ESPN Article: Ranking 32 NFL QBs by Tier (Need ESPN Insider Help)

[FinfanInBuffalo]

like an early career Roethlisberger Pitt wasn't winning anything until Ben got there just like Seattle and Wilson.

In 2001, they went 13-3 and won the division with Kordell "F'n" Stewart at QB. Only the Pats stopped them from going to the SB.

In 2004, they were basically the same team with Roethlisberger being marginally better than Stewart. They went 15-1 and again were stopped by the Pats.

In 2005, they added Willie Parker and that was enough to get them over the hump. Roethlisberger threw for 2385 yards and 17 TDs.

In those three years the defense allowed, 212, 251, and 258 points.

Pitt is 8-8 the last two seasons with Roethlisberger playing well. Why? Because their defense has allowed 314 and 370 points and their running game has fallen off. See the trend?

 

[nyjunc]

In 2001, they went 13-3 and won the division with Kordell "F'n" Stewart at QB. Only the Pats stopped them from going to the SB.

In 2004, they were basically the same team with Roethlisberger being marginally better than Stewart. They went 15-1 and again were stopped by the Pats.

In 2005, they added Willie Parker and that was enough to get them over the hump. Roethlisberger threw for 2385 yards and 17 TDs.

In those three years the defense allowed, 212, 251, and 258 points.

Pitt is 8-8 the last two seasons with Roethlisberger playing well. Why? Because their defense has allowed 314 and 370 points and their running game has fallen off. See the trend?

In 2003 they went 6-10 w/o him, in 2004 they went 15-1 w/ ben(13-0 w/ him starting in reg season).

Pitt has gotten old and they keep getting rid of weapons for him and he keeps playing at a high level. No one said ben did it on his own but it's not a coincidence that they were known for failing in title games under Cowher pre-Ben and mad3 3 and won 2 SBs w/ Ben. The D was great and a huge part but great D's aren't winning anything w/o good QB play.

2001 they were beat by the Bledsoe Pats(after Brady got hurt), in 2004 they were beat by the dynasty Pats- HUGE difference.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

Then why does Wilson have 52 TD passes with only 19 Ints and a lifetime QBR of over 100?

Tannehill has 36 Td passes and 30 Ints.

You are just making up stuff now.

Please, just look stuff up.

In 2013, Tannehill had 5 games where he completed less than 60% of his passes. So did Wilson.

In 2013, Wilson had 3 games where he completed less than 50% of his passes. Tannehill had one.

Wilson is playing in a situation (defenses needing to stop the run) that should make him more effective.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------

In 2003 they went 6-10 w/o him, in 2004 they went 15-1 w/ ben(13-0 w/ him starting in reg season).

Pitt has gotten old and they keep getting rid of weapons for him and he keeps playing at a high level. No one said ben did it on his own but it's not a coincidence that they were known for failing in title games under Cowher pre-Ben and mad3 3 and won 2 SBs w/ Ben. The D was great and a huge part but great D's aren't winning anything w/o good QB play.

2001 they were beat by the Bledsoe Pats(after Brady got hurt), in 2004 they were beat by the dynasty Pats- HUGE difference.

And your explanation for 2012 and 2013??????????

 

[Fins1971]

Please, just look stuff up.

In 2013, Tannehill had 5 games where he completed less than 60% of his passes. So did Wilson.

In 2013, Wilson had 3 games where he completed less than 50% of his passes. Tannehill had one.

Wilson is playing in a situation (defenses needing to stop the run) that should make him more effective.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------



And your explanation for 2012 and 2013??????????

more useless stats.
Yards passing and completion rate aren't the best stats to use for your argument.

Lets go back to your statement about having the same amount of stinkers.

To me a stinker is when the QB has a QBR of less than 80 in game. You can't find large amounts of games where the QB is below 80 and the team still wins.

Both Wilson and Tanny have 32 regular season starts.

Here are their games above 80

Above 100, RW3 = 17, RT17 = 4
Above 90, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 9
Above 80, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 6

Total RW3 = 25, RT17 = 19

Stinkers RW3 = 7, RT17 = 13

Consequently team wins match up pretty close with the games that QBR was over 80.

Seahawks 24-8, Miami 14-16

Its not just the team but the fact that Wilson is that much better.

Also something to mention is that Wilson has almost as many over 100 games in 5 playoff games against better competition than RT17 has in 2 years of regular season games.

 

[nyjunc]

Please, just look stuff up.

In 2013, Tannehill had 5 games where he completed less than 60% of his passes. So did Wilson.

In 2013, Wilson had 3 games where he completed less than 50% of his passes. Tannehill had one.

Wilson is playing in a situation (defenses needing to stop the run) that should make him more effective.

---------- Post added at 01:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:24 PM ----------



And your explanation for 2012 and 2013??????????

the team isn't good around him, the fact that they have won as many games as they have is a testament to Ben's greatness.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

the team isn't good around him, the fact that they have won as many games as they have is a testament to Ben's greatness.

Ditto for Tannehill.

 

[nyjunc]

Ditto for Tannehill.

except Miami was in the race largely in spite of Ryan last year, the D kept you in and won most of your games.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

more useless stats.
Yards passing and completion rate aren't the best stats to use for your argument.

Lets go back to your statement about having the same amount of stinkers.

To me a stinker is when the QB has a QBR of less than 80 in game. You can't find large amounts of games where the QB is below 80 and the team still wins.

Both Wilson and Tanny have 32 regular season starts.

Here are their games above 80

Above 100, RW3 = 17, RT17 = 4
Above 90, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 9
Above 80, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 6

Total RW3 = 25, RT17 = 19

Stinkers RW3 = 7, RT17 = 13

Consequently team wins match up pretty close with the games that QBR was over 80.

Seahawks 24-8, Miami 14-16

Its not just the team but the fact that Wilson is that much better.

Also something to mention is that Wilson has almost as many over 100 games in 5 playoff games against better competition than RT17 has in 2 years of regular season games.

I pick 50 as the QBR that separates stinkers from non-stinkers.

In 2013, Tannehill had 8 in 16 games and Wilson had 9 in 19 games.

Wilson played under VASTLY better circumstances. It is much, much easier to be more efficient in the passing game when teams have to respect the run. It is easier to be efficient when you are playing with the lead. It is easier to be efficient when you are not carrying the load by yourself.

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

except Miami was in the race largely in spite of Ryan last year, the D kept you in and won most of your games.

:rolleyes2: Same BS. Different day.

We did see them face each other last season. We know how that turned out.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

more useless stats.
Yards passing and completion rate aren't the best stats to use for your argument.

Lets go back to your statement about having the same amount of stinkers.

To me a stinker is when the QB has a QBR of less than 80 in game. You can't find large amounts of games where the QB is below 80 and the team still wins.

Both Wilson and Tanny have 32 regular season starts.

Here are their games above 80

Above 100, RW3 = 17, RT17 = 4
Above 90, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 9
Above 80, RW3 = 4, RT17 = 6

Total RW3 = 25, RT17 = 19

Stinkers RW3 = 7, RT17 = 13

Consequently team wins match up pretty close with the games that QBR was over 80.

Seahawks 24-8, Miami 14-16

Its not just the team but the fact that Wilson is that much better.

Also something to mention is that Wilson has almost as many over 100 games in 5 playoff games against better competition than RT17 has in 2 years of regular season games.

BTW, this is from an explanation of QBR:

More significantly, the league average performance will be 50, so at a glance you can get a sense of how good a quarterback is.

So your use of 80 is ridiculous.

 

[nyjunc]

I pick 50 as the QBR that separates stinkers from non-stinkers.

In 2013, Tannehill had 8 in 16 games and Wilson had 9 in 19 games.

Wilson played under VASTLY better circumstances. It is much, much easier to be more efficient in the passing game when teams have to respect the run. It is easier to be efficient when you are playing with the lead. It is easier to be efficient when you are not carrying the load by yourself.

This really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

---------- Post added at 03:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------



:rolleyes2: Same BS. Different day.

We did see them face each other last season. We know how that turned out.

you can't deal w/ the truth.

they faced each other,m Ryan threw a pick 6 and kept Pitt in the game. the game was won when a RB gained almost 60 yds then a TE broke 5 tackles on a dumpoff to take the lead then the Miami D forced a 4 and out to set up the FG for the final margin.

Switch the QBs and Miami wins by at least 2 TDs w/ Ben.

---------- Post added at 03:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:20 PM ----------

I don't think you can strictly look at QB rating and say if a player was good or not. You have to watch the flow of the game, ben had a 30 rating against us in the Title game and mark 100+ but ben was the better QB that day.

 

[FinfanInBuffalo]

you can't deal w/ the truth.

And you can't separate "truth" from "opinion". Tannehill was the best player on the field against Pitt.

 

[nyjunc]

And you can't separate "truth" from "opinion". Tannehill was the best player on the field against Pitt.

oh boy, wow! I have seen some asinine things posted in my many years of psoting on various boards but this one- just wow!

 

[truedolfan57]

[/COLOR]I don't think you can strictly look at QB rating and say if a player was good or not. You have to watch the flow of the game, ben had a 30 rating against us in the Title game and mark 100+ but ben was the better QB that day.

when the difference between two qb's is 70+ difference, and the lesser qb won, it would be clear that the rest of the team won that game, despite poor qb play. you can't have a 30 rating, and play better than a 100+ rated qb. it's just not possible. it is possible for the rest of the team to pick up the slack from the qb, from time to time...if that team has a good enough supporting cast, which the steelers did.

 

[truedolfan57]

ok, maybe I can't say that can never happen. I suppose if a qb throws 70 times in the game, and gets a 30 rating, while the other teams qb throws 10 times the whole game, and gets a 100 rating, then it's slightly possible for the lower rated guy to have played better...but I highly doubt it. HIGHLY.

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------

oh boy, wow! I have seen some asinine things posted in my many years of psoting on various boards but this one- just wow!

yeah, the others posts probably came from you.

 

[nyjunc]

when the difference between two qb's is 70+ difference, and the lesser qb won, it would be clear that the rest of the team won that game, despite poor qb play. you can't have a 30 rating, and play better than a 100+ rated qb. it's just not possible. it is possible for the rest of the team to pick up the slack from the qb, from time to time...if that team has a good enough supporting cast, which the steelers did.

Ben made plays to win that game, I don't care what the rating was.