PDA

View Full Version : Peter King-Yet again


booyaf2
06-18-2007, 08:26 AM
Just read his MMQB article. He rankes all 32 starting QBs for the coming season. Naturally he has Manning and Brady #1-2, and our boy Croyle comes in dead last.

Fire Me Boy!
06-18-2007, 08:26 AM
Link?

Bob Dole
06-18-2007, 08:28 AM
Why wouldn't Croyle be dead last?

Ryan Leaf would probably rank lower, but he's coaching at West Texas A&M now.

Guru
06-18-2007, 08:28 AM
Just read his MMQB article. He rankes all 32 starting QBs for the coming season. Naturally he has Manning and Brady #1-2, and our boy Croyle comes in dead last.
Unproven 2nd year QB? I don't see why anyone would rank him too much higher than last anyway.

boogblaster
06-18-2007, 08:30 AM
Our new secret weapon...

booyaf2
06-18-2007, 08:30 AM
yet he has culter in around 6 or 7. don't make much sense to me.

The Rick
06-18-2007, 08:38 AM
Here's the link:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/peter_king/06/17/qbs/index.html?eref=writers

Someone should post this in Brodie Croyle's locker...

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 08:44 AM
Unproven 2nd year QB? I don't see why anyone would rank him too much higher than last anyway.

I can think of a few QB's in the league that are WORSE than "unproven".

afchiefs
06-18-2007, 08:45 AM
link is blocked by firewall. Could someone post article

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 08:46 AM
For instance, he has Tarvaris Jackson rated ahead of Croyle. Why? He hasn't started a game and he didn't have near the college career Croyle did.

I also personally like seeing Cutler that high. It will make the "fall" that much more sweet.

InChiefsHell
06-18-2007, 08:46 AM
I wanted to be pissed at first, but let's face it...that's where he should be ranked...totally unknown quantity. He won't be dead last after the season though. /homer

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 08:46 AM
He has Croyle behind Charlie Frye and Josh McCown...

InChiefsHell
06-18-2007, 08:47 AM
link is blocked by firewall. Could someone post article

Here ya go:

It's been a little boring around the NFL over the last month or so. Lots of off-the-field crappola going on, but not much to sink your football teeth into. Here's my attempt to stir things up. It's the first MMQB Quarterback Ratings.

Here's what I've done: ranked the 2007 starting quarterbacks in the league from 1 to 32, from Manning (Peyton) to Croyle (Brodie). The rankings are in the order of quarterbacks who will have the best seasons in 2007 and 2007 only.

The highlights:

Manning's No. 1 (Surprise!): A year ago, I would have picked Tom Brady over Manning. But fair is fair. Manning beat Brady twice in 2006, won the Super Bowl and put all the can't-win-the-big-one stuff behind him. Now Peyton has the ultimate reward -- being picked over Brady in the inaugural MMQB Ratings.

I'd take Drew Brees over Carson Palmer if I were starting a team right now. Sacrilege! With fewer weapons and the same comeback from serious injury, Brees has narrowly outplayed Palmer over the past two years, and I think it's a good bet he will in '07.

Want my upset specials in the top 10? Try Vince Young and Jon Kitna. Young's the most feared young player in football right now. More feared than Reggie Bush. He ran for nearly as many touchdowns last year (seven) as Mike Vick has rushed for in the last two years (eight). And I put Kitna at No. 9 because, quite simply, he is the right trigger man for the Lions' offense, and I believe he'll throw for 4,300 yards again.

It's not that I don't like Donovan McNabb. I do. I just don't trust him to stay healthy. I rank the Eagles' QB 12th because I have no confidence that McNabb, at 30 and having missed a combined 13 games over the last two years, will be upright in December.

Ben Roethlisberger 17th? What gives? From Year 1 to Year 2 of his career, his completion percentage dropped 3.7 points; from year two to three, 3.0 points. His TD-to-interception ratio, plus-eight in 2005, dropped to minus-five last year. He is profoundly inconsistent. I say he's a C-plus player until I see six or eight straight weeks of the same guy.

Mike Vick's understudy will be better this year than Mike Vick. I've got Matt Schaub 19th and Vick 21st. Schaub's gobbling up Gary Kubiak's system this spring and I think he'll be a low-error, efficient player. I have no idea what Vick will be, or if the feds will let him finish what he starts with the dog-fighting probe progressing to a possible indictment this summer in his home state of Virginia. Vick is still far too inconsistent throwing the ball ... stunningly so for a man with his talent.

Eli Manning, who could playing for two jobs this year (his own and Tom Coughlin's), enters the pop charts at number 23. He'll need to be feistier and significantly more accurate, neither of which I am confident will happen, to save his career in the Meadowlands.

Rex Grossman's got some improving to do. I hadn't seen such a low-performing passer in the Super Bowl since Trent Dilfer with the Ravens seven years ago, and quite frankly I'm surprised the Bears didn't get some insurance at the position with a youngster in the draft. I have him 27th, fairly ridiculous for a first-round pick who started in the Super Bowl.

As for how I arrived at my picks, other than with a divining rod, I used a few measuring sticks. I value wins from my quarterback, which helped Manning and Brady, the leaders in victories over the last two years. I value postseason success; their seven combined wins over the past two years is significant. Completion percentage and yards-per-attempt are the two passing stats I value the most because they tell you how often a quarterback succeeds in efficiently moving the chains through the air. Finally, intangibles. Brady led all passers with a 10 on a 10-point scale, because he's a coach, an offseason facilitator, a free-agent recruiter -- and he does it while retaining respect from the guys he often has to lean on hard.

And hey -- don't go saying, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Jon Kitna's one of the best quarterbacks in football.'' That's not what I think. What I think is by the end of this year, we'll have seen Kitna as one of the 10 most productive quarterbacks in the NFL this year. Kitna's the golden child, in the perfect spot for a quarterback in 2007, just as with every Mike Martz quarterback in the past few years. Now, it's fine if you want to say, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Kitna's going to throw for 4,300 again! No way!'' It's fine because it's your opinion, but it's probably wrong.

Finally, I used the 32 quarterbacks who I think will start for their teams opening day. Do I think JaMarcus Russell will be the man in Oakland by Election Day? Absolutely. But not by Labor Day. And I don't think Charlie Frye will hold off Brady Quinn for the year either. Even if I feel the team is making the wrong move (as in Kansas City going with the very green Brodie Croyle, which it looks like the Chiefs are going to do), that's the guy I've rated here.

In the chart below, I've done a ranking of the 32 projected starters using combined 2005 and 2006 stats, just to give you a baseline of what the player has done the last couple of years and using that as a partial barometer of 2007 success.

One final note: Now that he's won the Super Bowl, how special is Peyton Manning, and how long a shadow must he cast for his little brother in New Jersey? Check out his line. Among two-year starters returning to start in 2007, Peyton's the most productive over the last two years (8,144 yards), the best at getting it downfield (8.06 yards per throw), the most accurate (.660), with the best touchdown-to-interception ratio (+40). For years, we could say -- and not be wrong -- that all Manning does is put up great numbers. Now we've got to say he puts up intergalactic numbers while, at the same time, putting his team in a good position to win.
QB Rankings (Stats combined from '05 and '06)
Rank Player Team Wins Playoff wins Yds/Att. Pct. Yards TD/INT Ratio Rush Yds. Intang. Age#
1. P. Manning Ind. 26 4 8.06 .660 8,144 +40 81 9 31
2. T. Brady NE 22 3 7.30 .624 7,639 +24 191 10 30
3. D. Brees NO 19 1 7.58 .644 7,994 +24 81 9 28
4. C. Palmer Cin. 19 0 7.65 .650 7,871 +35 78 8 27
5. M. Bulger St. L 10 0 7.54 .642 6,598 +21 73 6 30
6. M. Hasselbeck Sea. 20 3 7.20 .615 5,901 +18 234 8 31
7. V. Young* Tenn 8 0 6.16 .515 2,199 -1 552 7 24
8. P. Rivers* SD 14 0 7.27 .614 3,503 +12 48 7 25
9. J. Kitna * Det. 3 0 6.89 .622 4,307 -3 170 7 34
10. J. Cutler* Den. 2 0 7.31 .591 1,001 +4 18 5 24
11. T. Romo* Dall. 6 0 8.61 .653 2,903 +6 100 5 27
12. D. McNabb Phil. 9 0 7.66 .581 5,154 +19 267 7 30
13. S. McNair Bal. 17 0 6.58 .622 6,211 +9 258 5 34
14. B. Favre GB 12 0 6.37 .586 7,766 -9 91 8 37
15. C. Pennington Jets 11 0 6.83 .637 3,882 0 136 6 31
16. J. Delhomme Car. 19 2 7.19 .606 6,226 +14 43 8 32
17. B. Roethlisberger Pit. 16 4 8.00 .608 5,898 +3 167 5 25
18. M. Leinart* Ariz. 5 0 6.76 .568 2,547 -1 49 6 24
19. M. Schaub* Hou. 0 0 7.73 .560 703 +3 97 6 26
20. J.P. Losman* Buf. 8 0 6.68 .580 4,391 +5 294 6 26
21. M. Vick Atl. 15 0 6.30 .539 4,886 +9 1636 5 27
22. J. Garcia* TB 5 1 6.22 .604 2,246 +5 138 6 37
23. E. Manning Giants 19 0 6.49 .551 7,006 +13 101 4 26
24. T. Green Miami 14 0 7.60 .621 5,356 +5 141 8 37
25. A. Smith SF 9 0 6.20 .562 3,765 -10 250 6 23
26. J. Campbell* Wash 2 0 6.27 .531 1,297 +4 107 5 25
27. R. Grossman* Chi. 14 2 6.65 .543 3,452 +2 2 5 27
28. B. Leftwich Jax 11 0 6.77 .584 3,282 +12 108 5 27
29. J. McCown* Oak. 3 0 6.80 .604 1,836 -2 139 6 28
30. T. Jackson* Min. 0 0 5.86 .580 475 -2 77 4 24
31. C. Frye Cle. 6 0 6.20 .628 3,456 -8 275 5 26
32. B. Croyle* KC 0 0 3.29 .429 23 -2 -3 6 24
# Age at the start of the 2007 regular season.
*Has not spent the last two seasons as starter.

JBucc
06-18-2007, 08:51 AM
While the last few guys could probably be flopped around some, it's not like it's a huge stretch. Every other guy on that list has at least started an NFL game.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 08:55 AM
I wanted to be pissed at first, but let's face it...that's where he should be ranked...totally unknown quantity. He won't be dead last after the season though. /homer

According to Peter King's own analysis, that's not where Croyle SHOULD be ranked.

The only rationale for him rating Tarvaris Jackson two slots ahead of Croyle is if he's (incorrectly) weighting yards per attempt or rushing yards for 2 QB's who've NEVER STARTED A GAME.

They're the same age and they've never started a game. Because of that fact, it seems to me that the most important "stat" for two unknowns would be his "intangible" rating. Croyle is a 6. Jackson is a 4. Yet Jackson rates better overall.

Furthermore, there's no way Croyle should be below Frye. We don't know what Croyle is yet, but he still has a CHANCE to be good. Frye doesn't.

percysnow
06-18-2007, 08:57 AM
We have the worst QB situation in the NFL right now. . so stupid we got rid of green. . .

blueballs
06-18-2007, 08:57 AM
Croyle is trying to gain wieght
King gains wieght eating lettuce

afchiefs
06-18-2007, 08:58 AM
[QUOTE=InChiefsHell]Here ya go:

Thanks

ROYC75
06-18-2007, 09:05 AM
yet he has culter in around 6 or 7. don't make much sense to me.


Tell me where PK does make sense........ Oh wait, He nailed Croyle dead on, Croyle hasn't done anything to get a ranking.

BigMeatballDave
06-18-2007, 09:11 AM
We have the worst QB situation in the NFL right now. . so stupid we got rid of green. . .OMG! STFU already...
:rolleyes:

Buehler445
06-18-2007, 09:11 AM
The bottom is up for grabs. Comparing our QB to NFL starters is rediculous because there is nothing to base it on. So to me him putting Croyle last isn't a big deal. If he performs well and King still poops on him (very possible) then we can be upset.

I did take a little issue with a couple of QBs though. He stuck Favre WAAAAY too high according to his stats -9 TD to TO ratio is rediculous for being ranked that high. I also thought Grossman was a little too low. For that kid, when he's off, he is by far the worst QB in the league, but he also torched some defenses for crazy statistics (including Minnesotas D which Harris was a part of). I thought he deserved to be a little higher.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 09:13 AM
The bottom is up for grabs. Comparing our QB to NFL starters is rediculous because there is nothing to base it on. So to me him putting Croyle last isn't a big deal. If he performs well and King still poops on him (very possible) then we can be upset.

I did take a little issue with a couple of QBs though. He stuck Favre WAAAAY too high according to his stats -9 TD to TO ratio is rediculous for being ranked that high. I also thought Grossman was a little too low. For that kid, when he's off, he is by far the worst QB in the league, but he also torched some defenses for crazy statistics (including Minnesotas D which Harris was a part of). I thought he deserved to be a little higher.

Putting CROYLE last makes no difference to me.

But the "logic" of his ranking system is ridiculous.

BigMeatballDave
06-18-2007, 09:14 AM
I don't mind that Croyle is ranked last, but this pissed me off:

"Even if I feel the team is making the wrong move (as in Kansas City going with the very green Brodie Croyle, which it looks like the Chiefs are going to do), that's the guy I've rated here."

**** him!

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Tell me where PK does make sense........ Oh wait, He nailed Croyle dead on, Croyle hasn't done anything to get a ranking.

Neither has Tarvaris Jackson.

Sure-Oz
06-18-2007, 09:14 AM
Croyle hasn't started a game and the very little time he has played his stats are horrible, being last is probably a good starting point to be honest.

Chiefnj
06-18-2007, 09:19 AM
Croyle is an unknown and in his very, very limited regular season playing experience he sucked balls. That's why he's on the bottom.

KCChiefsFan88
06-18-2007, 09:20 AM
For instance, he has Tarvaris Jackson rated ahead of Croyle. Why? He hasn't started a game and he didn't have near the college career Croyle did.




Actually Jackson started the final 2 games for the Vikings, one of which included a blow-out win over the Lambs.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 09:23 AM
Actually Jackson started the final 2 games for the Vikings, one of which included a blow-out win over the Lambs.

Then King's entire list is invalidated, because his stats aren't correct.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 09:42 AM
By the way, King's stats aren't wrong.

Jackson started two games, both losses. The Rams "blowout" was not a win. The Vikings lost 41-21 and Jackson threw 2 picks.

Mr. Plow
06-18-2007, 09:44 AM
Is it really a surprise that Manning & Brady are two of the top QB's in the league?

Buehler445
06-18-2007, 09:46 AM
Putting CROYLE last makes no difference to me.

But the "logic" of his ranking system is ridiculous.

Absolutely no argument there. This is probably just all an excuse to talk up how much better Manning and Brady are than the rest of the world.

jAZ
06-18-2007, 09:51 AM
Shouldn't he have used Huard on that list? Last QB on our roster to start a game last year... played well... no starter named currently. Huard could easily (and most likely) be our 2007 season starter.

Micjones
06-18-2007, 09:54 AM
I love it.

No pressure.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 10:36 AM
Shouldn't he have used Huard on that list? Last QB on our roster to start a game last year... played well... no starter named currently. Huard could easily (and most likely) be our 2007 season starter.

Croyle is gonna start.

Mr. Laz
06-18-2007, 10:39 AM
:shrug:


Croyle has thrown 7 NFL passes ... all in the preseason and 3 were intercepted.

what did you expect .... Croyle is worse than unproven at this point.

Doesn't mean anything until we see what he can do NOW.

GoHuge
06-18-2007, 10:42 AM
Brodie Croyle 2006 Stats

Completions 3

Attempts 7

TD's 0

INT's 2

Rating 11.9

He may be basing his ranking on that. :shrug:

Not unreasonable IMO. He'll be better, but this is his body of work so far in the NFL which is all he can be judged by. I hope he's going to eventually shut the nay sayers up with great play, poise, and with a good O-line be the commander of a great offense. But we've just got to wait and see. He hasn't done anything yet, other than look terrible.

BigChiefFan
06-18-2007, 10:43 AM
Peter Queen's lips are firmly cemented to the NFL's elite backside. He's a blowhard, I don't know why anyone would be upset-all you have to do is consider the source.

Count Zarth
06-18-2007, 10:45 AM
Croyle has thrown 7 NFL passes ... all in the preseason and 3 were intercepted.


No. Those were regular season and two were intercepted.

His preseason kinda sucked too, though.

BigChiefFan
06-18-2007, 10:48 AM
:shrug:


Croyle has thrown 7 NFL passes ... all in the preseason and 3 were intercepted.

what did you expect .... Croyle is worse than unproven at this point.

Doesn't mean anything until we see what he can do NOW.
That happened in the Steelers game, which was a regular season game.

Braincase
06-18-2007, 11:02 AM
I wonder where he'd put Huard if he were declared the starter.

FAX
06-18-2007, 11:11 AM
Actually it's good to know that Croyle isn't on the decline.

FAX

Mr. Laz
06-18-2007, 11:20 AM
That happened in the Steelers game, which was a regular season game.
ok ..... still, the same premise applies.

Croyle has sucked so far



But he was a rookie, doesn't mean he's gonna suck in the future.

I still think Croyle has the talent etc and it really depends on whether he can stay healthy or not.

FringeNC
06-18-2007, 11:21 AM
Who cares where Peter King thinks Croyle SHOULD be ranked?

I just hope we actually do start him, because at least he does have some upside potential. Seeing if Croyle develops is one of the few reasons I will still watch all the Chiefs' games this year.

BigChiefFan
06-18-2007, 11:22 AM
I agree. The jury is still out on Croyle. From what I've seen he looks like shit, but I'm still remaining optimistic until he actually gets some good game time experience. All is not lost on Croyle.

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 11:24 AM
Actually it's good to know that Croyle isn't on the decline.

FAX

ROFL

BigMeatballDave
06-18-2007, 11:26 AM
I agree. The jury is still out on Croyle. From what I've seen he looks like shit, but I'm still remaining optimistic until he actually gets some good game time experience. All is not lost on Croyle.I liked what I saw during minicamp on NFL Network. Not great, but a ton of potential. He throws harder than Green.

BigChiefFan
06-18-2007, 11:33 AM
I more concerned with his accuracy. Arm strength is overrated in my book.

Mr. Laz
06-18-2007, 11:41 AM
I more concerned with his accuracy. Arm strength is overrated in my book.
accuracy is more important but don't underestimate the impact good arm strength can have.

1. strong arm makes secondary respect the deep ball more which backs them up and opens the running game up more.

2. strong arm means the QB has an extra second to make his decision because the ball gets there faster.

3. Arm strength opens up more of the field for passes sideline to sideline as well as vertically. Which can spread the defense even more.


nothing matters if the guy can't throw the ball with decent accuracy ..... but you add arm strength TO accuracy and it can really impact your offense as a whole.

BigMeatballDave
06-18-2007, 11:44 AM
If you got a weak arm, you better be deadly accurate.

FAX
06-18-2007, 11:45 AM
All very true, Mr. Laz. Your posts continue to elevate Planet discourse.

Strong arm also usually indicates strong hand and strong hand, of course, often translates into strong thumb and a young quarterback with a strong thumb has a great chance getting a ride out of town.

FAX

htismaqe
06-18-2007, 12:53 PM
2. strong arm means the QB has an extra second to make his decision because the ball gets there faster...

but you add arm strength TO accuracy and it can really impact your offense as a whole.

Yep.

Any QB can be accurate.

But only accurate QB's with a strong arm can really thread the needle.

Mr. Kotter
06-18-2007, 01:43 PM
I know it's fun to argue about....but does ANYONE really care what Peter King has to say? :shake:

BigRock
06-18-2007, 01:49 PM
Putting CROYLE last makes no difference to me.

But the "logic" of his ranking system is ridiculous.
It doesn't sound like he's using stats or anything to rank guys, he's ranking them in order of how he thinks they'll perform in 2007: "The rankings are in the order of quarterbacks who will have the best seasons in 2007 and 2007 only."

So it's not that Croyle is less proven than Jackson or Frye or anyone else, he's saying flat out that Croyle will be the league's worst QB next season.

Count Zarth
06-18-2007, 01:51 PM
Wow. That's a load of garbage. Of course so is putting Kitna in the top 10...

Direckshun
06-18-2007, 03:55 PM
Everybody get ready for the "Where Did Brody Croyle Come From?" suckfest that's going to occur in about 6 months.

Ugly Duck
06-18-2007, 03:55 PM
Croyle has thrown 7 NFL passes ... all in the preseason and 3 were intercepted.

Croyle is worse than unproven at this point.

Maybe he's dead last right now, but he's also the youngest QB on the list & nobody has had a chance to see him play. So far, outside of Peter King & a few Planeteers, nobody even knows who Brobie Coil is. Give the kid a chance....

Direckshun
06-18-2007, 04:07 PM
Brobie Coil
That'll catch on.

Count Zarth
06-18-2007, 04:13 PM
You've got to be ****ing kidding me, Ugly Duck. Croyle was one of the quarterbacks everyone was talking about before the draft last year. He's definitely not an unknown.

pikesome
06-18-2007, 04:30 PM
Maybe he's dead last right now, but he's also the youngest QB on the list & nobody has had a chance to see him play. So far, outside of Peter King & a few Planeteers, nobody even knows who Brobie Coil is. Give the kid a chance....

Croyle wasn't unknown he just had some questions that just couldn't be answered prior to the draft. Could he stay healthy? Was his college record more about a bad team than his own ability? He looked good at the Senior Bowl workouts.

Chieftain58
06-18-2007, 07:07 PM
Peter King is a "Peter"

Manila-Chief
06-18-2007, 07:08 PM
I know it's fun to argue about....but does ANYONE really care what Peter King has to say? :shake:

Yep!!! and the other question is ... how will Peter King's statements impact what Brodie does on the field. I mean, except to motivate him, absolutely nothing. All this preseason guessing game means nothing one way or another. It is the players who determine these things not sports writers.

I think if PK was fair he would have lumped all the first year starters in a bunch at the bottom and not ranked them. He thinks he is an expert but no one can know what they will produce when they get on the field. Plus, it may take Brodie and the other young QB's a couple years to get their "A" game together.

Rain Man
06-18-2007, 07:09 PM
Truthfully, it's probably fair to rank Brady and Manning ahead of Croyle. They're more proven at this point.

Direckshun
06-18-2007, 07:30 PM
Truthfully, it's probably fair to rank Brady and Manning ahead of Croyle. They're more proven at this point.
Bah, those two are going to be busts eventually.

In Canton, perhaps, but busts nonetheless.

Mr. Laz
06-18-2007, 07:33 PM
Maybe he's dead last right now, but he's also the youngest QB on the list & nobody has had a chance to see him play. So far, outside of Peter King & a few Planeteers, nobody even knows who Brobie Coil is. Give the kid a chance....
i love how you cut out the part of my post that said just that
Doesn't mean anything until we see what he can do NOW.

Bwana
06-18-2007, 07:39 PM
I hate to break it to you, but until he does something..........