Brunell's Top Two Tiers NFL QB

[NINEster]

I actually thought those lists were reasonable. To me Wilson is hovering outside the top five right now, but there isn't much separating him from the elite class. Now that Seattle has given him some weapons, lets see how he does.

I do sort of question whether or not Rodgers should be the consensus #1. Instinctually, it feels right. But how many top defenses has Rodgers dominated? He always seems to struggle mightily against Seattle, and the 49ers tend to give him some trouble. Last year the Lions gave him a rough time. So did Buffalo. The NFC North has been, by and large, a horrifically bad division for defense through most of Rodgers' prime. Rodgers does look like the best QB ever vs. an average defense, but he seems to lose more against an elite defense than someone like Big Ben, Tom Brady or Russell Wilson.

Aaron Rodgers has also struggled against the Giants prior to their recent fall off.

It is a noteworthy observation, but looking deeper I believe the real culprit in those games is the lack of a strong running game and a top notch defense.

If you look at the Patriots offense, they have more versatility than the Packers. And I'd argue they don't coach/play as scared against the tougher teams.

I'd temper the statement of Rodgers "struggling mightily against Seattle" when that's the only stadium he's played the Seahawks in. This year, we'll see how mightily he'll struggle without the 12th man.

As for the QB list, I agree with it except I'd slide Andrew Luck into tier 2 for now and maybe Brees too, although it is tolerable for the time being with where Luck might end up soon and Brees on his reputation. Luck probably doesn't deserve Tier 1 yet, but is closer to being there than the other young guns.

Wilson is a 2nd tier QB and has yet to show he can be 1st tier. I don't know how many more playoff game interceptions and lack of rhythm it's going to take to demonstrate that.

I don't watch every Seahawk game but I tend to catch all the big ones. From the eye test in big games against good defenses Wilson mostly plays ok (nothing special) with a couple of big flashy plays that gets the W. Mostly out of pocket scrambles, read option or his signature 1 or 2 (or 3) jump ball completions he always seems to get. And on the general "luck" side, he's been luckier than all other starting QBs in the league the last few years with the breaks his team gets in terms of fumbles lost and the lucky bounce.

I've yet to see the consistent systematic carving up of a defense that a tier 1 QB, or "just outside the top 5" would be capable of.

He's obviously a good QB but not (yet) a Tier 1.

 

[NINEster]

Romo is a better pure passer than Wilson, and can make elusive plays as well. Romo has a much longer history of putting up big passing games, even those coming from behind 2 or 3 scores.

That 3rd and 22 at Centurylink down the sideline is something I can't picture Wilson doing. His version would be scrambling for maybe 3-5 more seconds so he can hit a wide open Baldwin or Kearse on a bomb, but not a precision tip toe sideline pass. Think of the Kaepernick to Crabtree bomb in New Orleans in case you think I'm only putting this on Wilson.

You can make arguments and say that Wilson has some advantages over Romo, but overall Wilson in Dallas would be a downgrade with the structure of the Cowboys last year and even right now I'd say. Romo with a crap OL in Seattle, I don't know how he would fare.

One thing I've noticed about Wilson is that unless it's immediate up the gut pressure, he seems to RELISH from very fast edge pressure. It's like he actually does better.......probably because he can sidestep that edge rusher and take them out. He has a skill that probably is unique to him in the league, and he can buy all sorts of time.

 

[MizzouHawkGal]

I actually thought those lists were reasonable. To me Wilson is hovering outside the top five right now, but there isn't much separating him from the elite class. Now that Seattle has given him some weapons, lets see how he does.

I do sort of question whether or not Rodgers should be the consensus #1. Instinctually, it feels right. But how many top defenses has Rodgers dominated? He always seems to struggle mightily against Seattle, and the 49ers tend to give him some trouble. Last year the Lions gave him a rough time. So did Buffalo. The NFC North has been, by and large, a horrifically bad division for defense through most of Rodgers' prime. Rodgers does look like the best QB ever vs. an average defense, but he seems to lose more against an elite defense than someone like Big Ben, Tom Brady or Russell Wilson.

Aaron Rodgers has also struggled against the Giants prior to their recent fall off.

It is a noteworthy observation, but looking deeper I believe the real culprit in those games is the lack of a strong running game and a top notch defense.

If you look at the Patriots offense, they have more versatility than the Packers. And I'd argue they don't coach/play as scared against the tougher teams.

I'd temper the statement of Rodgers "struggling mightily against Seattle" when that's the only stadium he's played the Seahawks in. This year, we'll see how mightily he'll struggle without the 12th man.

As for the QB list, I agree with it except I'd slide Andrew Luck into tier 2 for now and maybe Brees too, although it is tolerable for the time being with where Luck might end up soon and Brees on his reputation. Luck probably doesn't deserve Tier 1 yet, but is closer to being there than the other young guns.

Wilson is a 2nd tier QB and has yet to show he can be 1st tier. I don't know how many more playoff game interceptions and lack of rhythm it's going to take to demonstrate that.

I don't watch every Seahawk game but I tend to catch all the big ones. From the eye test in big games against good defenses Wilson mostly plays ok (nothing special) with a couple of big flashy plays that gets the W. Mostly out of pocket scrambles, read option or his signature 1 or 2 (or 3) jump ball completions he always seems to get. And on the general "luck" side, he's been luckier than all other starting QBs in the league the last few years with the breaks his team gets in terms of fumbles lost and the lucky bounce.

I've yet to see the consistent systematic carving up of a defense that a tier 1 QB, or "just outside the top 5" would be capable of.

He's obviously a good QB but not (yet) a Tier 1.

I guess you didn't watch Superbowl 48. Or most games against Arizona or San Francisco in the 2013 NFCCG going tit for tat with Keapernick or except for a dumbass play, against Brady TWICE!

Cool.

 

[WilsonMVP]

I actually thought those lists were reasonable. To me Wilson is hovering outside the top five right now, but there isn't much separating him from the elite class. Now that Seattle has given him some weapons, lets see how he does.

I do sort of question whether or not Rodgers should be the consensus #1. Instinctually, it feels right. But how many top defenses has Rodgers dominated? He always seems to struggle mightily against Seattle, and the 49ers tend to give him some trouble. Last year the Lions gave him a rough time. So did Buffalo. The NFC North has been, by and large, a horrifically bad division for defense through most of Rodgers' prime. Rodgers does look like the best QB ever vs. an average defense, but he seems to lose more against an elite defense than someone like Big Ben, Tom Brady or Russell Wilson.

Aaron Rodgers has also struggled against the Giants prior to their recent fall off.

It is a noteworthy observation, but looking deeper I believe the real culprit in those games is the lack of a strong running game and a top notch defense.

If you look at the Patriots offense, they have more versatility than the Packers. And I'd argue they don't coach/play as scared against the tougher teams.

I'd temper the statement of Rodgers "struggling mightily against Seattle" when that's the only stadium he's played the Seahawks in. This year, we'll see how mightily he'll struggle without the 12th man.

As for the QB list, I agree with it except I'd slide Andrew Luck into tier 2 for now and maybe Brees too, although it is tolerable for the time being with where Luck might end up soon and Brees on his reputation. Luck probably doesn't deserve Tier 1 yet, but is closer to being there than the other young guns.

Wilson is a 2nd tier QB and has yet to show he can be 1st tier. I don't know how many more playoff game interceptions and lack of rhythm it's going to take to demonstrate that.

I don't watch every Seahawk game but I tend to catch all the big ones. From the eye test in big games against good defenses Wilson mostly plays ok (nothing special) with a couple of big flashy plays that gets the W. Mostly out of pocket scrambles, read option or his signature 1 or 2 (or 3) jump ball completions he always seems to get. And on the general "luck" side, he's been luckier than all other starting QBs in the league the last few years with the breaks his team gets in terms of fumbles lost and the lucky bounce.

I've yet to see the consistent systematic carving up of a defense that a tier 1 QB, or "just outside the top 5" would be capable of.

He's obviously a good QB but not (yet) a Tier 1.

So you bring up Wilsons playoff interceptions and ignore Lucks? Um hello? Luck has 9TD to 12 INT in the 6 games he has played in the postseason..That is god awful

Wilson is 12TD to 6INT in 8 games in the postseason. The first of which was at the end of the Atlanta game which I dont even count and 4 of them came in the packer game.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Romo is a better pure passer than Wilson, and can make elusive plays as well. Romo has a much longer history of putting up big passing games, even those coming from behind 2 or 3 scores.

That 3rd and 22 at Centurylink down the sideline is something I can't picture Wilson doing. His version would be scrambling for maybe 3-5 more seconds so he can hit a wide open Baldwin or Kearse on a bomb, but not a precision tip toe sideline pass...

Did it to Doug Baldwin in 35 MPH winds vs. the Saints to clinch the divisional round game season before this most recent one though it wasn't a 22 yarder. It was however, very precise. Not the only time he's done it either, but the one that comes immediately to mind.

Whatever fine attributes Romo has, and there are plenty, I would NEVER take him over Wilson because he simply is not at his best late in games when his team needs him to be and with Russ it's most often the opposite. With his history of failure in the clutch, any list that has Romo in the top tier of NFL QBs is laughable.

 

[Overseasfan]

The biggest thing in this isn't really RWs placement in this list (could be 9th as well, which isn't that far off) but the Tiers he used. You can't say Rivers is about as good as Rodgers or Brady, you can't say Jay Cutler is about as good as Russel Wilson. That just doesn't work.

In my opinion these lists only work with 4 definite Tiers.
1 - Elite players, contenders for best in said position (I'd only put Rodgers, Brady, Luck and maybe Roethlisberger in this one right now)
2 - Good players, solid starters and often pro bowlers, not as good as the elite players but great to have on your team (Russel Wilson would be here for example).
3 - Average players, they are viewed as solid options untill a better player becomes available. While this Tier isn't all that bad to be in for most positions, it doesn't usually work out well for you in a position with a small amount of roster spots like QB (Geno Smith and Johnny Manziel are perfect fits for this category, good enough to get a starting job but not good enough to have a secured future).
4 - Bad players, long term back-ups, vets who can't keep up anymore and youngsters who aren't ready yet. These are the guys that will impact your team negatively (Think of Lindley).

 

[McGruff]

I wouldn't put Luck in the top tier. I'd put Ben before him and Russell as well. Luck IMO is still a volume passer who could be Dan Marino or he could be Jeff George. More than likely he is somewhere in between.

But otherwise I agree that the categories are much too broad.

 

[brimsalabim]

Russell at the bottom and Luck at the top :roll:

Look Luck has been very good and there is every reason to believe he will be great one day .... But he hasn't achieved a thing yet and doesn't trully deserved to be ranked so highly just yet.
Russell is constantly down graded because of the hawks great defense while Luck gets a pass for failing to achieve despite having an offensive squad tailored to his strenghs to help him. This season will show us much about Luck. I'd say no QB in the cap era has had as many top notch tools at their disposal. Compare what he has to work with to what Russell has. Graham is top notch and lynch is the best back in the league but outside of them and Russell we don't have another player on offense who would start on the colts or 75% of the league. We will have to wait and see on the new Lockett WR. Sure we are all expecting great things but we did so for both the receivers we drafted last season too who failed to materialize.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Russell at the bottom and Luck at the top :roll:

Look Luck has been very good and there is every reason to believe he will be great one day .... But he hasn't achieved a thing yet and doesn't trully deserved to be ranked so highly just yet.
Russell is constantly down graded because of the hawks great defense while Luck gets a pass for failing to achieve despite having an offensive squad tailored to his strenghs to help him. This season will show us much about Luck. I'd say no QB in the cap era has had as many top notch tools at their disposal. Compare what he has to work with to what Russell has. Graham is top notch and lynch is the best back in the league but outside of them and Russell we don't have another player on offense who would start on the colts or 75% of the league. We will have to wait and see on the new Lockett WR. Sure we are all expecting great things but we did so for both the receivers we drafted last season too who failed to materialize.

I hate Luck about as much as anyone but in the REGULAR season he actually did pretty good. None of that mattered though to me. Throughout the entire season when everyone was on Lucks jock on this site and others I pointed out he could get 60 TD for all I care I want to see how he did in the playoffs. He didnt dissapoint me with his 76 rating against the Broncos and 23 rating against the Pats with 3TD/4INT

Luck and Wilson are even IMO. This year should finally be the year we see who is better than the other now that Wilson has a legitimate wep in Graham.

 

[brimsalabim]

Yes I get what you are saying but still i ask is it fair to call them even when Wilson gets only a TE vs the plethora of all pro's brought in to buoy Andrew Luck?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

And our friend Moses owning Mr. Brunell, who clearly is now drinking the bong water.

Moses@chawkpositivity · 21m 21 minutes ago

@M_Brunell8 funny you mention clutch about @DangeRussWilson. He's won more playoff games than you in 3 years than u did your whole career.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Russell at the bottom and Luck at the top :roll:

Look Luck has been very good and there is every reason to believe he will be great one day .... But he hasn't achieved a thing yet and doesn't trully deserved to be ranked so highly just yet.
Russell is constantly down graded because of the hawks great defense while Luck gets a pass for failing to achieve despite having an offensive squad tailored to his strenghs to help him. This season will show us much about Luck. I'd say no QB in the cap era has had as many top notch tools at their disposal. Compare what he has to work with to what Russell has. Graham is top notch and lynch is the best back in the league but outside of them and Russell we don't have another player on offense who would start on the colts or 75% of the league. We will have to wait and see on the new Lockett WR. Sure we are all expecting great things but we did so for both the receivers we drafted last season too who failed to materialize.

It takes Luck to get to the top. Russ has no luck. LOL :sarcasm_off: :stirthepot:

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Well done

 

[HansGruber]

Not to play Devil's advocate as I think RW is still a top tier QB. He did regress from his 2013 season.

And yet he got Seattle to its second consecutive Superbowl in his first 3 seasons, down to the last play of the game to win. THAT is a regression.

Tom Brady couldn't do it, Peyton has never done it, in fact, no other QB on that list has done it.

For that reason alone, the lists are not worth discussing - they are just flotsam spewed out by bored analysts fighting the internet for viewers. Frankly, I'd rather give my time to a random blogger that can at least make a sensible argument.

Russell Wilson is a first-ballot HOF'er already. Rivers, Romo, Stafford, and countless others on those lists won't ever sniff consecutive Superbowls, much less the HOF.

 

[lobohawk]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ESPNNFL/status/600754506519851010[/tweet]

The Top Tier QBs have put up some impressive numbers over a good chunk of their career. Some have translated that play into superbowl wins. Luck is the outlier, but I just write that off as the media's rush to anoint Luck as the next Brady, Manning, Rogers.

The Second Tier is comprised of QBs that haven't put up impressive numbers or are inconsistent in their play (see Eli).

There's actually a middle Tier that should be setup. In this group would be Luck, Wilson, and probably Cam. These are young players who have shown the capability to mirror the success of the Top Tier players, but just need time to see how they compare over the long run.

 

[dumbrabbit]

Luck is only the top tier because he was the #1 Overall pick. Not saying he sucks. He's still very good.

I think it should be a tie between Wilson and Roethlisberger. Wilson has been to 3 SBs, and won two quicker than Roethlisberger did. Forget the "Wilson had a better team" argument. Seattle's 2013 season was pretty much a mirror of the 2008 Steelers team in my opinion.

How many more Super Bowl titles will it take before Wilson gets there?

I suppose all the guys in the top tier have had longer careers than Wilson has, and Wilson, I guess still has his whole career to play out, but if Luck deserves to be in the Top tier, so does Wilson.

 

[Ramfan128]

Luck and Wilson aren't even close.

This board is the most reasonable to read of all the fan bases in the NFL.......until people bring up Wilson.

He belongs in the 2nd tier and he belongs well beneath Luck.

Using superbowls as a metric is pointless considering this is a TEAM sport; and Wilson has had a FAR better special teams unit, defense, and running game.

People bring up weapons and say that Luck has had it better....or a better offensive line...that is interesting. I've never once read anyone that thinks that the Colts have a good offensive line. They have been utterly incapable of running the football in Lucks first three years....Hilton was a 4th round pick, Wayne was pretty much done last year.

So let's see....on offense, Luck had better WRs, OL is a push at best, although I'd argue Seattle's is better. Seahawks had better running game. So on offense it's basically a push. Anybody going to argue that Indy's D/ST is better than Seattle's for the sake of propping up Wilson???

Stats and W/L records are not the way to judge QBs IMO....scheme and personnel being so different, that's too difficult. The eyeball test tells me Luck is in another class over Wilson....but don't just listen to me, go poll every non Seahawk and Colt fan and see what they say. My guess would be 95% would take Luck. And that would tell you all you need to know. With the talent Seattle has amassed, if you replaced Wilson with Luck, they would have gone 19-0 the last two years and won the superbowl IMO. But then that's why a team as talented as Seattle wasn't in position to land a player as talented as Luck.

 

[dumbrabbit]

Luck and Wilson aren't even close.

This board is the most reasonable to read of all the fan bases in the NFL.......until people bring up Wilson.

He belongs in the 2nd tier and he belongs well beneath Luck.

Using superbowls as a metric is pointless considering this is a TEAM sport; and Wilson has had a FAR better special teams unit, defense, and running game.

People bring up weapons and say that Luck has had it better....or a better offensive line...that is interesting. I've never once read anyone that thinks that the Colts have a good offensive line. They have been utterly incapable of running the football in Lucks first three years....Hilton was a 4th round pick, Wayne was pretty much done last year.

So let's see....on offense, Luck had better WRs, OL is a push at best, although I'd argue Seattle's is better. Seahawks had better running game. So on offense it's basically a push. Anybody going to argue that Indy's D/ST is better than Seattle's for the sake of propping up Wilson???

Stats and W/L records are not the way to judge QBs IMO....scheme and personnel being so different, that's too difficult. The eyeball test tells me Luck is in another class over Wilson....but don't just listen to me, go poll every non Seahawk and Colt fan and see what they say. My guess would be 95% would take Luck. And that would tell you all you need to know. With the talent Seattle has amassed, if you replaced Wilson with Luck, they would have gone 19-0 the last two years and won the superbowl IMO. But then that's why a team as talented as Seattle wasn't in position to land a player as talented as Luck.

I do agree I shouldn't have used the SB argument...

But do tell me how you came up with the number 95% that people would choose Luck over Wilson.

Here's a better question: how many people would rather pay Luck to play for his team at $5M a year, than pay Wilson $750K a year?

One more thing, you are a Rams fan, and are posting on a Seahawks board. What else were you expecting other than people voting for Wilson?

 

[camdawg]

Luck and Wilson aren't even close.

This board is the most reasonable to read of all the fan bases in the NFL.......until people bring up Wilson.

He belongs in the 2nd tier and he belongs well beneath Luck.

Using superbowls as a metric is pointless considering this is a TEAM sport; and Wilson has had a FAR better special teams unit, defense, and running game.

People bring up weapons and say that Luck has had it better....or a better offensive line...that is interesting. I've never once read anyone that thinks that the Colts have a good offensive line. They have been utterly incapable of running the football in Lucks first three years....Hilton was a 4th round pick, Wayne was pretty much done last year.

So let's see....on offense, Luck had better WRs, OL is a push at best, although I'd argue Seattle's is better. Seahawks had better running game. So on offense it's basically a push. Anybody going to argue that Indy's D/ST is better than Seattle's for the sake of propping up Wilson???

Stats and W/L records are not the way to judge QBs IMO....scheme and personnel being so different, that's too difficult. The eyeball test tells me Luck is in another class over Wilson....but don't just listen to me, go poll every non Seahawk and Colt fan and see what they say. My guess would be 95% would take Luck. And that would tell you all you need to know. With the talent Seattle has amassed, if you replaced Wilson with Luck, they would have gone 19-0 the last two years and won the superbowl IMO. But then that's why a team as talented as Seattle wasn't in position to land a player as talented as Luck.

You use the words "not even close". That shows you don't understand what Andrew Luck has really done in his career so far.

Since you're a Rams fan, I get it. The two Wilson games that probably stick out for you are the loss in St. Louis his rookie year, and the 14-9 Hawks win in the Jones Dome the following year. Russell looked mediocre in the first, and bad in the second. (Although Luck has never played behind an OL as terrible as the three rookie line Russ had for a good portion of 2013, including the ugly game in St. Louis. All those sacks happened for a reason.)

You're forgetting just how bad you made Andrew Luck look. Russell against the Rams looks like Joe Montana compared to Luck against the Rams. And don't bring up the 300+ yards Luck eventually got against you in garbage time. What did Andy do in the first half against you? NOTHING. Go to ESPN and look at the play by play if you don't remember.

You're probably also thinking about a couple of tough losses Russell's had to the Cardinals. His first game, and his first home loss during the Super Bowl year. Yeah, Russ looked bad in those two games, especially the home loss. Andy looked just as bad against the Cards, leading his Colts to a whopping 11 points.

Here's the real problem for anyone picking Andrew over Russell. So far, Russell's lost 14 times in his NFL career, including playoff games. Here's the margins of defeat: 4, 6, 7, 4, 3, 2, 6, 2, 7, 9, 7, 2, 4, and 4. Zero double digit losses.

Andrew Luck's lost 18 times so far. Not bad. Here's what is bad-the margins of defeat. Andrew has lost by 20, 5, 26, 35, 12, 15, 4, 10, 30, 29, 14, 21, 7, 3, 17, 22, 35, and 35 points.

Starting to see the real difference between Russ and Andy now? How asinine it is to say that Luck is anywhere near elite? Only four of Andrew's 18 losses are by single digits. When he loses, half the time it's by 20 points or more. He's lost by 30 or more, four times! And also lost by 29!

And you think that guy could lead the Seahawks to 19-0? HILARIOUS. Andy couldn't lead the 85 Bears or 92 Cowboys to 19-0 playing like that!

What's that, you say? It's all the Colts' defense's fault? Here's the problem with that. With Russell at QB, the Hawks have been held to single digit points once, 2012 at San Francisco. Against an easier slate of defenses, the Luck-led Colts attack has been held to single digit points, seven times. Luck has a BIG share of the blame for why the Colts have been curbstomped so often in his career.

And how has each guy done in the playoffs? See for yourself here: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_rating_career_playoffs.htm .

You'll see Russell's name quickly-he's #5 all-time at 97.8 career playoff passer rating. To see Andy on the list, scroll down. Scroll down some more. Keep scrolling.....and there he is at the very bottom. #50 all-time at 70.8. If Luck is really better, how do you justify this difference?

In regards to your Eye Test....maybe you're not looking at the right things? Because until the horrendous blowouts stop, Andrew is definitely inferior to Russell. And the Colts aren't going to win anything with Andrew as their quarterback.

 

[RichNhansom]

Don't bother trying to argue with this guy he will just drag you to his level and beat you with experience (so the saying goes).
The media has an agenda with Luck. They have had it long before he was even drafted. He was anointed the next QB god and had been given HOF status before he ever even entered the NFL. The media has been putting on the most elaborate sales pitch for him since before he even arrived. Of course the average fan who only watches their own team play will think Luck is a football god. It's called programming.

Here is the thing though, the question being posed is should Wilson be tier 2 while Luck is tier 1. It's not a question of who is better. So if you ask those 95% of fans that will probably choose Luck over Wilson, does Wilson belong in the same tier as Luck? I would bet money that most of them would say yes. There is also some that would say no but probably an equal amount that would put him ahead of Luck due to his accomplishments.

Trying to diminish Luck's receiver corp or compare Luck's pass protection to Wilson is troll worthy and only done in an attempt to create controversy. It's an uneducated argument that isn't worthy of debate and from a poster that in my opinion should be banned. He has a track record of this already.

By the way the eyeball test he is trying to use is much better described as the opinion test or the straw-man argument. Any time you have to ignore all the information so you can summarize your opinion or attempt to troll, you lose all credibility.