So who really is the best young qb in the NFL? great read.. statisical analysis of the up and coming 7 young qb's

[Fred Jones]

About the tanking, there were whispers of it before the Colts had even lost a couple games.  (articles dated Sep 11).  Also, people act like to tank you have to get players to do worse or something but it just requires keeping the wrong guys in for the wrong plays or having NO legitimate backup to Manning and rolling out Orlovsky (0-16 Lions fame) and Painter and K. Collins.  It's hilarious that once they secured the first pick, they finally won a(or was it another?) game.

 

I called tanking sometime end of September/early October that year and have stood by my statement ever since.  I said first pick in the draft.

[darrelgreenie]

Russell Wilson - 2013

 

PFF Grade 25.5

 

Positives

• Second-best grade on third down at +13.1, including a +5.6 grade on 3rd-and-long.
• Led the league with +9.9 on plays that broke out of the pocket and ranked second on designed rollouts at +4.7.
• Showed well at pass depths, namely 11-20 yards (+7.6), 21-30 yards (+6.6), and 31-40 yards (+3.1).
• Threw extremely well outside the numbers, including +12.1 to the left and +10.3 to the right.
• Third-highest grade when pressured (+4.5) and also graded well from a clean pocket (+19.2).
• Led the league with a +21.5 grade against the blitz, including a +14.4 grade on third down.
• Showed well on 7-to-8-yard drop-backs (+10.6), and drop-backs of 9 yards or longer (+6.0).
• Led the league with a +14.5 grade on plays lasting at least 3.6 seconds.
• Graded at +23.9 when throwing to wide receivers (by alignment).
• Tied for league lead with a +6.0 grade on crossing routes, and also showed well on hitches (+5.6) and go routes (+10.7).

 

Negatives

• Graded at -2.7 on throws of at least 40 yards in the air.
• Graded at -0.1 on throws in between the numbers.
• Struggled in the first quarter (-9.1).
• Posted a negative grade when pressured from a traditional rush (-4.1).
• Graded at only -1.0 when throwing to tight ends.

 

Tendencies

• 35.9% of drop-backs came from under center; seventh-highest in the league.
• Had highest percentage of designed rollouts (14.5%) and second-highest percentage of drop-backs that broke the pocket (13.5%).
• 15.9% of attempts traveled at least 20 yards in the air; sixth-highest in the league.
• Threw 53.1% of passes outside the numbers; ninth-highest in the league.
• Faced pressure on 43.8% of drop-backs; second-highest in the league.
• Faced the second-highest percentage of blitzes in the league at 39.2%.
• Only 13.1% of drop-backs went 9 or more yards; eighth-lowest in the league.
• Faced the second-highest percentage of pressures that came in two seconds or less (14.7% of drop-backs).
• Used play action 34.1% of the time; highest in the league.
• Threw to slot wide receivers 26.0% of the time; above the league average of 19.7%.
• Threw third-highest percentage of quick outs at 8.8%.
• Threw 43 crossing routes, 41.9% of which came off designed rollouts.

[Bubble Screen]

About the tanking, there were whispers of it before the Colts had even lost a couple games. (articles dated Sep 11). Also, people act like to tank you have to get players to do worse or something but it just requires keeping the wrong guys in for the wrong plays or having NO legitimate backup to Manning and rolling out Orlovsky (0-16 Lions fame) and Painter and K. Collins. It's hilarious that once they secured the first pick, they finally won a(or was it another?) game.

They didn't secure the pick until the final week, iirc.

They beat the Texans in Week 16 and it nearly cost them the #1 pick. Think if they had beaten the Jags the following week, they would have lost the top spot.

They weren't tanking. That's a myth.

You are the one that quoted someone saying they were a bad team and Luck was carrying them:a defensive coordinator said. "They have had people you could hand it to. They say you can win with a young QB when you have a top-10 defense and a top-10 running game. Luck hasn't had either."

I was agreeing that maybe Luck is on an untalented team. It seems we are making each others arguments

PS - why are you so sure they didn't tank? 10 win a year team for 10 years has 1 blip on the radar and goes back to winning 10 games a year. Blip just happens to come the year the best prospect in 10 years is leaving college.

Because the team that Luck Inherited hardly resembled the Colts teams that won 10+ games every year. You'd know that if you followed a little closer.

[darrelgreenie]

Whether they tanked or not the fact remains that the Colts W-L record over the past decade has only included 1 season with less then 10 wins. 

After a DECADE of winning 10+ games they won, lol, 2 games the season before Luck/Griffin were the top 2 prospects.

Coincidence?

 

So maybe they didn't tank.....but don't paint the Luck/Colts as lacking talent they're a perennial 10 win team.

[Bubble Screen]

Whether they tanked or not the fact remains that the Colts W-L record over the past decade has only included 1 season with less then 10 wins.

After a DECADE of winning 10+ games they won, lol, 2 games the season before Luck/Griffin were the top 2 prospects.

Coincidence?

So maybe they didn't tank.....but don't paint the Luck/Colts as lacking talent they're a perennial 10 win team.

The Colts team he took over was gutted. The Colts fan (rm) explained this brilliantly in the Luck thread last year. Go re-read the thread.

[jflow78]

I can end this discussion with one name:

 

JOHNNY MANZIEL

 

Done.  No stats (or actual play) needed.

 

[Fred Jones]

The Colts team he took over was gutted. The Colts fan (rm) explained this brilliantly in the Luck thread last year. Go re-read the thread.

 

I remember the thread and I remember the explanation.  Was nice of the colts fan to provide a detailed analysis.  Adding to DG, from the year 1998 and prior the Colts where an average up and down team (not going to go way back).  From 1999 through last season the Colts had one season of less than 10 wins (2001 where they won 6).  The exception, of course, was the 2011 season where they won two games or just enough to get the first pick.

 

In 1989 they won 8 games, in 1990 they won 7 games, in 1991 they won 1 game, in 1992 they won 9 games and in 1993 they won 4 games.  That is an example of team not tanking.

 

Clearly, the organization did not sit down and say "we are tanking the season", but their failure at many things sure as heck indicated that.  And, as I said above, I sat at my desk at work in late Sept/early Oct and told my fellow co-workers at the time (fans of other teams) the Colts will get the first pick in the draft.

[darrelgreenie]

Johnny Freakin Football!

Now HE is a hands down Tier 1 QB!

[jflow78]

Johnny Freakin Football!

Now HE is a hands down Tier 1 QB!

Seriously man, we should have traded 4 first round picks for him, just so we could say we knew he was going to be the best ever.  We knew it harder than anybody else.  hahaha

[Taylor703]

The Colts team he took over was gutted. The Colts fan (rm) explained this brilliantly in the Luck thread last year. Go re-read the thread.

Then why do you continue using the 2-14 record as validation for Andrew Luck? If he inherited a team that was gutted and in no way resembled the 2-14 squad for the season prior that shouldn't be used as a reason to pimp Luck.

[Bubble Screen]

Then why do you continue using the 2-14 record as validation for Andrew Luck? If he inherited a team that was gutted and in no way resembled the 2-14 squad for the season prior that shouldn't be used as a reason to pimp Luck.

I don't use it as validation. That's my response to people that try and say the team Luck inherited was the same team, minus Peyton, as the ones that won 10+ games for a decade. It wasn't.

The thing is, that still wouldn't even matter. It's not like that would diminish anything Luck has accomplished. Name me another QB that started his career with back to back 11-win seasons. Probably a small list.

[Taylor703]

I don't use it as validation. That's my response to people that try and say the team Luck inherited was the same team, minus Peyton, as the ones that won 10+ games for a decade. It wasn't.

The thing is, that still wouldn't even matter. It's not like that would diminish anything Luck has accomplished. Name me another QB that started his career with back to back 11-win seasons. Probably a small list.

Russell Wilson

[darrelgreenie]

..._{It's not like that would diminish anything Luck has accomplished}. Name me another QB that started his career with back to back 11-win seasons. Probably a small list.

I love it when you post stuff like this, it always brings a smile to face to read how much in the tank you are for Luck.

 

Oh, that short list includes Russell Wilson but that should come as no surprise since he's better then Luck in almost every metric you can find (except for the invented ones).

[Bubble Screen]

I love it when you post stuff like this, it always brings a smile to face to read how much in the tank you are for Luck.

Oh, that short list includes Russell Wilson but that should come as no surprise since he's better then Luck in almost every metric you can find (except for the invented ones).

Can't believe I forgot him. Even though that should probably come with an asterisk, given how great of a defense they have.

My point still stands though. Hard to diminish starting your career with back to back 11-win seasons.

Can you name anyone else? I'm drawing a blank.

Btw, you can't look solely at metrics and determine that Wilson is better than Luck. Remember, you already tried that, saying Tannehill was as good as Luck ROFL. There are other factors involved. Most importantly, the fact that Luck has been asked to do MUCH more than Wilson.

[darrelgreenie]

Can't believe I forgot him. Even though that should probably come with an asterisk, given how great of a defense they have.

Lol you can't mention a team stat like W/L record then whine about Russell having a great defense.

You could bring up individual stats but we already know how that comparison goes...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL5qYfoMsd0

dun-in schi dun-in

[Bubble Screen]

greenie: I take it you missed this quote earlier?...

"They say you can win with a young QB when you have a top-10 defense and a top-10 running game. Luck hasn't had either."

Edit: btw, check out my edit in my previous post. I'm never letting you live that Tannehill=Luck garbage down. You and Thekyle must be related LOL

[darrelgreenie]

Never let me live it down? I have not backed away from it.

I affirm it, I stand by it.

 

Put it in your sig for all I care. DG thinks Ryan Tannehill and Luck are on the same level. YES. 100%. All Day.

 

The differences?

-Ryan plays for a dysfunctional organization

-Luck has a MUCH better supporting cast

-last year Tannehill's OL fell apart

-Luck has more experience playing QB (b/c Ryan spent 2 seasons playing WR in college) but that gap is closing fast

 

And oh btw, PFF an advanced metric site used by NFL teams, which rates players by grading them independently of their surrounding talent graded Ryan Tannehill higher then Luck. So although I am very comfortable holding a contrarian opinion I can't in honesty pretend that I'm alone in that claim.

 

oh btw-

dun-in schi dun-in......................W-I-L-S-O-N!!!!

[Bubble Screen]

Never let me live it down? I have not backed away from it.

I affirm it, I stand by it.

Put it in your sig for all I care. DG thinks Ryan Tannehill and Luck are on the same level. YES. 100%. All Day.

The differences?

-Ryan plays for a dysfunctional organization

-Luck has a MUCH better supporting cast

-last year Tannehill's OL fell apart

-Luck has more experience playing QB (b/c Ryan spent 2 seasons playing WR in college) but that gap is closing fast

And oh btw, PFF an advanced metric site used by NFL teams, which rates players by grading them independently of their surrounding talent graded Ryan Tannehill higher then Luck. So although I am very comfortable holding a contrarian opinion I can't in honesty pretend that I'm alone in that claim.

So you're basically admitting you don't watch football? Because no one who's watched those two play can possibly think Tannehill is on Luck's level. You DO realize that stats are just a tool for evaluating players, and not the end-all be-all, right?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Tannehill is a superb athlete and he's making the best of a ****ty situation in Miami, no doubt.  But as a QB, he is not on the same level as Luck, Wilson, RG3, Kap, Newton, etc.  He's more of a utility guy that can play QB and succeed (see Tebow, Tim).  He is a project at QB, IMO.  

 

Who knows in a few years if he will transform into an above average QB in the NFL or not.  

[Bubble Screen]

Tannehill is a superb athlete and he's making the best of a ****ty situation in Miami, no doubt. But as a QB, he is not on the same level as Luck, Wilson, RG3, Kap, Newton, etc. He's more of a utility guy that can play QB and succeed (see Tebow, Tim). He is a project at QB, IMO.

Who knows in a few years if he will transform into an above average QB in the NFL or not.

Tannehill's best attribute is his taste in women.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Tannehill's best attribute is his taste in women.

It's definitely not playing the QB position.  He will be converted to WR within 3-5 years is my guess.

[darrelgreenie]

So you're basically admitting you don't watch football? Because no one who's watched those two play can possibly think Tannehill is on Luck's level. You DO realize that stats are just a tool for evaluating players, and not the end-all be-all, right?

Troll harder BS. I see you brought your troll brother along this time. I expect better trolling then that from you. We already know that regardless of how much football you think you watch it doesn't matter because you don't understand it.Your a more sophisticated troll that usually hides behind  easily disproven psuedo-stats. Tannehill's production puts him on Luck's level.

Lol, you talking to me about stats being a tool for evaluating players yet completely dismiss them when dun-in schi dun-in W-I-L-S-O-N is better then Luck in almost any stat you can find.

Stats are a tool except when they don't suit your opinion about Luck.

 

Do you have a direct response to profootball focus grading Tannehill out ahead of Luck?............

[Thekyle1591]

God DG, just watch some football! I know all the statistical evidence from well respected sites says one thing, but believe me if you actually watch the game, you'll see that Luck is a top 5 qb in the league. Just don't ask me to back it up with anything but opinion, because I have nothing. Oh well. LOL.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Troll harder BS. I see you brought your troll brother along this time. I expect better trolling then that from you. We already know that regardless of how much football you think you watch it doesn't matter because you don't understand it.Your a more sophisticated troll that usually hides behind  easily disproven psuedo-stats. Tannehill's production puts him on Luck's level.

Lol, you talking to me about stats being a tool for evaluating players yet completely dismiss them when dun-in schi dun-in W-I-L-S-O-N is better then Luck in almost any stat you can find.

Stats are a tool except when they don't suit your opinion about Luck.

 

Do you have a direct response to profootball focus grading Tannehill out ahead of Luck?............

Troll brother?  Not sure why you think my response to a thread that I saw on my own and responded to was a troll response.  Why?  Because I don't agree with the rankings that were presented?

 

If you honestly think that Ryan Tannehill is better than Andrew Luck, I have some prime land in Florida to sell you.  Tannehill is not on Luck's level, not now, not before and most likely not ever.  Same goes with the other QBs (Kap, Newton, Wilson, RGIII, etc.).  I said Tannehill is making the best of a ****ty situation.  But he is a project, IMO.  

[darrelgreenie]

 'If you think....' Is a poorly disguised strawman when YOU know exactly what I think because I stated just a few posts ago.

 

That's a trolltastic tactic.