B/R NFL 1000: Ranking the Top 50 Quarterbacks from 2014

[dbrooks25]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ing-the-top-50-quarterbacks-from-2014/page/34

I would have posted the article, but as most of you know Bleacher Report LOVES putting everything in slides.

Surprise, surprise, they have Nick Foles ranked #33 out of 52 Qbs, which is basically a fringe starter. Qbs ranked higher than him? How about Drew Stanton, Shaun Hill, and Mark Sanchez. And this is coming from one of their "national" reporters. Give me a break.

 

[Legatron4]

Does Bleacher Report really matter in this world? They're fans, just like us. Dumb ones, I might add.

 

[RAGRam]

Seems accurate if you're going off 2014.

 

[DaveFan'51]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...ing-the-top-50-quarterbacks-from-2014/page/34

I would have posted the article, but as most of you know Bleacher Report LOVES putting everything in slides.

Surprise, surprise, they have Nick Foles ranked #33 out of 52 Qbs, which is basically a fringe starter. Qbs ranked higher than him? How about Drew Stanton, Shaun Hill, and Mark Sanchez. And this is coming from one of their "national" reporters. Give me a break.

BR's opinion ..

 

[dbrooks25]

Seems accurate if you're going off 2014.

Accurate enough to rank Sanchez, Stanton, and Shaun Hill higher? NAH

 

[RAGRam]

Accurate enough to rank Sanchez, Stanton, and Shaun Hill higher? NAH

Well Stanton was truly awful, so can't agree with his ranking.

 

[-X-]

Any explanation about their methodologies when they put that list together?
Is it all just personal opinion, or is there some sort of statistical measure or standard in play?

 

[StevenG-BR]

Lol... Every year Matt Miller has to create his NFL 1000 series. And every year he gets absolutely butchered by the readers who don't like where their players land. I don't envy him.

I don't agree with the ranking placement. But if you look at the overall grade, he gave him 72/100. That's a 'C'. Don't think anyone can argue with Foles earning a C grade in 2014.

 

[RamBall]

Does Bleacher Report really matter in this world? They're fans, just like us. Dumb ones, I might add.

Us fans are smarter and more informed than bleacher report.

Dont group us with them

 

[dbrooks25]

Any explanation about their methodologies when they put that list together?
Is it all just personal opinion, or is there some sort of statistical measure or standard in play?

They have a grading scale for things like short accuracy, deep accuracy, and arm strength, but you can't sit here and tell me that Foles is the #33 QB in the league. NOPE.

 

[dbrooks25]

Lol... Every year Matt Miller has to create his NFL 1000 series. And every year he gets absolutely butchered by the readers who don't like where their players land. I don't envy him.

I don't agree with the ranking placement. But if you look at the overall grade, he gave him 72/100. That's a 'C'. Don't think anyone can argue with Foles earning a C grade in 2014.

Not at all, but the players I mentioned earlier shouldn't have earned better grades. Btw, I used to like Miller OK but lately his rankings have had me scratching my head

 

[CGI_Ram]

Foles has a career 94.2 rating.

I understand he has a lot to prove with just 24 starts under his belt...

But Shawn Hill and Drew Stanton? Makes no sense.

 

[StevenG-BR]

Not at all, but the players I mentioned earlier shouldn't have earned better grades. Btw, I used to like Miller OK but lately his rankings have had me scratching my head

Oh, I don't disagree. I think he goes out of his way to make his rankings "different" and "shocking" in order to stand out. It's an understandable strategy, but sometimes it's too much for his own good.

 

[iced]

I hear they have excellent scouts