01 said:
Stitch01 said:
Which is why potential is so hard to grade down. Mettenberger might be great; he might be another in the very long line of good college QBs who can't cut it at the next level. Much easier to downgrade Weeden or Whitehurst.
soxfan121 said:
Apologies on the "crappy article" phrase, just in a hurry shorthand -- actually was very useful/interesting to have such a comprehensive overview, so not crappy at all... lazy of me to say as shorthand for a disagreeing on the Romo ranking. The clickbait thing is your word, and didn't mean to even imply you did that intentionally. Just that a by-product of getting criticism is more attention...I do think the CHB does that deliberately, but absolutely not that you guys would do that.
Tony C said:
I appreciate the clarification Tony; as you know, your opinion matters very much to me, personally.
As for "clickbait"...it is something we're trying to avoid. But this piece comes way too close, given the way we've chopped it up. Had we published the list in two parts (1-16, 17-32), it would contain lots of disputable choices and wouldn't seem like we were trying to "rile up" readers with the Dallas ranking. That's on us - and me, specifically - and we'll learn from it.
It is honest feedback like yours that help us avoid repeated mistakes and I will be including a "Thank You" note to you, Bosoxen, Stitch01 and everyone else who has helped refine Part 2 and beyond with their feedback. We, FC, literally could not do this without the clicks and support of SoSH, so on behalf of the entire staff - thanks for reading, and caring, about our quality level. Never let us slip without calling us out.
Just to drop an unsolicited 2 cents into the mix here...
I agree with others that your assessment of Romo/Dallas QB situation is a bit too damning or dark. Personally I don't think Dallas can ever win a SuperBowl with Romo at the helm, he is always going to have a brain fart at the wrong time - not to mention his increasing physical limitations given his back. That said I don't believe Weeden would be successfully reprising the Brady role to Romo's Bledsoe in the event Mo Lewis got his hands on Romo. But if you are truly going to assess the QB situation you have to at least provide a cursory glance at the offensive line to provide context. If I were to bet (and I don't/won't) I'd say Romo and his back have higher odds of being upright at the end of this season than Brady does. Dallas has invested in the QB position by drafting 3 first round offensive linemen to protect whichever QB is in the position. One could argue (with limited success I guess) that anyone in Dallas could hand the ball off to Murray et al behind that offensive line and have a chance. They have the human penalty flag in Doug Free when it comes to pass blocking, but as a whole that line will give any replacement a chance to succeed. Given that context alone - you have to rate the Dallas QB situation as more stable because for the foreseeable future they can ask the QB position to do less to be successful as an offense.
ETA: typo
I agree with others that your assessment of Romo/Dallas QB situation is a bit too damning or dark. Personally I don't think Dallas can ever win a SuperBowl with Romo at the helm, he is always going to have a brain fart at the wrong time - not to mention his increasing physical limitations given his back. That said I don't believe Weeden would be successfully reprising the Brady role to Romo's Bledsoe in the event Mo Lewis got his hands on Romo. But if you are truly going to assess the QB situation you have to at least provide a cursory glance at the offensive line to provide context. If I were to bet (and I don't/won't) I'd say Romo and his back have higher odds of being upright at the end of this season than Brady does. Dallas has invested in the QB position by drafting 3 first round offensive linemen to protect whichever QB is in the position. One could argue (with limited success I guess) that anyone in Dallas could hand the ball off to Murray et al behind that offensive line and have a chance. They have the human penalty flag in Doug Free when it comes to pass blocking, but as a whole that line will give any replacement a chance to succeed. Given that context alone - you have to rate the Dallas QB situation as more stable because for the foreseeable future they can ask the QB position to do less to be successful as an offense.
ETA: typo
Tony C's initial criticism was too harsh (and he has conceded as much), but it illustrates how an ill-considered or poorly explained conclusion can overshadow excellent analysis, which this article brings in spades.
If you define "QB situation" in a way such that a team with a top-10 QB can have a bottom-5 QB situation, then I think you're using a bad definition. But if you're going to use that definition, you at least need to spell it out in detail at the start of the article; you might not persuade people, but at least your readers won't think you're simply trolling Cowboys' fans.
There's nothing wrong with being contrarian, btw -- I thought your take on the Titans' situation was spot-on, and even people who think Jake Locker is better than you and I do wouldn't think you were basing your conclusion on anything other than thorough analysis.
If you define "QB situation" in a way such that a team with a top-10 QB can have a bottom-5 QB situation, then I think you're using a bad definition. But if you're going to use that definition, you at least need to spell it out in detail at the start of the article; you might not persuade people, but at least your readers won't think you're simply trolling Cowboys' fans.
There's nothing wrong with being contrarian, btw -- I thought your take on the Titans' situation was spot-on, and even people who think Jake Locker is better than you and I do wouldn't think you were basing your conclusion on anything other than thorough analysis.
soxfan121 said:
*swoon*
I hope you know I'll be stealing that when I finally get firejerryjones.com back up and running. Proper credit will be given, of course.
Stitch01 said:
I'm with Stitch. Doing it all in one shot would be a massive undertaking and setting the 32 teams up in tiers (even though there's likely a lot of grey area from one tier to the next) is a fine way of doing it. Quibbles with rankings aside, so long as you don't go Bleacher Report style - which would get a "crappy" rating from me, if I'm feeling generous - splitting it up is perfectly acceptable. It's also SOP for many publications. Sure, some of it could be described as click bait, but when position-by-position breakdowns are done in training camp, they're usually compartmentalized by position. Otherwise, you'd end up with an unwieldy beast.
maufman said:
I think this is where I'm at as well. If the piece was "Ranking the backup QB's" it makes sense, but the starter should probably have a 15-20x factor rating over the backups.
If the Cowboys are in trouble because of crappy backups and a 34 year old QB with back surgery, the Broncos are probably right there with a 38 year old QB with neck surgery and Brock Osweiller at backup, right?
Kenny F'ing Powers said:
In that regard, yes. But the Broncos are in a better position because Manning is Manning (I know you Pats fans out there don't want to hear that) and Romo is Romo (same for Cowboys fans). Then there's the contract situation, which sf has pointed out was a big contributor to the low ranking for the Cowboys. The cap hit for cutting Manning after this season would be miniscule compared to Romo. So I don't necessarily agree that the two situations are equal, though both are pretty tenuous.
I think the piece is at odds with this defense though. As others have noted a top 10 ranked QB/team ranked as bottom 5 because of "injury history" and cap hit. When someone else pointed out that Manning has an equally or potentially more risky injury, defending by dropping back to "Manning is Manning" and "Romo is Romo"... except that Romo is a much higher traditionally ranked QB than where he is listed. So for Manning we are to look past the injury risk because it makes the piece conclusion, but for Romo we shouldn't. If the article had Manning bottom 10 because of his neck injury then it would be consistent... but I'm guessing it doesn't (I'll read the future pieces to see). If the sole 'true' differentiator is going to be salary cap hit should the #1 QB go down, then that is a different article than has been presented to start with.Bosoxen said:
And considering the conversation over the first installment, it may not have intended this to be click bait - but it's generated interest w/in this community out of the gate - even if some of us think there is a clear mistake with the bottom tier.
ETA: Redirected my commentary
Hmmm.....Feedback....take with a grain of salt.
I appreciate the effort and look forward to the series. However...
You mention that this is a holistic reveiw of the QB position for each team. You cite the Cowboys and Romo in your example. (because that particular ranking is taking some flak).
I get the terrible Contract, and the Injury history. You then say that part of the methodology was that his backups suck. Again understandable.
I guess I wonder though how will your methodology treat Denver?
Peyton has a Huge contract. He has had numerous Neck Surgeries and is also quite a bit older then Romo. Finally as you yourself mention quite a few times in the first piece ...Backups Suck....thats why they are backups. Thus is the case with Osweiler. While I willingly admit that Mannings performance is a huge gulf better then Romos... At the end of the day....thats really the only (if Major) difference.
BESIDES for the Difference between Manning and Romo....those teams appear to be in similar positions as far as QBs. The same negative argument could be made for most teams. A dallas Fan could argue that Brady is "Declining", that his Knee Injury+age has sapped what little pocket mobility he had, that he is Older then Most QBs. That JG is an unproven Rookie from a small school and....thier best WR Edelman(??) is behind him as a 3rd Qb. They would then need to give credit for the team friendly contracts....but rank the Pats 15th.
For Denver...if you rate Dallas as 28th worst......then calculate for the large amount that Manning is better then Romo (which I freely admit he is...) you have to bump Denver up. But how much. If all those Negatives are enough to bounce Dallas so far DOWN the list.....then they will have to keep Denver from being "near the top" despite Mannings Brilliance.
Same with NE. Subtract for Decline, Subtract for injury history. Subtract for Shitty Backups. Give credit for the contracts....NE is suddenly 10th or something.
We know thats hogwash for both Denver and the Pats. Both are in Great positions as far as QBs in the league today go. But based on the "methodology" somone could argue that opinion. I think Dallas....with Romo....is still in a better position QB wise then "much" of the league. Is he top 10? No. The contract (and injury to an extent) knock him down. But out of the top 20? Or even 25? Wouldnt you have to also say that Romo (who is a top 10- 12 Qb performance wise) Should get the same treatment? Subtract for his contract...Subtract for the injury. And Subtract for a sucky Backup (which should negatively affect all teams pretty much equally). He still seems like he should be in High teens low 20s area.
Maybe you will argue that Manning (and Brady) is so much better then everyone else (not named Brees or Rodgers) that even with almost all the same "negatives" as Dallas he vaults the Broncos to high (top4?) on the list.
Maybe you will totally suprise us (maybe just me) with the Colts and Washington and Carolina as teams in the top 5, while Denver and the Pats suffer from the Dallas similarites.
I get that the cowboys suck (just in general...not necessarily record or performance wise) and they and thier owner are an easy mark....But their assesment seems like an early example of "popularity" rather then cold hard analysis.
I also think your trying to go a bridge too far. Starters (assuming Health) and thier Contracts can be compared....but grading Backups (unless you have a special situatuion....like maybe Cleveland or maybe Washington) and "quantifying Injuries" ("well Romos Back is WAY worse the Mannings Neck but better the RGIIIs legs") seems like too much of a reach.
Now...after lobbying for "less" I will suggest more.
You mention "Jerruh" and the inevitable screwup that will be the next Dallas QB. You have a point. I think "Front Office" could/should have been part of you equation if holisitc is really the intent. Front offices who have drafted decent QBs should get kudos....and a boost in the ratings. FOs that have cycled through Prospects....flailing year after year to find that Franchise QB (which you mention some teams doing....but didnt specially say was part of the assesment) should be specifically mentioned and part of the eval.
I appreciate the effort and look forward to the series. However...
You mention that this is a holistic reveiw of the QB position for each team. You cite the Cowboys and Romo in your example. (because that particular ranking is taking some flak).
I get the terrible Contract, and the Injury history. You then say that part of the methodology was that his backups suck. Again understandable.
I guess I wonder though how will your methodology treat Denver?
Peyton has a Huge contract. He has had numerous Neck Surgeries and is also quite a bit older then Romo. Finally as you yourself mention quite a few times in the first piece ...Backups Suck....thats why they are backups. Thus is the case with Osweiler. While I willingly admit that Mannings performance is a huge gulf better then Romos... At the end of the day....thats really the only (if Major) difference.
BESIDES for the Difference between Manning and Romo....those teams appear to be in similar positions as far as QBs. The same negative argument could be made for most teams. A dallas Fan could argue that Brady is "Declining", that his Knee Injury+age has sapped what little pocket mobility he had, that he is Older then Most QBs. That JG is an unproven Rookie from a small school and....thier best WR Edelman(??) is behind him as a 3rd Qb. They would then need to give credit for the team friendly contracts....but rank the Pats 15th.
For Denver...if you rate Dallas as 28th worst......then calculate for the large amount that Manning is better then Romo (which I freely admit he is...) you have to bump Denver up. But how much. If all those Negatives are enough to bounce Dallas so far DOWN the list.....then they will have to keep Denver from being "near the top" despite Mannings Brilliance.
Same with NE. Subtract for Decline, Subtract for injury history. Subtract for Shitty Backups. Give credit for the contracts....NE is suddenly 10th or something.
We know thats hogwash for both Denver and the Pats. Both are in Great positions as far as QBs in the league today go. But based on the "methodology" somone could argue that opinion. I think Dallas....with Romo....is still in a better position QB wise then "much" of the league. Is he top 10? No. The contract (and injury to an extent) knock him down. But out of the top 20? Or even 25? Wouldnt you have to also say that Romo (who is a top 10- 12 Qb performance wise) Should get the same treatment? Subtract for his contract...Subtract for the injury. And Subtract for a sucky Backup (which should negatively affect all teams pretty much equally). He still seems like he should be in High teens low 20s area.
Maybe you will argue that Manning (and Brady) is so much better then everyone else (not named Brees or Rodgers) that even with almost all the same "negatives" as Dallas he vaults the Broncos to high (top4?) on the list.
Maybe you will totally suprise us (maybe just me) with the Colts and Washington and Carolina as teams in the top 5, while Denver and the Pats suffer from the Dallas similarites.
I get that the cowboys suck (just in general...not necessarily record or performance wise) and they and thier owner are an easy mark....But their assesment seems like an early example of "popularity" rather then cold hard analysis.
I also think your trying to go a bridge too far. Starters (assuming Health) and thier Contracts can be compared....but grading Backups (unless you have a special situatuion....like maybe Cleveland or maybe Washington) and "quantifying Injuries" ("well Romos Back is WAY worse the Mannings Neck but better the RGIIIs legs") seems like too much of a reach.
Now...after lobbying for "less" I will suggest more.
You mention "Jerruh" and the inevitable screwup that will be the next Dallas QB. You have a point. I think "Front Office" could/should have been part of you equation if holisitc is really the intent. Front offices who have drafted decent QBs should get kudos....and a boost in the ratings. FOs that have cycled through Prospects....flailing year after year to find that Franchise QB (which you mention some teams doing....but didnt specially say was part of the assesment) should be specifically mentioned and part of the eval.
Whoops. Not sure what I was thinking with that example. I edited it out from my post.soxfan121 said:
Stitch01 said:
Does the cap hit really offset the age difference that much (34 to 38)?
How about the injury history? Romo had a microdiscectomy done. Manning had two microdiscectomies before finally having fusion done on his neck (four total surgeries), which really could end his career/life in one hit.
If Romo's injury is a red flag, then Manning's is a flashing red Goodyear blimp.
Maybe. But we have already seen Manning adjust his game and lead his team to the Super Bowl following his surgery. Romo's numbers look good thus far this season, but it's still not as much data.
Funny thing: I was confused by your post because I thought the numbers referred to cap hit.
Funny thing: I was confused by your post because I thought the numbers referred to cap hit.
I think it does. Denver is obviously screwed next year if Manning can't play, but they at least aren't crippled cap wise. If Romo can't play next year the Cowboys are beyond fucked. Couple in Manning>>>Romo and the backup situation and Denver is clearly better off IMO.,Kenny F'ing Powers said:
However, like I said with my Pats comparison, the gap isn't huge and I agree with you that Dallas situation is much closer to the Pats and Broncos than to Tenn. or the Jets. I also dont think the Pats or Broncos have a top QB situation like Indy, GB, or Seattle (guess SD should be in that discussion as well for top three)
And I admitted as much. Dallas needs to take a "Ranking hit" for that horrendous contract. Which they obviously have. They also need to take a rankings hit for injury....again which they have.
Will Denver also take a slighter hit for contract? and a similar hit for Injury?
My point if not clear was taking a 10-15 position hit for what essentially is just a different (more expensive) contract seems extreme.
I think in these rankings you need to start at a baseline.
Dallas =0
Denver=0
Performance
Romo =+2 compared to League
Manning=+5 compared to League
Dallas Backups= -1
Denver Backups=-1
Dallas Health=-2
Denver Health =-1
Dallas Contract= -4
Denver Contract=-2
Totals
Dallas= -5
Denver= +1
So while I agree that Denver is in a better situation I dont think its a totally dominating advantage. (I would have to review each team and obviously come up with consistant ratings for each of these catagories.) Off the top of my head I bet there are ALOT of Negative number teams out there.
I am simply suggesting you need to wieght the ranking based on the starter starting. (if your gonna do that for Den and NE the why not for Dall) unless an obvious situation like RGIII is in effect. If you agree with that then I dont see how Romo can be anywhere near the bottom 1/3 of the league....EVEN with his rediculous contract. If he performs as a top 10 Qb stats wise then that contract doesnt look as horrible Especially when compared to paying Jake Locker 4 million for poor performance. Its kinda like the old Carl Crawford argument. Sure he is over paid. Badly so. But if he performs up to his past performance from a wins perspective it will be better then paying "Locker" (or QBs like him) 1/3 or 1/2 as much.
Will Denver also take a slighter hit for contract? and a similar hit for Injury?
My point if not clear was taking a 10-15 position hit for what essentially is just a different (more expensive) contract seems extreme.
I think in these rankings you need to start at a baseline.
Dallas =0
Denver=0
Performance
Romo =+2 compared to League
Manning=+5 compared to League
Dallas Backups= -1
Denver Backups=-1
Dallas Health=-2
Denver Health =-1
Dallas Contract= -4
Denver Contract=-2
Totals
Dallas= -5
Denver= +1
So while I agree that Denver is in a better situation I dont think its a totally dominating advantage. (I would have to review each team and obviously come up with consistant ratings for each of these catagories.) Off the top of my head I bet there are ALOT of Negative number teams out there.
I am simply suggesting you need to wieght the ranking based on the starter starting. (if your gonna do that for Den and NE the why not for Dall) unless an obvious situation like RGIII is in effect. If you agree with that then I dont see how Romo can be anywhere near the bottom 1/3 of the league....EVEN with his rediculous contract. If he performs as a top 10 Qb stats wise then that contract doesnt look as horrible Especially when compared to paying Jake Locker 4 million for poor performance. Its kinda like the old Carl Crawford argument. Sure he is over paid. Badly so. But if he performs up to his past performance from a wins perspective it will be better then paying "Locker" (or QBs like him) 1/3 or 1/2 as much.
Stitch01 said:
This is at the very core of why Denver's situation is better than Dallas'. Both teams have shitty or unknown commodities at backup. Both teams have a very real and very scary possibility of having to depend on those shitty options. But when you look forward to next year and beyond, the outlook for Denver is far far better than it is for Dallas. Does that make Dallas a bottom 4 QB situation while Denver is a top 4? I wouldn't say so, and I'm going to give these guys the benefit of the doubt and assume they wouldn't either. It's entirely possible that they'll have Denver ranked in the bottom third or half of the league, which would make the hand-wringing pointless.
Is there too much emphasis being placed on contract obligations vs other more tangible effects, like surrounding talent? I would say without a doubt, yes. Ignoring Manning for a moment, one could argue that Brandon Weeden in the current Cowboys offense is likely to have much more success - as bad as he has been in his career - than Geno Smith in the Jets' offense. But because of the criteria selected for this exercise (which we can all agree is highly subjective), the Jets are ranked ahead of the Cowboys.
One way to think about this is in terms of a hypothetical trade value -- would Team A trade their QB situation for Team B's, taking into account backups, injury risk, contracts/cap hit, etc.? Some of that depends on the rest of the team -- do they have cap space, are they a young team rebuilding for the future or an older team in win-now mode, how good the rest of the roster is, and so on.
I think a lot of teams -- at least more than the other three teams in the article -- would much rather have Dallas' situation than their own.
I think a lot of teams -- at least more than the other three teams in the article -- would much rather have Dallas' situation than their own.
maufman said:
Thanks mauf - as always, your opinion is fair and thoughtful. Like I said, this has been an excellent learning experience and I will do better in the future.
Bosoxen said:
It's not stealing - I'm pretty sure I borrowed it from you in the first place. ;-) And I'd gladly re-edit (on my own time) the Dallas entry for firejerryjones.com if you'd like. Lots of stuff (like the OL) ended up on the cutting room floor.
Those of you who are long time readers know I never use 5 words when 25 are available. The editors at FC are truly brilliant - Mark, Mark, James, Eric and Philip all made great suggestions and tightened up what was a sprawling mess when they first read it.
Everyone looks better with editing.