I'm not. Rivers has been overrated from the get-go. The guy makes so many mistakes that shouldn't happen that I just don't rate him very highly at all. His teams under-achieving is just more proof.
Yeah, that's pretty logical. The most efficient QB in the league the past 2 and a half years "makes so many mistakes" but guys like Cutler, Favre and Romo who single-handedly lose games for their teams are great QBs. The Chargers underachieving has very little to do with Rivers.
I have no issue with that. Listing Cutler among the best QBs in the league is disturbing to me, though.
Don't feel bad. I'm in a national handicapping pool based out of Vegas against hundreds of handicappers that I'm still the overall leader in going into last week. It combines CFB and NFL, and after going 75% in the college football ranks leaving nearly everyone else in my dust Saturday, I too only went 4 of 13 for this week in the NFL and completely allowed my competition to catch up to me. So it happens to the best of us. The NFL is getting just about impossible to predict any longer with refs having complete control over impacting 3rd downs plays or drives to get into field goal range in the final minute. Hell, I just happened to watch one game (think it was GB vs. Washington) where the refs single-handedly called two unnecessary calls - one for defensive holding on 3rd down and one pass interference on 2nd and 15 on uncatchable balls with defense that happens every down - and they gave a win to Washington without allowing them to even earn it by playing the game. It's getting pretty bad when the outcomes are based on the guys making $60K/year.
Only Brees, Manning, Brady and Rodgers have been better than Rivers. As much as I love Favre, he is and always will be a gunslinger. Flacco looks lost 30% of the time on offense and Cutler fails to make reads. And i'm not even mentioning that ridiculous arrogance that helps him lose games.
Is Rodgers really better than Rivers? He had a good year last year, but anybody that takes 50 sacks can't blame it on the offensive line. Great QBs get that ball out of there quick. Rodgers also has no track record. Two pretty solid years, but Rivers has better stats and has won multiple playoff games.
1. Manning 2. Brees 3. Brady 4. Rivers 5. Rodgers Seriously, look at Rivers' stats and watch him play.
Favre needs to retire. Plain and simple. Romo needs to get back to fucking Jessica Simpson. Cutler needs to..... go back to Denver?
This is my rankings, too. Brees and Brady are arguable...I could swap their rankings. And I don't think Rivers is a very large step down from Brees/Brady. I consider the first four to be the "top tier" and Rodgers to be the best of the next tier.
Cutler needs a good pass-blocking line. He can't function under constant pressure. Obviously, every quarterback sees a major decline in performance if constantly hurried, but Cutler gets especially flustered.
Oh really? Career 117 TD's to 49 picks, a 105.1 QB rating the past 2 and a half years, and a career overall 96.7 QB rating. He's averaged the most YPC the past 3 years, as well. Your hatred for the guy surely is blinding you from common sense. Rivers' is by far a top 4 QB in the game, along with Brady, Manning, and Brees.
As for my opinion.. Manning, Brady, Brees (the past 2 years, Rivers has been better than him, IMO), Rivers, Rodgers is my top 5. If I'm picking a team though in their prime, I'm taking Brady over Manning. I actually don't think Brees is any better than Rivers, and I have no problem with SD letting him go. Brees has put up stellar numbers in NO and won a championship, but he's been nothing special this year so far.
The year is still young. I haven't really watched much of Rivers this year, but when I have he's looked like shit. I've seen the guy crumble too many times in big games for me to put him in the top tier. Minstrel, you remember our long drawn out arguments about whether Tom Brady is a sure fire HOF'er or not back on during the bbb.net days. I always argued that after his 3rd superbowl it wasn't even a question. In fact, I thought and still think to this day he's a better overall QB than Montana. Both were money at big moments. But, Brady relied on Branch, Troy Brown and David Patten. Montana had guys like Rice, John Taylor and Brent Jones.
I don't think Brady is the best quarterback currently, let alone arguably the best ever (as he would be to be ahead of Montana, or in that echelon with Montana and Unitas). Montana had better talent around him, but he also played in a less parity-driven league where the other contenders were also stacked. What prevents Brady's Patriots from being so stacked (the salary cap rules) also restrict every other team in the league. From a relative perspective, Brady's Patriots were the most talented team in football from about 2002-2007 or so. It's not a question of how objectively talented your teammates are...it's a question of how your team's talent stacks up against the rest of the league. I do now think that he's a surefire Hall of Famer (on merit, not just on "won three championships" which I've never viewed as a good measure of an individual player in team sports). I don't think he's better than Peyton Manning, though. Manning is the one, IMO, who can compete with Montana and Unitas (and Marino, IMO) for greatest quarterback ever. Brady is more like a top-10/top-15 of all-time, to me.
Yes, definitely. Look at all the Hall of Famers Brady had alongside him on offense. He always had elite running backs and wide recievers. Oh wait, I'm sorry, it was actually the complete opposite.
