NFL 2014

[tetelestai]

I don't understand why teams are so in love with "athletic" QB's?

Neither do I.

As of today (not counting the MNF Game), the top 10 QB's by passer rating are:

1) Aaron Rogers
2) Tony Romo
3) Peyton Manning
4) Ben Roethlisberger
5) Philip Rivers
6) Tom Brady
7) Andrew Luck
8) Drew Brees
9) Ryan Fitzpatrick
10) Carson Palmer

Not one "athletic" QB in the Top 10

 

[The Berean]

In hindsight, should the 49'ers have kept Alex Smith?

Perhaps. But Smith was no great shakes either. But I would always take the pocket passer over the "athletic" QB that can't pass well.

 

[Town Heretic]

Neither do I.

As of today (not counting the MNF Game), the top 10 QB's by passer rating are:

1) Aaron Rogers
2) Tony Romo
3) Peyton Manning
4) Ben Roethlisberger
5) Philip Rivers
6) Tom Brady
7) Andrew Luck
8) Drew Brees
9) Ryan Fitzpatrick
10) Carson Palmer

Not one "athletic" QB in the Top 10

You must be defining it differently than I do. It's a lot more than a 40 time. Aaron Rogers is a very athletic quarterback. Before his injuries mounted, Romo wasn't bad either. Luck is arguably as athletic as anyone playing the position and Ben is a bizarre combination of athleticism and pocket awareness. Palmer and Fitz, not so much. Peyton never was. Rivers is iffy, though like Romo he was more adept earlier.

 

[Nick M]

Do you know what is on Tet's QB list? Old white guys.

 

[beloved57]

We would have won that Game in the A Town !

 

[tetelestai]

Cincinnati coach Marvin Lewis said the following when asked about facing Johnny Manziel this week (bolded my emphases):

"You gotta go defend the offense. You don't defend the player, particularly a midget."

:rotfl:

 

[tetelestai]

You must be defining it differently than I do.

Here's a clue:

None of the QB's on my Top 10 list have ever rushed for 100+ yards in a single game, but the following QB's have:

Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Terrell Pryor
RG3
Colin Kaepernick
Michael Vick

 

[Town Heretic]

Here's a clue:

None of the QB's on my Top 10 list have ever rushed for 100+ yards in a single game, but the following QB's have:

Russell Wilson
Cam Newton
Terrell Pryor
RG3
Colin Kaepernick
Michael Vick

Then you don't mean athletic, you mean really effective runners, like Steve Young in the day. But that's sort of an arbitrary way to segregate them, isn't it? lain:

That said, if it's running that interests you, Andrew Luck was seventh among qbs last year, ahead of Vick and with a higher rush average than Newton, Kaepernick or Wilson. Aaron Rogers is in the top ten this year (7th) and no ones overall athletic pick, Fitzpatrick, is actually 10th on the list. And among the ones you bring up Wilson won a Super Bowl, which doesn't exactly help you, third among rush leaders at the position and is first this year as Seattle makes a serious march toward the playoffs and a potential repeat. He has over seven hundred yards so far with a few to go.

Newton is struggling this year in qbr because he doesn't have weapons. His rushing isn't far off last year, but he's 23rd in qbr where last year he was 13th while putting up a lot of yards on the ground.

And Kaepernick was the 6th highest rated qb last year, Wilson the 12th, despite their talent as runners. So it's easy to see the allure. On a team that's playing well they simply add another dimension. And while everyone hopes for Young, a fellow who will begin by confounding with scrambling then, over time, mature into a qb who can still scare you on the point but becomes more of a pocket presence, protecting himself from injury over the long haul, it really isn't an either/or.

 

[serpentdove]

Fauria. *warning gay*

 

[shagster01]

Cam Newton was injured in a car accident today. No report if it's bad or not yet.

 

[Granite]

http://deadspin.com/report-cam-newton-injured-in-car-wreck-updating-1668819120

Sure doesn't look all that good...

 

[Town Heretic]

Okay, top ten teams so far, by my model:

1. NE: still playing the best top to bottom ball of any team in the league.

2. GB: a stronger defense away from being on top of the heap.

3. Den: if the running game remains consistent they can beat anyone and that defense is no longer hit and miss.

4. Sea: gaining on everyone, but the offense is weaker than last year and the blueprint for beating a no longer invincible defense is on the boards.

5. Phi: tough loss on an off day, but they're still something to worry about.

6. Ind: the Florida State of the NFL, for good and ill.

7. Bal: they can get after you, but will have to fight for a playoff spot and hope the Bengals continue to unravel while the Steelers don't continue to rise...that's a full plate.

8. Pit: any given Sunday.

9. SL: yeah, they're scaring everyone on their schedule right now.

10. Arz: hard to get excited by their offense, but they're a scrappy bunch.

 

[serpentdove]

...Den: if the running game remains consistent they can beat anyone and that defense is no longer hit and miss.

:up: CJ 22!

:down: Fauria

 

[tetelestai]

Then you don't mean athletic, you mean really effective runners, like Steve Young in the day. But that's sort of an arbitrary way to segregate them, isn't it?

Steve Young had one game in which he ran for more than 100 yards (102 yards in 1990).

Since Young ran for 102 yards in 1990, the only non-athletic (white) QB to run for at least 100 yards in a game was Tim Tebow in 2011.

Now, let's look at how many "athletic" QB's have run for at least 100 yards in a game since 1990:

Michael Vick - 10 times

Russell Wilson - 4 times

Donovan McNabb - 3 times

Cam Newton - 2 times

Kordell Stewart - 2 times

Terrell Pryor - 2 times

Aaron Brooks - 1 time

Joe Webb - 1 time

Robert Griffin III - 1 time

Randall Cunningham - 1 time * (he also had 2 before 1990)

Russell Wilson appears to be the lone exception, as all of the other QB's combined have ZERO Super Bowl rings.

The "non-athletic" QB's on my current list have EIGHT Super Bowl rings amongst them.

 

[Town Heretic]

Steve Young had one game in which he ran for more than 100 yards (102 yards in 1990).

Since Young ran for 102 yards in 1990, the only non-athletic (white) QB to run for at least 100 yards in a game was Tim Tebow in 2011.

Why is 100 yards in a game more important than the yearly totals? I mean we don't judge a qb by how many 400 yard games he has in a season.

Now, let's look at how many "athletic" QB's have run for at least 100 yards in a game since 1990:

Why? I think end of year totals are much more important. Did you look at the numbers I supplied?

Russell Wilson appears to be the lone exception, as all of the other QB's combined have ZERO Super Bowl rings.

Along with most of the pure pocket passers.

The "non-athletic" QB's on my current list have EIGHT Super Bowl rings amongst them.

Well, gee, most of them haven't been in the league very long. Wilson you mentioned. Cam Newton is in his third year and on a not very talented team. His "athleticism" isn't an issue. Terrell Pryor just isn't a starting qb by any definition. RG3 isn't getting it done on another bad team. Colin Kaepernick ranked high in both categories in his rookie year, but is having a sophomore slump exacerbated by a shift away from his strengths in the offensive scheme and even so isn't having a horrible year for a young qb. Michael Vick was always a bit like Cunningham and the interruption of his career by incarceration effectively squandered his potential.

I note you've dodged my response and ignored Luck's productivity as a runner and Rogers (with a ring) as one of the most athletic qbs playing and a decent runner within that context.

Why are you so set on making this a black and white issue, which is the only way your odd narrowing makes sense?

 

[kmoney]

Neither do I.

As of today (not counting the MNF Game), the top 10 QB's by passer rating are:

1) Aaron Rogers
2) Tony Romo
3) Peyton Manning
4) Ben Roethlisberger
5) Philip Rivers
6) Tom Brady
7) Andrew Luck
8) Drew Brees
9) Ryan Fitzpatrick
10) Carson Palmer

Not one "athletic" QB in the Top 10

You must be defining it differently than I do. It's a lot more than a 40 time. Aaron Rogers is a very athletic quarterback. Before his injuries mounted, Romo wasn't bad either. Luck is arguably as athletic as anyone playing the position and Ben is a bizarre combination of athleticism and pocket awareness. Palmer and Fitz, not so much. Peyton never was. Rivers is iffy, though like Romo he was more adept earlier.

Steve Young had one game in which he ran for more than 100 yards (102 yards in 1990).

Since Young ran for 102 yards in 1990, the only non-athletic (white) QB to run for at least 100 yards in a game was Tim Tebow in 2011.

Now, let's look at how many "athletic" QB's have run for at least 100 yards in a game since 1990:

Michael Vick - 10 times
Russell Wilson - 4 times
Donovan McNabb - 3 times
Cam Newton - 2 times
Kordell Stewart - 2 times
Terrell Pryor - 2 times
Aaron Brooks - 1 time
Joe Webb - 1 time
Robert Griffin III - 1 time
Randall Cunningham - 1 time * (he also had 2 before 1990)
Russell Wilson appears to be the lone exception, as all of the other QB's combined have ZERO Super Bowl rings.

The "non-athletic" QB's on my current list have EIGHT Super Bowl rings amongst them.

Why is 100 yards in a game more important than the yearly totals? I mean we don't judge a qb by how many 400 yard games he has in a season.

I think I'm with TH on this.

Why is 100 yard games the measure of an 'athletic' QB? :idunno:

I heard a stat this week that said Rodgers has run for 16 first downs this year. That's only behind Wilson who has 18, I think. I'd say only 'athletic' QBs would have numbers like that.

If a QB is running for 100 yards in a game then either it's part of their game plan (which is probably a bad sign) or the QB did it because he had to (probably because plays broke down and scrambling was the only option). So for Rodgers, he just doesn't need to run that much in games. His athleticism allows him to run for some yardage when needed or to scramble left and right and still make accurate throws.

In that list of top 10 QBs I'd probably call Rodgers, Luck, and Romo 'athletic'. I leave Roethlisberger out because I think mostly he's just a beast who is hard to take down and he can keep plays alive. I don't often seem him scramble or run for yardage like others and you'd never see a designed run play for him. :chuckle:

 

[tetelestai]

Why is 100 yard games the measure of an 'athletic' QB? :idunno:

Since 1990, the QB position has been about 80% white in the NFL (despite rosters being about 70% black)

Since 1990, a QB has run for at least 100 yards in a game 28 times. Of those 28 times, only ONCE was it done by a white QB.

Since 1990 ONE black QB has started a Super Bowl.

Call me a racist, bigot, not politically correct, etc., but for some reason, white QB's who for the most part are drop back passers, are the ones winning Super Bowls, while the black QB's that like to run, are not.

 

[Town Heretic]

Call me a racist, bigot, not politically correct, etc., but for some reason, white QB's who for the most part are drop back passers, are the ones winning Super Bowls, while the black QB's that like to run, are not.

No, I'll just call you myopic. How many black quarterbacks have there been in that time? How many white quarterbacks? How many of any of them have Super Bowl rings?


If a quarterback is rushing a lot it tends to mean he doesn't have much line protection, which means come playoff time when he runs into the best pass rush and secondary play he's going to have trouble. It's rare for that to advance. Elway did it a few times but ultimately it caught up with him and that was it. When Denver got a great offensive line it started running effectively and protecting him and, unsurprisingly he won two rings when most qbs are retired.

I think I'm with TH on this.

Why is 100 yard games the measure of an 'athletic' QB? :idunno:

Because it's the only metric that lets him pigeon hole by race, which is his inclination on the point, for whatever bizarre reason. He's also pointedly ignoring the fact that a few of the actual starters he named were among the top rated as passers as well. So...

I heard a stat this week that said Rodgers has run for 16 first downs this year. That's only behind Wilson who has 18, I think. I'd say only 'athletic' QBs would have numbers like that.

I don't know anyone who knows the game who wouldn't say Rogers and Luck are two of the most athletic qbs playing. Are they the fastest? No. And some of the greatest athletes of all time haven't been among the fastest. Tim Duncan is pretty athletic. He's not fast.

If a QB is running for 100 yards in a game then either it's part of their game plan (which is probably a bad sign) or the QB did it because he had to (probably because plays broke down and scrambling was the only option). So for Rodgers, he just doesn't need to run that much in games. His athleticism allows him to run for some yardage when needed or to scramble left and right and still make accurate throws.

Just so.

In that list of top 10 QBs I'd probably call Rodgers, Luck, and Romo 'athletic'. I leave Roethlisberger out because I think mostly he's just a beast who is hard to take down and he can keep plays alive.

I think Romo's has been impacted by injury, but he's still not bad. Ben is more athletic than you think. He's actually agile, but he looks like an oversized fullback so it's hard to process. I've had the same problem with him. He doesn't run for yards, but moves around a lot and is hard to peg.

 

[tetelestai]

No, I'll just call you myopic.

You do know the only two times a black QB won a Super Bowl, they both came against Denver?

 

[Town Heretic]

You do know that both times a black QB won a Super Bowl, they both came against Denver?

It's an interesting coincidence, like the Ford/Lincoln bit.