What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

[DYNASTY] 2011 Top 20 QB Rankings (1 Viewer)

EBF

Footballguy
Got bored and thought I'd slap together some QB rankings. I think it's an interesting time for QBs with some established stars starting to get up there in years and some young guns making a case for themselves.

1. Aaron Rodgers, Packers - Excellent every season and still in the midst of his prime. Concussions are a slight concern.

2. Philip Rivers, Chargers - Three straight seasons of excellence in FF and NFL terms. Stats might dip as running game improves.

3. Peyton Manning, Colts - Remains a solid bet for top 5 QB production every season.

4. Tom Brady, Patriots - Improved his TD totals from 2009 and still looks like a top redraft option.

5. Drew Brees, Saints - Regressed a bit after spectacular 2008 and 2009. Slight frame coupled with high number of attempts and fairly advanced age raises some doubts about his long term outlook.

6. Michael Vick, Eagles - Had a dominant season in which his passing stats far exceeded his career averages in every category. Some questions going forward: was 2010 a fluke? How will his advancing age impact his dynamic running skills? He's clearly a top option if you're looking for an immediate difference maker in redraft, but he's far less proven than the guys ranked above him.

7. Ben Roethlisberger, Steelers - Has settled in as a reliable top 6-8 FF QB. Takes a lot of punishment due to supporting cast and playing style, but should still have 2-3 good years left at a minimum.

8. Tony Romo, Cowboys - Was having a fairly mediocre season even before his injuries. Still, he has a long track record of solid production and is still in the prime of his career at just 31 years old next season.

9. Sam Bradford, Rams - Played well when you consider his lack of experience and his laughable supporting cast. Needs to cut down on INTs and increase his yards per attempt next season. He's worth a shot here because of his upside. I kind of feel like he has a chance to be dominant, so I'd be reluctant to trade him, even for a vet like Romo or Brees.

10. Matt Schaub, Texans - Might not be a world beater, but his stats have been rock solid ever since he took over the starting job. There's no good reason why he can't give us 3-4 more years of top 10 production.

11. Josh Freeman, Buccaneers - Progressing nicely and seems to have lapped his 2009 draftmates, at least for now.

12. Matt Ryan, Falcons - Ryan has become a solid NFL starter, but his stats don't exactly scream superstar. His yards per attempt average has been poor each of the past two seasons. On the plus side of things, he improved his accuracy and cut down on turnovers in 2010.

13. Eli Manning, Giants - At this point you know what you're getting with Eli. He threw an alarmingly high number of interceptions this season, but still managed to top 4000 passing yards and 25 passing TDs for the second consecutive season. He's a fringe QB1 for FF leagues and should remain so for a few more years.

14. Jay Cutler, Bears - Cutler is much like Eli and Flacco. He's good, but not elite. At this point there's little mystery to him. He's going to average about 7.5 yards per attempt and toss 20-25 TDs with more than a few interceptions mixed in.

15. Joe Flacco, Ravens - After three seasons, I feel like we have a pretty good read on Joe Flacco. He's a good, but not great QB who will average about 7.2-7.5 yards per attempt per season with something in the neighborhood of 3600-3800 passing yards and 20-25 TDs. That's not bad, but it's nothing to get excited about. In FF terms, Flacco is imminently replaceable.

16. Mark Sanchez, Jets - Sanchez is once again guiding his team to a deep playoff run, but his regular season stats showed minimal improvement between 2009 and 2010. He's still inaccurate with a low yards per attempt average. On the other hand, he cut down on the turnovers this season. His strong postseason showings will ensure that his job security remains high, but another year of mediocre stats will paint a dreary picture about his long term FF prognosis.

17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.

18. Colt McCoy, Browns - You have to consider McCoy's rookie season an overall success. He had a handful of promising games and finished with respectable stats for a rookie on a terrible team. 60.8% completions and 7.1 yards per attempt puts him right on par with guys like Palmer and Cassel. He needs to cut down on the interceptions next year and prove that his slight frame can handle the rigors of the NFL. It wouldn't hurt if Cleveland gave him something resembling an NFL receiving corps.

19. Tim Tebow, Broncos - Tebow hasn't thrown enough NFL passes to yield concrete conclusions, but his late season audition provided some cause for optimism. He had a lofty yards per attempt average and generally played well enough to keep Denver competitive.

20. Kyle Orton, Broncos - Orton is a mediocrity on par with David Garrard, Carson Palmer, and Matt Cassel. These guys are strictly backup material for FF purposes and lack the upside of younger players who offer more potential to improve.

Random thoughts:

- It's hard to say where the rookie trio of Mallett/Newton/Gabbert fits into the equation without first seeing how high they go in the draft and which team drafts them. I don't see any of them ranking higher than 12th on this list. There's a lot of uncertainty once you get outside the top 10 though. I wouldn't really take exception to gambling on one of them over the likes of Flacco or Cutler since those guys are established mediocrities.

- If you happen to play in a developmental league and you have a shot at Andrew Luck, I'd say he's about equivalent in value to Bradford. I see him becoming a very successful starter at the next level.

- Kevin Kolb and Matt Flynn are two backups who seemingly have starter potential. My beef with Kolb is that his 2010 performance was very mediocre even though he was playing in a friendly system alongside some dynamic offensive talent. Vick was infinitely better with the same supporting cast, which doesn't bode well for Kolb. As for Flynn, he just hasn't played much. If a team like San Francisco goes out and gets him then he would suddenly become a very interesting sleeper candidate. That seems unlikely though.

- Carson Palmer and Donovan McNabb have seen their stars fall considerably in recent seasons. Palmer has been poor for two consecutive seasons, despite the fact that the Bengals went out and added a lot of playmakers in the passing game during the offseason. The glimmers of greatness that Palmer showed early in his career are distant memories at this point. I'm a little more optimistic about McNabb's chances for a revival, but it doesn't seem likely in Washington. He was totally mediocre this season and will probably need a change of scenery to bounce back. He turns 35 next season, so it might be the case that he's simply reached his expiration date.

- I have run out of patience with Chad Henne, Trent Edwards, and Alex Smith. They stink.

- Buffalo, Miami, Tennessee, Minnesota, Carolina, Arizona, and San Francisco have truly dire QB situations. I'd pick them as the frontunners to acquire a high profile QB in the offseason or to "earn" the 1st pick in the 2012 NFL draft if they don't. Other QB-starved teams like Oakland, Washington, Cleveland, and Cincinnati will probably scrape their way to a few wins. I actually think the Panthers have a great chance to end up with the #1 pick again next year, partially because their team is awful and partially because their division is brutal. Most of the other dreadful teams have at least one cupcake in their division, increasing the odds of fluke wins.

 
17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.
I would have to disagree about this EBF.

This season (although brief) Staffords line was: 57/96 (59%), 535 yards, 6 TDs/1 INT in two and a half games.

One of those games was against the Jets, in which he looked under control and poised and had a very good game. He looked light years better than his rookie year.

Granted I am a homer, and I am heavily invested in Stafford from a dynasty perspective, but I don't think the ability is in question. The question with Stafford is simply if he has had bad luck with injuries, or if he is injury prone.

Overall nice list, nothing I disagree with too strongly.

 
I think Cutler is too low...if he had some better receivers in there, he would be top-10 for sure. As it is, he is probably top-10 already.

 
17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.
I would have to disagree about this EBF.

This season (although brief) Staffords line was: 57/96 (59%), 535 yards, 6 TDs/1 INT in two and a half games.

One of those games was against the Jets, in which he looked under control and poised and had a very good game. He looked light years better than his rookie year.

Granted I am a homer, and I am heavily invested in Stafford from a dynasty perspective, but I don't think the ability is in question. The question with Stafford is simply if he has had bad luck with injuries, or if he is injury prone.

Overall nice list, nothing I disagree with too strongly.
He certainly has the upside to smash the ranking I've given him. My problem with Stafford is that I never felt he had elite intangibles. Even in college I felt he was more along the lines of a Carson Palmer/Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler type of QB. A guy with top shelf physical talent who lacks that special something upstairs. That factored heavily into my ranking.

 
I think Cutler is too low...if he had some better receivers in there, he would be top-10 for sure. As it is, he is probably top-10 already.
I had the same gut feeling until I went back and looked at his stats. Throwing out his rookie year, here's what he has done in the NFL:2010 - 60.4% completions, 7.6 yards per attempt, 1.4 to 1 TD/INT ratio

2009 - 60.5 % completions, 6.6 yards per attempt, 1.0 to 1 TD/INT ratio

2008 - 62.3% completions, 7.3 yards per attempt, 1.4 to 1 TD/INT ratio

2007 - 63.6% completions, 7.5 yards per attempt, 1.4 to 1 TD/INT ratio

Aside from a down year in 2009, he has been remarkably consistent regardless of his supporting cast. It feels like we can expect roughly the same type of production every season, with the total yards and TDs only varying as a factor of passing attempts.

I think people who play FF tend to look at the year end totals rather than the averages when evaluating QB performance. This leads to some faulty conclusions. Cutler threw for 4526 yards and 25 TDs in 2008. On paper that was a big leap forward from his 2007 totals of 3497 passing yards and 20 TDs. Someone operating from a FF perspective might jump to the conclusion that Cutler improved between 2007 and 2008. In reality, his performance was about the same both seasons. The only difference is that he had almost 150 more pass attempts in 2008.

I think it's wise to look at a QB in terms of his per throw performance. When you do this with Cutler, you see that he has pretty much been the same guy since 2007.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very nice list. I'm not sure where I'd slot Vick in, but other than that the only thing I'd disagree about is Roethlisberger. He's matched Manning, Brady and Brees in PPG over the last two seasons and is 3-5 years younger. I'd move him to #3.

Especially like the call on Ryan, Flacco and Stafford. Plus having Colt McCoy at #18.

 
I think you have Orton too low. He has been a top twenty quarterback the last three seasons and only had a decent receiver (Marshall 09) to throw to once.

 
17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.
I would have to disagree about this EBF.

This season (although brief) Staffords line was: 57/96 (59%), 535 yards, 6 TDs/1 INT in two and a half games.

One of those games was against the Jets, in which he looked under control and poised and had a very good game. He looked light years better than his rookie year.

Granted I am a homer, and I am heavily invested in Stafford from a dynasty perspective, but I don't think the ability is in question. The question with Stafford is simply if he has had bad luck with injuries, or if he is injury prone.

Overall nice list, nothing I disagree with too strongly.
He certainly has the upside to smash the ranking I've given him. My problem with Stafford is that I never felt he had elite intangibles. Even in college I felt he was more along the lines of a Carson Palmer/Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler type of QB. A guy with top shelf physical talent who lacks that special something upstairs. That factored heavily into my ranking.
This last part seems more media driven than anything else, kinda like drinking the cool aid they are serving. I'm not a Cutler fan, but if you're allowing the garbage the media spouts about these guys to "heavily factor" your rankings, then the rankings aren't very good.
 
Great list...hard to disagree with anything. The QB depth is as strong as I can remember.

If you get bored again, and RB list would be cool :thumbup: :towelwave:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.
I would have to disagree about this EBF.

This season (although brief) Staffords line was: 57/96 (59%), 535 yards, 6 TDs/1 INT in two and a half games.

One of those games was against the Jets, in which he looked under control and poised and had a very good game. He looked light years better than his rookie year.

Granted I am a homer, and I am heavily invested in Stafford from a dynasty perspective, but I don't think the ability is in question. The question with Stafford is simply if he has had bad luck with injuries, or if he is injury prone.

Overall nice list, nothing I disagree with too strongly.
Completely agree. Of the young QBs, the only one I'd rather own is Bradford. And even that is really close. I'm a believer.....let's just hope he can shake the injuries.
 
I think you have Orton too low. He has been a top twenty quarterback the last three seasons and only had a decent receiver (Marshall 09) to throw to once.
Actually, Orton had the 8th most points per game last year. and was number 16 overall, despite missing the last 3 games.But at this point, we have to wait and see where he goes before we can move him around the rankings.He's currently a backup, but due to the dire situations of so many teams, I have no doubt that he'll be someone's starting QB in 2011.
 
How about Matt Cassel? 27TD / 10 INT / 3200 YDS. Not too bad for his 2nd season in KC. He should continue to expand on these numbers with more experience and the weapons he has in KC.

I would place him above Tebow and McCoy.

 
How about Matt Cassel? 27TD / 10 INT / 3200 YDS. Not too bad for his 2nd season in KC. He should continue to expand on these numbers with more experience and the weapons he has in KC. I would place him above Tebow and McCoy.
yet another o-coordinator to KC next year. new system brings uncertainty.
 
I think you have Orton too low. He has been a top twenty quarterback the last three seasons and only had a decent receiver (Marshall 09) to throw to once.
Actually, Orton had the 8th most points per game last year. and was number 16 overall, despite missing the last 3 games.But at this point, we have to wait and see where he goes before we can move him around the rankings.He's currently a backup, but due to the dire situations of so many teams, I have no doubt that he'll be someone's starting QB in 2011.
Exactly. He's been throwing to a bunch of jokers for three years (excepting Marshall) and still did well. He should be as good (or better) if he's with SF (Davis, Crabtree), Arizona (Fitz), Tennessee (CJ, Britt)...there are a number of spots he could succeed pretty quickly.
 
I think you have Orton too low. He has been a top twenty quarterback the last three seasons and only had a decent receiver (Marshall 09) to throw to once.
Not a big fan. Chicago wasn't happy with him as their starter and the same might prove true for Denver. Orton's best trait is that he doesn't turn the ball over often. His TD to INT ratio has been respectable for three straight seasons. On the other hand, his accuracy has been pretty spotty and his yards per attempt has been mediocre. There's nothing about him that's better than average compared to the other QBs in the league. The reason his FF stats looked good this season is because his attempts per game average was immense. That probably won't be the case every season going forward, especially with John Fox around.
 
How about Matt Cassel? 27TD / 10 INT / 3200 YDS. Not too bad for his 2nd season in KC. He should continue to expand on these numbers with more experience and the weapons he has in KC. I would place him above Tebow and McCoy.
Even with a stocked cupboard and a great coaching staff in New England, he was only a "good" and not "great" performer. Granted, it was his first full season as a starter, but his numbers still didn't meet the Brady standard in any categories. He certainly hasn't set the world on fire since coming to KC. He improved nicely from his dreadful 2009 campaign, but much like Orton he struggles with accuracy and yards per attempt. He only completed 58.2% of his passes for an average of 6.9 yards per throw. Those numbers are worse than almost every veteran ranked above him. At best I see Cassel as a Flacco/Eli/Cutler type. The reason I rank Tebow and McCoy higher is because they have higher ceilings. Their floors are also much lower, but in a 10-14 team league I would rather take a chance on someone who could be a standout than a known mediocrity. The latter are always easy to acquire if you need one in a pinch.
 
He certainly has the upside to smash the ranking I've given him. My problem with Stafford is that I never felt he had elite intangibles. Even in college I felt he was more along the lines of a Carson Palmer/Joe Flacco/Jay Cutler type of QB. A guy with top shelf physical talent who lacks that special something upstairs. That factored heavily into my ranking.
This last part seems more media driven than anything else, kinda like drinking the cool aid they are serving. I'm not a Cutler fan, but if you're allowing the garbage the media spouts about these guys to "heavily factor" your rankings, then the rankings aren't very good.
I rely more on stats and first-person observations than media hype. Nothing about Cutler's stats suggests that he's in the elite QB class. Stafford is more of a projection because he hasn't played as much in the NFL and isn't a known quantity. Any attempt to rank him is guesswork because we have no concrete way of knowing who he is yet. My hunch is that he's closer to Cutler/Flacco/Eli than Roethlisberger/Peyton/Rodgers. I never felt like he was a truly dominant player in college.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'll add one more vote to the "disagree on comments realting to Stafford" column.

I have Stafford and Freeman in my dynasty league, and with Warner retiring, I needed them this year. (I also traded in the offseason for Vince Young, just in case) The two times I started Stafford, he put up 40 pts in our scoring system. I also have Megatron and TB's Mike Williams, so either way I have a nice QB/WR hookup.

If Stafford can stay healthy, and it is a BIG IF, he will be well up that list. I don't think I'd put hin top 12 or anything right now, but his injury risk is the only reason why I would not.

BTW, having Stafford on my dynasty team is the only reason I have Lion under my name to the left, I'm a FFL fan more than an NFL fan.

17. Matt Stafford, Lions - Stafford hasn't been able to stay healthy. When he has played, the results haven't been pretty. The presence of Calvin Johnson adds to his value though and you have to believe that we haven't seen his best football yet. I think he makes a compelling developmental QB2 in dynasty leagues. Unfortunately, he hasn't really played enough to show us what he's all about.
I would have to disagree about this EBF.

This season (although brief) Staffords line was: 57/96 (59%), 535 yards, 6 TDs/1 INT in two and a half games.

One of those games was against the Jets, in which he looked under control and poised and had a very good game. He looked light years better than his rookie year.

Granted I am a homer, and I am heavily invested in Stafford from a dynasty perspective, but I don't think the ability is in question. The question with Stafford is simply if he has had bad luck with injuries, or if he is injury prone.

Overall nice list, nothing I disagree with too strongly.
Completely agree. Of the young QBs, the only one I'd rather own is Bradford. And even that is really close. I'm a believer.....let's just hope he can shake the injuries.
 
May be in the minority, but I can see Matt Ryan becoming a superstar.

Falcons needs to address a 2nd weapon for him. Gonzalez lost more than a few steps this year. Nice offseason for the Falcons to get them a nice upgrade at WR via free agency and/or draft.

I don't mind Cassel outside the Top 20 personally. Would be outside mine as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Considering that they're the same age and Freeman already has a top 10 finish under his belt, I can't think of any reason why Bradford should be listed higher than Freeman on any list right now.

 
Considering that they're the same age and Freeman already has a top 10 finish under his belt, I can't think of any reason why Bradford should be listed higher than Freeman on any list right now.
It's not fair to compare a second year player to a rookie. For all we know, Bradford's 2011 stats could blow away what Freeman did in 2010. Here's what they did as rookies:Josh Freeman

Completion Percentage - 54.5%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.4

TD to INT ratio - 0.55 to 1

QB Rating - 59.8

Sam Bradford

Completion Percentage - 60.0%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.0

TD to INT ratio - 1.2 to 1

QB Rating - 76.5

I would argue that Bradford was more impressive as a rookie than Freeman. He was more accurate and much more careful with the ball. The only area where Freeman has an edge is yards per attempt. That's significant, but not enough to account for the deficits in other areas.

Arguments about "top 10 finishes" or "top 20 finishes" don't carry much weight with me because so much of that is dependent upon passing attempts. A poor QB who throws the ball 600 times can have a top 10 finish while an elite QB who throws the ball 400 times might fall short. This doesn't mean that the guy who threw the ball 600 times played better.

I think Bradford showed really nicely overall. The Rams were a bad, bad team this year. They had one of the least talented receiving corps in the league. Bradford still put up respectable stats for a first year rookie starter and nearly guided St. Louis to the playoffs. He'll have to improve over his 2010 stats to justify his ranking, but I think there are indications that he could be special.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only 2 points:

I agree that Cutler is too low. It's true we have no way of knowing if Martz stays for a while, but as he gets more familiar with Martz' offense, he should only get better.

I am on the Kolb bandwagon. He is young, definitely starter material, and deserves to be in the top 20.

 
I only play in a redraft league, but your list made me realize that I don't need to draft a QB for several rounds. That's historically been standard drafting strategy anyhow, but in the last couple of years I wanted to have one of the "elite" QBs- Brees, Manning, Rodgers, etc.

Now, though, it's such a deep list that I can ignore it for several rounds.

 
Totally disagree that Buffalo is in dire need of a QB.

Fitzpatrick finished 16th in QB points in my dynasty leagues, higher than Big Ben. 11th in PPG with over 20 higher than Eli, Orton, Cutler, Freeman, Ryan...

14th in TD passes with 23, higher than Big Ben, Bradford, Orton. One TD less than Schaub and tied with Cutler. AND HE WASNT THE STARTER THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!

He was an afterthough at the begining of the season and he kept them in a lot of games. He put Stevie Johnson on the map and was one Johnson drop away from beating the Pats. The defense was the problem, not Fitz.

Not to mention his wicked-awesome beard.

 
Totally disagree that Buffalo is in dire need of a QB.

Fitzpatrick finished 16th in QB points in my dynasty leagues, higher than Big Ben. 11th in PPG with over 20 higher than Eli, Orton, Cutler, Freeman, Ryan...

14th in TD passes with 23, higher than Big Ben, Bradford, Orton. One TD less than Schaub and tied with Cutler. AND HE WASNT THE STARTER THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!

He was an afterthough at the begining of the season and he kept them in a lot of games. He put Stevie Johnson on the map and was one Johnson drop away from beating the Pats. The defense was the problem, not Fitz.

Not to mention his wicked-awesome beard.
Again, I'm not a fan of looking at QB performance in terms of FF points, yards, or TD passes. I understand that this is a conventional practice, but it doesn't tell you how well a QB played. It mostly just tells you how many times he threw the ball. Fitzpatrick started 13 games this season and threw 441 passes. That equates to 33.92 pass attempts per game. Over the course of a 16 game season, that would equate to 543 pass attempts, good for 7th in the NFL this season. Fitzpatrick chucked the ball a ton and still only managed to finish 13th among QBs in PPG (12th if you exclude Stafford, who barely played).

If you ask me, he was very mediocre in 2010. Among the 21 QBs who threw the ball 400+ times last season, here are Fitzpatrick's ranks in the categories that I value:

Completion Percentage - 20th

Yards Per Attempt - t-14th

TD to INT ratio - 11th

QB Rating - 16th

He didn't finish top 10 in a single category and was below average in every department besides TD to INT ratio, where he finished exactly in the middle of the pack. He also would have finished behind Roethlisberger, Vick, and Garrard in every category if they hadn't just missed my arbitrary 400 attempts cutoff.

Unless he improves dramatically, I don't think Fitzpatrick is the answer for Buffalo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally disagree that Buffalo is in dire need of a QB.

Fitzpatrick finished 16th in QB points in my dynasty leagues, higher than Big Ben. 11th in PPG with over 20 higher than Eli, Orton, Cutler, Freeman, Ryan...

14th in TD passes with 23, higher than Big Ben, Bradford, Orton. One TD less than Schaub and tied with Cutler. AND HE WASNT THE STARTER THE ENTIRE SEASON!!!!

He was an afterthough at the begining of the season and he kept them in a lot of games. He put Stevie Johnson on the map and was one Johnson drop away from beating the Pats. The defense was the problem, not Fitz.

Not to mention his wicked-awesome beard.
Again, I'm not a fan of looking at QB performance in terms of FF points, yards, or TD passes. I understand that this is a conventional practice, but it doesn't tell you how well a QB played. It mostly just tells you how many times he threw the ball. Fitzpatrick started 13 games this season and threw 441 passes. That equates to 33.92 pass attempts per game. Over the course of a 16 game season, that would equate to 543 pass attempts, good for 7th in the NFL this season. Fitzpatrick chucked the ball a ton and still only managed to finish 13th among QBs in PPG (12th if you exclude Stafford, who barely played).

If you ask me, he was very mediocre in 2010. Among the 21 QBs who threw the ball 400+ times last season, here are Fitzpatrick's ranks in the categories that I value:

Completion Percentage - 20th

Yards Per Attempt - t-14th

TD to INT ratio - 11th

QB Rating - 16th

He didn't finish top 10 in a single category and was below average in every department besides TD to INT ratio, where he finished exactly in the middle of the pack. He also would have finished behind Roethlisberger, Vick, and Garrard in every category if they hadn't just missed my arbitrary 400 attempts cutoff.

Unless he improves dramatically, I don't think Fitzpatrick is the answer for Buffalo.
Thank you for proving my point even further. He is still better than average. He only played in 13 games and basically had to learn a new offense on the fly since he never got 1st team REPs in preseason. Sorry, you can take numbers and rearrange them however you want. The fact of the matter is the guy can play.

I throw completion percentage out the window. How many dropped balls did the WR have? He was playing with no name guys and made one of them a star. Lee Evans was the star of that WR corps.

List of guys I would take Fitzpatrick over that were/are the starters on their team:

Alex Smith

Chad Henne

Jason Campbell

Claussen

Delhomme/McCoy

Grossman

Young/Collins

Tavaris Jackson/Webb

Stafford (cant stay healthy for 10 minutes)

Derek Anderson (any other Cards WR)

Just as good as

Gerrard (maybe better)

Sanchez (Fitz could have as much if not more success on the same team)

Hasselback

Cassel (Same as above)

All this being said...I think the Bills are and should be happy with what they have.

 
Considering that they're the same age and Freeman already has a top 10 finish under his belt, I can't think of any reason why Bradford should be listed higher than Freeman on any list right now.
It's not fair to compare a second year player to a rookie. For all we know, Bradford's 2011 stats could blow away what Freeman did in 2010. Here's what they did as rookies:Josh Freeman

Completion Percentage - 54.5%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.4

TD to INT ratio - 0.55 to 1

QB Rating - 59.8

Sam Bradford

Completion Percentage - 60.0%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.0

TD to INT ratio - 1.2 to 1

QB Rating - 76.5

I would argue that Bradford was more impressive as a rookie than Freeman. He was more accurate and much more careful with the ball. The only area where Freeman has an edge is yards per attempt. That's significant, but not enough to account for the deficits in other areas.

Arguments about "top 10 finishes" or "top 20 finishes" don't carry much weight with me because so much of that is dependent upon passing attempts. A poor QB who throws the ball 600 times can have a top 10 finish while an elite QB who throws the ball 400 times might fall short. This doesn't mean that the guy who threw the ball 600 times played better.

I think Bradford showed really nicely overall. The Rams were a bad, bad team this year. They had one of the least talented receiving corps in the league. Bradford still put up respectable stats for a first year rookie starter and nearly guided St. Louis to the playoffs. He'll have to improve over his 2010 stats to justify his ranking, but I think there are indications that he could be special.
Even still, we know what Freeman's improvement from year 1 to year 2 was. We know what he's already capable of, and there are just as many signs that he's special as there are for Bradford. Freeman wasn't special this year because of a crazy number of attempts compared to Bradford (Bradford had about 120 more attempts than Freeman). He was special because he improved every area of his game and made fantastic decisions.Also remember, Freeman was thought of as a project, and he performed that way as a 2nd year pro. Bradford was considered virtually NFL-ready coming out of school.

We don't know that Bradford will improve no matter how talented we think he is. Based on what we've seen so far out of each of them, I'm not willing to rank Bradford over a guy who's got just as much upside but who's proven the ability to adjust to the NFL game and drastically improve in his 2nd year. If Bradford improves in year 2 the way Freeman did, I'll readily move him up.

 
Considering that they're the same age and Freeman already has a top 10 finish under his belt, I can't think of any reason why Bradford should be listed higher than Freeman on any list right now.
It's not fair to compare a second year player to a rookie. For all we know, Bradford's 2011 stats could blow away what Freeman did in 2010. Here's what they did as rookies:Josh Freeman

Completion Percentage - 54.5%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.4

TD to INT ratio - 0.55 to 1

QB Rating - 59.8

Sam Bradford

Completion Percentage - 60.0%

Yards Per Attempt - 6.0

TD to INT ratio - 1.2 to 1

QB Rating - 76.5

I would argue that Bradford was more impressive as a rookie than Freeman. He was more accurate and much more careful with the ball. The only area where Freeman has an edge is yards per attempt. That's significant, but not enough to account for the deficits in other areas.

Arguments about "top 10 finishes" or "top 20 finishes" don't carry much weight with me because so much of that is dependent upon passing attempts. A poor QB who throws the ball 600 times can have a top 10 finish while an elite QB who throws the ball 400 times might fall short. This doesn't mean that the guy who threw the ball 600 times played better.

I think Bradford showed really nicely overall. The Rams were a bad, bad team this year. They had one of the least talented receiving corps in the league. Bradford still put up respectable stats for a first year rookie starter and nearly guided St. Louis to the playoffs. He'll have to improve over his 2010 stats to justify his ranking, but I think there are indications that he could be special.
Even still, we know what Freeman's improvement from year 1 to year 2 was. We know what he's already capable of, and there are just as many signs that he's special as there are for Bradford. Freeman wasn't special this year because of a crazy number of attempts compared to Bradford (Bradford had about 120 more attempts than Freeman). He was special because he improved every area of his game and made fantastic decisions.Also remember, Freeman was thought of as a project, and he performed that way as a 2nd year pro. Bradford was considered virtually NFL-ready coming out of school.

We don't know that Bradford will improve no matter how talented we think he is. Based on what we've seen so far out of each of them, I'm not willing to rank Bradford over a guy who's got just as much upside but who's proven the ability to adjust to the NFL game and drastically improve in his 2nd year. If Bradford improves in year 2 the way Freeman did, I'll readily move him up.
That's fair enough. I only have them a couple spots apart and wouldn't really take exception to someone ranking Freeman higher.
 
Sorry, you can take numbers and rearrange them however you want. The fact of the matter is the guy can play.
If you say so.
I throw completion percentage out the window. How many dropped balls did the WR have?
Every QB is victimized by drops. You don't think Brady, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers had drops?
He was playing with no name guys and made one of them a star.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that Steve Johnson was a breakout star who would've succeeded with any QB.
List of guys I would take Fitzpatrick over that were/are the starters on their team:Alex SmithChad HenneJason CampbellClaussenDelhomme/McCoyGrossmanYoung/CollinsTavaris Jackson/WebbStafford (cant stay healthy for 10 minutes)Derek Anderson (any other Cards WR)Just as good asGerrard (maybe better)Sanchez (Fitz could have as much if not more success on the same team)HasselbackCassel (Same as above)All this being said...I think the Bills are and should be happy with what they have.
Most of the guys you listed are awful and are absent from my list. Being better than a bunch of washouts and failures doesn't make Fitzpatrick a desirable NFL starter. I don't think the Bills will ever win anything with him under center and I don't think FF teams should rely on him as anything more than bye week filler.
 
Sorry, you can take numbers and rearrange them however you want. The fact of the matter is the guy can play.
If you say so.
I throw completion percentage out the window. How many dropped balls did the WR have?
Every QB is victimized by drops. You don't think Brady, Roethlisberger, and Rodgers had drops?
He was playing with no name guys and made one of them a star.
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is that Steve Johnson was a breakout star who would've succeeded with any QB.
List of guys I would take Fitzpatrick over that were/are the starters on their team:

Alex Smith

Chad Henne

Jason Campbell

Claussen

Delhomme/McCoy

Grossman

Young/Collins

Tavaris Jackson/Webb

Stafford (cant stay healthy for 10 minutes)

Derek Anderson (any other Cards WR)

Just as good as

Gerrard (maybe better)

Sanchez (Fitz could have as much if not more success on the same team)

Hasselback

Cassel (Same as above)

All this being said...I think the Bills are and should be happy with what they have.
Most of the guys you listed are awful and are absent from my list. Being better than a bunch of washouts and failures doesn't make Fitzpatrick a desirable NFL starter. I don't think the Bills will ever win anything with him under center and I don't think FF teams should rely on him as anything more than bye week filler.
They are the starters on NFL teams. That means these guys...awful or not...are better than 1,000's of guys that were in college and drafted. That also means that if Buffalo drafts a QB, like you suggest, there isn't as good of a chance that he will be a starter and a star, let alone have the same numbers that Fitz put up in his first season in a new offense on a team where he wasnt even the starter and didnt even get the first team reps in the preseason. I think you are wrong. That is all I am saying. You may be right that the Bills wont win anything with Fitz as the QB but it wont be because of Fitz, it will be because of the division they play in that has owners who are willing to spend money on players to put around their QB's.

 
- Kevin Kolb and Matt Flynn are two backups who seemingly have starter potential. My beef with Kolb is that his 2010 performance was very mediocre even though he was playing in a friendly system alongside some dynamic offensive talent. Vick was infinitely better with the same supporting cast, which doesn't bode well for Kolb.
I don't think this is a fair criticism of Kolb. Pass protection was a major problem all year. Vick is better suited to surviving that than Kolb. It is one of the reasons they went with Vick. He played great against ATL and SF. He played ultra conservative against TEN (bad coaching? nursing a small lead most of the game). You have to throw out Wk 17. They played a scrub 3rd string practice squad LT against DeMarcus Ware, and his WR1 was Chad Hall.He was terrible Wk 1 before he got hurt.Ultimately I think he's a situation dependent QB. He'd be a nice fit in SF (WCO).
 
Fitzpatrick's highend is a guy like a Shaun Hill, Orton, or Kitna where a team can survive at QB with him, but is always looking for another guy. He had 3 or so outstanding fantasty weeks, but just the same a about the same amount of dog weeks. From a fantay perspective probably fine as a thrid QB ( or a weak 2nd to a strong non-injury prone 1) as long as he has a job, but just not enough there for me to be excited about in any role greater than that. He probably keeps Buffalo from being silly desparate, but he does not stop them from trying to find something better.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
- Kevin Kolb and Matt Flynn are two backups who seemingly have starter potential. My beef with Kolb is that his 2010 performance was very mediocre even though he was playing in a friendly system alongside some dynamic offensive talent. Vick was infinitely better with the same supporting cast, which doesn't bode well for Kolb.
I don't think this is a fair criticism of Kolb. Pass protection was a major problem all year. Vick is better suited to surviving that than Kolb. It is one of the reasons they went with Vick. He played great against ATL and SF. He played ultra conservative against TEN (bad coaching? nursing a small lead most of the game). You have to throw out Wk 17. They played a scrub 3rd string practice squad LT against DeMarcus Ware, and his WR1 was Chad Hall.He was terrible Wk 1 before he got hurt.Ultimately I think he's a situation dependent QB. He'd be a nice fit in SF (WCO).
I'm starting to think that Matt Flynn is going to get his shot to compete for a starting job somewhere next season. The price to acquire Kolb appears to be sky high, and this QB draft class doesn't seem to have a lot of promising WCO type QBs. Flynn showed he could make all the throws in the game at Foxboro this year, and just as importantly he's been developed by Mike McCarthy for 3 years now. McCarthy did wonders for Favre, and molded Rodgers into what you saw last Saturday. The Packers will likely lose him after the 2011 season with only a compensatory pick as compensation. (if that is part of the new CBA). I'd guess his price would be similar to what Jax paid for Brunell (3rd and a 5th), or what Seattle paid for Hasselbeck. (Move up from 17 to 10 in 1st round plus a 3rd.)Cleveland and San Francisco would seem to be likely landing spots.
 
Romo started off slow due to his offensive line. They got healthy and started playing better, but he never got to enjoy it - he is too low.

People were just as high on Ryan as you seem to be on Bradford. Like the Ryan love, I think it is premature. You have him ahead of Schaub, who is the 12th player in NFL history to throw for 4,000 in back to back seasons. I don't think it is logical to assume Bradford with ever match that feat.

Strong list. Thank you for sharing.

 
Good list but I would argue with Brees being below Manning and Brady. You mention HIS age but not theirs, eventhough Brady is 2.5 years old and Manning is four years older. Basically, Brees had a good year but compared to the last two he was down a bit. But how can a guy go from the best QB two years running to the fifth?

 
- Buffalo, Miami, Tennessee, Minnesota, Carolina, Arizona, and San Francisco have truly dire QB situations. I'd pick them as the frontunners to acquire a high profile QB in the offseason or to "earn" the 1st pick in the 2012 NFL draft if they don't. Other QB-starved teams like Oakland, Washington, Cleveland, and Cincinnati will probably scrape their way to a few wins. I actually think the Panthers have a great chance to end up with the #1 pick again next year, partially because their team is awful and partially because their division is brutal. Most of the other dreadful teams have at least one cupcake in their division, increasing the odds of fluke wins.
You list these teams as being in 'dire' or 'starved' at the quarterback position:Dire need at QB

Buffalo, Miami, Tennessee, Minnesota, Carolina, Arizona, and San Francisco

Starved at QB

Oakland, Washington, Cleveland, and Cincinnati

You have Colt McCoy as the 18th QB in the league.

I'm a bit confused, are the Browns as starved at QB as the other teams with Colt McCoy? Or did you not mean to put Colt McCoy as the 18th ranked QB in the league?

None of the other teams except Cleveland that you list as QB 'starved' or in 'dire' need at QB have a QB ranked in the top twenty.

Why the double standard with the Browns and Colt McCoy?

 
None of the other teams except Cleveland that you list as QB 'starved' or in 'dire' need at QB have a QB ranked in the top twenty.

Why the double standard with the Browns and Colt McCoy?
Because McCoy is a young and largely unproven player, meaning he could either develop into a solid starter or go the way of Chad Henne. The same could also be said for Tebow and Bradford, but I believe that Bradford will be solid and the Broncos have a serviceable alternative if Tebow doesn't step up (Orton). I don't feel like a single one of the teams I listed has its clear cut franchise QB right now. Buffalo

Miami

Tennessee

Minnesota

Carolina

Arizona

San Francisco

Oakland

Washington

Cleveland

Cincinnati

You could probably add Kansas City, Seattle, and Jacksonville to the list as well. The one thing you can say about Cleveland compared to these other teams is that they at least have a young QB who has shown potential.

 
Concept Coop said:
Romo started off slow due to his offensive line. They got healthy and started playing better, but he never got to enjoy it - he is too low. People were just as high on Ryan as you seem to be on Bradford. Like the Ryan love, I think it is premature. You have him ahead of Schaub, who is the 12th player in NFL history to throw for 4,000 in back to back seasons. I don't think it is logical to assume Bradford with ever match that feat. Strong list. Thank you for sharing.
You're splitting hairs here because those guys are ranked very close on my list. Schaub is exactly one spot behind Bradford. A team that wants to swing for the fences in hopes of landing the next Peyton/Rodgers would be inclined to take Bradford. A team that wants a surefire bet for solid production would be inclined to take Schaub. It is always hard to do dynasty rankings because you have to deal with so many unknown quantities. For example, do you rank Demaryius Thomas over Steve Smith (NYG)? Thomas could be better, but he could also be worse. We just don't know what his future holds. The same is true for most young players. At some point you have to make an educated guess. As I've said before, I think Bradford is going to be a good one. Comparing his hype to Ryan's hype from two years ago isn't very damning considering that Ryan is still ranked in the same general area. If people draft Bradford as the dynasty QB9 and two years later he's only viewed as a top 15 dynasty QB, I don't think they're going to look back on that pick and see it as a colossal mistake.
 
az_prof said:
Good list but I would argue with Brees being below Manning and Brady. You mention HIS age but not theirs, eventhough Brady is 2.5 years old and Manning is four years older. Basically, Brees had a good year but compared to the last two he was down a bit. But how can a guy go from the best QB two years running to the fifth?
Part of what scares me about Brees is that he's a lot smaller than those guys, he has a significant upper body injury in his past, and he has thrown the ball more than any QB in the league over the past three seasons. Probably the biggest negative is the fact that he was the worst of my top 5 in terms of 2010 performance. Rivers, Rodgers, Peyton, and Brady all had higher QB ratings. Brees threw the most INTs by a wide margin and also had a poor yards per attempt average (in fairness, so did Peyton). I think Brady, Brees, and Manning are pretty similar dynasty commodities. They all have a lengthy track record of excellence. They're all great QB1 candidates for redraft leagues. Where their value suffers is in longevity potential. I favor Manning and Brady slightly because I think they're a little better and a little more likely to play well into their late 30s.
 
None of the other teams except Cleveland that you list as QB 'starved' or in 'dire' need at QB have a QB ranked in the top twenty.

Why the double standard with the Browns and Colt McCoy?
Because McCoy is a young and largely unproven player, meaning he could either develop into a solid starter or go the way of Chad Henne. The same could also be said for Tebow and Bradford, but I believe that Bradford will be solid and the Broncos have a serviceable alternative if Tebow doesn't step up (Orton). I don't feel like a single one of the teams I listed has its clear cut franchise QB right now. Buffalo

Miami

Tennessee

Minnesota

Carolina

Arizona

San Francisco

Oakland

Washington

Cleveland

Cincinnati

You could probably add Kansas City, Seattle, and Jacksonville to the list as well. The one thing you can say about Cleveland compared to these other teams is that they at least have a young QB who has shown potential.
Browns back-up QB, Senneca Wallace got a few starts and finished with a solid QB passer rating.The Browns hired Shurmur who is going to run a West Coast offense that fits both McCoy and Wallace. Senneca was coached in the WC by Holmgren in Seattle. Holmgren asked Browns GM Tom Heckertt to trade with Seattle to bring him to Cleveland. Holmgren only stepped in once during the draft last April to ask Heckertt to take McCoy in the third round. Holmgren knows QBs who fit a WC system.

The 'Big Show' has coached, Joe Montanna, Steve Young, Brett Farve, and Matt Hasselbeck.

Holmgren brought in Shurmur to make sure the Browns would run a WC since he has two QBs who are built for the WC.

I trust the 'Big Show' and I don't think he feels that the Browns are starving at QB.

I have no issue with anyone claiming that the Browns are emaciated at WR but its possible that they could draft a top-flight WR like A.J. Green but back to the QBs.

I trust Holmgren's track record at QB and how he has made bold moves to make sure Cleveland would install the WC to fit both Wallace and McCoy so I disagree that the Browns are starving at QB.

 
You're splitting hairs here because those guys are ranked very close on my list. Schaub is exactly one spot behind Bradford. A team that wants to swing for the fences in hopes of landing the next Peyton/Rodgers would be inclined to take Bradford. A team that wants a surefire bet for solid production would be inclined to take Schaub.
I don't think it is splitting hairs. I personally think the gap between Rivers, your number 2, and Schaub is closer than the gap between Schaub and Bradford. If people wanted to get Peyton Manning production, they would be wise to take that guy that has already put up Peyton Manning numbers. Schaub scored more points than Rivers last season.
 
You're splitting hairs here because those guys are ranked very close on my list. Schaub is exactly one spot behind Bradford. A team that wants to swing for the fences in hopes of landing the next Peyton/Rodgers would be inclined to take Bradford. A team that wants a surefire bet for solid production would be inclined to take Schaub.
I don't think it is splitting hairs. I personally think the gap between Rivers, your number 2, and Schaub is closer than the gap between Schaub and Bradford. If people wanted to get Peyton Manning production, they would be wise to take that guy that has already put up Peyton Manning numbers. Schaub scored more points than Rivers last season.
Schaub is ranked high. How much higher do you want him to be? Almost every veteran on my list ranked above Schaub has either clearly had a better career or clearly had a better 2010. The only guy who doesn't meet those criteria is Bradford, who's ranked a whopping one spot ahead of Schaub. When you do dynasty rankings, you have to project a player's future. That's hard, even with established commodities like Rivers and Schaub. It's a lot harder with relative unknowns like Bradford and Freeman. They could both become perennial Pro Bowlers like Peyton and Brees or they could settle into mediocrity like Cutler and Palmer. Generally, when you rank a player of this type, you try to find a middle ground between the two extremes. Hence why Bradford and Freeman are ranked above where their production warrants and above a few guys who have clearly accomplished more in the NFL. It's a projection based on potential, not production.

 
I trust Holmgren's track record at QB and how he has made bold moves to make sure Cleveland would install the WC to fit both Wallace and McCoy so I disagree that the Browns are starving at QB.
Sorry, but your post reeks of homerism. Seneca Wallace is not a franchise QB. He's a 30 year old journeyman whose ceiling is mediocrity. Colt McCoy might become a franchise QB. Or he might not. He was only a third round pick and has barely played in the NFL. At this point he's largely an unknown. I think he could be the answer, but he can't be relied on yet. The NFL is a QB-driven league. Almost all of the teams that go 8-8 or better every season have an elite QB (Colts, Patriots, Steelers, Packers, Chargers). The Browns aren't on that list yet. They haven't even found a Cutler/Cassel/Flacco type who can play the kind of B- football that will sneak a mediocre team into the playoffs every few years. Until that changes, it's fair to say that their QB situation is dire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good job, other than Vick and Freeman being about 5 spots too high, and Stafford being to low, there isnt anything i would could complain about. With the exception of calling Buffalo a team in "dire need" at the QB spot. What do you not like about Fitzpatrick?

 
Good job, other than Vick and Freeman being about 5 spots too high, and Stafford being to low, there isnt anything i would could complain about. With the exception of calling Buffalo a team in "dire need" at the QB spot. What do you not like about Fitzpatrick?
I already wrote at length about this. The notion that Fitzpatrick played well last season stems from people confusing FF performance with NFL performance. In FF terms, Fitzpatrick had a strong 2010. He was a borderline top 10 QB in ppg. In NFL terms, Fitzpatrick had a weak 2010. His completion percentage and yards per attempt were poor. 21 QBs had a higher QB rating, including such luminaries as Kerry Collins, Alex Smith, Jason Campbell, and Jon Kitna.

I don't see anyone going to bat for those guys. That's because they all threw far fewer passes than Fitzpatrick, which didn't allow them to accumulate the kind of gaudy FF stats that would cause people to confuse FF success with NFL success. I can't stress enough the idea that looking at yards, touchdowns, and fantasy points is a highly flawed way of evaluating QB performance. Those stats are as much about opportunity as effectiveness. Virtually any craptastic QB can hang some decent stats on the board if he gets to throw 34 times per game. That doesn't make him a viable NFL starter.

Don't let the FF goggles fool you. In NFL terms, Fitzpatrick is a very suspect long term option for Buffalo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good job, other than Vick and Freeman being about 5 spots too high, and Stafford being to low, there isnt anything i would could complain about. With the exception of calling Buffalo a team in "dire need" at the QB spot. What do you not like about Fitzpatrick?
I already wrote at length about this. The notion that Fitzgerald played well last season stems from people confusing FF performance with NFL performance. In FF terms, Fitzgerald had a strong 2010. He was a borderline top 10 QB in ppg. In NFL terms, Fitzgerald had a weak 2010. His completion percentage and yards per attempt were poor. 21 QBs had a higher QB rating, including such luminaries as Kerry Collins, Alex Smith, Jason Campbell, and Jon Kitna.

I don't see anyone going to bat for those guys. That's because they all threw far fewer passes than Fitzgerald, which didn't allow them to accumulate the kind of gaudy FF stats that would cause people to confuse FF success with NFL success. I can't stress enough the idea that looking at yards, touchdowns, and fantasy points is a highly flawed way of evaluating QB performance. Those stats are as much about opportunity as effectiveness. Virtually any craptastic QB can hang some decent stats on the board if he gets to throw 34 times per game. That doesn't make him a viable NFL starter.

Don't let the FF goggles fool you. In NFL terms, Fitzpatrick is a very suspect long term option for Buffalo.
good post - despite the fact that you said Fitzgerald multiple times . . .

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top