Sure, there's some logic behind it. Some bad logic. And King doesn't even stick to it. If you like wins, y/att and completion percentage, you have to like Trent Green more than 24th.

His justification for downgrading Roethlisberger is pretty shabby, given that he elevates Tony Romo and Vince Young without much evidence.

And why explicitly lop off points from McNabb for being injury-prone, but not from Pennington or Brees?

It's not a terrible list. It's easy to nitpick this kind of thing: Some unproven guys are a bit high (Young, Cutler, Romo, Schaub). McNabb & Leftwich are probably low, and #1 has a valid point that the injury risk variable is seems to be selectively applied.

The reality is that you could probably toss numbers 7 through 25 up into the air and reshuffle them randomly and get a list that's just as valid-- there just isn't that great a talent differential between the NFL's middle-class QBs.

I think Jeff Garcia said what I thought about his situation after playing so well down the stretch last year. "I felt personally snubbed,'' he told reporters at Donovan McNabb's charity golf tournament. He still can't figure out why the Eagles didn't seriously try to sign him after he led the team to the playoffs last season.

Because, Jeff, you wanted to be a starter. You specifically said you wanted to test the market, which was going to be as a starter. The Eagles specifically said they wanted to get a deal done before the start of free agency. You didn't. End of story.

I would like to point out, though, that as much as King is confused about Garcia not being resigned... he ranked Garcia 22nd, and McNabb much higher.

I can't believe the number of people who think the Eagles are in any way harmed by losing Garcia. Will it suck if McNabb gets injured again? Yes. But c'mon, you can't break the bank for something like that.

Oh, and one other thing: I'm also disgusted by the people who credit Garcia because they ignore one critical fact. Westbrook was injured and barely healthy the first half of the season.

The Eagles' late season turnaround wasn't due to an "offensive philosophy change", or Garcia, or any other voodoo magic. It was due to Westbrook getting healthy. Plain and simple.

4: There was also a conspicuous lack of fumbles bouncing 15 yards into the end zone and 63 yard field goals with time expiring in the second half of the season. (:

Last time they played, Roethlisberger "beat" Peyton Manning, so by King's logic, Big Ben should be #1 on this list. Except, oh wait... he has fewer "intangibles", whatever that means. King is a nonsense fountain.

Little do you realize that Jeff Garcia developed voodoo magic specifically for preventing 63 yard FGs and 15 yard fumbles.

He's included all of those statistics but he doesn't combine them to arrive at any meaningful total. He's simply placed them in order and then put the numbers next to them, the two are unrelated.

His TD/INT ratio isn't a ratio, it's a tally.

I loved the way he nominates Young as the most feared weapon in the game and justifies this by saying that he's better than Reggie Bush. LDT? Manning?

Why does King (and the rest of the media) hate Leftwich so much?

Peter King is afflicted with OLD YELLER disease as chronicled by coldhardfootballfacts.com.

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=1467

King lays out his criteria, then despite the fact that Jake Delhomme is tied or ahead of Brett Favre in every single categoroy, he rates Favre higher.

Why? Because he's BRETT FAVRE!!!, that's why.

The continuing overestimation of Favre's abilities defies logical explanation. By no objective criteria can he be considered the 14th best QB in the league.

His TD/INT ratio isn’t a ratio, it’s a tally.

It's a difference, actually.

It's certainly possible that Calvin Johnson will be so good as to make John Kitna look good, but if King really thinks Kitna's actual value as an NFL qb is as high as he states in his rankings, he's nuts.

typical king, but i do like the recognition of kitna as a highly productive quarterback for the 2007...

no, he's not going to lead them to the promised land, and i don't see him lasting much beyond this coming season. but he's a quality quarterback in a superb system. mark him down for 4,000.

Ya'll realize PK writes all in good fun. Not worth getting all wound up about.

Oh, I don't mean to imply that Kitna is horrible, just that he isn't one of the ten best in the league. Martz' passing offense is certainly productive, but it usually isn't much for keeping qbs healthy; we'll see how long Kitna remains so.

Guys, what's with the over-analysis? He says himself that the list is partly subjective at the top of the article (i.e. the part about using a divining rod or whatever). Using raw objective stats + figuring in one's own sense whenever warranted... isn't that the way it's supposed to be done?

Pat,

Of course Westbrook was the main factor in the Eagles playoff drive, but Garcia's play in that stretch was very good as well. I remember reading at the time that the Eagles didn't make a very serious pitch to keep him around, in hopes of avoiding a QB controversy. When McNabb misses time this year with his inevitable WTF injury, they will surely miss Garcia.

On another note, there is no way Jay Cutler deserves #10 overall. Based on last year's performance, there is no way you can say he's a top 10 NFL quarterback yet.

What Boston train station is he talking about? Since he's talking about coming up from NY, I'm guessing it's South Station, but that's no where near the Back Bay. If you're going to cite local references, get them correct ok. Hello Cleveland!

What is the over/under on McNabb getting banged-up this season?

PK is pretty self-deprecating most of the time. He doesn't take himself seriously.

How do you do this? It's not even clear which QB's will START for some teams yet in 2007... Don't you have to rank something like 45 QB's or so...

I wish people would stop saying things like "QB A beat QB B". It's not 1-on-1 basketball people. It's logic like this that led to Quinn being drafted way later than Russel. The defense paired with QB A may have been more successful against QB B than the defense paired with QB B was against QB A, but that's not the same thing as saying QB A is better than QB B. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but come on.

re:6
I think the head-to-head matchup is only being considered as a tiebreaker between Brady and Manning. King makes it very clear why he's down on Roethlisberger - injuries and decline in performance. Roehlisberger has yet to prove he can win in Cowher's absence. (Or even stay healthy!)

FWIW, I think Kitna, Culter, and Romo are all rated too highly. But, after the top 8, I think there's a big drop-off and so I can see King's problem.

Regarding Trent Green: if he were starting for KC, I would think he should be much higher. But he'll be starting for the Dolphins, who don't have receivers. And have a new coach. And I wouldn't put Green much higher in any case.

Last quibble: seems odd that McNair fares so poorly in the "intangibles" column. That's usually one of his strengths.

#8: He said most feared young player.

Eh, it's a list that will be cool to talk about in sports bars.

I like that King says he expects Schaub to outperform Vick this year.

If Schaub completes a single NFL pass this season, that'll probably be more than Vick does. I really don't see him playing NFL football ever again.

Re #18 - 'What is the over/under on McNabb getting banged-up this season?'

This doesn't even make sense. Do you understand what an over/under is and how they work?

Re 23: The over-under would presumably refer to either what week he went down or how many weeks he played/ didn't play. Not that difficult to work out really.
I thought this was a reasonable article for pre season and the list was also fairly solid. I think some people try just a little bit too hard to find fault with Pete King.

Yeah, he explicitly says:
'Here's my attempt to stir things up.'
and 'And hey -- don't go saying, "King's such an idiot! He thinks Jon Kitna's one of the best quarterbacks in football." That's not what I think. What I think is by the end of this year, we'll have seen Kitna as one of the 10 most productive quarterbacks in the NFL this year. Kitna's the golden child, in the perfect spot for a quarterback in 2007, just as with every Mike Martz quarterback in the past few years.'

That said, the table makes it sound like he's evaluating the quarterbacks straight up. The intangibles column would be more informative if he actually listed what the "intangibles" are. I'd guess "injury history" would be there for several people, including Leftwich. Of course, while I can't disagree with his ranking of Eli, there's bound to be the "lacks feistiness"-type of comment -- is "feisty" every applied to anyone besides QBs and smaller players? Or does it just morph into "nasty" for OL/DL types?
Nice story, given all the bad news recently, about Grant buying the office workers lunch. And that paintball quote ... that's one way to adjust the depth chart in your favor!

#23 - What difference does it make, it was said in jest. You know how satire works?

You have a fitting name.

King's QB intangibles rating "system" is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in one of his columns, and that's saying a lot.

I might rank Harrington at #21 instead.

Word on the street is not good in ATL-land.

If you look at McNair's numbers (efficiency numbers--per pass) in the 2nd half of '06, he'd have to be much higher than 17th. His yards per pass put him in the elite class with well over 8.

Despite his age he was barely sacked at all last year. Maybe 1 sack in the entire 2nd half of '06.

Of course Westbrook was the main factor in the Eagles playoff drive, but Garcia’s play in that stretch was very good as well.

So was A.J. Feeley's in the Atlanta game. Give anyone a clean pocket, a great running game and a running back who can turn a safety valve dumpoff into a 50 yard touchdown and they'll look very good, too.

When McNabb misses time this year with his inevitable WTF injury, they will surely miss Garcia.

This is the reasoning most people give. But you don't spend multiple millions to overcover a situation like that. The Eagles got lucky last year when McNabb went down. There's no guarantee that even if they had Garcia, that 1) McNabb would go down, or 2) Garcia would continue to play well. It's a silly hedge.

In fact, the hedge that they took - drafting a QB and retaining Feeley - is probably safer, considering if McNabb goes down again next year, they'll need a new QB, and neither Feeley nor Garcia is that QB.

Interesting how much better Delhomme was than most of the QB's ahead of him using those statistics. He is top five most categories and top 8 in TD differential. And he did it all last year without a running game. His intangibles have always been rated very high. Its hard to believe the Panther fans were calling for his head last year and demanding Weinke instead.

I think one of the best ideas this league has had in a while is to gather all the team medics in one place to discuss concussions and head injuries -- which will occur in Chicago on Tuesday. It's good that the NFL isn't bringing in only the doctors who agree with the league's approach to treating head trauma.

Amen.

No love for the 2005 draft class. I'd bet that one of either Jason Campbell or Alex Smith is surprisingly better than Peter King expects. Then again, it's hard to argue against that -10 td-int differnetial.

I can't believe Eli Manning is rated so low... what's the difference between him and Kitna? Kitna might have 4300 yards, but he'll also throw a ton of interceptions, even with Calvin Johnson. Ditto Roethelisberger.

Matt Schaub way over-rated at 19th. I'd believe Grossman will have a better year than him. Leftwich is under-rated too.

What the heck, Marc Bulger is not that great... better than McNabb?

I don't know, but QB performance is very subjective year-year... I wouldn't put much faith in potential 1-year wonders such as Rivers, Young, and Romo.

Cutler, Young and Favre standout as 3 whose TD-INT differentials do not match their ranking.

Anyway, I'd highly bias in favor of those who've started signifcantly.

As for how I arrived at my picks, other than with a divining rod, I used a few measuring sticks.

...

Finally, intangibles.

Um, I think intangibles belong squarely in the divining rod bin, Peter.

What was with the thing about Charles Grant buying lunch for all the women there? I don't get it.

PK could write "2+2=4" and we'd find ways to rag on him. It's a pretty good list and he explains it well. It looks like half of the comments here didn't bother to read that explanation.

He's got his pet players- he's clearly in love w Cutler. But then again, maybe a talented young QB w a strong line, a good running game, weapons at WR, and Shanahan calling plays will have a good year. Stranger things have happened.

I happen to like Alex Smith this year- think he's a smart kid and hard worker and his incremental improvement will really accelerate this year.

But anyway- well reasoned list, good tidbit on Grant, a brief travel note, the paintball quote, and a little bit of righteous New Orleans outrage. All in all a very solid effort from PK.

"If I wanted to pick a young team in baseball to root for right now, I'd pick Colorado. What a great pack of young hitters [christians]."
Let's not beat around the bush, if he wanted young hitters he could have chosen the D-Backs or D-Rays.

What's also funny about the intangibles rankings is that the lowest ranking anyone has is 4 (T. Jackson and Eli). He could have made the scale 0-6. McNair has the second lowest possible intagible score, behind QBs like B. Croyle, Josh McNown, Matt Schaub, J.P. Losman, and Alex Smith. I thought McNair's rep was that he was a gritty winner who played through injuries, a great leader, etc., not exactly on par with Michael Vick!

yes. Some of this is very questionable, I thought campbell and smith deserved more love, and that cutler and young are a bit too high but he doesn't seem half bad.

What is the point of his wins column? Does it have ANY bearing on the rankings? The oddest thing about seeing Eli Manning all the way down at 23 is the fact only 3 guys on the list have more wins than him... Brady, Peyton Manning, and Matt Hasselbeck. I'd hate to see where he'd be ranked if he had less than 19 wins.

Here's my list, in no particular order other than 5 groups of 5 and then rest.
Top 5: Brady, Manning, Brees, Palmer Hasselbeck.
6-10: McNabb, McNair, Bulger, Delhomme, Pennington
11-15: Roethelisberger, E. Manning, Rivers, Lefwich, Romo
16-20: Cutler, Young, Kitna, Vick, Leinart
21-25: Favre, Losman, Garcia, Green, A. Smith
Rest: Schaub, McCown, Jackson, Croyle, Frye, Grossman, Campbell

Players I debated over:
Moved Vick up over Favre or Alex Smith into next tier.
Wanted to move up Campbell and Smith higher, can't based on past performance but keep an eye on them during the first 8 games.
Wanted to move Bulger down further but couldn't find someone to move up.
It's hard guessing which young QBs will leap up or fall down next year. Obviously, it looks like a few will leap over E. Manning, and Manning will fall.

Players I differ from King on: Schuab, Eli, Leftwich, Kitna, Favre, Pennington (this from someone who loathed watching Jets games... how does he do it?), Delhomme, Young.

Wow, nobody else said it yet? OK, I'll step up to the plate...

"Rex Grossman's got some improving to do. I hadn't seen such a low-performance passer in the Super Bowl since Trent Dilfer with the Ravens seven years ago."

So Peter King missed SBXL, then....

Fergasun,

I mostly agree with your comments, except that yes, Bulger is that good. He's the most underrated QB in the league right now.

Pat,

I can't say whether Westbrook played well in the first half of the season in real life, but I can tell you he was a great fantasy player, except when he missed a single game.

Marc Bulger is similar to McNabb in that both produce monster numbers when they're fully healthy, but they have a hard time staying that way. Bulger's been healthier than McNabb recently, and he should be in the top five.

Obviously, King loves Kitna, Cutler, Romo, Favre, and Schaub a little too much. He also doesn't like Leinart enough relative to the other young QBs. I don't want to start another irrational Leinart/Young/Cutler debate, but it's pretty clear that all three had good-to-very-good years for rookies, and if you're going to put two of them in the top ten, the third should be around there too. Especially since Leinart easily had the best FO stats.

I know statements like this get ridiculed by FO, but Bulger just doesn't seem like much of a leader to me. Plus, he has been surrounded by phenomenal talent, and has never had raise the play of his teammates.

I can’t say whether Westbrook played well in the first half of the season in real life, but I can tell you he was a great fantasy player, except when he missed a single game.

He played well in the first half. He just didn't get the ball often, because they were worried about aggravating his injury.

Everyone latched onto the fact that Mornhinwheg was calling the plays for those last 8 games. People pretty much didn't notice that the Redskins game was the first one where Westbrook practiced the entire week.

45: Bulger hasn't been surrounded by that phenomenal talent outside of Holt, Pace and last year Jackson. By the time Bulger was playing Faulk was in decline and often injured. Bruce while still a good receiver was no loger elite and was severely limited by injuries in the 05 season. Until last season Jackson wasn't that great and Bulger has pretty generally been supported by an abysmal defense which has limited his post season opportunities.
Last year he ranked 2nd in DPAR only behind Manning. People often claim that he's just a product of Martz's system but Linehan used a different system, albeit with parts of Martz's incorporated and Bulger had a career year. I would say hes a pretty good QB.

Re:StrahanI'm not saying he's all that and a bag of chips still, but I think 18.5 sacks over 33 games is pro-bowl backup-alternate-ish performance.

And, oh yeah, PK, the city of Boston encourages you to take the train to and from South Station, into which they've put a ton of cash over the last 10 years.

48 -

That's about 8 sacks in a season, then. Not good enough, for me. Not 8 sacks, alone.

That aside, I still think Strahan is up there at about that level, pro-bowl backup/alternatish. I might be giving him too much benefit of the doubt that I don't extend to some others, on the injury stuff; if I'm wrong, after this year I'll come around. But I still say Strahan is up there.

#38: I'm guessing, since this purports to be a list projecting production levels, that McNair's low intangibles are due to perceived weakness at WR, a run-based offense, and possibly some carryover effect from a horribly played and coached playoff game. None are really his fault, but all could affect his production.

I like the discussions that lists like this spark on the FOMB.
I did a quick check of PK's ranking of future QB performance, with how they performed last year according to the DPAR ranking. Most players (23 of 32) were within six spots, either plus or minus, when compared between the rankings.
The most over-rated according to PK's valuation:
Hasselbeck (PK-6 DVOA-28 PK+22)
V. Young (PK-7 DVOA-27 PK+20)
J. Cutler (PK-10 DVOA-33 PK+23)
I guess this is where the intangibles came into play the most. Speaking of intangibles, Brady is the only player in the top five who is over-rated at (PK+4), DPAR liked Rivers more.
Rivers joined four others in PK's top fifteen who were under-rated although not by much.
Bulger (PK-5 DVOA-2 PK(-3))
Rivers (PK-8 DVOA-5 PK(-3))
McNabb (PK-12 DVOA-7 PK(-5))
Pennington (PK-15 DVOA-9 PK(-6))

I wonder what intangibles the players in the first group have, that the other players don't have?

Other QB's mentioned in this thread:
Vick was actually over-rated by PK to the tune of +16
Below Vick at 21 and Garcia sits the under-rated Eli M. with a DPAR rank of 17 for a PK (-6). We can all agree that PK is right and Eli can't even begin to comprehend intangibles. Maybe Eli and Pennington can hang out in New Jersey looking for intangibles.

AlexDL,

Your post would make more sense if PK was listing QBs in order of last year's performance, as DVOA measured. He's actually predicting next year's performance.

Last year's DVOA is not a better predictor of next year's DVOA than, say, typical DVOA over a career is. Nor is DVOA for a rookie predictive for that player's next year. Since Hasselbeck typically has a much higher DVOA than he had last year, and Young and Cutler were rookies, you would not expect their performance this season to reflect their DVOA last season.

Not coincidentally, those three players are your "most overrated by PK." A better description would be "most likely to be a lot better this year than last according to PK," and that's totally reasonable.

In fact, your post is a strong defense of PK. If you assume that DVOA is a good predictor year to year for non-aberration QBs and non-rookies, the only really bad call is Vick, with Pennington and Eli as smaller mistakes.

"The Eagles’ late season turnaround wasn’t due to an “offensive philosophy change�, or Garcia, or any other voodoo magic. It was due to Westbrook getting healthy. Plain and simple."

Well if that isn't an invitation to have a debate about incomplete passes and how much teams should pass I don't know what is!

On the other hand Pat never instigates or escalates the incredibly annoying racial discussions, so this time I pass.

and how much teams should pass

Note that the reason the Eagles were passing so much is because Westbrook was touch-and-go. He was still effective, but they had to control the swelling in his knee. Which meant games like vs San Francisco, where he only got 8 carries.

"Which meant games like vs San Francisco, where he only got 8 carries."

Or the first game against Dallas, where he had 11, and the Eagles crunched the Cowboys!(that was brutal)

As a Cowboys fan I will gladly admit that Westbrook is fantastic, wish the Cowboys had him.
But the could have given carries to their other backs

How can he rate Vince Young over Philip Rivers?

Re: 38

“If I wanted to pick a young team in baseball to root for right now, I’d pick Colorado. What a great pack of young hitters [christians].�
"Let’s not beat around the bush, if he wanted young hitters he could have chosen the D-Backs or D-Rays"

I am one of the perhaps five remaining Colorado Rockies fans, and I can tell you that the only reason that PK knows they exist is that they just destroyed the Red Sox at Fenway, and they've done it against first Schilling, then Beckett, and finally James Shields (formerly unbeaten).

The Rockies' lineup is absolutely terrifying once it gets going...definitely not one that you hear about in the national media either. The Devil Rays have a much more publicized lineup, and the D-Backs have not realized their potential yet.

I'm hoping for a sweep against the Yankees--then maybe the media will finally acknowledge the existence of the Rockies.

As for the QB rankings, I think that Cutler is rated just fine...he has all the makings of an absolutely dynamite season next year.

Bronco Jeff:

I am a huge Bronco fan as well, but I would have to say that CUtler is rated a little too high. Not because he is not good, but because he is a relatively unknown commodity. Barely one-third of a season should not put him as a top 10 QB.

As for the Romo thing, I do not get it.

Bulger is very good if you have a fantasy football team. Something with him just hasn't clicked. Perhaps it is his defense, or maybe he is not a 4th qtr clutch player. I do not know because I have not watched him very often, but he always seems to either be hurt or throwing for 350 yds and 3 TDs.

HTF did King decide on the "intangibles" category? I mean, Steve McNair comes to Baltimore and revitalizes what had been a totally crappy offense, and King gives him a... 5? Basically, "intangibles" boil down to "guys I like 'n' guys I don't."

I didn't read it.
Cause I think that the whole coffee nerdness is a smokescreen for his alcoholism.
Everytime he mentions a 'coffee' he means wine, 'latte' means beer and 'mocca' means wodka. 'Double' means on the rocks.

re 20:

As for Big Ben, he mentions that his completion % dropped 3 points from his first season to his second. What he fails to mention is that his passer rating went UP, and his YPA stayed the same. He was actually a better QB in his 2nd season.

Brady's comp% went down last year. Palmers comp% went down over 5% last year. Peyton's comp% has gone down 2 straight years. It seems like a piss poor argument to drop someone down the list if it doesnt count against other QB's. Vince Young's comp% was barely over 50 and if you look at his game log it was all over the place, yet he is listed 7th?

As for the second part, he didnt mention injuries at all as a possible reason that his play declined in year 3. He just said he was inconsistant.

Bravo on the reference to New Orleans. I have some friends who just went down there to volunteer to help the rebuilding, and apparently now, years later, it still looks like a 3rd world country. I hadn't realized that, because the media and the government aren't talking about it anymore...it's old news.

Head-to-head to decide between QB's is silly. If you want to say Manning should be ahead of Brady right now, why not list real reasons, like Manning seems to have corrected his ibggest weakness (moving and throwing on the run), while Brady has yet to correct his (the accurate deep ball--although we'll see if having an actual deep threat like Stallworth helps this year).

The Rockies have always been a hitters team (which is fine, because their park is a hitters park). Same as the Red Sox (Fenway is also a hitters park). So I would expect them to do well playing at Fenway. I'd be more impressed if they had beaten Oakland in Oakland (who also just destroyed the Red Sox).

And no, I do not believe Tony is dead. Isn't it a part of mob ethos that you don't whack a guy when he's out with his family?

I'll ask Phil Leotardo, if I can get an ice cream scoop.

I thought Fire Joe Morgan had a good take on the intangibles thing.

Re: 52 AlexDL

I think DPAR would be a better measure, since King's going for overall performance. I actually think the projections in PFP 2007 would be even better, but we don't have those yet.

Strike the second part of my last comment. Looks like those were DPAR figures.

PK must appeal to the whitest, most suburban writer ever. This next paragraph is verbatim from a letter from a reader that he published in the MMQBTE mailbag article, punctuation and everything:

"Do you have something against McNabb? In 'urban slang,' you're what we'd call a hater."

Oh, my...

re: 53 re: 52

The purpose of my post was stated in my second sentence: "I did a quick check of PK’s ranking of future QB performance, with how they performed last year according to the DPAR ranking."

There was no other point to the post other than to see how his future projections compared to last years DPAR.

Thanks.

"Good for the Spurs. They're the Patriots of the NBA -- militaristic coach ahead of the rest of the league.."

Ummm.. Phil Jackson is still coaching -- no? Pat Riley as well?

I like Spurs, I like Popovich, but "ahead of the rest of the league" seems a little too much.

BTW, love the comments. MMQB is worth reading again now that it's back to EP.

AlexDL,

If that's the case, you should try to avoid using words like "overrated" or making snide comments about intangibles, because doing that implies that you are actually drawing some kind of conclusion from your comparison (which you've now stated was not your intention).

I have to say, after reading the MMQBTE portion, the rankings make more sense. I disagree with them still, but they're not that crazy.

The rankings are predictions for 2007. He puts Kitna so high because he had a good year last year, and expects more. He expects a poor year from Roethlisberger, since he's getting more inconsistent. And he doesn't expect a full year from McNabb. Given that he placed him at twelfth (!!) that implies that he expects him to be great for the portion of time that he's on the field.