Sunday, August 22, 2004
I am Smarter than Football Writers
Ok I’m bored of the Olympics, and with the NFL starting preseason games, its time to tackle a subject I’ve been debating for years: who is and who isn’t a good quarterback. Peter King brought up the issue for me again by ranking his top 15 QBs in his last Monday Morning Quarterback column. Here is the list
1. Peyton Manning 2. Tom Brady 3. Steve McNair 4. Brett Favre 5. Trent Green 6. Jake Plummer 7. Daunte Culpepper 8. Chad Pennington 9. Donovan McNabb 10. Mike Vick 11. Jeff Garcia 12. Matt Hasselbeck 13. Marc Bulger 14. Brad Johnson 15. Mark Brunell
Some of these selections are absolutely hilarious, starting of course with ranking Jake Plummer sixth. King has a weird infatuation with Plummer, having tabbed him for 2004 MVP this year…after picking him to win before the 2003 season as well. Of course when a sportswriter makes an idiotic claim and then gets reamed for it by his readers, he has to defend it rather than realize his own idiocy, as King is doing now in ranking Plummer sixth. This isn't King's only questionable ranking...Daunte over Donovan and Vick? The only justification I can see King having for this is, that since Daunte has Randy Moss on his team, enabling him to accumulate TD passes by lobbing the ball in the air and praying Moss runs under it and catches his ducks (as he often does,) Daunte is a better QB. I don’t think you should judge a quarterback by whether he gets to throw to Moss or Todd Pinkston.
Really, this all goes back to Kurt Warner. Here we have a guy who went from bagging groceries, to putting up incredible numbers, to being unable to complete an NFL game in three years. Does this mean that he was the 75th best QB, then the best (almost instantaneously,) for three years, then the 75th best again? Did Kurt, while stocking milk and cheese, have a spiritual realization from a higher power that enabled him to make quicker reads or throw a tighter spiral?
To quote eminent football sage Jay Shah: “There is a reason that fucker was bagging groceries.” What Warner proved, is that if you have a top 5 o-line, the best running back in the game, and two Pro Bowl receivers, you can stick almost anyone at QB and have them perform at Pro Bowl level. What kind of numbers do you think Drew Bledsoe would have put up for the Rams? Or how effective would Vick or McNabb have been, forcing the defense to guard against their scrambles as well?
Back to Plummer, he was absolutely terrible for the Cardinals for years: now he is on a playoff team with a good defense, a good running game (last year) and good WRs. None of this means he is a better player. It certainly means that Denver is going to do better than Arizona and that he will be able to put up better numbers. It’s a lot easier to run play action bootlegs when the defenses are actually worried about your running game. But it doesn’t mean Plummer deserves to be ranked sixth, since you could replace him with well over 5 QBs without changing Denver’s expected or actual record. Meanwhile I highly doubt Philly or Atlanta would expect the same success if they had Plummer starting for them over McNabb or Vick.
Plummer isn’t as good as Denver makes him appear, nor to be fair, is he probably as bad as Arizona made him look. The point is, judging quarterbacks or any position in the NFL is difficult because each position is reliant on the ability of their teammates. A great secondary won’t put up great numbers with a terrible pass rush. Complicating distinguishing players is the way teams construct their offenses or defenses; for example the Patriots would likely favor Tom Brady over anyone since they have tailored their offensive game plan around his strengths; short passes and quick reads.
When you take into account replacability and strength of teammates, I believe you get a list that looks more like this 1)McNair 2)Brady 3)Manning 4)Vick 5)McNabb 6)Pennington…After that it becomes excessively difficult to distinguish between QBs. I think many QBs, such as Green, Hasselbeck, Bulger, Daunte, aren’t all that much different. It will take the performance of their teammates to determine their success.
1. Peyton Manning 2. Tom Brady 3. Steve McNair 4. Brett Favre 5. Trent Green 6. Jake Plummer 7. Daunte Culpepper 8. Chad Pennington 9. Donovan McNabb 10. Mike Vick 11. Jeff Garcia 12. Matt Hasselbeck 13. Marc Bulger 14. Brad Johnson 15. Mark Brunell
Some of these selections are absolutely hilarious, starting of course with ranking Jake Plummer sixth. King has a weird infatuation with Plummer, having tabbed him for 2004 MVP this year…after picking him to win before the 2003 season as well. Of course when a sportswriter makes an idiotic claim and then gets reamed for it by his readers, he has to defend it rather than realize his own idiocy, as King is doing now in ranking Plummer sixth. This isn't King's only questionable ranking...Daunte over Donovan and Vick? The only justification I can see King having for this is, that since Daunte has Randy Moss on his team, enabling him to accumulate TD passes by lobbing the ball in the air and praying Moss runs under it and catches his ducks (as he often does,) Daunte is a better QB. I don’t think you should judge a quarterback by whether he gets to throw to Moss or Todd Pinkston.
Really, this all goes back to Kurt Warner. Here we have a guy who went from bagging groceries, to putting up incredible numbers, to being unable to complete an NFL game in three years. Does this mean that he was the 75th best QB, then the best (almost instantaneously,) for three years, then the 75th best again? Did Kurt, while stocking milk and cheese, have a spiritual realization from a higher power that enabled him to make quicker reads or throw a tighter spiral?
To quote eminent football sage Jay Shah: “There is a reason that fucker was bagging groceries.” What Warner proved, is that if you have a top 5 o-line, the best running back in the game, and two Pro Bowl receivers, you can stick almost anyone at QB and have them perform at Pro Bowl level. What kind of numbers do you think Drew Bledsoe would have put up for the Rams? Or how effective would Vick or McNabb have been, forcing the defense to guard against their scrambles as well?
Back to Plummer, he was absolutely terrible for the Cardinals for years: now he is on a playoff team with a good defense, a good running game (last year) and good WRs. None of this means he is a better player. It certainly means that Denver is going to do better than Arizona and that he will be able to put up better numbers. It’s a lot easier to run play action bootlegs when the defenses are actually worried about your running game. But it doesn’t mean Plummer deserves to be ranked sixth, since you could replace him with well over 5 QBs without changing Denver’s expected or actual record. Meanwhile I highly doubt Philly or Atlanta would expect the same success if they had Plummer starting for them over McNabb or Vick.
Plummer isn’t as good as Denver makes him appear, nor to be fair, is he probably as bad as Arizona made him look. The point is, judging quarterbacks or any position in the NFL is difficult because each position is reliant on the ability of their teammates. A great secondary won’t put up great numbers with a terrible pass rush. Complicating distinguishing players is the way teams construct their offenses or defenses; for example the Patriots would likely favor Tom Brady over anyone since they have tailored their offensive game plan around his strengths; short passes and quick reads.
When you take into account replacability and strength of teammates, I believe you get a list that looks more like this 1)McNair 2)Brady 3)Manning 4)Vick 5)McNabb 6)Pennington…After that it becomes excessively difficult to distinguish between QBs. I think many QBs, such as Green, Hasselbeck, Bulger, Daunte, aren’t all that much different. It will take the performance of their teammates to determine their success.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 2:46 AM 
