ESPN.com's John Clayton -- one of the most knowledgeable writers about the NFL that I've ever known -- has just published a list ranking the NFL starting quarterbacks 1-33 for 2010.
It's 33 QBs instead of 32 because Clayton ranks both Ben Roethlisberger and Byron Leftwich for Pittsburgh, given that Big Ben will be sitting out at least the first month of the season due to his suspension.
Who's No.33, dead last?? Jake Delhomme.
Who's No.32, next-to-dead-last?? Matt Moore.
That doesn't say much for the decision the Panthers had to make in the offseason, does it? Delhomme, now in Cleveland, has had a far better preseason than Moore, for what it's worth, although Moore wrote in this blog entry published today that the preseason doesn't matter and that Carolina will be far better during the season.
It would be fairly easy to dismiss this sort of criticism if it came from a no-name writer on a no-name website, but Clayton and ESPN make a very strong combination. What do you think about this list? (Of the other division QBs besides Brees, Clayton ranks Atlanta's Matt Ryan No.13 and Tampa Bay's Josh Freeman 29th).
Clayton's top 10, incidentally, for those who don't want to click over and read the entire story:
1. Peyton Manning, Indy
2. Tom Brady, New England
3. Drew Brees, New Orleans
4. Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh
5. Brett Favre, Minnesota
6. Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay
7. Philip Rivers, San Diego
8. Tony Romo, Dallas
9. Donovan McNabb, Washington
10. Carson Palmer, Cincinnati
We're moving!
9 years ago
Posts
28 comments:
negative nancy strikes again
where is SI link that says Panthers make the playoffs?
if Peter King in Clayton's category of expertise?
I wish local writers were so honest about UNC-Chapel Hill problems
Here's my take.
Clayton rated QBs higher than Moore who played worse than he did last year with a squad decimated by injury. Further Clayton has been hanging on Clausens jock like he gets a cut of his contract. I have never found Clayton even close to the most knowledgeable football columnist and his many failed predictions are pretty well known.
When they give a list like that it should include some reasoning. Like how do they determine that someone like Sanchez is better than Moore? Sanchez threw almost twice the interceptions as touchdowns last season where as Moore threw 4 times more touchdowns than interceptions. Granted Moore only started 5 games he still should be ranked higher than someone that threw 2-1 interceptions to tds.
I just read some of the list from the espn article. Scott you are retarded if you buy into that nonsense. He has Bradford listed higher than Moore & Bradford has yet to throw a pass in the regular season while Moore has 6 wins in 8 starts. & Josh freeman? All you have to do is look at the qb ratings & you will see that is retarded to have him above Moore.
I don't mind Jake and Moore being so low in general, but Freeman, Bradford and Edwards and the like, are not any better than Matt Moor right now. Moore and Jake could both easily outperform 8-10 of the names on that list.
Bottom Line- it doesn't matter. If we win Week 1 at the Giants, this stuff will be forgotten along with the offense's poor play in pretend games.
When Jake is on hes every bit as good as Peyton or better.
These ratings are garbage anyway. Get real.
Sports writers who rate these are crackheads and alcoholics anyway.
Never trust a big mag sports writer any furthur than you can throw them. SCUM.
Mr. "My glass is 1/2 empty" strikes again....please stick to something you know.....like high school sports!
Anonymous 3:30 said...
When Jake is on hes every bit as good as Peyton or better.
Seriously? Are you mental?
I'll say this for Delhomme, he doesn't have the strongest arm but at least he's inaccurate.
Of course Moore would say that. If it DID matter, he'd be out of the league. His career preseason rating is about a 40.
It's not easy to line up 32 folks and then make a judgement saying #23 is better than #24. I think it's easier to think in terms of buckets. If you had 4 buckets with 8 QBs in each bucket; A, B, C, D. Where would you put Jake? Where would you put Matt? I would say Matt's in the C group and Jake's in the D group based on overall performance.
There will be plenty of room on the Panther band wagon when this team starts putting the beat down on every team in the NFL. by the bye week they will start to notice and jump on. GO PANTHERS
I'm going to give Matt the benefit of the doubt. We'll see what he can do when the regular season starts.
Scott , what the hell do you do during the day while the rest of
us are doing our jobs.Moore is still better than you and espn can eat one!
Clayton is a Dallas-loving (and, by extension, Romo-loving) idiot. I'm sure he would rank Double Trouble behind nearly every other NFL team if he did that ranking as well. I, for one, would rank Clayton just above the village idiot when it came to actual football knowledge, at least when it comes to objectivity. He is as partisan as they come: if he likes your team (see Cowboys, Dallas and Packers, Green Bay), he'll rank you high regardless of talent. If he dislikes your team (see Panthers, Carolina) you must be completely talentless regardless of record. Go away, Mr. Clayton, you smell of Tony Romo's jock.
My only question is, why is everyone acting so surprised? Moore did a fine job stabilizing the team after Jake's self-immolation, but he is a mediocre quarterback at best.
Nevertheless, The Observer sports writers and the Panthers coaching staff seem to have corronated him on the basis of a very slim body of work.
I personally agree with Clayton that Claussen is a better quarterback and will only get better. He has a better pocket presence, is more accurate and is more mobile.
Nonetheless, the Panthers lack the gumption to pull the string now on Moore. They'll wait till half the season has gone up in smoke before going to Claussen with the attitude, "what have we got to lose."
The Crypt Keeper continues to show his company line-towing bias.
Everyone at ESPN hyped up Clausen, therefore they'll use any excuse to hype him up some more. And I don't dislike Clausen, he looks great for a rookie, you can really tell he played his college ball in a pro-style offense. But Moore is pretty solid.
I think Matt Schaub was highly undervalued on his list, but in fairness to the Crypt Keeper, he did qualify it with his injury history, so I'll give him a pass.
The biggest gripe I have, aside from Bradford who someone already pointed out has never taken a snap in an NFL game, is Matt Leinart. He is, in more ways than one, the Dwayne Jarrett of NFL quarterbacks. Great college numbers at USC, sense of entitlement in NFL and no work ethic. I hope DJ proves me wrong this season, but Leinart is just terrible. What do they call him, Captain Checkdown or something?
Clausen is more accurate in short passes. But less accurate in deep passes. Moore and Clausen are both mobile, so theirs no seperation between the two.
Clausen mainly threw check down throws all pre-season. Having his players pick up extra yards. Throwing check down passes isn't going to win you many games/a SB title.
Also both QBs at best has shown tendencies to stare down at their receivers. As well throws passes up for grabs.
I believe Clausen longest pass was 20-25 yards deep to Kenny M/ Dante R. Which should have been intercepted or deflated. But Clausen time will come, but i wouldn't be surprise if this fan base begans to throwing him under the bus.
Especially when the going gets tough. Or doesn't live up to the hype, this isn't college no more.
Not comparing Clausen to Brady Q, but was Quinn the best QB on the Browns? Who has well showed poise and accurate to come out of ND? John C definition of "elite" QB is a laugher though.
Only Manning, Brees, and Brady are the true elites. With Mcnabb, Rodgers, and many others are 2nd or 3rd tier QB at best.
Moore or Clausen hasn't shown anything, to be the face of the franchise. Clausen draft status, name recognition since high school/college. Also the media coverage from Clayton and many others have Clausen being better.
But to really tell whos better, they have to prove it by their play. Nobody becomes great over night, but somehow the media is making Clausen out to be good to great.
Jake should have been more like 38th. There are at least 4 other backups as good as him.
Let it go Fowler.
I have to laugh at this guy and please Scott, don't put these guys on a pedestal. Someone needs to do a qb rating check on Moore on the last 5 games of the season last year and how could you rate someone higher on the list with a lower elite rating? By their own hand, they make no sense with no logical number sequence.
Let me guess, because Carolina sucks, they'll rate John Beason as number 32 in 33 linebackers? (Weak side linebackers who are starters)
I'd like to hear their real reasons for their numbers and how they came to justify those numbers...
BTW, I just can't stand people who knock on my team so call me a sore loser or whatever!
Cobrabitn
I noticed Aaron Rodgers Stats are very similar to Moores & look at Rodgers on the list. Rodgers played in 2005, 06, & 07 only 7 games, then had break out seasons the following 2 years when he played the whole years. Moore played in 2007 & 2009 starting 8 games, & now is ready for his break out full season.
As a huge carolina fan I don't really want to point it out but the simple fact remains that while Moore posted some good numbers last season, his production came in the last few games of the season half of which were against opponents who had already clinched playoff spots(Minnesota and New Orleans). In fact New Orleans had already clinched the division and didn't even play the majority of their starters after the first half. So needless to say I don't really put a lot of stock into Moore's numbers last season or his win record.
Anonymous 8:41 said...
"...his production came in the last few games of the season half of which were against opponents who had already clinched playoff spots(Minnesota and New Orleans)."
Why do people keep saying this? New Orleans was the only team resting starters (the very last game), Minnesota was still trying to improve their playoff seed. I remember this distinctly because I it was such a huge deal for us REAL Panthers fans at the time.
Don't take my word for it though, look up the stats and see that Favre was the only QB with any stats since he wasn't rested. Also notice the Vikings complete offensive and defensive stats...see any signs of a team resting starters other than the score?
Minnesota came into Carolina that day and their starters were beaten by a very hot Panthers team. Matt Moore threw for just under 300 yards and 3 TDs against a very good STARTING Vikings defense. I'm not the first to remind yet another regurgitating fool that Carolina played starting teams last year except for week 17. Please, it makes you sound foolish to say that ALL of those teams were resting starters 2/3 into the season....LOLOLOLOL!
"...John Clayton -- one of the most knowledgeable writers about the NFL that I've ever known..."
Does his knowledge somehow give him an edge in his predictions and analysis of where players stack up? Here's one for you, I pulled this John Hatin', I mean Clayton article from a year ago. You have to love the internet:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/preview09/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=4446985
He had us tying with Atlanta for the division at 10-6. He did ok on some predictions, but mainly with the usual suspects (Colts, Pats, Chargers, etc.).
Okay, I'm not really being fair here. Let's be honest, rating quarterbacks before the season starts has little to do with guessing team records before the season starts. In all fairness, here's his take on one QB from last year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIiIwXJ2XOM
Look, Clayton is decent as a journalist and well-respected by his peers. However, I have to question Scott's promotion of Clayton as knowledgeable as if that has anything to do with his predictions. Clayton's justification for ranking Moore at 32 out of 33 should have been, "oh crap, I forgot about Carolina, well, we'll just squeeze old Moore in here." Instead it was: "He has a 6-2 record as starter, but a slow start could speed the Jimmy Clausen era in Carolina."
Really? The Panthers have Pickles and that is why you put Moore at 32? Ahh, but Clayton is just a little bit in love with Pickles, so he has to stick it to old Matty:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft10/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=5130721
He figures Carolina was the biggest winner in the draft, based solely on Clausen...who us Panther fans have always known would be a backup this year...
Wanna know why the Panthers have #32 at QB? It's the same reason we just traded #33 after giving him big bucks. It's pretty clear, that the fans here, fall in love with whoever wears the uniform. Face it, Moore is not a franchise QB. If he is not rated correctly, it's not far off. Take off the blue lenses.
If Moore isn't a franchise QB. Who to say if Clausen is a franchise QB? Because the media hypes him up as the golden boy or golden arm? lmao
Had a QB coach, since he was the age of 10? Moore or Clausen has to prove their worth by their play.
Not what the media has to say. Its pointless. Both had good college careers, now this is the nfl.
Gotta love the cowardly anonymous posts to bash the Panthers so noone can call you out on it later when you get proven wrong. While i dont agree with the ranks that Clayton listed, at least he didnt do it anonymously like half the cowards here.
Hi, great Blog. The way you explained it is really awesome and makes everyone to read till the end. Keep posting..
Post a Comment