Best QB in NFL today (career and current factors considered)

[bedstuy]

     Going back to what you said in an earlier post, I have been thinking for a while that people overvalue the Super Bowl by a lot. The very idea that Russell Wilson is close to Rodgers is absurd, but people say it because Wilson just won the Super Bowl. The year before that, people were talking about how amazing Flacco was, when he had previously been described as a Trent Dilfer/Alex Smith-style game manager. I've seen people refer to Eli Manning as elite, which I can only surmise is due to him having won two Super Bowls. He is a perennial pick machine, though he has been improving in that regard. Sorry, Grumps, but the same applies to Ben Roethlisberger. In his two SB champion seasons, he threw for 17 TDs each. I guess Alex Smith is just two Super Bowls away from being a top QB, then.

Those are some unfair comparisons. 

On one hand, not all average-good QBs are the same.  Some average QBs have a weak arm, but make up for it with accuracy, pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Chad Pennington.  Some average QBs have a cannon for an arm, but lack pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Joe Flacco and Kerry Collins. 

But, that's not the entire comparison because you can't necessarily compare QBs who have different roles and different offenses.  Some teams have a very conservative scheme and rely on the running game and field position.  Those offenses will minimize mistakes and average QBs can succeed in that type of system.  They'll have both fewer passing yards and fewer interceptions.  That's the sort of offense Ben Roethlisberger played in his first couple of years in the NFL.

Other teams ask their QB to throw long passes into tight windows and take large risks.  They're going to throw more interceptions, but they'll also have more passing yards.  And, you have to factor in the teams around those players.  Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger in their worst seasons played behind a patchwork offensive line and with a struggling running game.  If they didn't take the risks that resulted in those interceptions, they would have lost most of those games anyway. 

And, let's be fair to Eli Manning, he's been around the 8-11th best QB in the NFL for 8 years or so.  When there eree 32 teams, that level of consistency at the QB position is impressive.

[publicunofficial]

Peyton's greatest flaw is that he's a perfectionist, and when games don't go his way he starts to choke. Especially in the playoffs, and in the last Super Bowl.


It's probably Rodgers or Brady. Wilson's great, and he's only getting better, but he's not Number 1 yet.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Going back to what you said in an earlier post, I have been thinking for a while that people overvalue the Super Bowl by a lot. The very idea that Russell Wilson is close to Rodgers is absurd, but people say it because Wilson just won the Super Bowl. The year before that, people were talking about how amazing Flacco was, when he had previously been described as a Trent Dilfer/Alex Smith-style game manager. I've seen people refer to Eli Manning as elite, which I can only surmise is due to him having won two Super Bowls. He is a perennial pick machine, though he has been improving in that regard. Sorry, Grumps, but the same applies to Ben Roethlisberger. In his two SB champion seasons, he threw for 17 TDs each. I guess Alex Smith is just two Super Bowls away from being a top QB, then.

Those are some unfair comparisons. 

On one hand, not all average-good QBs are the same.  Some average QBs have a weak arm, but make up for it with accuracy, pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Chad Pennington.  Some average QBs have a cannon for an arm, but lack pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Joe Flacco and Kerry Collins. 

But, that's not the entire comparison because you can't necessarily compare QBs who have different roles and different offenses.  Some teams have a very conservative scheme and rely on the running game and field position.  Those offenses will minimize mistakes and average QBs can succeed in that type of system.  They'll have both fewer passing yards and fewer interceptions.  That's the sort of offense Ben Roethlisberger played in his first couple of years in the NFL.

Other teams ask their QB to throw long passes into tight windows and take large risks.  They're going to throw more interceptions, but they'll also have more passing yards.  And, you have to factor in the teams around those players.  Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger in their worst seasons played behind a patchwork offensive line and with a struggling running game.  If they didn't take the risks that resulted in those interceptions, they would have lost most of those games anyway. 

And, let's be fair to Eli Manning, he's been around the 8-11th best QB in the NFL for 8 years or so.  When there eree 32 teams, that level of consistency at the QB position is impressive.

     What you are getting at there is that stats aren't terribly useful for comparing NFL QBs. And there is certainly something there. Oftentimes, you'll see a QB put up 300 yards and lose, because he was throwing all over the field in an attempt to catch up. Other times, a QB will put up 150 yards in a winning effort because the team took control and never really needed the offensive production.

     Going back to my previous post, people have a strong tendency to underestimate these sorts of effects. The Seahawks/Ravens/Giants won the Super Bowl due to contributions that go well beyond the passing game. Each team's QB certainly contributed, but heralding them as great for what happened is rather silly. It reminds me a little of Moneyball, where the manager was getting all of the credit for the team's success, when Billy Beane was the one who made it possible by putting those players together.

[bedstuy]

     Going back to what you said in an earlier post, I have been thinking for a while that people overvalue the Super Bowl by a lot. The very idea that Russell Wilson is close to Rodgers is absurd, but people say it because Wilson just won the Super Bowl. The year before that, people were talking about how amazing Flacco was, when he had previously been described as a Trent Dilfer/Alex Smith-style game manager. I've seen people refer to Eli Manning as elite, which I can only surmise is due to him having won two Super Bowls. He is a perennial pick machine, though he has been improving in that regard. Sorry, Grumps, but the same applies to Ben Roethlisberger. In his two SB champion seasons, he threw for 17 TDs each. I guess Alex Smith is just two Super Bowls away from being a top QB, then.

Those are some unfair comparisons. 

On one hand, not all average-good QBs are the same.  Some average QBs have a weak arm, but make up for it with accuracy, pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Chad Pennington.  Some average QBs have a cannon for an arm, but lack pocket presence and smarts, e.g. Joe Flacco and Kerry Collins. 

But, that's not the entire comparison because you can't necessarily compare QBs who have different roles and different offenses.  Some teams have a very conservative scheme and rely on the running game and field position.  Those offenses will minimize mistakes and average QBs can succeed in that type of system.  They'll have both fewer passing yards and fewer interceptions.  That's the sort of offense Ben Roethlisberger played in his first couple of years in the NFL.

Other teams ask their QB to throw long passes into tight windows and take large risks.  They're going to throw more interceptions, but they'll also have more passing yards.  And, you have to factor in the teams around those players.  Eli Manning and Ben Roethlisberger in their worst seasons played behind a patchwork offensive line and with a struggling running game.  If they didn't take the risks that resulted in those interceptions, they would have lost most of those games anyway. 

And, let's be fair to Eli Manning, he's been around the 8-11th best QB in the NFL for 8 years or so.  When there eree 32 teams, that level of consistency at the QB position is impressive.

     What you are getting at there is that stats aren't terribly useful for comparing NFL QBs. And there is certainly something there. Oftentimes, you'll see a QB put up 300 yards and lose, because he was throwing all over the field in an attempt to catch up. Other times, a QB will put up 150 yards in a winning effort because the team took control and never really needed the offensive production.

     Going back to my previous post, people have a strong tendency to underestimate these sorts of effects. The Seahawks/Ravens/Giants won the Super Bowl due to contributions that go well beyond the passing game. Each team's QB certainly contributed, but heralding them as great for what happened is rather silly. It reminds me a little of Moneyball, where the manager was getting all of the credit for the team's success, when Billy Beane was the one who made it possible by putting those players together.

Right, football is a team game.  You have a 54 man roster and 11 players on the field at a time.  The QB is certainly the most important player, but quality play from that position is generally necessary, but not sufficient to succeed. 

But, again, it's silly to just lump QBs together.  Eli in 2007, Eli in 2011, Flacco in 2012 and Wilson in 2013 had pretty different roles and amounts of success in the passing game.  Their teams won for a variety of reasons, one obvious reason being pure luck because the playoffs are a small single-elimination tournament.  Just think of it this way, if the other NFL teams had performed differently the Giants could have missed the playoffs in 2007 and 2011 because they won 9 and 10 games.  Superbowls are not a good metric for judging or comparing players.