PDA

View Full Version : Rank the #1 QBs



Touchdown Vaughn
07-22-2004, 11:30 PM
Calvillo
Joseph
Allen
Printers
Maas
McManus
Burris
Jones
Crandell

MEEZY
07-22-2004, 11:38 PM
Good thread, TDV.

One thing to consider, though: since there have been so many injuries/ineffective performers this year, should we include all QBs who have seen significant playing time? If so, here is my list:

1. Calvillo
2. Dickenson
3. Printers
4. Joseph
5. Maas
6. McManus
7. Allen
8. Jones
9. Glenn
10. Burris
11. Kennedy
12. Crandell
13. Butler
14. Brady
15. Bishop

Esks4ever
07-23-2004, 12:14 AM
Good thread, TDV.

One thing to consider, though: since there have been so many injuries/ineffective performers this year, should we include all QBs who have seen significant playing time? If so, here is my list:

1. Calvillo
2. Dickenson
3. Printers
4. Joseph
5. Maas
6. McManus
7. Allen
8. Jones
9. Glenn
10. Burris
11. Kennedy
12. Crandell
13. Butler
14. Brady
15. Bishop



SO FF , how far off your list is Nealon greene ? :D :lol:

Esks4ever
07-23-2004, 12:18 AM
For me:

Ricky Ray :D
AC
DD ( when healty)
Joesph
Maas
Printers
Allen
McManus
Jones
Glenn
Burris
Greene
Crandell

MEEZY
07-23-2004, 01:01 AM
SO FF , how far off your list is Nealon greene ? :D :lol:

Given perfect health, I'd put him between 9th and 10th

Esks4ever
07-23-2004, 08:31 AM
Given perfect health, I'd put him between 9th and 10th



aww I thought you purposely didn't put him on the list... I thought you'd have him just above the waterboy :)

Angelus
07-23-2004, 11:52 AM
Based on this season:

Calvillo
Joseph
Maas
Printers
McManus
Dickenson
Allen
Jones
Burris
Crandell

MEEZY
07-23-2004, 12:38 PM
aww I thought you purposely didn't put him on the list... I thought you'd have him just above the waterboy :)

:lol: :lol:

No, I didn't include him because he's hardly played a down this season.

Angelus
07-23-2004, 01:17 PM
That's a low rating for Dickenson don't ya think?
Based on this season? How do you figure?

Everyone above him on my list has been better.

Touchdown Vaughn
07-23-2004, 10:08 PM
How exactly has Maas been better than Dickenson? I believe the Dreaded Dick has the best rating in the land!

Angelus
07-23-2004, 10:23 PM
How exactly has Maas been better than Dickenson? I believe the Dreaded Dick has the best rating in the land!
How can you say a Quarterback with only 28 completions this season has been better than Maas?? :confused:

Beerfish
07-23-2004, 11:06 PM
Just remember Maas has the handicap of not being able to throw against Fabian Burke. That's a free 7 or 8 completions and about 150 yards a game.

Touchdown Vaughn
07-23-2004, 11:32 PM
FF rated all the QBs who had had signigicant playing time. In DD's playing time, he was better than Maas in his playing time. Quantities have nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I didn't put DD on my original list, as I don't feel he's played enough to be ranked at all. But if I were ranking everyone, I'd put him higher than Maas.

alta_guy
07-24-2004, 09:19 AM
Just my 2 cents...
1=AC
2=KJ
3=DA
4=JM
5=KP
6=DM
7=JOSEPH
8=MC
9=DD(hasn't done anything for his team...can't rate him very good...potential is there...but only potential!!!)

Diesel
07-24-2004, 09:39 AM
Just remember Maas has the handicap of not being able to throw against Fabian Burke. That's a free 7 or 8 completions and about 150 yards a game.

:D :thup:

Angelus
07-24-2004, 04:56 PM
FF rated all the QBs who had had signigicant playing time. In DD's playing time, he was better than Maas in his playing time. Quantities have nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I didn't put DD on my original list, as I don't feel he's played enough to be ranked at all. But if I were ranking everyone, I'd put him higher than Maas.
Yeah, because his completion percentage of 60% has been nothing short of amazing... :rolleyes:

Touchdown Vaughn
07-25-2004, 08:49 PM
Angelus-- NEVER ONCE did I say Maas was not a good QB. I just don't think his play this year merits him being ranked as one of the top 3 QBs in the league. Besides, is he the ONLY QB completing 60 percent of his passes? I think not.

Angelus
07-25-2004, 10:47 PM
Angelus-- NEVER ONCE did I say Maas was not a good QB. I just don't think his play this year merits him being ranked as one of the top 3 QBs in the league. Besides, is he the ONLY QB completing 60 percent of his passes? I think not.I never said you did. I do not have issue with where you want to put Maas. That's your business.

I have issue with you saying I am wrong in putting DD ahead of Jason. You said he has the best rating in the land. Prove it.

Let's do a quick comparison of the numbers:

Maas: 103/159, 64.8%, 1446 Yards, 8 TD, 100.2 EFF
Dickenson: 28/46, 60.9%, 503 Yards, 4 TD

I have been unable to find his efficiency rating. If you can find it, go ahead and post it.

But in any case, looking at those numbers, how can you possibly say I shouldn't put Jason ahead of DD?? Please enlighten me. Keep in mind that I was only taking into consideration this season's play. If I were doing a ranking of the QB's I thought were the best and I would want on my team, it would look a lot different.

Touchdown Vaughn
07-25-2004, 11:26 PM
We don't have Dickenson's INT total, but if he has 4 picks, his rating would still be 118.8. If he has 2 picks, it's 158.3

I can put Dickenson higher because he has more yards per attempt, more TDs per attempt, and he did not play a stinker of a game like Maas did against Montreal. You seem to be placing your whole judgement on completion percentage. Yes, it's important, but there's not enough of a gap to base your determination on that one stat.

By the way, you're the only one who ranked Maas in the top 3. I hope I will have him there, too, after Friday!

Esks4ever
07-25-2004, 11:39 PM
Angelus rated his QBs based on this season. And If i would have done the same I too would have Maas ahead of Dickenson.

Sandy - Edmonton
07-26-2004, 12:31 AM
We don't have Dickenson's INT total, but if he has 4 picks, his rating would still be 118.8. If he has 2 picks, it's 158.3

I can put Dickenson higher because he has more yards per attempt, more TDs per attempt, and he did not play a stinker of a game like Maas did against Montreal. You seem to be placing your whole judgement on completion percentage. Yes, it's important, but there's not enough of a gap to base your determination on that one stat.

By the way, you're the only one who ranked Maas in the top 3. I hope I will have him there, too, after Friday!

I'd also have Maas in the top 3. Besides Montreal, he's had a pretty good season.

Angelus
07-26-2004, 01:13 AM
We don't have Dickenson's INT total, but if he has 4 picks, his rating would still be 118.8. If he has 2 picks, it's 158.3

I can put Dickenson higher because he has more yards per attempt, more TDs per attempt, and he did not play a stinker of a game like Maas did against Montreal. You seem to be placing your whole judgement on completion percentage. Yes, it's important, but there's not enough of a gap to base your determination on that one stat.

By the way, you're the only one who ranked Maas in the top 3. I hope I will have him there, too, after Friday!
How did you determine his rating? Did you calculate it yourself? I find it hard to believe that's his rating based on his numbers, but I would be willing to concede that point upon further proof. :)

I'm not placing my whole judgement on completion percentage. But I am giving credence to the fact that DD has hardly even played a game. And he sure hasn't gone up against the defence that is Montreal. Check the numbers of the QB's that have played Montreal's defence this season and you'll see that Jason has held his own.

Maybe I shouldn't have included him.

But let me try to illustrate this further. If you were talking about the best CFL rushers, would you rank Darnell Kennedy (12 for 75, 7.5 AVG) ahead of Antonio Warren (43 for 225, 5.2 AVG)? If there was an efficiency rating for this category, would Kennedy not be higher?

That example is a little out of left field, but I'm hoping it gets my point across.

In any case, we'll just have to agree to disagree...and I hope you'll have JM in your top 3 after Friday as well... :D

Touchdown Vaughn
07-26-2004, 10:37 AM
I found a wesbite that calculates QB rating. I used the NFL formula, which I believe is the one the CFL uses (for some reason the NCAA has a different one). Plus, I remember seeing in the paper that Dickenson had some high rating, which, yes, is based on limited playing time so would be skewed. That's the reason I didn't rank Dickenson when I started this thread. You make a good point about other QBs who have faced Montreal.

Anyway, I'll get back to that QB rating site and post the link. It also explains how rating is calculated, and it's one of the most compicated formulas in the history of mankind.

Touchdown Vaughn
07-26-2004, 10:39 AM
QB rating calculator:

http://www.primecomputing.com/javaqbr.htm

Angelus
07-26-2004, 12:23 PM
Cool link. I calculated DD's QB rating as 127.3.

So yeah...I guess that's pretty good... ;)

Esks4ever
07-26-2004, 12:30 PM
QB rating calculator:

http://www.primecomputing.com/javaqbr.htm


cool link ! thanx :thup:

Muley69
07-26-2004, 01:22 PM
CFL QB effeciency is different than the NFL (from what I've heard). It takes into account YARDS PER PASS ATTEMPTS and not just pass completions.

EDIT: Never mind. I don't know the exact difference between the CFL and NFL calcs...but i have heard more than a few people say they are slightly different.

Angelus
07-26-2004, 01:48 PM
I've heard that it's different too, but I put Jason's numbers into that calculator and got the same rating as on the cfl.ca website...

So I don't know...

Touchdown Vaughn
07-26-2004, 09:50 PM
CFL QB ratings include the number of polar bears that walk onto the field the last day of practice before a game divided by the temperature at kick-off, multiplied by the unemployment rate in Newfoundland.

Esks4ever
07-27-2004, 08:19 AM
CFL QB ratings include the number of polar bears that walk onto the field the last day of practice before a game divided by the temperature at kick-off, multiplied by the unemployment rate in Newfoundland.



:lol:

isn't there also something about the number of Kms traveled from the players igloos to the stadium in that equation ? :D

GridironHeros
07-31-2004, 02:11 PM
I'm just guessing, but I'd suspect Maas "creeped" up a little higher on quite a *few* people's lists after last night's game? He just shattered the CFL consecutive-completions record that had stood for 25 years!! OK, I *am* impressed!!

Esks4ever
07-31-2004, 03:16 PM
Some reporters say last night performance will put him to the # 1 spot for qbs this year...

MEEZY
07-31-2004, 03:51 PM
Right now, I'd rank him third behind AC and Printers, but if these performances continue, he'll easily be first.

Opus
08-01-2004, 02:24 AM
I think that week by week you're going to have some guys throw up some big numbers that skew things quite a bit....IMO consistancy is something that has to be taken into account, as does durability. That said there are only a few upper echelon QB's in this league at the present time and IMO both Maas and Printers are on the cusp of making that very short list, continuing to play at the level they have been week in and week out will prove to me beyond a doubt that that is the case.

Esks4ever
08-01-2004, 03:45 AM
not to mention its been almost 2 years since Maas was the full time starter...and its pretty clear the only way for him is up...

Esks4ever
08-01-2004, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishman
I think that week by week you're going to have some guys throw up some big numbers that skew things quite a bit....IMO consistancy is something that has to be taken into account, as does durability. That said there are only a few upper echelon QB's in this league at the present time and IMO both Maas and Printers are on the cusp of making that very short list, continuing to play at the level they have been week in and week out will prove to me beyond a doubt that that is the case.



I think Maas has made that list... in 2001 he was perfoming very similar to how he is now.. as for printers - he has the tools but only time will tell, but IMO he'll be in that pack...

Opus
08-02-2004, 12:03 AM
I think Maas has made that list... in 2001 he was perfoming very similar to how he is now.. as for printers - he has the tools but only time will tell, but IMO he'll be in that pack...I agree, that he has regained if not exceeded his form from 2001, however I could also make similar arguements that Burris was a dynamo a couple years back and could regain that same form as well......I think we'll know alot more about these few guys over the next couple of months if they are the real deal and will deliver the goods for years to come or if they are just enjoying a good run right now...

Esks4ever
08-02-2004, 12:12 PM
IMO Burris is not as good as Maas

Esks4ever
08-02-2004, 04:01 PM
No way.. Burris is so inconsistent it's not even funny.



I think its funny :) :lol: :lol:

Opus
08-02-2004, 08:14 PM
true......but this is why it will take some time to see, he too had some huge stats a few years back...I don't think he is in JM or CP's league right now, but right now games are only worth 2 pts...they can mean the season down the stretch.

Touchdown Vaughn
08-03-2004, 12:08 AM
As the dude who started this thread, here's my take on Maas' big game:

From one point of view, he did it against a secondary that was grossly depleted and had a receiver in there, so let's not get too excited.

From another point of view, when Gretzky had 215 points in 1986, he didn't get 3 points every game. He got 5 points against crap teams and 1 against good teams. So Maas did exactly what he should do.

My verdict: Maas deserves full value for that performance. One way great teams prove they are great is by blowing out much weaker opponents.

Maas would now be second on my list for QBs based on their play for this season only, behind Calvillo and ahead of Printers.