Jaws' QB Rankings on ESPN

[lobachevsky]

Will someone with access to the original please post a summary of Jaws' rationale for ranking Schlub, I mean Schaub, this high? Cuz I just can't imagine what he sees in that bundle of straw (which according to my Cassell's German Dictionary is what "Schaub" means in Austrian dialect)...

Concur w/ HR re the elevated company. My usually-disinformed guess is that Joe slots at #6, ahead of Eli but below Pigpen.

[Kyle Cactus]

Including game winning passes in AFCCGs being dropped which COST Flacco a shot at having 2 rings. Discrediting the one for a play in which HE CAUGHT THE SAFETY SHORT AND THREW OVER HIM (not a miracle play, it was taking advantage of a blunder, it wasn't just heaved up) and ignoring the previous year's demise in which a beautiful game-winning-TD-pass was dropped is unfair and what continually happens to Flacco.

Would Joe Montana be rated as high as he is if not for help, like Clark's sticky fingers? I don't know, all the guy did was be the QB on a team that kept winning.

I was merely asserting that Super Bowl wins are influenced by many factors outside of a QBs control. Your example of Flacco missing the SB after the drop-and-shank disaster proves my point.

I'm not trying to discredit Flacco in any way. I used that example because it was recent, and we're all intimately familiar with it.

I completely agree that the 2011 team was a great team, and you could argue that they should have won a Super Bowl. IMO the 2011 team probably should have and the 2012 team probably shouldn't have. Just like the Patriots 1st Super Bowl win probably shouldn't have happened because of the tuck rule game, but on the same token you could argue that they should have won at least one of the more recent Super Bowls against the Giants.

IMO Ryan belongs in the same group as Flacco, Ben, and Eli. I was merely trying to head-off the "he hasn't won a Super Bowl" argument.

[Kyle Cactus]

I'm not buying the read-option as a "gimmick." There's a legitimate reason it works. On a more traditional NFL running play it's essentially 10 v 11 once the QB hands the ball off. In the read-option, it's essentially 10 v 10 once the decision is made to hand off or not hand off. That's not a gimmick. It's simple math.

I think a fairer criticism of the read option is that it exposes your most valuable player to a greater number of hits.

NFL defenses will certainly get better at defending the option, but it presents a legitimate tactical advantage for offenses. Getting better at defending it won't completely negate that.

[wickedsolo]

What other active QBs have done any better outside of the top 10 guys though?

I guess you could say Phillip Rivers who's declined massively over the last 3 season's, but apart from him, not many QBs have had much post season success.

In my opinion, there are at least 10 other QBs in this league whom many would choose to start a franchise with over Schaub.

[leachisabeast]

In my opinion, there are at least 10 other QBs in this league whom many would choose to start a franchise with over Schaub.

I agree, but I'm pretty sure this ranking is on now, not 2/3 seasons down the line. That's why I'd take Shaubb over 19/20 other starting QBs in the NFL, because you can win with him.

[jonboy79]

I'm not buying the read-option as a "gimmick." There's a legitimate reason it works. On a more traditional NFL running play it's essentially 10 v 11 once the QB hands the ball off. In the read-option, it's essentially 10 v 10 once the decision is made to hand off or not hand off. That's not a gimmick. It's simple math.

I think a fairer criticism of the read option is that it exposes your most valuable player to a greater number of hits.

NFL defenses will certainly get better at defending the option, but it presents a legitimate tactical advantage for offenses. Getting better at defending it won't completely negate that.

Understood, and to me, risking your QB to damage over and over is what makes it a gimmick. It's not sustainable.

[wickedsolo]

Understood, and to me, risking your QB to damage over and over is what makes it a gimmick. It's not sustainable.

Could be why they got Pat White.

[ursula]

Could be why they got Pat White.

In that case, White will need to be a real threat to throw the ball. Not sure if he is in the pros. Then again, when your 3rd QB is Grossman, what do you have to lose-other than a legit player at another position.

[Ravenswintitle]

Understood, and to me, risking your QB to damage over and over is what makes it a gimmick. It's not sustainable.

There's no reason to think that a QB running the zone/read is any more prone to injury than a dropback QB. In fact I've seen stats that show just the opposite

[HoustonRaven]

Schaub is indeed #9

Meh. May be a bit of a stretch but I understood his reasoning.

[Greg]

There's no reason to think that a QB running the zone/read is any more prone to injury than a dropback QB. In fact I've seen stats that show just the opposite

The evidence pool is currently low, the defense not quite used to it and the QBs in it young. The evidence, in time, will show it to be bad for QB's health. RBs have the shortest careers in the game for a reason, running the ball is a brutal business.

[MarkS]

There's no reason to think that a QB running the zone/read is any more prone to injury than a dropback QB. In fact I've seen stats that show just the opposite

You're gonna need to show those stats then.

Joe Flacco was sacked 35 times, and is listed as having 32 rushing attempts. Even if he might have scored or ran out of bounds on half those rushes, that's 51-67 times he would have been taken to the turf by a defender.

Russell Wilson was sacked 33 times and had 94 rushing attempts. Again, giving him maybe 1/2 those rushes where he might not have been tackled, that's still 80-127 times he WAS tackled.

There's just no way I can see where a QB who's getting planted in the turf nearly twice as often (usually by 250lb LBs or 300+lb linemen) isn't going to be more injury-prone.