Rank your 16 starting AFC QBs

[JimZipCode]

And Roethlisberger thinks he has a beard.
This is your leader, right here.

[edromeo]

...Fitzpatrick at 7 is rich but based on last year he was only behind Mahomes, Lamar, Tannehill and maybe Watson in terms of performance but he's probably due one of his bad years.

I'm a Fitzmagik apologist, i get it.

My favorite was when he had his son come up to the podium and answer multiplication question

[JimZipCode]

As much as i want to put Lamar in the same tier as Mahomes – Mahomes is on another level.

Hot take alert

This just occured to me yesterday – it actually staggered me a little, I had to stop what I was doing and stand still for a moment. You ready?

Lamar > Mahomes.

Not only that, but it's really friggin obvious that Lamar > Mahomes. We're all overlooking something utterly basic.

Wait! Just hear me out a second.

---

First, to get this out of the way:

Mahomes is probably the most exciting young passer I have ever seen. He's like the best of Brett Favre and Dan Marino. He's ridiculous. I am not out of step with the groupthink on that. I see it the same way everyone else does: he's amazing.

But: what is the job of a QB? What is the role of that position? It's NOT to pass the ball. Passing is the means. What's the job? The goal?

The QB's job is to do three things:

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Right? That's the job.

Mahomes amazes because he does #1 & 2 so effortlessly, seemingly at will.

But you phrase the job that way, it clarifies how a "game manager" like peak Alex Smith or Phill Simms can be good QBs. It also points out how you need different things from your QB in different situations. For example, up 2 with 4 mins to play, you need your QB to retain possession and finish the win. You don't want him to go all daring Matthew Stafford on you. On the other hand, down 5 with 3 mins left, you need a QB who can open it up.

---

So here's why Lamar > Mahomes:

What percentage of Mahomes would you say Lamar is, as a passer? Do you have Lamar at 70% of Mahomes? 80%? 90%? I say 70 is WAY too low. I've got Lamar as around 90-95% of Mahomes as a passer. We can quibble here; but the exact value is not that critical. For argument, let's say Lamar is 85% of the passer that Mahomes is.

And what percentage of Lamar's impact on the running game would you say that Mahomes has? Like, 5%?

That's why Lamar is obviously a better QB than Mahomes. He brings around 85% of what Mahomes brings in the passing game; and adds this whole other huge dimension in the running game. Lamar's presence turns a pedestrian running game into an attack as dangerous as some passing games.

Lamar improves a team more than Mahomes does.

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Lamar does more to help a team accomplish those items, than Lamar does.

Lamar > Mahomes.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

---

To go the other way and draw the opposite conclusion, you have to make really strong assumptions. You have to go all PFF and assume that rushing the ball brings a team zero value; or you have to assume that Lamar < 70% of Mahomes as a passer. Those are hotter, bolder takes than anything I've written here. If rushing the ball has some value to a team at all; and if what Lamar showed with his passing efficiency numbers last year is anywhere close to true; then it must be true that Lamar > Mahomes.

Or else you have to hyper-focus on specific situations: like you'd rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40 therefore Mahomes is globally the better QB. I also would rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40; but that doesn't make Mahomes globally better.


The real reason to argue the opposite, that Mahomes > Lamar, is because you're more comfortable that Mahomes can replicate what he's done. Mahomes has the more traditional NFL game; Lamar is more likely to get injured. Lamar's game is riskier; more likely to suddenly lose value. I can see that one. Whether it proves to be accurate or not, it makes sense for people to retain some skepticism until they see how it plays out.

But we don't usually factor-in injury, when we're assessing who's better. "Unless he gets hurt" is always the unspoken codicil to every player ranking. Is it more fair to apply that to Lamar than to other QBs? Maybe yes. Cam Newton has declined a lot in effectiveness from his MVP year. But, hell: Peyton Manning declined suddenly too. I'm not sure the answer here.

Absent injury, Lamar > Mahomes. How much to ding Lamar for injury risk, I don't know.


</Hot Take>


Flame away.

[edromeo]

The only delta between Mahomes and Lamar for me is the SB ring.

[JimZipCode]

The only delta between Mahomes and Lamar for me is the SB ring.

Same. I'd really like to close that gap.

[seraph]

Patrick Mahomes
Ben Roethlisberger
Philip Rivers
Lamar Jackson
Deshaun Watson
Ryan Tannehill
Derek Carr
Joe Burrow
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Baker Mayfield
Gardener Minshew
Sam Darnold
Tyrod Tayler
Drew Lock
Josh Allen
Jarrett Stidham

Even if I wanted to rate Lamar at 1 there exists Mahomes who has 1/100 years arm talent and yes I believe that's more valuable than Lamar's effect on the running game which still hasn't been quantified. Even if he did add value in the running game I feel that passing is more effective as a tactic in modern football than running which while cool and dynamic doesn't seem to be more effective than the passing game in terms of offensive success.

I also feel Joe Burrow is going to make some noise as a rookie.

Also Ryan Tannehill is elite don't @ me.

[ShaySharpe]

Patrick Mahomes
Ben Roethlisberger
Philip Rivers
Lamar Jackson
Deshaun Watson
Ryan Tannehill
Derek Carr
Joe Burrow
Ryan Fitzpatrick
Baker Mayfield
Gardener Minshew
Sam Darnold
Tyrod Tayler
Drew Lock
Josh Allen
Jarrett Stidham

Even if I wanted to rate Lamar at 1 there exists Mahomes who has 1/100 years arm talent and yes I believe that's more valuable than Lamar's effect on the running game which still hasn't been quantified. Even if he did add value in the running game I feel that passing is more effective as a tactic in modern football than running which while cool and dynamic doesn't seem to be more effective than the passing game in terms of offensive success.

I also feel Joe Burrow is going to make some noise as a rookie.

Also Ryan Tannehill is elite don't @ me.

Don’t put grandpa Ben and Phil ahead of Lamar and Deshaun lol Tannehill is not elite LOL Damn Flacco has ruined that word LOL

[Laxdad24]

Hot take alert

This just occured to me yesterday – it actually staggered me a little, I had to stop what I was doing and stand still for a moment. You ready?

Lamar > Mahomes.

Not only that, but it's really friggin obvious that Lamar > Mahomes. We're all overlooking something utterly basic.

Wait! Just hear me out a second.

---

First, to get this out of the way:

Mahomes is probably the most exciting young passer I have ever seen. He's like the best of Brett Favre and Dan Marino. He's ridiculous. I am not out of step with the groupthink on that. I see it the same way everyone else does: he's amazing.

But: what is the job of a QB? What is the role of that position? It's NOT to pass the ball. Passing is the means. What's the job? The goal?

The QB's job is to do three things:

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Right? That's the job.

Mahomes amazes because he does #1 & 2 so effortlessly, seemingly at will.

But you phrase the job that way, it clarifies how a "game manager" like peak Alex Smith or Phill Simms can be good QBs. It also points out how you need different things from your QB in different situations. For example, up 2 with 4 mins to play, you need your QB to retain possession and finish the win. You don't want him to go all daring Matthew Stafford on you. On the other hand, down 5 with 3 mins left, you need a QB who can open it up.

---

So here's why Lamar > Mahomes:

What percentage of Mahomes would you say Lamar is, as a passer? Do you have Lamar at 70% of Mahomes? 80%? 90%? I say 70 is WAY too low. I've got Lamar as around 90-95% of Mahomes as a passer. We can quibble here; but the exact value is not that critical. For argument, let's say Lamar is 85% of the passer that Mahomes is.

And what percentage of Lamar's impact on the running game would you say that Mahomes has? Like, 5%?

That's why Lamar is obviously a better QB than Mahomes. He brings around 85% of what Mahomes brings in the passing game; and adds this whole other huge dimension in the running game. Lamar's presence turns a pedestrian running game into an attack as dangerous as some passing games.

Lamar improves a team more than Mahomes does.

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Lamar does more to help a team accomplish those items, than Lamar does.

Lamar > Mahomes.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

---

To go the other way and draw the opposite conclusion, you have to make really strong assumptions. You have to go all PFF and assume that rushing the ball brings a team zero value; or you have to assume that Lamar < 70% of Mahomes as a passer. Those are hotter, bolder takes than anything I've written here. If rushing the ball has some value to a team at all; and if what Lamar showed with his passing efficiency numbers last year is anywhere close to true; then it must be true that Lamar > Mahomes.

Or else you have to hyper-focus on specific situations: like you'd rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40 therefore Mahomes is globally the better QB. I also would rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40; but that doesn't make Mahomes globally better.


The real reason to argue the opposite, that Mahomes > Lamar, is because you're more comfortable that Mahomes can replicate what he's done. Mahomes has the more traditional NFL game; Lamar is more likely to get injured. Lamar's game is riskier; more likely to suddenly lose value. I can see that one. Whether it proves to be accurate or not, it makes sense for people to retain some skepticism until they see how it plays out.

But we don't usually factor-in injury, when we're assessing who's better. "Unless he gets hurt" is always the unspoken codicil to every player ranking. Is it more fair to apply that to Lamar than to other QBs? Maybe yes. Cam Newton has declined a lot in effectiveness from his MVP year. But, hell: Peyton Manning declined suddenly too. I'm not sure the answer here.

Absent injury, Lamar > Mahomes. How much to ding Lamar for injury risk, I don't know.


</Hot Take>


Flame away.

Well. That’s it for me. Was gonna post mine but I can’t even after this.

Make sure you post the link when “Lamar walks on water “ comes out. Hold .......my hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NjRavensFan]

Hot take alert

This just occured to me yesterday – it actually staggered me a little, I had to stop what I was doing and stand still for a moment. You ready?

Lamar > Mahomes.

Not only that, but it's really friggin obvious that Lamar > Mahomes. We're all overlooking something utterly basic.

Wait! Just hear me out a second.

---

First, to get this out of the way:

Mahomes is probably the most exciting young passer I have ever seen. He's like the best of Brett Favre and Dan Marino. He's ridiculous. I am not out of step with the groupthink on that. I see it the same way everyone else does: he's amazing.

But: what is the job of a QB? What is the role of that position? It's NOT to pass the ball. Passing is the means. What's the job? The goal?

The QB's job is to do three things:

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Right? That's the job.

Mahomes amazes because he does #1 & 2 so effortlessly, seemingly at will.

But you phrase the job that way, it clarifies how a "game manager" like peak Alex Smith or Phill Simms can be good QBs. It also points out how you need different things from your QB in different situations. For example, up 2 with 4 mins to play, you need your QB to retain possession and finish the win. You don't want him to go all daring Matthew Stafford on you. On the other hand, down 5 with 3 mins left, you need a QB who can open it up.

---

So here's why Lamar > Mahomes:

What percentage of Mahomes would you say Lamar is, as a passer? Do you have Lamar at 70% of Mahomes? 80%? 90%? I say 70 is WAY too low. I've got Lamar as around 90-95% of Mahomes as a passer. We can quibble here; but the exact value is not that critical. For argument, let's say Lamar is 85% of the passer that Mahomes is.

And what percentage of Lamar's impact on the running game would you say that Mahomes has? Like, 5%?

That's why Lamar is obviously a better QB than Mahomes. He brings around 85% of what Mahomes brings in the passing game; and adds this whole other huge dimension in the running game. Lamar's presence turns a pedestrian running game into an attack as dangerous as some passing games.

Lamar improves a team more than Mahomes does.

1. Move the ball
2. Score points
3. Win games

Lamar does more to help a team accomplish those items, than Lamar does.

Lamar > Mahomes.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

---

To go the other way and draw the opposite conclusion, you have to make really strong assumptions. You have to go all PFF and assume that rushing the ball brings a team zero value; or you have to assume that Lamar < 70% of Mahomes as a passer. Those are hotter, bolder takes than anything I've written here. If rushing the ball has some value to a team at all; and if what Lamar showed with his passing efficiency numbers last year is anywhere close to true; then it must be true that Lamar > Mahomes.

Or else you have to hyper-focus on specific situations: like you'd rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40 therefore Mahomes is globally the better QB. I also would rather have Mahomes throwing the pass on 4th-&-40; but that doesn't make Mahomes globally better.


The real reason to argue the opposite, that Mahomes > Lamar, is because you're more comfortable that Mahomes can replicate what he's done. Mahomes has the more traditional NFL game; Lamar is more likely to get injured. Lamar's game is riskier; more likely to suddenly lose value. I can see that one. Whether it proves to be accurate or not, it makes sense for people to retain some skepticism until they see how it plays out.

But we don't usually factor-in injury, when we're assessing who's better. "Unless he gets hurt" is always the unspoken codicil to every player ranking. Is it more fair to apply that to Lamar than to other QBs? Maybe yes. Cam Newton has declined a lot in effectiveness from his MVP year. But, hell: Peyton Manning declined suddenly too. I'm not sure the answer here.

Absent injury, Lamar > Mahomes. How much to ding Lamar for injury risk, I don't know.


</Hot Take>


Flame away.

So you say Mahomes does 1 and 2 (move the ball and score points) so effortlessly, seemingly at will... but as far as 3 (win games) goes, he’s won both games against Lamar and won a Super Bowl ring.

We can make up arbitrary percentages all we want but you yourself list three things a QB needs to be able to do and Mahomes has arguably been better at all three.

I obviously love Lamar. But Mahomes is in a tier of his own. Even based on the operational definition that you offered yourself.

[JimZipCode]

Even if I wanted to rate Lamar at 1 there exists Mahomes who has 1/100 years arm talent and yes I believe that's more valuable than Lamar's effect on the running game which still hasn't been quantified. Even if he did add value in the running game I feel that passing is more effective as a tactic in modern football than running which while cool and dynamic doesn't seem to be more effective than the passing game in terms of offensive success.

But you ARE quantifying it, in effect. You're saying that Lamar's effect on the running game is less valuable than the delta between Mahomes passing and Lamar's passing.

If Mahomes is at 100 as a passer, what would you say Lamar is? A 90? 80? 70?

Careful. You have to pick something that makes sense relative to the rest of the league. Pick a pctg for Lamar that's too low and you'll wind up claiming that Lamar is less of a passer than say Josh Allen. Clearly ridiculous. For reference, Football Outsiders ranked Mahomes with 1354 passing DYAR this past season (their counting stat), and Lamar with 1252 passing DYAR. That's passing only, no rushing plays included. Lamar's total was about 91% of Mahomes. (And Mahomes had more attempts, but never mind.)

If Lamar is about 90% of the passer that Mahomes is (I went with 85% in my long post above), then you're saying that Lamar's effect on the running game is less valuable than 10% of Mahomes. And that's absurd.

What is 10% of Mahomes? Josh Rosen? Kyle Boller? Ryan Leaf? Lamar's effect on the running game is about the equivalent of adding Kyle Boller to a passing attack? That just isn't possible.

But you're inescapably led to a conclusion like that, if you assume that Mahomes > Lamar. Which tells you something about thst assumption.

[NjRavensFan]

1. Move the ball
I don’t really feel like doing the math but I’m gonna guess this one is very close lol

2. Score points
Chiefs under Mahomes, regular season: 31.8 ppg
Ravens under Jackson, regular season: 30.9 ppg

Chiefs under Mahomes, postseason: 35.8 ppg
Ravens under Jackson, postseason: 14.5 ppg

3. Win games
Mahomes regular season: 24-7
Jackson regular season: 19-3

Mahomes postseason: 4-1
Jackson postseason: 0-2

Head to head: Mahomes 2, Jackson 0 (can’t fucking wait to finally get a shot at them in Baltimore)

[WNCRavensFan]

1. Move the ball
I don’t really feel like doing the math but I’m gonna guess this one is very close lol

2. Score points
Chiefs under Mahomes, regular season: 31.8 ppg
Ravens under Jackson, regular season: 30.9 ppg

Chiefs under Mahomes, postseason: 35.8 ppg
Ravens under Jackson, postseason: 14.5 ppg

3. Win games
Mahomes regular season: 24-7
Jackson regular season: 19-3

Mahomes postseason: 4-1
Jackson postseason: 0-2

Head to head: Mahomes 2, Jackson 0 (can’t fucking wait to finally get a shot at them in Baltimore)

Ketchup vs. Hot Sauce