PDA

View Full Version : ESPN doing nfl qb power rankings


NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:06 AM
on right now

32 browns
31 niners
30 CHARGERS
29 bills
28 raiders
27 titans
26 jets
25
24
23
22 cards


21-11 to com later...i missed 23-25

FringeNC
06-25-2006, 10:15 AM
the Chargers thing is still a mystery to me...how often does a playoff-caliber team let go of their pro bowl QB?

Warner #22..that's a joke

JBucc
06-25-2006, 10:20 AM
Warner #22..that's a jokeToo high or too low?

FringeNC
06-25-2006, 10:22 AM
Too high or too low?

too low (or too high, depending on how you look at these numbers)...he had some really good games last year. I'd rather have Warner than Plummer.

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:24 AM
where do you think trent/chiefs are going to land, anything over 7 is poop and a lie

milkman
06-25-2006, 10:37 AM
where do you think trent/chiefs are going to land, anything over 7 is poop and a lie

It's ESPN.

My guess about 10, maybe 11.

Bowser
06-25-2006, 10:38 AM
where do you think trent/chiefs are going to land, anything over 7 is poop and a lie

We're not an East Coast team. If he lands in the top 10, I'd be mildly suprised (even though he's had 4,000+ yards passing three straight years, and he's led our offense to a top 5 rating since he's been here).

JBucc
06-25-2006, 10:38 AM
Is this just starters or all QB's? Either way we should be close to the top five.

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:39 AM
Is this just starters or all QB's? Either way we should be close to the top five.

its teams

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:39 AM
part 2 on now

Bowser
06-25-2006, 10:40 AM
where do you think trent/chiefs are going to land, anything over 7 is poop and a lie

I'm guessing Plummer will be from 5-7. These polls are usually based on how a certain team finished the prior year. [/duh]

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:41 AM
nawlins worse then jacksonville

milkman
06-25-2006, 10:41 AM
So this ranking isn't just the starter, but includes team depth as well.

With that in mind, the Chiefs aren't top 10.

14-15 would be just about right.

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:41 AM
16 giants
15 packers

Demonpenz
06-25-2006, 10:42 AM
they said green would be higher if he fixed his fumbling problems

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:42 AM
14 redskins

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:42 AM
13 baltimore

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:43 AM
12 miami

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:43 AM
11 rams

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 10:43 AM
10-1 on later on on sports center

chefsos
06-25-2006, 10:46 AM
its teams
I'm not watching it, but that's what I thought, which reinforces FringeNC's contention that AZ should be higher when you consider Leinart (though a rookie, I reckon he can play a little bit).

Also, being ESPN, I'm willing to bet that the Donks are judged by the combo of Plummer/Cutler, and the Chiefs by Trent/????.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 10:47 AM
I'm not watching it, but that's what I thought, which reinforces FringeNC's contention that AZ should be higher when you consider Leinart (though a rookie, I reckon he can play a little bit).

Also, being ESPN, I'm willing to bet that the Donks are judged by the combo of Plummer/Cutler, and the Chiefs by Trent/Croyle Printers Huard baby!!!!!!!they're all so good we can't decide who to keep!

chefsos
06-25-2006, 10:50 AM
they're all so good we can't decide who to keep!
Maybe a round of Celebrity Deathmatch is in order when they get to River Falls.

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 11:11 AM
part 3 on soon

Coach
06-25-2006, 11:18 AM
Plummer at 10 and Big Ben at 9.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 11:20 AM
We're number 5!

Coach
06-25-2006, 11:20 AM
Falcons at 7. Philly at 6.

Greenn at number 5.

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:21 AM
CHiefs are 5

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 11:21 AM
10 DONKS! HAHAHA
9 steelers?!?!
8 bungles
7 atlanta vicks
6 iggles
5 KC!!!!
4 panthers?
3 seattle
mangina or brady




2 colts
1 pats

SPchief
06-25-2006, 11:22 AM
Suck on that manning

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 11:22 AM
green should be #3

JBucc
06-25-2006, 11:31 AM
SportsNation(aka idiot fans) has the Chiefs at 13 and Denver at 12

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:33 AM
green should be #3
they are judging at a team ... not just Green


if croyle or printings show potiential are QB ranking will jump significantly next year.

AndChiefs
06-25-2006, 11:34 AM
What is the total Sportsnation ratings?

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 11:34 AM
like the pats backup is any good or seattles back up or panthers or colts scorgi is any good

NJ Chief Fan
06-25-2006, 11:36 AM
i think they said that they are going to be doing the power rankings more often, they are going to do offenses defenses and all that, with it all ending on july 6th will a sb winner

FringeNC
06-25-2006, 11:37 AM
Vick at #7 is the biggest joke of them all. Forgetting the backups for a minute (if those count, which I can't imagine they do given our ranking)...how in the hell do you give the edge to Vick over Carson Palmer?

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:38 AM
Vick at #7 is the biggest joke of them all

this is true...


so far he's just a running back taking snaps as far as i can tell.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 11:39 AM
i think they said that they are going to be doing the power rankings more often, they are going to do offenses defenses and all that, with it all ending on july 6th will a sb winner
they already have polls up for RB, pass defense, and pass catchers.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 11:40 AM
Vick at #7 is the biggest joke of them all. Forgetting the backups for a minute (if those count, which I can't imagine they do given our ranking)...how in the hell do you give the edge to Vick over Carson Palmer?The first thing they mentioned when ATL came up was Matt Schaub

AndChiefs
06-25-2006, 11:40 AM
Yeah running back tomorrow.

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:46 AM
The first thing they mentioned when ATL came up was Matt Schaub

i'm not sure their team might not be better in the long run by trading Vick and starting Schaub.


i imagine they can get something substantial for Vick ... and imo for an offense to truly be productive you need to have a QB that specializes in Passing the ball.

milkman
06-25-2006, 11:46 AM
Vick at #7 is the biggest joke of them all. Forgetting the backups for a minute (if those count, which I can't imagine they do given our ranking)...how in the hell do you give the edge to Vick over Carson Palmer?

The ranking is based on each team's depth, which is why I thought that the Chiefs would come in at 14 or 15.

milkman
06-25-2006, 11:48 AM
i'm not sure the team might not be better in the long by trading Vick and starting Schaub.


i imagine they can something substantial for Vick ... and imo for an offense to truly be productive you need to have a QB that specializes in Passing the ball.

Hey, maybe we can trade them Printers for Shaub!








OK, I'll step back into reality now

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 11:52 AM
Hey, maybe we can trade them Printers for Shaub!

OK, I'll step back into reality now

Then trade Huard for Julius Peppers


yea Chiefs!! PBJ PBJ

milkman
06-25-2006, 11:57 AM
Then trade Huard for Julius Peppers


yea Chiefs!! PBJ PBJ

Hey, I only stepped out the door of reality onto the roof of fantasy.

You jumped off the freakin' building!

Mr. Laz
06-25-2006, 12:00 PM
Hey, I only stepped out the door of reality onto the roof of fantasy.

You jumped off the freakin' building!

if you gonna go ... go big!


http://www.kidscamp-uk.com/images/kids_jump_big.jpg

FringeNC
06-25-2006, 12:04 PM
The first thing they mentioned when ATL came up was Matt Schaub

What's the expected number of snaps Matt Schaub takes?

chief4life
06-25-2006, 12:52 PM
we were 5th i can live with that

Top 5 qbs were

1. Patriots
2. Colts
3. Seahawks
4. Panthers
5. Chiefs

milkman
06-25-2006, 12:55 PM
What's the expected number of snaps Matt Schaub takes?

89.

:shrug:

FringeNC
06-25-2006, 01:25 PM
89.

:shrug:

My guess is very few, which is why rating Atlanta at #7 is a joke.

fan4ever
06-25-2006, 01:56 PM
Anyone see where that's listed on the internet yet? I went to the ESPN site and couldn't find. I had an argument two weeks ago with a dork who thinks he's a sports genius . . . called Green a barely over average QB . . . I'd love to give him a link to go to.

milkman
06-25-2006, 02:01 PM
My guess is very few, which is why rating Atlanta at #7 is a joke.

I don't know.

When you consider Vick's propensity to run, and the fact that he's not big, and has missed games because of that, it would seem to me that Shaub is an important piece for the Falcons.

Thig Lyfe
06-25-2006, 03:06 PM
holy crap... I just realized that I had a dream a few nights ago that Peyton Manning died... weird...

Sam Hall
06-25-2006, 06:09 PM
I think the top five are pretty much identical. The Seahawks, Panthers, and Chiefs could easily be mixed around. Of course they had the Pats and Colts at the top. We're looking at five Pro Bowl quarterbacks and five teams that would be in some trouble if that guy got hurt.

Moooo
06-25-2006, 06:36 PM
How did a QB squad led by Green get 5th, and one led by Brees get somewhere in the low teens?

I agree with where Green is, but I also think Brees, new team or not, should be in top 10.

And although I know some of this is based on backups, we have f'n Huard. I fail to see how that plays much of a factor...

Moooo

CHENZ A!
06-25-2006, 07:15 PM
How did a QB squad led by Green get 5th, and one led by Brees get somewhere in the low teens?

I agree with where Green is, but I also think Brees, new team or not, should be in top 10.

And although I know some of this is based on backups, we have f'n Huard. I fail to see how that plays much of a factor...

Moooo

The analysts kept saying "this is where they stand right now", so I assume that Brees dropped a little because of his injury, same with Palmer and Culpepper.

Amnorix
06-25-2006, 08:19 PM
like the pats backup is any good or seattles back up or panthers or colts scorgi is any good

The Pats backup thing is interesting. He looked DARN good in the one game he played last year, but he's an enigma, since he has no college experience to speak of either.

But athletic as heck, and seems capable. Here's hoping I never have to find out how good he is though.

Amnorix
06-25-2006, 08:22 PM
we were 5th i can live with that

Top 5 qbs were

1. Patriots
2. Colts
3. Seahawks
4. Panthers
5. Chiefs

I don't think that's too unreasonable at all. I kinda/sorta question the Panthers at 4. I liked Delhomme alot in '03, but he had a pretty mediocre year in '04. Didn't pay much attention to what happened last year. Nor, of course, do I know (or care) about their backup situation.

Let me put it this way -- I agree with 1-3 and 5. 4 I just don't know enough about to agree

Amnorix
06-25-2006, 08:29 PM
We're not an East Coast team. If he lands in the top 10, I'd be mildly suprised (even though he's had 4,000+ yards passing three straight years, and he's led our offense to a top 5 rating since he's been here).

Does the fact that KC came in at #5 mean I can stop hearing about some of the "east coast bias" whining that is relentless on here?

I mean, Jesus, the Patriots win all these Super Bowls, yet put no more than 5 players in the Pro Bowl any year over the last 5. If we were in KC, I'm sure it'd be chalked up to "East Coast bias".

It's relentless, and absurd. Denver's not on the East Coast either, and they get their schlongs sucked by national media relentlessly.

Not to be unduly harsh, but your sports teams would probably get more national love if the Royals didn't suck worse than any team in baseball, and if the Chiefs had won a playoff game since Clinton's inaugural year. Seriously, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it seems I'm seeing alot more of this "East Coast bias", and to those of us not in the KC region, it just comes across as whining.

milkman
06-25-2006, 08:33 PM
Does the fact that KC came in at #5 mean I can stop hearing about some of the "east coast bias" whining that is relentless on here?

I mean, Jesus, the Patriots win all these Super Bowls, yet put no more than 5 players in the Pro Bowl any year over the last 5. If we were in KC, I'm sure it'd be chalked up to "East Coast bias".

It's relentless, and absurd. Denver's not on the East Coast either, and they get their schlongs sucked by national media relentlessly.

Not to be unduly harsh, but your sports teams would probably get more national love if the Royals didn't suck worse than any team in baseball, and if the Chiefs had won a playoff game since Clinton's inaugural year. Seriously, I don't mean to be a jerk, but it seems I'm seeing alot more of this "East Coast bias", and to those of us not in the KC region, it just comes across as whining.

I've never understood this whole East Coast bias mentality.

The national media are, for the most part, bandwagoners.

jspchief
06-25-2006, 08:33 PM
Hey, maybe we can trade them Printers for Shaub!








OK, I'll step back into reality nowWant to hear the worst part? We could have had Schaub instead of Bigfoot Wilson.

milkman
06-25-2006, 08:45 PM
Want to hear the worst part? We could have had Schaub instead of Bigfoot Wilson.

Yeah, I think you've pointed that out before.

But hey, at least they finally did draft a QB, in Croyle, who gives us hope for the future at the position.

Amnorix
06-25-2006, 09:15 PM
I've never understood this whole East Coast bias mentality.

The national media are, for the most part, bandwagoners.

Precisely. Even New York gets ignored if the team stinks. The Mets were relegated to national media oblivion for years and years, and the Knicks might get just an itsy-bit more attention than a non-New York team of similar suckitude, but to say they get no love is certainly an understatement.

And how much time is spent on the Celtics in the national media? As much as it has deserved for 10+ years -- none.

Bandwagoning is what they do, not East Coast bias.

JBucc
06-25-2006, 10:11 PM
Precisely. Even New York gets ignored if the team stinks. The Mets were relegated to national media oblivion for years and years, and the Knicks might get just an itsy-bit more attention than a non-New York team of similar suckitude, but to say they get no love is certainly an understatement.

And how much time is spent on the Celtics in the national media? As much as it has deserved for 10+ years -- none.

Bandwagoning is what they do, not East Coast bias.Like we care what you say. You have an obvious East Coast bias:p

dtebbe
06-26-2006, 12:27 AM
I mean, Jesus, the Patriots win all these Super Bowls, yet put no more than 5 players in the Pro Bowl any year over the last 5. If we were in KC, I'm sure it'd be chalked up to "East Coast bias".

It's relentless, and absurd. Denver's not on the East Coast either, and they get their schlongs sucked by national media relentlessly.



This is the downside to playing well with average players.

DT

chefsos
06-26-2006, 12:46 AM
I think the "East Coast Bias" is real, but also that it's a double-edged sword. No midwest or west team gets ripped as brutally as, say, the Jets or Knicks or Eagles when they suck. Hell, I think that ESPN played a large role in running the Hartford Whalers outta town.