Sign in to follow this  
McMVP

NFL Live ranks NFC East QBs...Foles #1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Logic? I'm not sure you know what that is.

You don't seem to get that we're only talking about 2017, heading into 2018.

Stefon Diggs: 64/849 13.3 YPC 8 TDs
Beckham, Jr: 25/302 12.1 YPC 3 TDs

For 2017, Diggs should rank higher.

I don't give the top 100 list any credibility either though, because Beckham is ranked and shouldn't be (that's not the only reason I don't give it any credibility but it's part of it). The players vote for the name and not what the players actually did. Beckham was hurt and only played... how many games? He shouldn't be on the list at all, not because he's not good but because he shouldn't qualify for this years list.

So, of the 2017 NFC East QB's, did Eli have a better season than Nick Foles? I've set Alex Smith at the bottom and set apart because he's a wildcard of sorts having never played for the Redskins and in the NFC East. So we don't know what lies in store for him.

Carson Wentz: 265/440 60.2% 3296 YDS 33 TDs 7 INTs 102 Passer Rating
Nick Foles: 135/207 64.7% 1508 YDS 11 TDs 3 INTs 98.1 Passer Rating *Super Bowl MVP*

Dak Prescott: 308/490 62.9% 3324 YDS 22 TDs 13 INTs 86.6 Passer Rating
Eli Manning: 352/571 61.6% 3468 YDS 19 TDs 13 INTs 80.4 Passer Rating

Alex Smith: 341/505 67.5% 4,042 YDS 26 TDs 5 INTs 104.7 Passer Rating

So, how do you rank those 5 QB's as of this moment and not considering seasons from 10 years ago?

 

 

I get what you’re talking about, I just don’t agree with the methodology. I won’t even get into things like sample size or more tangible facts like the OL comparisons or the way defenses help an offense. 

Instead I’ll just answer your question, how do I rank the 5 QBs? As said earlier,  Wentz stands alone and the rest are grouped into a middle tier category with little separating them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

Instead I’ll just answer your question, how do I rank the 5 QBs? As said earlier,  Wentz stands alone and the rest are grouped into a middle tier category with little separating them. 

And you know what... I think that's fair. Wentz is the stand alone option. Behind him you can make cases for and against the rest absolutely so yeah on any given day I could give a different order for the other 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

I get what you’re talking about, I just don’t agree with the methodology. I won’t even get into things like sample size or more tangible facts like the OL comparisons or the way defenses help an offense. 

Instead I’ll just answer your question, how do I rank the 5 QBs? As said earlier,  Wentz stands alone and the rest are grouped into a middle tier category with little separating them. 

But the methodology is the whole basis of the listing. This is a snapshot ranking of this moment in time and at this moment in time, Nick Foles is above everyone except Wentz. This isn't about 'body of work'. That's a different list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

But the methodology is the whole basis of the listing. This is a snapshot ranking of this moment in time and at this moment in time, Nick Foles is above everyone except Wentz. This isn't about 'body of work'. That's a different list.

Then if that’s the case you need to put Foles ahead of Wentz, because RIGHT NOW your boy is the MVP and passer rating champ and Wentz is not. Plus the latter is coming off a very serious injury and no one can be sure how he’ll respond. Stay consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

Then if that’s the case you need to put Foles ahead of Wentz, because RIGHT NOW your boy is the MVP and passer rating champ and Wentz is not. Plus the latter is coming off a very serious injury and no one can be sure how he’ll respond. Stay consistent. 

I don't have a problem with that, other than he's not a boy, he's a man. Also, looking at how Wentz is moving around right now, he's doing very well. We'll see how he does going forward.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I don't have a problem with that, other than he's not a boy, he's a man. Also, looking at how Wentz is moving around right now, he's doing very well. We'll see how he does going forward.

 

Ok, I’ll call him ‘your man.’ Sounds about right. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argue the semantics all you want. All I know is the Eagles have the best QB situation in the NFL.

That’s good enough for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Who has the highest post season passer rating in NFL history as of right now  (that's not just this past post season, either)?

Who is the reigning Super Bowl MVP?

Right this minute, and from January 1 until at least September 6th, Nick Foles is top 2 in the NFC East.

If Rodgers hasn't gotten hurt would I remove him from top 5 consideration? Well, Rodgers isn't in the NFC East, so I don't take Rodgers into consideration at all.

When the NFL Network does their top 100 players for 2018, do they take Eli's Super Bowl past into consideration when ranking him on that list? No, they're taking 2017 into consideration. Not his 'body of work'. We're not talking about top 5 NFC East QB's of the past 15 years. We're talking about top 5 NFC East QB's coming out of the 2017 season and going into the 2018 season.

So I'm not sure you're looking at this situation correctly. Ignore the 28 teams (and all of their players) not in the NFC East. Ignore all seasons from the beginning of time until the start of the 2017 season. You can only consider the 2017 season and the outlook going into training camp with an eye on week 1 of 2018, because we're only talking about 'right this moment' and we're only talking about Carson Wentz, Nick Foles, Eli Manning, Alex Smith and Dak Prescott.

Dont get all hung up on "SB MVP", because truthfully, it really doesn't mean jack ish. I'm not taking a thing away from Nafolean Dynamite, because he played extremely well, but people put way too much stock into the SB MVP thing, especially since the winning QB gets it 99 times out of 100. It's really nothing impressive, kind of like being picked for the Pro Bowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Parrot Head said:

Argue the semantics all you want. All I know is the Eagles have the best QB situation in the NFL.

That’s good enough for me!

Nope you have to pick Nick or Wentz there is no being happy for both! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gmen4ever said:

Dont get all hung up on "SB MVP", because truthfully, it really doesn't mean jack ish. I'm not taking a thing away from Nafolean Dynamite, because he played extremely well, but people put way too much stock into the SB MVP thing, especially since the winning QB gets it 99 times out of 100. It's really nothing impressive, kind of like being picked for the Pro Bowl

Oh, I'm not. I just like saying it. You know why? Because Nick Foles is the reigning Super Bowl MVP! See? That has a beautiful ring to it (both in how it sounds, and in the ring that they'll get later this month). But on the topic of his momentary ranking in the NFC East, his performance, even with the not so good ones, puts him in the top 2... at this moment.

As for how often the winning QB gets MVP, yes the winning QB does have a better than not chance of getting it, but it's not the 99% chance that you're stating. It's actually 56%. So it's a little better than a 50/50 chance, but it's not set in stone.

Did you watch that Super Bowl? If so, would you say that Nick earned that award? He led the Eagles to score on every drive the Eagles had, less two. I think they had the ball 11 times and they scored on 9 of those possessions. His accuracy and poise was, to my memory, unmatched in the Super Bowl and that's not counting how he did in the other two playoff games of the 2017 season.

If you didn't watch that Super Bowl (which as a Giants fan, I'd completely understand, though I watched all of the Giants Super Bowls and even have a Blu Ray of the 2007 game... or maybe it's the 2011 game... or maybe it's actually both lol), you should watch it, and being Super Bowl MVP is by FAR more than like being picked for the Pro Bowl. Eli Manning's two Super Bowl MVP awards are likely going to be what gets him into the Hall of Fame. Without those, he doesn't get in (in my opinion).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Foles was undoubtedly the MVP of the Super Bowl. The Eagles defense got shredded (I almost thought it was Eli back there at QB), but that doofus had an answer every time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BKLYNYG said:

Foles was undoubtedly the MVP of the Super Bowl. The Eagles defense got shredded (I almost thought it was Eli back there at QB), but that doofus had an answer every time. 

Shredded? I wouldn't go that far. At least not for the entire game. Yes, Brady had a total of 505 yards passing. But in the 1st half, the D did their job, as well as at the end of the game. The Patriots pretty much had to pass because they were behind for all but 7 minutes of the game. So they were bound to rack up some yards.

The Patriots had 11 drives. In those 11 drives, they missed a FG, turned the ball over on downs, time ran out in the half, fumbled and the game ended during their last possession. So they had 6 scoring drives (out of 11 overall) for the game (the Eagles had 8 out of 10).

The Patriots gained 613 Total yards for the game and scored 33 points. But, in the five drives where they didn't score, they gained 198 yards. So there were 198 'futile' yards where the Eagles Defense did what they're supposed to do, prevent them from scoring. So the Patriots had 415 'Scoring yards'. TOO MANY, of course, and I wish the D had played better so don't think I'm totally disagreeing with you. But all those yards that the Patriots had, weren't all that they may seem to be.

On the other side, since I talked about the Patriots, the Eagles gained 538 total yards on 10 drives. They scored on 8 of those 10 drives. They punted once and had an interception on one. In the two drives were we didn't score, they gained 38 yards. So there were 38 'futile' yards.

It's easy to look at the bottom line totals and come to a conclusion, but the Eagles defense 'only' gave up 415 'scoring yards' while the Patriots defense gave up 500 'scoring yards'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Shredded? I wouldn't go that far. At least not for the entire game. Yes, Brady had a total of 505 yards passing. But in the 1st half, the D did their job, as well as at the end of the game. The Patriots pretty much had to pass because they were behind for all but 7 minutes of the game. So they were bound to rack up some yards.

The Patriots had 11 drives. In those 11 drives, they missed a FG, turned the ball over on downs, time ran out in the half, fumbled and the game ended during their last possession. So they had 6 scoring drives (out of 11 overall) for the game (the Eagles had 8 out of 10).

The Patriots gained 613 Total yards for the game and scored 33 points. But, in the five drives where they didn't score, they gained 198 yards. So there were 198 'futile' yards where the Eagles Defense did what they're supposed to do, prevent them from scoring. So the Patriots had 415 'Scoring yards'. TOO MANY, of course, and I wish the D had played better so don't think I'm totally disagreeing with you. But all those yards that the Patriots had, weren't all that they may seem to be.

On the other side, since I talked about the Patriots, the Eagles gained 538 total yards on 10 drives. They scored on 8 of those 10 drives. They punted once and had an interception on one. In the two drives were we didn't score, they gained 38 yards. So there were 38 'futile' yards.

It's easy to look at the bottom line totals and come to a conclusion, but the Eagles defense 'only' gave up 415 'scoring yards' while the Patriots defense gave up 500 'scoring yards'.

Ha, wut? That’s an impressive spin job.

The Birds played better on both sides of the ball, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that both defenses got shredded. The Birds defense just made a few more plays (and ultimately the deciding play) to help them win. Every drive that doesn’t end in points is not ‘futile.’ They factor into the time of possession and field position part of the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

Ha, wut? That’s an impressive spin job.

The Birds played better on both sides of the ball, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that both defenses got shredded. The Birds defense just made a few more plays (and ultimately the deciding play) to help them win. Every drive that doesn’t end in points is not ‘futile.’ They factor into the time of possession and field position part of the game. 

Can you refute any of what I said? Did the Patriots have 198 yards on drives in which they did not score? Did they have 415 yards on drives in which they did score? Did the Eagles have 38 yards on drives in which they did not score? Did they have 500 yards on drives in which they did score?

You don't like the word 'futile'? Fine, use a different word, I think you understood what was meant though. Every drive that the Patriots had in Super Bowl LII, (the Super Bowl in which Nick Foles was the MVP), that they didn't score on, was futile (for them).

I only mention all of that because you said that the Eagles D was 'shredded', when that clearly isn't the whole story, nor to I accept as fully accurate. I agree that they could have and should have played better. They gave up way too many points and yards to an inferior team. But of all those yards given up, 198 of them resulted on 0 points and if you factor in time of possession, all of those yards and plays that resulted on 0 points, helped the Eagles win because it took time off the clock with 0 points being scored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Can you refute any of what I said? Did the Patriots have 198 yards on drives in which they did not score? Did they have 415 yards on drives in which they did score? Did the Eagles have 38 yards on drives in which they did not score? Did they have 500 yards on drives in which they did score?

You don't like the word 'futile'? Fine, use a different word, I think you understood what was meant though. Every drive that the Patriots had in Super Bowl LII, (the Super Bowl in which Nick Foles was the MVP), that they didn't score on, was futile (for them).

I only mention all of that because you said that the Eagles D was 'shredded', when that clearly isn't the whole story, nor to I accept as fully accurate. I agree that they could have and should have played better. They gave up way too many points and yards to an inferior team. But of all those yards given up, 198 of them resulted on 0 points and if you factor in time of possession, all of those yards and plays that resulted on 0 points, helped the Eagles win because it took time off the clock with 0 points being scored.

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. If you are, I’d like an Eagles fans perspective on this. You already have my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. If you are, I’d like an Eagles fans perspective on this. You already have my opinion. 

Yes, I'm serious. Nick Foles IS the MVP of Super Bowl LII.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BKLYNYG said:

I can’t tell if you’re being serious or not. If you are, I’d like an Eagles fans perspective on this. You already have my opinion. 

I agree with VaBeach that "shredded" is probably too strong a word but I also agree with you that the Eagles offense compensated for a weaker defensive performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, zenclaybourne said:

I agree with VaBeach that "shredded" is probably too strong a word but I also agree with you that the Eagles offense compensated for a weaker defensive performance.

Works for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall I rank them this way:

1. Carson Wentz - He was the runaway league MVP prior to his injury and was only in his 2nd year. He responds very well to pressure packed moments and regularly makes a good play out of nothing. There is zero evidence to suggest that he can't win the big one, but a lot of evidence that can overcome obstacles to success. He's gonna get some rings moving forward.

2. Nick Foles - He proved everything we needed to see in the playoffs and the Super Bowl. Historically, his highs are off the charts and his lows are too low, but he's clutch, a winner, and the Super Bowl MVP. Gotta tip your hat to him, he's earned it.

3. Eli Manning - He may be fading some now, but he didn't have a lot of help in 2017 and he's still capable of playing at a high level...at least against us he can.

4, Alex Smith - I always thought of him as an above average QB who can't take over games when he needs to. Nothing has changed my opinion of him.

5. Dak Prescott - Yeah, I hate the Cowboys, but that's not why he's #5. When he lost his running game, he stunk. He couldn't compensate for that and his #1 WR being average. I think he may have actually learned a lot from that experience, and I expect he'll rise up these rankings some by this time next year...I think to #3 providing Foles is still around, and I expect he will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎4‎/‎2018 at 9:46 PM, BKLYNYG said:

You gotta look at the full body of work. 

I was curious and bored, so here's the Body of Work (regular season stats only):

Carson Wentz: 29 Games 29 Starts 644/1047 61.5% 7,078 YDS 49 TDs 4.7% 21 INTs 2.0% 244.1 YPG 88.8 Passer Rating

Nick Foles: 49 Games 39 Starts 833/1386 60.1% 9,752 YDS 61 TDs 4.4% 29 INTs 2.1% 199.0 YPG  87.4 Passer Rating

Eli Manning: 216 Games 214 Starts 4424/7396 59.8% 51,682 YDS 339 TDs 4.6% 228 INTs 3.1% 239.5 YPG 83.5 Passer Rating

Alex Smith: 156 Games 151 Starts  2877/4613 62.4% 31,888 YDS 183 TDs 4.0% 96 INTs 2.1% 204.4 YPG 87.4 Passer Rating

Dak Prescott: 32 Games 32 Starts 619/949 65.2% 6,991 YDS 45 TDs 4.7% 17 INTs 1.8% 218.5 YPG 95.5 Passer Rating

Ranking them this way, how would you do it, by the entirety of their playing time (all games played) or just by starts? All of them have started most, if not all of the games played. So it wouldn't de difficult to just get Start Stats.

Manning has obviously played longer than all of the others, so his overall numbers are going to be larger. So the others numbers can be inflated using the averages spread out over Eli's total number of games, to get a comparison. Doing that:

Carson Wentz: 4797/7798 52,719 YDS 365 TDs 156 INTs Future League MVP, Super Bowl MVP and All Around G.O.A.T.

Nick Foles: 3672/6110 42,988 YDS 269 TDs 128 INTs Super Bowl MVP & Catcher of Philly Specials

Eli Manning: 4424/7396 51,682 YDS 339 TDs 228 INTs 2 Time Super Bowl MVP

Alex Smith: 3984/6378 44,153 YDS 253 TDs 133 INTs

Dak Prescott 4178/6406 47,189 YDS 304 TDs 115 INTs

Of course those numbers for everyone but Manning are just their averages, spread out over Eli's 216 games played, so they're meaningless. But it kind of shows where those QBs are in comparison.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

I was curious and bored, so here's the Body of Work (regular season stats only):

Carson Wentz: 29 Games 29 Starts 644/1047 61.5% 7,078 YDS 49 TDs 4.7% 21 INTs 2.0% 244.1 YPG 88.8 Passer Rating

Nick Foles: 49 Games 39 Starts 833/1386 60.1% 9,752 YDS 61 TDs 4.4% 29 INTs 2.1% 199.0 YPG  87.4 Passer Rating

Eli Manning: 216 Games 214 Starts 4424/7396 59.8% 51,682 YDS 339 TDs 4.6% 228 INTs 3.1% 239.5 YPG 83.5 Passer Rating

Alex Smith: 156 Games 151 Starts  2877/4613 62.4% 31,888 YDS 183 TDs 4.0% 96 INTs 2.1% 204.4 YPG 87.4 Passer Rating

Dak Prescott: 32 Games 32 Starts 619/949 65.2% 6,991 YDS 45 TDs 4.7% 17 INTs 1.8% 218.5 YPG 95.5 Passer Rating

Ranking them this way, how would you do it, by the entirety of their playing time (all games played) or just by starts? All of them have started most, if not all of the games played. So it wouldn't de difficult to just get Start Stats.

 Manning has obviously played longer than all of the others, so his overall numbers are going to be larger. So the others numbers can be inflated using the averages spread out over Eli's total number of games, to get a comparison. Doing that:

Carson Wentz: 4797/7798 52,719 YDS 365 TDs 156 INTs Future League MVP, Super Bowl MVP and All Around G.O.A.T.

Nick Foles: 3672/6110 42,988 YDS 269 TDs 128 INTs Super Bowl MVP & Catcher of Philly Specials

Eli Manning: 4424/7396 51,682 YDS 339 TDs 228 INTs 2 Time Super Bowl MVP

Alex Smith: 3984/6378 44,153 YDS 253 TDs 133 INTs

Dak Prescott 4178/6406 47,189 YDS 304 TDs 115 INTs

Of course those numbers for everyone but Manning are just their averages, spread out over Eli's 216 games played, so they're meaningless. But it kind of shows where those QBs are in comparison.

  

Manning has had a long and illustrious career filled with some lows and some extremely high highs. At the end of the day his cumulative stats will get him consideration for the HOF. He doesn't belong in this group. 

Smith will be remembered for nothing. He's just some guy. 

Foles was on the same path as Smith until his amazing 4 game stretch. He's now in the record books, but at the end of the day that's all he'll be remembered for (which is something great). He'll be forgotten once Wentz is healthy enough to play. He's started 39 of 49 games played, but he's been in the league 6 years (96 games). That means he was only good enough to be a backup for most of his career. 

Dak and Wentz haven't played enough games to be ranked. They both have potential, but let's see if they can survive 14 seasons like Eli. Jury is out. 

So...

Rankings right now: Wentz, the rest lumped together in a lower tier. 

Career: Eli, the rest meaningless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

Manning has had a long and illustrious career filled with some lows and some extremely high highs. At the end of the day his cumulative stats will get him consideration for the HOF. He doesn't belong in this group. 

Smith will be remembered for nothing. He's just some guy. 

Foles was on the same path as Smith until his amazing 4 game stretch. He's now in the record books, but at the end of the day that's all he'll be remembered for (which is something great). He'll be forgotten once Wentz is healthy enough to play. He's started 39 of 49 games played, but he's been in the league 6 years (96 games). That means he was only good enough to be a backup for most of his career. 

Dak and Wentz haven't played enough games to be ranked. They both have potential, but let's see if they can survive 14 seasons like Eli. Jury is out. 

So...

Rankings right now: Wentz, the rest lumped together in a lower tier. 

Career: Eli, the rest meaningless. 

Take away Eli's two Super Bowl post seasons and he's as meaningless as anyone else. Without those two Super Bowls, the only thing 'remarkable' about Eli is his longevity. His regular season career hasn't really been 'illustrious'. He's just over .500 in the regular season in his career at .518 (111-103). He's had 7 seasons over .500 and 7 seasons at or under .500.

He's had a nice career, but without the Super Bowl he's just a name that a lot of people wouldn't even think of in 25 years. You can't take away those Super Bowls though, so Eli will most likely get into the Hall of Fame whereas he otherwise possibly wouldn't have.

Of course Carson and Prescott don't have enough games to compare, but you said 'body of work' so we have to go by 'body of work'. The only way to do that would be to either eliminate Wentz and Prescott and go from there, or use the averages as I did, or just use the last 2 years since that's their 'body of work'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

Take away Eli's two Super Bowl post seasons and he's as meaningless as anyone else. Without those two Super Bowls, the only thing 'remarkable' about Eli is his longevity. His regular season career hasn't really been 'illustrious'. He's just over .500 in the regular season in his career at .518 (111-103). He's had 7 seasons over .500 and 7 seasons at or under .500.

He's had a nice career, but without the Super Bowl he's just a name that a lot of people wouldn't even think of in 25 years. You can't take away those Super Bowls though, so Eli will most likely get into the Hall of Fame whereas he otherwise possibly wouldn't have.

Of course Carson and Prescott don't have enough games to compare, but you said 'body of work' so we have to go by 'body of work'. The only way to do that would be to either eliminate Wentz and Prescott and go from there, or use the averages as I did, or just use the last 2 years since that's their 'body of work'.

 

Take away two Super Bowls and an impressive games played streak and sure, he’s just an average QB, but those two things we’re taking away are really great and really hard to achieve. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, BKLYNYG said:

Take away two Super Bowls and an impressive games played streak and sure, he’s just an average QB, but those two things we’re taking away are really great and really hard to achieve. 

 

2 hours ago, VaBeach_Eagle said:

You can't take away those Super Bowls though, so Eli will most likely get into the Hall of Fame whereas he otherwise possibly wouldn't have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this