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

[Bubble Screen]

Its actually not we were talking about WAR and the other statistics that you thought were important. As you would say, keep making up stories.

Go ahead and post the Dwayne Allen convo, but be sure to include all the supporting data I listed as well as the Jordan Reed comp. Man BS, this just hasn't been a good week for you has it?

We most definitely were discussing the best young pitchers in the game when I said that. You need to stop quoting stuff that is out of context.

And you are delusional: bad week for me? You're the one that was getting destroyed in the MLB thread , and now here. You're the guy that thinks Dwayne Allen was the 2nd best TE in football his rookie season LOL. smh

[Thekyle1591]

We most definitely were discussing the best young pitchers in the game when I said that. You need to stop quoting stuff that is out of context.

And you are delusional: bad week for me? You're the one that was getting destroyed in the MLB thread , and now here. You're the guy that thinks Dwayne Allen was the 2nd best TE in football his rookie season LOL. smh

LOL! You can't even admit when you're wrong even when anyone can go back and look at it and see that I'm right. My god.

And yeah, I provided a plethora of evidence while you did nothing but dismiss it and tell me I'm wrong because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[Warhead36]

Luck is a monster. You're football ignorant if you'd take Tannehil over him. Really the only guy you'd consider is RG3 IF he returns to 2012 form and IF he proves he can develop as a pocket passer, but even then I'd probably take Luck since he doesn't have the injury history.

 

Wilson is just a game manager and Kaepernick has significant flaws that get exposed anytime he actually has to carry his team. Without Luck the Colts are lucky to go 4-12.

 

Newton I'm still not sold on. The Panthers D carried them last year.

 

I value Luck highly because he can put a team on his back and carry them. I don't mind the turnovers as much because he has to consistently make tough throws to give his team a chance.

[Bacon]

Anyone notice the antagonistic Luck homer that got banned in that thread? 

[Warhead36]

I'd value the young QBs like this:

 

1. Luck

2. RG3

3. Newton

4. Wilson

5. Kaepernick

6. Tannehill

 

But this is a big show me year for RG3. I am working under the assumption he returns to his 2012 form but becomes a better passer due to coaching and more weapons around him.

[darrelgreenie]

BS-

I can't help your inability to understand or your purposeful misrepresentations.

My points have been clearly stated. Maybe you should try to read them slowly or something? Idk

The same rankings you constantly refer are ranked by tier=level BUT also ranked within those tiers.

Don't you get tired of getting called on all your BS?

[Bubble Screen]

Anyone notice the antagonistic Luck homer that got banned in that thread?

"Homer?"Are you referring to technomusic? He was anything BUT a Luck homer. He was a Panther fan that other Panther fans said was banned at their site for constantly posting racist crap. He also had previously been banned here before under a different SN.

[Bacon]

"Homer?"Are you referring to technomusic? He was anything BUT a Luck homer. He was a Panther fan that other Panther fans said was banned at their site for constantly posting racist crap. He also had previously been banned here before under a different SN.

No, I'm referring to rko369.

[Bubble Screen]

Ranking the QBs based on production (like the OP/author) does is different from ranking them QBs based on 'potential/upside/talent'

My ranking, based on yet another criteria, combines both production and potential

Which QB would I choose to build a team around:

1) Cam Newton

2) Robert Griffin

3) Russell Wilson

4) Andrew Luck

5) Kaep

6) Tannehill

7) Dalton

Either way that's a good crop of young QBs.

Read it and weep...

"ESPN recently polled over 320 NFL players (10 per team) about various things, and one of them was the question, "if you could start your team with one player, who would it be?"

First among players was Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning, who got 62 votes (or 19%). Second was Colts quarterback Andrew Luck with 56 votes. That places Luck ahead of players like Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers and Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, too.

ESPN's Colts beat reporter, Mike Wells, wrote of Luck ranking second in the voting:

"I'm not surprised that so many players selected Luck. He simply knows how to win, he goes about his business the right way and he'll be leading the Colts for at least the next decade. Punter Pat McAfee once told me that other cities have more to offer when it comes to nightlife or beaches, but if a free agent wants to win he'll come to Indianapolis because of Luck.

McAfee is right."

I'm not surprised either. But I wouldn't agree with it completely. Realize that I'm one of the biggest Peyton Manning fans you will find, but I would take Andrew Luck over Peyton Manning if I were starting a team right now. Why? Because I'd want my team to still be competitive in 2020. By that time, Manning - in my opinion the greatest player in NFL history - will be sitting on his couch watching football while Luck will hopefully be one of the best players in the NFL still.

I understand why the players choose Manning. They all have a "win now" mentality, and that's good. They would take the quarterback that gives them the best chance to win now, because everybody in the NFL knows that it could end at any moment. From a players' standpoint, the selection makes sense. But from my perspective, I'd take the 24-year old Luck over the 37-year old Manning if I were starting a team.

Either way, for Luck to be ranked second by his peers is a tremendous recognition in itself."

[ILikeBilly]

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

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.

This will be my last response to this, but feel free to continue.  The Colts team from years 1,2 and 3 of the 10+ games won didn't resemble the teams from years 4, 5 and 6 and they didn't resemble the teams for years 7, 8, 9..... Do you get it?  Teams change and I wouldn't expect the team to resemble the team from 3 years earlier.  It is still the colt's organization and division. 

 

PS - NFL teams are so close skill wise and it is hard to win games.  It doesn't take much (a few bad calls on 3rd down or something) to be the difference in a game.  You must admit that a team ready to dump Manning having a majorly bad season just in time to draft Luck and then go right back to their winning ways is a pretty big coincidence. 

. 

[Bubble Screen]

Your comments about tanking make no sense. I'm not responding to that garbage. Quite frankly, even if the Colts 'were' tanking, it doesn't diminish anything Luck has accomplished. It's a silly conversation.

And the Colts didn't get rid of Manning because of "a majorly bad season." They got rid of him because of his age and the uncertainty of his injury. That, and they felt Luck was a can't-miss prospect (they were right).

[Warhead36]

The Colts would be the worst team in the league without Luck.

[Thekyle1591]

The Colts would be the worst team in the league without Luck.

If they didn't have Luck they'd have Peyton Manning. So I don't think so.

[Switchgear]

My only problem with Cam, prior to last year, was that he put up great numbers, but didn't win games.

I fail to see your point?

Tannehill=Luck? LMAO

Clueless.

 

 

 

No one has taken me up on my challenge to tell me what's been so bad about Cam mechanically to show he's not doing well OR why he IS doing well...

 

 

1. Terrible foot work

2. Can't read defenses

3. Stares down his intended WR

4. Holds onto ball too long

I realize you said mechanically, but part of his problems are mental.

 

[Bubble Screen]

I guess you missed the part where I said "prior to last year"? Because those were issues of Cam's at that time.

I live here, bro. I follow the guy closer than most. Those were problems a lot of his OWN fans had with him (at that time).

[Taylor703]

The Colts would be the worst team in the league without Luck.

Oh stop. This is ridiculous.

[Switchgear]

I guess you missed the part where I said "prior to last year"? Because those were issues of Cam's at that time.

I live here, bro. I follow the guy closer than most. Those were problems a lot of his OWN fans had with him (at that time).

 

If you'll notice, "bro", you said that in October 2013, more than a month into last season. You kept dogging Newton in that thread for the rest of the season. When did he fix those issues?

[Bubble Screen]

If you'll notice, "bro", you said that in October 2013, more than a month into last season. You kept dogging Newton in that thread for the rest of the season. When did he fix those issues?

Not true. My main problem with him (on the field) had always been that he put up a lot of stats, but didn't win games. To his credit, he improved upon those things I listed and, what do you know, he started winning games.

It also didn't hurt that he had a top 3 defense in the NFL last year.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

If you'll notice, "bro", you said that in October 2013, more than a month into last season. You kept dogging Newton in that thread for the rest of the season. When did he fix those issues?

When he posted that on October 12th last year, the Panthers were 1-3 and he was not playing that consistent at all.  I live here too and it looked at that point they were off to a 4-6 win season at best.

 

And to give you an example from last year. They had their bye week in week 4, played the Cards in Week 5 and suffered a loss.  Cam's stats that game, 308 yards passing, no TDs, 3 INTs, got sacked 7 times for a loss of 50 yards.  

 

He looked bad week 1, average week 2, great week 3, bad week 5.  

[abdcskins]

Is there an answer other than Andrew Luck?

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Is there an answer other than Andrew Luck?

When comparing to Tanehill, in my opinion there are 25 other answers right now.  

[sportjunkie07]

This thread is hilarious. Bubble you are so blinded by your homerism toward luck that you can't have a rational conversation.

Personally I like luck. In fact I like him a lot, and he'd be on the short list of young qbs I'd want to start my team with. I dont think he is near elite though. He benefits and will continue to benefit from a weak division, which will mask his mistakes from most people as it has in the past.

I cant disagree too much with the material in the op.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

This thread is hilarious. Bubble you are so blinded by your homerism toward luck that you can't have a rational conversation.

Personally I like luck. In fact I like him a lot, and he'd be on the short list of young qbs I'd want to start my team with. I dont think he is near elite though. He benefits and will continue to benefit from a weak division, which will mask his mistakes from most people as it has in the past.

I cant disagree too much with the material in the op.

His division is week, but he has performed well against the better teams in the league.  So, the Bills and Jets are powerhouses?    Again, I see potential and upside in Tannehill, but I still think he is a project QB.  

 

My personal opinion is that he will not be a starting QB in 3 years.  I might be wrong and if so, I'll gladly eat crow.  There have been a ton of QBs that came into the league with tons of potential that were journyman QBs when it's all said and done, and there is nothing wrong with that either.

[Bubble Screen]

This thread is hilarious. Bubble you are so blinded by your homerism toward luck that you can't have a rational conversation.

Personally I like luck. In fact I like him a lot, and he'd be on the short list of young qbs I'd want to start my team with. I dont think he is near elite though. He benefits and will continue to benefit from a weak division, which will mask his mistakes from most people as it has in the past.

I cant disagree too much with the material in the op.

Blinded by my homerism for Luck? I'm a 35+ year 'Redskins' fan. And I'm an out of market fan who's paid $200-300+ for the last 15 years to follow my team. So me being a "Luck-homer" doesn't quite fit your narrative, huh.

And I'm sure those 26 coaches, GMs, and execs factored in what division he plays in when they voted him an elite QB.

Also, 320 players (10 from each team) recently voted Luck second of ALL QBs they'd choose to start a team with. I guess all those guys are "homers", too?

Have a nice day, sir.

[Fred Jones]

Whether Luck is or is not an elite QB is not really the basic fundamental point anymore.  Your continued homerism towards Luck has blinded you so that you can't step back and see what you write.

 

The word fixated and obsessive is what I would describe what you have become.  But, go ahead and comment that you are not just like you have done with your recent posts.