USA Today - 2016 NFL QB Rankings

[superozman]

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/08/nfl-quarterback-rankings-2016

"Ranking Every NFL Starting Quarterback, 1 through 32

Welcome to For the Win’s ranking of all 32 NFL starting quarterbacks. These rankings are based entirely on film study, with each passer being graded on six attributes: Accuracy, arm strength, athleticism, pocket presence, field vision and pre-snap ability. For a more thorough explanation of the grading..."

_______________

 

As I post, I see i wasn't the only one reading USA today, today!  However, I got a little angry reading this at first.  I'm zeroing on KC8's accuracy notated in the article.  As soon as he was ranked 24 (overall) vs. Sam Bradford 22 (overall), and accuracy was KC8 - 82 vs. SB8 - 87....i lost all respect.  

My point in sharing this, is while I was angered at first to see KC8 so low, I slowly realized that he's had such a small window of doing well.  I also realize that we aren't getting any national favors by people boasting about the team.  My hate started to turn into why I am loving everything going into this season so far.  So many writers have short changed (IMO) KC8's rating in almost all areas, that i've very excited to see if he can have a "You Like That Moment" all season long on the field to show these writers/experts what he can do.

(By the way, can anyone find, or know where that article is that called out the error made by writers on KC8's accuracy?  I wanted to link it, but can't find it.  It was about how a radio show talked to the one writer, called the writer out on his facts, and they later said that instead of 28/50, Kirk was really 15/50?)

 

 

[Vanguard]

Kirk doesn't get enough respect IMO.  I'm not saying he's top 10, but he's at least top 20.

[ThomasTomasz]

Cousins has a lot left to prove after a small elite stretch from last season.  I do believe he will continue to do well, but it's such a small sample size that I can
't blame people in the media for being pessimistic in regards to him. 

[Taco Bell]

I think there are a bunch of players to rearrange in that bottom half of the rankings.  I assume that these lower ranked QBs, based on their method, vary wildly due to either being positively or negatively influenced by teammates, but to remove all "result" instead of "process" probably removes certain plays that might have fell more in a gray area that don't tell the whole story, but is a good rule of thumb to abide by surely.

I would rank it like this

RG3 (he's the only one that truly doesn't belong because he can't even physically survive passing downs the last time we saw him), Gabbert, Goff, Sanchez, Fitz, Osweiler, Bridgewater (mindboggingly too high), Bradford (way too high), Mariota, Taylor, Kirk, Bortles, Jameis (way too low), Tannehill, Alex Smith, Carr, and Flacco for that bottom region... Once you hit Flacco, there's no one to argue about too far one way or the other really (other than Carson Palmer being way too high)

I think Bridgewater and Palmer are great examples of this grading format being skewed towards great gameplans - which -  I think if Bridgewater had to put the team on his back instead of be in a well protected offense, he would fall to the pack, and same for Palmer, proportionately in his range.  That's the thing though, due to a crop of quality QB drafts since 2011, we actually don't get to truly "poor" quarterbacking now until that 30th range.  A couple years ago, 15-18 was already in the scary bad range.

As far as Cousins, you need that 2nd year in a row before you join the "trust" club, just like how performing artists / musicians need that 2nd album to solidify them permanently.  I like him more than Bortles, but it's hard to deny the "upside" factor for Blake, and then I think Teddy and Bradford should be lower than a few guys, beyond Cousins.  If I was going full homer, I'd have him between Alex and Carr. 

[Warhead36]

As soon as I saw Cousins at 24th, behind QB gods like Sam Bradford and Tyrod Taylor, I immediately closed the page.

[Wildbunny]

At least you read the page until the 24th spot 

[Koolblue13]

Who gives a ****. He had one small great stretch against some questionable teams. GM didn't want to pay him like he was better than that.

We'll find out soon enough how good he is.

As big of a believer as I am, our QB certainly looked a hell of a lot better when we had one of the best TEs and WRs, as well as a capable RB (PT) on the field.

Nobody was chiseling his bust without them.

[TimmySmith]

Skip the rankings and go straight to the grading process.  The whole thing is nonsense.

[Destino]

Teddy Bridgewater at 18 and Ryan Tannehill at 18 and 17?  Both of them are a mediocre season away from their teams drafting replacements.  

 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

The criteria they used was 20% Accuracy, 15% Arm Strength, 10% Athleticism, 20% Pocket Presence, 20% Field Vision, 15% Pre-Snap.  Kirk scored 82, 83, 77, 75, 80, 75 respectively.  

I read the breakdown of what they were looking for in each category and I don't necessarily agree with all of it.  It's like this, if your QB is accurate (Kirk was at the top of % completion with 69.8%) and they are putting up points in the air (ranked 12th in total passing TDs w/29) and keeping the INTs somewhat in check (had 11 INTs) and their overall QB rating was 5th highest and only behind Wilson, Dalton, Palmer, Brady.  

Then you have a QB that is better than the "24th ranked QB on some list".  Where should he rank?  I give Kirk the benefit of the doubt as I try to ignore the games he started/played in prior to last season because that was the first time he got to be "the guy".  With that small sample size and given the teams we beat weren't all that great (I felt we beat teams we should have beat - and we still get flack for it), I'd say he should fall in the middle of the pack around #16.  

 

[Taylor 36]

3 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

As big of a believer as I am, our QB certainly looked a hell of a lot better when we had one of the best TEs and WRs, as well as a capable RB (PT) on the field.

Nobody was chiseling his bust without them.

You could say that about almost any QB though.  It is rare that a QB is seen as elite or even in the upper tier without having pieces around him to help him out.  It is one reason why Brady and Peyton and Marino get so much praise.  Those guys could make it happen regardless of who they had at WR, TE, or RB.  Not many others could/can.

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Taylor 36 said:

You could say that about almost any QB though.  It is rare that a QB is seen as elite or even in the upper tier without having pieces around him to help him out.  It is one reason why Brady and Peyton and Marino get so much praise.  Those guys could make it happen regardless of who they had at WR, TE, or RB.  Not many others could/can.

That's fine and maybe Kirk will become elite, maybe not.

But there's no reason to give 2 ****s about where he's ranked.

Thank ****ing god they start playing tonight, so we don't have to talk about speculation and bull**** anymore.

[Audible_Red40]

USA today got exactly what they are looking for.  Clicks and discussions.

Nothing to see here.

[Probos]

Way too many of you get wrapped around the axle with these pointless "rankings".  So many sites are just trolling for clicks, and honestly, why do I care what Steve Ruiz has to say about anything? 

Kirk still has a lot to prove IMO.  He had a really nice 10 game stretch at the end of last season.  Lets see if he can continue to get better and help the team win football games.

[CBass1724]

I don't really care about these dumb rankings that are done by the national media.  You know nothing, national media (Jon Snow).

What I'm pumped about is that Kirk looked pretty damn good last year during our run to the playoffs and I don't see him regressing going into this season.  We have a legit starting QB going into his 3rd year in the SAME SYSTEM with THE SAME COACHING STAFF. 

You can't sleep on those last 2 things because continuity year to year in the NFL is invaluable.  He's already pretty good.  When the decisions become second nature and there is less thinking involved -- this is when he is supposed to take the next step towards greatness.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

4 hours ago, Koolblue13 said:

Who gives a ****. He had one small great stretch against some questionable teams. GM didn't want to pay him like he was better than that.

We'll find out soon enough how good he is.

As big of a believer as I am, our QB certainly looked a hell of a lot better when we had one of the best TEs and WRs, as well as a capable RB (PT) on the field.

Nobody was chiseling his bust without them.

 

Cousins didn't start to look good until he had a "capable" RB on the field?...

Then he hasn't looked good yet lol...

[Llevron]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

Teddy Bridgewater at 18 and Ryan Tannehill at 18 and 17?  Both of them are a mediocre season away from their teams drafting replacements.  

 

 

So are we though, truthfully. One OK season with what we have on the field and Cuz is going to see a new face in the QB room. 

On the rankings.....20 anything is too low for the dude. He is at least 10 15 in my opinion. And i really feel like that's all we need with the weapons we have.  

[Koolblue13]

1 hour ago, Califan007 said:

 

Cousins didn't start to look good until he had a "capable" RB on the field?...

Then he hasn't looked good yet lol...

Agreed

But PT was our best back last year and all three things happened right around the time he took off. Not a coincidence.

[RVAskins]

As a great football mind once said..."Just win baby".

Ok, maybe Al Davis wasn't great, but he hit the nail on the head.

[ncr2h]

12 hours ago, Taco Bell said:

As far as Cousins, you need that 2nd year in a row before you join the "trust" club, just like how performing artists / musicians need that 2nd album to solidify them permanently.  I like him more than Bortles, but it's hard to deny the "upside" factor for Blake, and then I think Teddy and Bradford should be lower than a few guys, beyond Cousins.  If I was going full homer, I'd have him between Alex and Carr. 

 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the "sample size" argument bugs me.  Cousins has started fewer games than Carr, Bortles, and Bridgewater.  If we define a "good game" as a game in which the QB attempted at least 15 passes and achieved an Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt of 8.0 or greater, here is how each of those QBs stack up:

 

Cousins - 11 good games out of 28 total (39%)

Bridgewater - 7 good games out of 29 total (24%)

Carr - 6 good games out of 32 total (19%)

Bortles - 5 good games out of 30 total (17%)

 

For some perspective, Cousins' "good games" according to this metric were: Cleveland, Jacksonville, Philly 2014, Seattle 2014, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, NYG #2 2015, Chicago, Buffalo, Philly #2 2015, and Dallas #2 2015.  If you think that threshold is too low, remember that all 4 QBs are being compared with the exact same threshold.

 

If we move the threshold for "good game" down to 7.0 ANY/A, rankings are as follows:

Cousins - 13 good games (46%)

Bridgewater - 9 good games (31%)

Carr - 9 good games (28%)

Bortles - 6 good games (20%)

 

What if we bump the threshold up?  Let's say a QB has an outstanding game if he posts an ANY/A of 9.0 or better.  For Cousins, this would be Philly 2014, Tampa Bay, New Orleans, NYG #2 2015, Buffalo, Philly #2 2015, and Dallas #2 2015. All very, very good games by Cousins.  Here's how the QBs stack up:

Cousins - 7 outstanding games (25%)

Bridgewater - 6 outstanding games (21%)

Carr - 6 outstanding games (19%)

Bortles - 5 outstanding games (17%)

 

Cousins also has 3 games of ANY/A of 13.0 or better.  The other 3 QBs combined have just 1.  So it's weird that Cousins would need a larger sample size, but those other guys wouldn't.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

33 minutes ago, Koolblue13 said:

Agreed

But PT was our best back last year and all three things happened right around the time he took off. Not a coincidence.

 

Oh, I thought "PT" meant "part time" lol...like Cousins had a capable RB on the field at least part of the time lol...

But Thomas only played the last 4 games, right?...KC looked impressive way before then.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

8 minutes ago, ncr2h said:

 

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but the "sample size" argument bugs me.  Cousins has started fewer games than Carr, Bortles, and Bridgewater.  If we define a "good game" as a game in which the QB attempted at least 15 passes and achieved an Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt of 8.0 or greater...

 

Thats not a very good definition of a "good game", though...

[Koolblue13]

Just now, Califan007 said:

 

Oh, I thought "PT" meant "part time" lol...like Cousins had a capable RB on the field at least part of the time lol...

But Thomas only played the last 4 games, right?...KC looked impressive way before then.

True, but the offense was really on fire then.

Probably shouldn't of even added him to my comment. Superstar TE and WR are probably enough.

We went from Tom Compton at TE, to Reed. I mean, you don't see a more drastic jump.

[Llevron]

I know its hard for me to be unbiased about Cuz because im a fan of the Skins, but I really cant take a guy seriously if he can place 20 other QBs in the league over him after the season he just had. 

I do understand wanting to see it again But at some point you have to be judged on your most recent performance. And his was closet to spectacular.  

[ncr2h]

4 hours ago, Califan007 said:

 

Thats not a very good definition of a "good game", though...

 

I'm not claiming it's perfect, but any flaw that you have with the metric is equally applicable to all QBs - if the bar is being set too low, why is the inferior QB hitting it at a rate that is far and away higher than the better prospects?

 

Here's another metric from a different angle.

 

Let's call a "good game" one in which the QB meets all of the following criteria:

1. Throws for at least 250 yards

2. Throws for at least 2 TDs

3.  Has more throwing TDs than INTs

4.  Wins the game

 

Cousins, who has started fewer games than any of these other QBs (Bortles, Carr, Bridge), by himself has as many such games (5) as the 3 other QBs combined (5 - none have more than 2).  Keep in mind this metric is less friendly to Cousins than the other QBs, as Cousins has as many rushing TDs as the other 3 QBs combined, and rushing QBs are not included in the metric.  If we adjust criteria 2 and 3 to give credit for both passing and rushing TDs, Cousins has 8 "good games" and the other 3 QBs still combine for just 5.

 

I think the main takeaway is that pretty much any way you look at these 4 QBs' track records, Cousins has shown much more.  It's obvious that Cousins is being punished at least in part for his draft position.  Meaning, analysts are placing more emphasis on college games from 5 years ago than they are placing on NFL games from the past 2 years.