NFL QB Rankings

[chrisbcbu]

They have Washington listed as 13th overrall. That is better than i expected from anyone. Just remember these are based on stats.

Edit: It would help if i posted the link. (duh!) http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5764156
8. Philadelphia
For years, it was hard to tell if Donovan McNabb's numbers were unimpressive because he was overrated, or because he just needed better receivers. If you liked that argument, get ready to hear it again this year. The good news for the Eagles is that McNabb's sports hernia doesn't have long-term effects; unlike a torn rotator cuff or ACL, the player is basically healthy once the surgery is done. Jeff Garcia is okay as a backup, but at this point in his career he's just another replacement-level veteran. Koy Detmer likes to hold things. ROFL!!!

13. Washington
Mark Brunell's big comeback was a lot of fun, but it's unlikely that he will have a season as good — or as healthy — in 2006. Brunell dropped from 6.0 net yards per pass with three interceptions (Weeks 1-9) to 5.7 net yards per pass with seven interceptions (Weeks 10-17). He also went from converting 46 percent of third-down passes (with an average of 7.6 yards to go) to converting only 33 percent of third-down passes (despite a lower average of 6.6 yards to go). The good news for Washington fans is that backup Jason Campbell does very well in our rookie quarterback projection system. You can predict the NFL performance of first- and second-round quarterbacks with astonishing accuracy using just two college stats: games started and completion percentage. No other recent high draft pick ranks above Campbell in both categories.

18. New York Giants
Giants fans think that Eli Manning is still going to turn into his brother. Perhaps they are right, and you don't want to judge a number one overall pick after just a year and a half, but so far Eli Manning hasn't been Peyton Manning. He's been Jay Schroeder. Manning was actually more accurate in the second half of the season (54 percent) than he was in the first half (52 percent), but he seemed to decline because all those bad passes that dropped harmlessly to the ground early in the season were suddenly finding the hands of opposing defensive backs. The backups are a bunch of replacement-level guys, and if the first-string defense ever faces the third-string offense in practice, Michael Strahan and Osi Umenyiora may accidentally kill Rob Johnson.

21. Dallas
Drew Bledsoe is just an average quarterback at this point. Each additional year saps a little bit of his ability, with a greater chance that he'll miss games due to the aches and pains that come with age. Tony Romo is a big fat question mark, and Drew Henson is a cautionary tale about talented young athletes who can't commit to a single sport. Are you listening, Jeff Samardzija?

They have a pic of Bledsoe on the website and this is what it says.

"Drew Bledsoe stay healthy in 2006? Don't count on it."

[RedSkinBrit]

Campbell sound an exciting talent and Brunell has a better WR corps to hit this year,exciting times for us.:)

[whitskins]

I don't see why Brunell can't be expected to have better stats in 06 with the serious improvements we've made on offense, both on the field and in the coaching staff. I'm definitely expecting an even better year from Mark, regardless if he's a year older or not.

And the writer doesn't take into account the wave of injuries we had at WR throughout the second half of the season, which clearly played a role in the dip in Brunell's stats. He'll have no shortage of guys to throw to this year.

[forcefield58]

Plus the fact that the "O" line is in tact and had another year under their belt. Like last year, if they get into the mindset that they're going to play "Skins" football then they'll ram the ball down opponents throat with Portis and company. Brunell should be good to go if this happens with as many targets as he has now. The problem will be getting everybody out on the field. They'll need to increase the players on the field to 20, hahaha

[NamVet4]

And the writer doesn't take into account the wave of injuries we had at WR throughout the second half of the season, which clearly played a role in the dip in Brunell's stats. He'll have no shortage of guys to throw to this year.
Absolutely on target whitskins ! :)
MB will hopefully have a vastly superior, and hopefully healthy, receiving corps resulting in more than a 1 dimensional offensive threat! Defensive coordinators will get headaches trying to game plan against our revamped offense. IMHO, even at MB's advanced "age", Coach Saunders and Coach Bugel will have the players in place and ready to maximize our passing game. And by reason, that will open up an already stellar running game.

[AliBabba]

They have Washington listed as 13th overrall. That is better than i expected from anyone. Just remember these are based on stats.

Edit: It would help if i posted the link. (duh!) http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5764156


They have a pic of Bledsoe on the website and this is what it says.
Please don't take this guy's opinion very seriously. Outside of the top three, he could have done as well by drawing names out of a hat.


Jake Plummer is not the fifth best QB in the AFC, he's not even close to the fifth best in the NFL
If you are going to put Drew Brees and Culpepper who are coming off of MAJOR injuries 10/11 best in the NFL, Carson Palmer needs to be #3. The other two have to learn new systems and new personnel, on top of recover
How can you put Leftwich in the top 10 when he is injured for at least a quarter of every season? David Garrard is a good backup but he's not a top ten QB either
MCNAIR OVER BRUNELL!!!! McNair has the injury bug worse than MB. the only reason he has played in the majority of tenessee's last three years is b/c he skips all the practices ands saves himself for gameday. HE CAN'T DO THAT IN BALTIMORE!! he has to learn a new system and new players (besides DM). Brunell is going into his third year here and had a very good year last year. since injury has not been a factor in over half of the QBs he's placed ahead of MB, Washington should not only be ahead of BMORE but JAX, NO, and Miami as well.
.... the rest is just as terrible

[bgforever]

You can predict the NFL performance of first- and second-round quarterbacks with astonishing accuracy using just two college stats: games started and completion percentage. No other recent high draft pick ranks above Campbell in both categories

This is also an assessment of Roethlisberger, since he was starting as a rookie. Many needed a reassurance of his ability to transition to the speed of the game. The secret was to let him do what he does best but hand off to Bettis as often as possible. If Campbell has to come in early, and had already established moving ahead of Collins (see we got cushion :) ), he will have one of the most potent backfields and mature receiving corps in all of football. His support of "selections per play" are from two of the most prolific coaches in the NFL and NFL History.

Demonstrated ability is dependent on the player and Campbell's rank is NOOOO accident.

[FanFromArizona]

Granted, the QB is one of the most important players for any NFL team, but I don't think we need to have a *great* QB in the way this list suggests.

Our QB needs to be smart first and then great. Both of our QBs bring smarts with them and mobility, so I really don't care what "ranking" our QBs are at. As long as they play smart and win us games, being ranked middle of the pack does not bother me.

We do not rely on a superstar QB like other teams do. If they can run the system reliably we will be just fine with an "average" QB.

[bgforever]

Granted, the QB is one of the most important players for any NFL team, but I don't think we need to have a *great* QB in the way this list suggests.

Our QB needs to be smart first and then great. Both of our QBs bring smarts with them and mobility, so I really don't care what "ranking" our QBs are at. As long as they play smart and win us games, being ranked middle of the pack does not bother me.

We do not rely on a superstar QB like other teams do. If they can run the system reliably we will be just fine with an "average" QB.

Very well put. I agree!

His ability goes to the "adjustment" of 6 offenses in 6 years. Meaning he can be inserted in a lineup immediately and smartly utilize the offense the way Saunders and Gibbs intends,, as you stated. We only need him to do exactly what Pittsburgh did in 2004 and what TB did with King in 2000. The offensive weapons are all in place.

[colkurtz]

Brunell's production fell in the second half of the season because he had only one WR to throw to.

This article misses the Al Saunders upgrade, the addition of two excellent WR's and the return of a healthy OLine. Brunell will not be brilliant, but good will do just fine with this new upgraded offense.

[becky]

You mean Drew Bledsoe isn't posed for a breakout season now that T.O. is on his team? Hasn't the author of this article been watching ESPN and reading Peter King articles? How silly of him. :rolleyes:

[HanburgerBum]

I don't see why Brunell can't be expected to have better stats in 06 with the serious improvements we've made on offense, both on the field and in the coaching staff. I'm definitely expecting an even better year from Mark, regardless if he's a year older or not.

And the writer doesn't take into account the wave of injuries we had at WR throughout the second half of the season, which clearly played a role in the dip in Brunell's stats. He'll have no shortage of guys to throw to this year.


Statistically, I expect 2006's offense production to be similar to that of 2005, and here is why:

Pro: 1) Added weapons in Lloyd and Randle El.
2) A year to fine tune the Brunnel and Moss combination.
3) A year of learning for Campbell in case he is needed.
4) A year for Rabach to blend in and Dockery to gain experience.

Con: 1) Everyone has to learn the Saunders offense, especially early.
2) Brunnel another year older.
3) No injury on the OLine until very late, hard to be that lucky again.

What I think will happen is that the Skins struggle on offense early while learning the Saunders schemes. But, the defense plays outstanding, as expected, and allows the team to win low-scoring games. Then, the offense catches fire at mid-season and runs all the way thru the SB. So, even though the overall stats are similar to 2005, the final result is dramatically different.

[shally]

Campbell sound an exciting talent and Brunell has a better WR corps to hit this year,exciting times for us.:)

it will depend upon the o line.. if they can give brunell time to survey the field he should have a tremendous year with all the weapons in saunders offense

[bgforever]

Brunell's production fell in the second half of the season because he had only one WR to throw to.

This article misses the Al Saunders upgrade, the addition of two excellent WR's and the return of a healthy OLine. Brunell will not be brilliant, but good will do just fine with this new upgraded offense.

yeah its a given many will harp on anything they can to negate a positive outlook for THIS year's Redskins. Not saying its the same, but they did do this to the Skins in 1987. That was due to the turmoil, transition at QB for a brief moment as Schroeder was replaced by Williams. However, flipping to now, that part doesn't exist, but the overall view of where or how the Skins will do by analysts and others is about the same. The pass was beginning to be realized more for the Skins, but the running lanes were increased in bounty and size, so that was never minimized. (Rogers, Bryant, Smith).

Brunell isn't overlooked by US, but looking at the probability of unfortunate events, we find we are capable of still attaining success all the way to the playoffs, even with the backups at QB. Not saying anything's a given, but we are far better prepared than that year.

[DCassain21]

even after all the additions we had made this offseason im still shocked they put us in the better half of the nfl.... i feel we should br there but i didn't expect from many people

[RedskinRyan]

they question brunell's ability to stay healthy and his age, but steve mcnair is ahead of him...

[PA Skins Girl]

Brunell played in all 18 games last year (regular season and post season). I dont understand why the analyst question his ability to stay healthy. Yes, he got his knee banged last year, but so did a lot of QBs.

[DCassain21]

Brunell played in all 18 games last year (regular season and post season). I dont understand why the analyst question his ability to stay healthy. Yes, he got his knee banged last year, but so did a lot of QBs.
they are doing it because when he got banged up his stats really slowed down, i also think they put alot into those two playoff games

[DCassain21]

they question brunell's ability to stay healthy and his age, but steve mcnair is ahead of him...
do you or anyone alse think brunell is better then mcnair

[redskin_rich]

do you or anyone alse think brunell is better then mcnair
I think Brunell is more likely to stay healthy than McNair.

[Farmer Ted]

I can't stand up right now after reading those comments about JC. And no, those aren't Certs in my pocket.

[DCassain21]

I think Brunell is more likely to stay healthy than McNair.
maybe so but i still think mcnair is a better qb then brunell and mcnair should be ranked over brunell anyway

[redskin_rich]

maybe so but i still think mcnair is a better qb then brunell and mcnair should be ranked over brunell anyway
I understand but there are so many things I disagree with on that list, that I can't single out just one. It really isn't worth the time to point out all the faults in that list.

[shally]

they are doing it because when he got banged up his stats really slowed down, i also think they put alot into those two playoff games

i think that it is because 2 years in a row brunell's effectiveness went in the toilet after he was injured. he is not the same qb when he is hurt. maybe some qb's are capable of maintaining their level when hurt, but brunell looses a lot when he cannot get his legs into his throws. it was really apparent to a lot of people

[DCassain21]

i think that it is because 2 years in a row brunell's effectiveness went in the toilet after he was injured. he is not the same qb when he is hurt. maybe some qb's are capable of maintaining their level when hurt, but brunell looses a lot when he cannot get his legs into his throws. it was really apparent to a lot of people
thank you that is exactly what i was trying to say but couldnt find the words to put it in

[shally]

I think Brunell is more likely to stay healthy than McNair.

on the other hand, from what i have seen of their play, i think mcnair plays better hurt than does brunell (obviously up to a point because there are some injuries that just cannot be overcome).
i am not saying that mcnair is tougher, only that he can maintain his level of play better than brunell when hurt.. maybe that is reflective of the type of injuries he has had ??

[smoak]

MB was really hurt last year by the fact that nobody stepped up and helped him out at times. I don't think Brunell was nearly as bad as his stats look. If I remember correctly, the AZ game featured some INTs where balls hit guys in the hands only to have the pass deflected to a Cardinal defender. For one season (this coming year), McNabb is the only QB I think I'd put above MB. Manning did an even worse Jekyll and Hyde, and I never thought Bledsoe was very good.