This is the NFL's 17th-best group of QBs? Really?

by Ed Valentine on Jun 30, 2009 10:36 AM EDT in News Comment 28 comments

FOX Sports recently came out with a ranking of the quarterback groups of all 32 NFL teams. FOX has listed the New York Giants group of Eli Manning, David Carr, Andre Woodson and Rhett Bomar 17th.

All I can say to this, are you serious? Or, how about, are you out of your friggin' mind?

Here is what FOX said about the Giants' quartet.

If former Super Bowl champion Eli Manning gets hurt for an extended period, watch the Giants' offense go into "three yards and a cloud of dust" mode. Somehow, former mega-draft bust David Carr has found a home as New York's backup — despite being scarred seemingly beyond repair from being a pinata in Houston for five seasons. Behind Carr are two youngsters sans snaps at this level, meaning Big Blue fans should offer armed escorts and bubble-wrap any time Eli steps outside his door.

I can shoot so many holes in the arguments for placing 16 groups ahead of the Giants' quarterbacks that it isn't even funny.

I'm going to enjoy this, so let's get started. I will give FOX the first five (Saints, Steelers, Chargers, Cowboys, Cardinals) based on the talent of the second-team quarterbacks. After that, though, the gloves are coming off.

At No. 6, FOX has Carolina (Jake Delhomme, Josh McCown, Matt Moore, Hunter Cantwell). No. 6? You're killing me, here. Is there a quality NFL quarterback in that group? If you think Delhomme is one, maybe, but I would disagree with you.

At No. 7 is Philadelphia (Donovan McNabb, Kevin Kolb, A.J. Feeley). Is Feeley clearly better than Carr? That's arguable. and the only thing Kolb has done to be considered better than Woodson or Bomar is get drafted higher.

At No. 8 is New England (Tom Brady, Kevin O'Connell, Matt Gutierrez, Brian Hoyer). The argument here is that if Bill Belicheck could turn Matt Cassel into a quality quarterback he can do it with O'Connell. I don't think you can rank O'Connell ahead of Carr until he proves it.

At No. 9 is Indianapolis (Peyton Manning, Jim Sorgi, Curtis Painter, Chris Crane). Same deal here. How do we know Sorgi is any better than the dearly departed Jared Lorenzen. Say what you want about Carr, but I am taking my chances with a guy who has played meaningful football. As for the other two, who knows and who cares?

At No. 11 is Atlanta (Matt Ryan, Chris Redman, D.J. Shockley, John Parker Wilson). Here again, we have to argue about the second-team QB. Exactly what has Redman done to push the Falcons six slots ahead of the Giants in this ranking? I can't find anything.

At No. 13 is Houston (Matt Schaub, Dan Orlovsky, Rex Grossman, Alex Brink). This is a joke, right? I have been sleeping, woke up and it's April Fool's Day? Orlovsky? Mr. 'Step out of the back of the end zone because I'm clueless?' Yikes!

At. No. 15 is Baltimore (Joe Flacco, Troy Smith, John Beck, Drew Willy). Smith was supposed to be the Ravens' starter last season before losing the job to Flacco. So what? He has thrown 80 career passes. You trust him more than Carr? I don't. As for Beck, same argument as with Kolb. He was drafted higher than Woodson or Bomar, that's all.

Mind you none of this is based on where Eli stands in relation to the other No. 1s. It is about the depth. I just can't believe the Giants group is only 17th-best in the league.

Your thoughts?

(-- 'Kudos to Windy City Gridiron for the find).

0 recs | Comment 28 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Agreed

This has to be the most meaningless article ever produced by FOX sports. Its meaningless

by vgeorge19 on Jun 30, 2009 10:44 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Wow... 17?

I would say they are more around 10 or so, and I give them 6-9 based on the high quality of their starters. Carr as a back-up makes him one of the much better #2 options in all the NFL.

by brisulph on Jun 30, 2009 10:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Complicated analysis to do

I’m not sure how you go about rating a group like this. Which is better having the best starter and the 20th best back up or the tenth best starter and the 10th best back up?

I do agree that they are obviously undervaluing Carr. Eveyone remembers how awful he looked when he was shell shocked in Texas, but he showed last year, albeit in limited circumstances, that in a system with better players he can be really sharp. I actually think the Giants suffer less drop off than most teams if Eli goes down, but they clearly are never going to get the quarterback play of a Warner or a Brees.

I also agree that right now, Bomar and Woodson can’t be counted on for much.

So maybe, if you factor in Eli versus the other starters, and the complete lack of NFL experience of our 3 and 4 they’re not so far off. Say maybe between 9-12. FOX is just focussing on the wrong reason.

Carolina’s group, however, does not even deserve to be in the top 20. Jake Delhomme is not better than Eli, and nobody else in their group has any proven value.

by Tucker Fredrickson on Jun 30, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Basically

I looked at it as the quality of the backups. It’s really hard to tell what they weighted more heavily.

by Ed Valentine on Jun 30, 2009 11:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Don't forget the O-line

It’s not just the system he showed up in last year, he’s standing behind a beast of a line. He was beat up on in texas, but does anyone think that’d happen with the giants o-line? It’d take a jacksonville style series of catastrophes for him to be in similar circumstances again.

by catsmeat84 on Jun 30, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

And I may add the running game (if I am not mistaken, the Gmen ended the season as number 1) that helps a QB a lot, along with the O-line. this ranking is absurd. For all the heat and crap that Carr had to take at Houston he played decent and I will pick him over any other back up in an snap, is just ridiculous, I agree with Ed.

by Bajaserge on Jun 30, 2009 1:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

skewed rankings

atlanta, baltimore, and houston(even with the Sex Cannon)…..really?

you should have just stopped at Carolina #6. You really didn’t need to make any other arguments to expose this fraud. I didn’t even know a person named Hunter Cantwell existed until this list.

Other than that, i disagree with your 7-9 analysis. As a whole, i believe those teams listed have better QBs then the NYG (am philly fan, so homerism is to be expected).

I put NYG QBs, as a unit, in the top ten. Definately above San Diego, the Saints, and the Cowboys.

I looked at Ohrnberger in the fourth quarter and he looked back at me. And we said, 'We're not losing this game"

by psudrozz on Jun 30, 2009 11:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Carr

I dont know why the perception of David Carr is that the guy can’t play QB in the NFL because he took a few hits in his time in Houston. Sure he did, so what. Every QB takes hits here and there, granted he took a lot more than anyone else in the league. But god forbid something did happen to Eli, I wouldn’t be worried about him taking the same amount of hits here in NY. We have a formidable offensive line that would allow him to make the 3 and 5 step drops without facing the constant pressure that he’s had to see his entire NFL career as a starter. I wouldn’t be so quick to write this guy off the way FOX sports seemingly has. I mean give me a break, look who they’ve apparently ranked in front of him in terms of talent. This was a former #1 pick.

by menoff13 on Jun 30, 2009 11:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

FOX

Is only good for a handful of things:
1. Stupid jumping robots graphics that irritate me.
2. Ramping up support for war.
3. Homoerotic, idiotic announcing couples, I mean teams (that’s you, Joe *uck and Troy Gaykman)
4. Political idiocy

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Jun 30, 2009 11:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I've never seen that

I usually just watch the Giants and AFC games because IMO CBS does such a better job… the night game on NBC as well
Nothing more irritating in past years than going from Jimmy Johnson’s pregame to Troyboy’s game calls for a NYG-DAL game… thank God Strahan’s in there now.

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Jun 30, 2009 11:48 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

17??

Fox is placing big blue at number 17 because of our backups?. That is one big IF. IF a super bowl MVP on any team gets hurt im pretty sure that is bad news regardless of the backups. The basis of fox’s entire article is fubar anyways because i can only think of 3-4 NFL teams that have proven back-ups. Thus incorporating 2nd, 3rd and even 4th string quaterbacks is not only pointless but an awful way to evaluate a team at any position much less quarterback!! You have to place the emphasis on the starter. That being said I place big blue and Eli 4th behind Tom, Peyton, and Ben. With drew brees rounding out the top 5. BOOM

by Iniquitous on Jun 30, 2009 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Boom!

And why all this hatin’ on David Carr? Not even Sam Houston himself was going to lead the Texans of that era. He played one game for the Giants last year and looked damn fine. The talk at the time was, “There goes our backup.” He’s also a former #1 pick, I think. The guy’s a high quality backup, probably one of the top 5 backups in the NFL.

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Jun 30, 2009 1:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sorry,

shoulda read the 14 comments before me that said the same thing

You play to win the game!

by Simms-McConkey on Jun 30, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah there's a problem with those rankings

Not only did the Giants get short changed but so did the Titans, Rams, and Redskins. All three of those teams along with the Giants have former starters as backups.

But I have another problem with the rankings. The articles is ranking the QB packages, correct? So that means starters and backups. Of the 16 teams ranked ahead of the Giants only four of the starting QBs have a SB ring. Brady, Warner, Roethlisberger and Manning #1.

So how do they justify people like Delhomme, Brees, etc being ranked ahead of the G-men?

by John W on Jun 30, 2009 1:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

i still haven't seen anything out of Carr

that convinces me he’s better than Lorenzen

by queler on Jun 30, 2009 2:56 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If you think that is bad....

on nfl.com the poll is “who will win the NFC East”.

95,000+ people have voted as of this email and the Eagles are at 48% and the Giants are at 25%

Are you kidding?

by EverBlue on Jun 30, 2009 2:58 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It's meaningless until someone gets hurt

That said, I would rather take a chance with Sorgi than with Carr. Sorgi knows the Colts’ system. Carr is in his 2nd year with the Giants and is an epic failure.

by The King! on Jun 30, 2009 3:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

If I were looking for a back-up QB

I would consider important attributes to be his ability to prepare given limited practice time, knows proper film study during the week, and is familiar with the system in place. Given those measurables, I would prefer a player with experience in the league, like Carr, versus an up-and-coming rookie or second year player that may have a cannon for an arm. The up-and-comer may someday replace the starter, but until then he may not be the best option to step in for 10 plays in the middle of a game, or suddenly take over for 2-3 games while the starter is recuperating.

by rzor on Jun 30, 2009 3:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

And just to follow-up

if I were to objectively rank the QB depth for each NFL team, I would give a weighted ranking for each player with 100 maximum points possible for each team (60 points for the starter, 25 for the back-up, 10 for third string, and 5 for fourth string). It appears the rankings in this post were weighted too heavily toward players that will likely never see the field (e.g. Bomar and Woodson).

by rzor on Jun 30, 2009 3:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think that ranking system

would make this type of analysis more legitimate. I think Carr is one of the secret strengths of this team. Nobody wants to see Eli get injured, but if he does we’ve got a guy who is not going to phased by anything he sees out there and who is probably relishing the chance to show his worth so he can get another crack at a first string job somewhere.

by Tucker Fredrickson on Jun 30, 2009 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I wish

they had done something like that. But, there doesn’t appear to be anything more here than the writer’s ‘feel’ for this. No real system.

by Ed Valentine on Jun 30, 2009 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

FOX Sports:

Not much better than their news counterpart.

"I dunno. I never smoked any Astroturf"
-Tug McGraw

by squid92 on Jun 30, 2009 3:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I guess I can see the gripe with Eli still

tho as Giants fans I think we all know the guy is NOT as his perception. And even that the guys is still rated in the top 10-12 QB’s based on majority.

But David Carr is better than 90% of backups in the league. He hasn’t played much, but he showed that given the fact the Giants actually have an offensive line (unlike Houston or Carolina when he was there) he is more than a capable STARTER, let alone backup.

I know the 3rd and 4th string show no more than potential, but who has Steve Young as their 3rd string QB anymore?

I mean ALL national media outlets really don’t show much intelligence, so this is no big deal anyway.

by FreeBradshaw on Jun 30, 2009 4:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Carolina?

How could anyone in their right mind rate Carolina 9th? Jake Delhomme made Arizona’s defense look like Baltimore’s, and while McCown is a good backup, it still doesn’t justify them being in the top 15, let alone top 9.

by nygmp42 on Jun 30, 2009 4:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think that list is going more so on starters. With the exception of Delhommo, Flacco, and Schaub (wtf the dude can’t stay on the field). I think those starters are little better or had to do more than Eli. Their numbers might not justify the ranking. Eli isn’t asked to pass the ball a ton in each game, hence Fox saying that a QB that does is better.

Just a thought.

I could see us being 11-13 but not much higher than that.

by JRSu1 on Jun 30, 2009 4:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Slow news article

And seriously, unless you have two legitimate starters, and no team can afford that, backups are a guess. And even then. At the beginning of last year, how many people really thought Collins (or Warner for that matter) had that much left in the tank?

There are three basic truths

1. The NFL is thin at the QB position – Half the starting QB’s in the league probably shouldn’t be starting

2. The quality of the QB has a lot to do with the quality of the rest of the team. Give almost any quarterback in the league a great line and solid running team, and he’ll do OK. Give any quarterback (no matter how good) a swiss cheese line, and he’ll stink

3. Backups don’t get many snaps with the first team, so it is almost impossible to know how a backup will do until he is in a game situation, with the first team. And even then, it usually takes at least a few games, if not a season for a QB to get it.

Earth Friendly Shopping
Voting with our dollars for a cleaner, greener, better world

by NYERinSF on Jun 30, 2009 7:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs