oh yeah i totally agree with all of that. to me, the "best alive" conversations are just for fun, even if they are kinda silly.

Peyton is more situation dependent at this point in his career to a certain extent. His line in Denver is average to slightly above average right now. GB's is like those late era Colts lines (i.e. a raging pile of shit) and he probably wouldn't fancy playing behind it. Rodgers ability to throw accurately on the run and his athleticism are something that no one else really has. BUT. Manning is better than any QB I've ever seen at manipulating defenses and reading weaknesses. Thus now that he's got the weapons he has assembled with him he is able to wreak more havoc than anyone else in the league right now could wreak with these weapons. The only 3 who would have the potential to put up what he's putting up right now are those 3 mentioned. Of them I don't think Brees could do it. Too much of a gambler in him. Brady could most likely. Rodgers maybe.

And the injury was really the only thing that took Peyton out of the conversation.

They were only better at RB by any significant margin. I think the biggest difference is that not only does he have a precision route runner (Eric Decker to Marvin Harrison), an athletic freak who also runs great routes (Demariyus Thomas to Reggie Wayne), and an elite slot guy (Welker to Stokely) he now has a 4th piece which is the elite tight end in Julius Thomas. He never had both that and the elite slot guy at the same time. Giving him that plus great pass catching backs (Edge never struck me as particularly great at this) and it's almost unfair. Btw I might give the two top line matchups to the Colts (but it would be close) but the slot receiver is a complete destruction. He can't quite uncork a deep ball like he used to (could you imagine if he could...wooo...boy). Oh and one more thing. I sense the new OC is the most creative one Peyton's ever worked with. There is a lot more formations and multiple looks and gizmos thrown in than I remember. It's still based on the same system which is using formations to manipulate the defense and being multiple out of each formation but the Manning Colts in his prime were actually running an aggressively small number of plays and formation and were all about execution and Peyton's read of who would be open. I sense this playbook is more open and Peyton is loving it.

Peyton Manning is the least line dependent QB in the past 25 years with the possible exception of Tony Romo. Even playing behind the tiny speed bumps that were the Colts lines his last 5 years there he never got sacked (and it is literally almost never). And that's because he just always knows how much time he's going to get and is rarely surprised. He can make a line look good. However, of course he has to limit his play calling somewhat. I will say there is a lot we can do to separate effects. A bit more than you give credit for.

i didn't have this in mind when i made that post, but it reminded me i did a QB ranking before the season (based on who the projected starter was at the time, i think it was like 3 or 4 weeks before the season started). it looked like this (in tiers), i haven't changed anything about it but i will comment on it:

1. Aaron Rodgers (Packers)
2. Peyton Manning (Broncos)
3. Tom Brady (Patriots)
4. Drew Brees (Saints)
5. Matt Ryan (Falcons)

statistically speaking, Brady hasn't lived up to this group this season. but a decade of consistently being a top 3 QB trumps less than half a season anyway. i don't back down from any of these rankings. except for the Peyton vs Rodgers discussion being more legit imo now.

6. Eli Manning (Giants)
7. Ben Roethlisberger (Steelers)
8. Russell Wilson (Seahawks)
9. Robert Griffin III (Redskins)
10. Andrew Luck (Colts)
11. Matthew Stafford (Lions)
12. Tony Romo (Cowboys)
13. Joe Flacco (Ravens)
14. Cam Newton (Panthers)
15. Colin Kaepernick (49ers)
16. Matt Schaub (Texans)

my biggest regret here was not going with my gut on Rivers. i'm always the guy who holds on too long to former top tier players. trust me, i raised Rivers, Vick and Palmer as absolutely high as i possibly could (Palmer i probably shouldn't have). but i forced myself to keep Rivers out of this tier and i'm kicking myself cause for once my gut was right on something. with all that said, i have faith in Ben and Eli to return to the norm at some point. but i gave them way too much "veterans who've won Super Bowls and put up decent numbers" credit here. i'm also kinda kicking myself for not following my gut on Luck vs Griffin/Wilson, but who knows by the end of the season i may be glad cause i am horrible at predicting improvement in young players and i could very well be wrong on those three (i still say Luck >, personally). anyway, sure looks like Newton and Schaub don't belong anywhere near this tier and it should have been Cutler in this group instead. dead wrong on that one, my bad.

17. Philip Rivers (Chargers)
18. Alex Smith (Chiefs)
19. Sam Bradford (Rams)
20. Andy Dalton (Bengals)
21. Josh Freeman (Bucs)
22. Michael Vick (Eagles)
23. Carson Palmer (Cardinals)
24. Jay Cutler (Bears)
25. Christian Ponder (Vikings)
26. Ryan Tannehill (Dolphins)

you know what, i owe Jay Cutler an apology. i owe Cutler fans an apology. hell, i owe football fans an apology. i'm just an idiot sometimes. i think its clear that Vick, Cutler and those top three should be a separate tier from the rest of these scrubs. idk about Dalton.

27. Ryan Fitzpatrick (Titans) vs Jake Locker
28. E.J. Manuel (Bills) vs Kevin Kolb
29. Blaine Gabbert (Jaguars) vs Chad Henne
30. Brandon Weeden (Browns) vs Jason Campbell
31. Mark Sanchez (Jets) vs Gino Smith
32. Matt Flynn (Raiders) vs Tyler Wilson, Terrelle Pryor

i don't really feel bad about any of these placements since i wasn't even confident who would even start on these teams and none of them have disappointed in their ability to get replaced. what i am sorry about though, is that some of the guys who i have listed as the backups turned out to be pretty damn good starters.


overall, how much of a slapping should i get for these rankings to begin with? i felt they were pretty fair at the time. wish i would have posted them then, but it's fun to be able to analyze them after we got some games in.

Part of the problem is I'm talking out my ass because I haven't been able to watch hardly any football this year and I haven't seen a single game any of the elite qbs have played. So instead I'll chime in with a bunch of bs that contributes nothing to the conversation. The blind side of the line is, like super critical and qbs should like, uh, synergy.

Dallas Clark was pretty good back then, but he had to share time with Marcus Pollard. I think Pollard might have been the main tight end and so Clark could only trade time with Stokely to get on the field, and Stokely was pretty good at the time so that was always a hard decision to make. 2004 actually had a pretty good O-line. Tarik Glenn was a good pass protector, Jeff Saturday was just amazing. Jake Scott was a rookie guard that got 9 games that year and has started 16 games every season since for multiple teams. That was Ryan Diem's prime, and he was pretty good then.

Yeah, that 2004 offense had everything. By 2008 Glenn and Scott were gone and Saturday and Diem were old. With Polian in full-on "I suck at drafting" mode they had no youthful replacements.

Also in addition to Edgerrin they had Dominic Rhodes who actually averaged more yards per carry than Edgerrin and as I recall was a really good spell back (although the Broncos obviously have a billion backs).

You should be regretting vastly underestimating Romo. Stafford ahead of him. Seriously? Romo has been a better QB than Roethlisburger for the last couple years. As awesome as they are to watch he's still better than Wilson and Griffin and Luck (although Luck has made massive strides this year). I'd still rather have any of those 3 as my QB for the long term but if I need to win a game right now NONE of these QBs are capable of doing what Romo can. As for Sam Bradford you've probably overrated him.

Yeah it was the lack of overlap with Stokely. 2004 did have a good line.

Life owes Jay Cutler an apology. If it wasn't for him the Bears would have been picking in the top 5 each of the last 5 years. I honestly have no clue how there are still people that don't respect him (though it's easy to see why some people don't like him).

Drinking scotch with a friend last night - we finished a bottle between the two of us. The quote of the night from him? "Jay Cutler is the fucking man, and nobody knows it. If he would have never got hurt like everybody else, his toughness would have never been questioned. He can run over anybody. You know what? He's gonna win the Super Bowl. And then everyone is gonna be on his dick. He's gonna tackle Peyton Manning on the 50 yard line and fuck him up the ass, take 15 yards, and it's gonna be okay. Once he wins the Super Bowl he can fuck children, and he'll still be the fucking man."

meh. Cutler isn't very good. Pave is right to say he belongs in a tier above Ponder, Freeman, et al., but that's because those guys are awful. He is off to a good start this year, though.

Yeah that's just not true. I'd put him right behind Romo and Stafford. Few quarterbacks were put in worse positions to succeed (from purely an offensive perspective) than Cutler in his career as a Bear before the last year. I don't think people realize how often his only options on a play were a) take nth sack and punt for the nth time, b) throw the ball away for the nth time and punt again, or c) do something stupid and home it works. His #1 receivers for 4 years were Johnny Knox and Devein Hester.

And yeah, Cutler is a fucking man, whatever you want to say about his ability as an NFL QB.

I'd keep a few others ahead of him as well, that's kinda my point though. He's a middle-of-the-road QB...not very good. He's fine and the Bears obviously don't have any better options. I know he had it kinda rough from '09-'11 -- if I was just gonna go by the numbers, I'd call him flat out bad.

No kidding. I trotted out him, Cutler, and Gould and received 53 points for my troubles.