rb package rankings

[AGrizzlyBaer]

i was looking at this http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938 and they have the bengals at 9, i can see a few of the teams ranked ahead of us but having the pats at 8, i dont understand just thought i might throw it out there for debate

[Barbarian]

This list sucks ass!!!

Eagles at 13th??? Squeelers at 18th??? Titans at 32nd???

Whoever made out this list was smoking something at the time.

If this same person doesn't put the Bungles in the top 5 of receiving corps, then you know he was smoking something.

[EdwardG]

Frankly, I don't know why the Bengals are that high. I mean, ahead of the Redskins and Ravens?

[B24]

This list sucks ass!!!

Eagles at 13th??? Squeelers at 18th??? Titans at 32nd???

Whoever made out this list was smoking something at the time.

If this same person doesn't put the Bungles in the top 5 of receiving corps, then you know he was smoking something.

It is the same person that put the Raiders as having the best QBs, so I would count on the Ravens being listed as having the best receivers.

[ckj414]

It is the same person that put the Raiders as having the best QBs, so I would count on the Ravens being listed as having the best receivers.

LOL. Well, to be honest, the Raiders may have the best QBs when you factor in the #2 guy, but how often does the backup come in to play for a QB?

Anyway, as for the runningbacks, I find it hard to disagree with a lot of that list. There isn't any shame in being 9th either, even if it is behind the new team of the talented but hard-to-like Dillon. Honestly, I'm not sure that I'd have put the Bengals that high on the list. Rudi alone wouldn't get them there, and Chris Perry is still just a rookie...and maybe you know the history of runningbacks from Michigan.

[BadLuck]

Well... a lot, actually... Jon Kitna and Brett Favre were the only guys last year who started every game as a QB, right? If you don't have a quality back-up, it can really come back to haunt you. If you lose 2 games because your back-up sucks, and you finish the season 8-8 with a 10-6 record being enough to get you into the play-offs...

As for the RB, as a package, I'd take Rudi, Perry and JJ over a lot of teams'.

You can have 1 star guy, like Jamal, but crappy guys around him and it's a bad package. I mean, if Jamal gets hurt, the Ravens are totally screwed, but if Rudi gets hurt, we still have a guy like Perry. Also, JJ is considered to be a very up and coming Fullback.

Based on that, the list sounds about right to me.

[BadLuck]

Sorry! Double post. ><

[wookie]

Wow...I could shuffle that list and deal out a better judge of talent in the NFL. I know the guy was trying to take all backs into consideration but to put the Vikings ahead of so many teams and leave the Chargers so far back. The Chargers have probably the best all around back in football and as long as the back-up doesn't cough up the ball when he gets in the game then who cares who else is back there? Putting the Titans at the end of the list?? They have an all pro running back who is slowing down but probably still has another 1000yd season in him and Larry Brown could still be a star in this league...look how long Rudi waited in the wings developing his skills. The cardinals could be ranked higher because they only have the league's all time leading rusher and a strong speedy punishing runner who tore up the Bengals last season in Shipp. I could go on but I think this writer needs to watch a little more football before putting together these lists.

And, yeah...back up QBs get into games...a lot!!

The Raiders have 2 QBs on their roster who have played in Super Bowls, both lost but that's beside the point..they were there. After checking out the rosters of some of the other teams I'd say the Redskins with Brunell and Ramsey, the Eagles with Mcnabb, Blake, and Detmer, the Bengals with Palmer and Kitna, and the Vikings with Culpepper and a guy who looked nothing like the Bengals Gus Frerrotte, are the top QB corps in the league. Some teams don't even have a decent backup level QB as the starter...and other teams are F***ed if the starter goes down.(See Chiefs, Jets, Green Bay, Buffalo, New England, Atlanta ,Tampa, etc.)

WR Corps have to put the Bengals in the top 5 with the Rams, Steelers, Redskins, and yes...watch out for the Lions receivers..start watching their stock rise with an exciting young QB and an improved running game...Fantasy Football sleepers in my opinion.

[bengalsfan33]

Screw that list!

[ckj414]

"And, yeah...back up QBs get into games...a lot!!"

obviously the back-up QB gets into games, I'm just not sure I'd call the Raiders' QBs the best in football, regardless of who their back-up is. Whose QB situation would you rather have, Oakland's, or Indianapolis'? My point is really very similar to the point you brought up in regards to the runningbacks, with Minnesota being ranked higher than San Diego: which is better, the team with four above average backs, or Tomlinson? Me, I'd take Tomlinson.

"WR Corps have to put the Bengals in the top 5 with the Rams, Steelers, Redskins, and yes...watch out for the Lions receivers..start watching their stock rise with an exciting young QB and an improved running game...Fantasy Football sleepers in my opinion."

A lot of teams in the NFL have good receivers these days, but I'd have to agree, if the Bengals aren't up there its a travesty. And 100% agreed on the Lions. They're young, but I think they'll shock a few teams this season and maybe even be on the fringe of the playoffs.

I'd definitely put the Titans toward the end of that list. Eddie George has looked slow and sad the last couple seasons. He might have some life in him as a part time short yardage back though, like a latter day Otis Anderson.

[wookie]

WOW!!! Otis Anderson...there's a name I haven't heard in a while.

Ok, so the Titans are hurting for quality at RB, I'll agree that they are not near the top or even lower middle in talent...I just wouldn't put them dead last.

I don't know that the Raiders have the best QB corps in the league, but with the QB situation I differ a bit from the RBs. I would much rather have Tomlinson than any of the Vikings RBs, but in Indy you have a lot of trouble if you lose Manning. I would choose Manning over Gannon or Collins, but at least in Oakland if Gannon goes down a guy like Collins can step up and you don't lose much if anything. Thats what I like about our QBs, if Palmer has to come out then all you lose is a definite deep ball threat.

The Lions will most definitely shock some people...and who knows, one day in 2005 or 2006 the Super Bowl might have Lions, Tigers(Bengal Tigers that is), and Bears(DC Leslie Frasier)...Oh My!!!

[Tiger Stripes]

i agree with the lions becoming a shocker but the super bowl is a long shot.

[ckj414]

I don't know that the Raiders have the best QB corps in the league, but with the QB situation I differ a bit from the RBs. I would much rather have Tomlinson than any of the Vikings RBs, but in Indy you have a lot of trouble if you lose Manning. I would choose Manning over Gannon or Collins, but at least in Oakland if Gannon goes down a guy like Collins can step up and you don't lose much if anything. Thats what I like about our QBs, if Palmer has to come out then all you lose is a definite deep ball threat.

The Lions will most definitely shock some people...and who knows, one day in 2005 or 2006 the Super Bowl might have Lions, Tigers(Bengal Tigers that is), and Bears(DC Leslie Frasier)...Oh My!!!

I know one thing, I think the Bengals should be way higher in that guy's QB rankings than that. And the Panthers at #4? Because they could go to the playoffs with any of their top three QBs? No, they'd go to the playoffs in SPITE of their QB, not because of him. Thats like saying Baltimore won the Super Bowl because of Trent Dilfer. Riiiiiight.

Lions, Tigers, and Bears. Nice. LMAO...

[kevnz]

I know one thing, I think the Bengals should be way higher in that guy's QB rankings than that. And the Panthers at #4? Because they could go to the playoffs with any of their top three QBs? No, they'd go to the playoffs in SPITE of their QB, not because of him. Thats like saying Baltimore won the Super Bowl because of Trent Dilfer. Riiiiiight.

They based those rankings a lot on playing time.

As for the Panthers they were rated higher than they should be but they didn't win despite Delhomme, he won several games for them last year that they should have lost. He came in at halftime in the first game of the year and came back from two touchdowns down....He led several late turnarounds he's a lot better QB than you want to seem to give him credit for.

As for Dilfer...They did win the Super Bowl because of Dilfer...Do you think they would have even been in the playoffs if Tony Banks had stayed in instead of Dilfer getting the starts? No way. We see what happened to the Ravens when they "upgraded" to Elvis didn't we? They tanked. Dilfer was the right QB for the right job in Baltimore, and I'm still thankful they gave him the boot otherwise our resident Ravens fans would have even more to crow about cause I think they would have had every chance of repeating if they kept Dilfer.

[Barbarian]

I don't know that the Raiders have the best QB corps in the league, but with the QB situation I differ a bit from the RBs. I would much rather have Tomlinson than any of the Vikings RBs, but in Indy you have a lot of trouble if you lose Manning. I would choose Manning over Gannon or Collins, but at least in Oakland if Gannon goes down a guy like Collins can step up and you don't lose much if anything. Thats what I like about our QBs, if Palmer has to come out then all you lose is a definite deep ball threat.

The Lions will most definitely shock some people...and who knows, one day in 2005 or 2006 the Super Bowl might have Lions, Tigers(Bengal Tigers that is), and Bears(DC Leslie Frasier)...Oh My!!! 

I know one thing, I think the Bengals should be way higher in that guy's QB rankings than that. And the Panthers at #4? Because they could go to the playoffs with any of their top three QBs? No, they'd go to the playoffs in SPITE of their QB, not because of him. Thats like saying Baltimore won the Super Bowl because of Trent Dilfer. Riiiiiight.

Lions, Tigers, and Bears. Nice. LMAO...

I'll agree that the Panthers at #4 is an eyebrow-raiser. Jake Delhomme was the real deal last year--as you saw in the Super Bowl and many Regular Season Games. The Rajun Cajun brought them back from the dead many times last year.

However, sitting behind Delhomme is Rodney Peete and Chris Weinke--who both completely suck. I'm thinking that the Panthers shouldn't even be ranked in the top 10.

Sidenote: How stupid do the Aints look by getting rid of Delhomme and keeping "Fumble-itis" Brooks??? That's also an eyebrow-raiser.

[CTBengalsFan]

yea delhomme seemed to catch some tom brady-itis last year, coming up from nowhere not with a spectacular arm, just making multiple clutch plays at the end of a game.

[ckj414]

They based those rankings a lot on playing time.

As for the Panthers they were rated higher than they should be but they didn't win despite Delhomme, he won several games for them last year that they should have lost. He came in at halftime in the first game of the year and came back from two touchdowns down....He led several late turnarounds he's a lot better QB than you want to seem to give him credit for.

As for Dilfer...They did win the Super Bowl because of Dilfer...Do you think they would have even been in the playoffs if Tony Banks had stayed in instead of Dilfer getting the starts? No way. We see what happened to the Ravens when they "upgraded" to Elvis didn't we? They tanked. Dilfer was the right QB for the right job in Baltimore, and I'm still thankful they gave him the boot otherwise our resident Ravens fans would have even more to crow about cause I think they would have had every chance of repeating if they kept Dilfer.

As for Delhomme, I just went back and looked at his stats, and I have to admit that he wasn't as bad as I thought, he was right around the 10th to 15th best QB in the NFL last season. I still wouldn't put the Panthers anywhere near 4th though, I'd put them right where their starting QB, who is backed by mediocre-at-best talent, puts them, 10th to 15th. Good enough to win with though.

But no way the Ravens won 'because' of Dilfer, just as the departure of Dilfer wasn't what brought the Ravens back down to earth in 2001. You ask if the Ravens would have gone as far with Tony Banks - the answer is obviously no, not because Dilfer is a great or even good QB, but because Tony Banks was so awful. Conversely, do you think the 2000 Ravens would have been a better team with, say, Steve McNair? Obviously they would. See, that logic cuts both ways. As for 2001, Dilfer was far from their only free agent departure, plus Jamal Lewis blew out his knee that season. Naturally 2001 was a down year for the Ravens. I'm not sure I'd call Frerotte an 'upgrade' on Dilfer either, I'm not entirely sure what they were thinking with that one.

[wookie]

I agree that the Ravens winning that year didn't have so much to do with Dilfer being the QB. Yes Tony Banks was awful and Dilfer was an upgrade. Dilfer had a decent year with them, but he was by no means spectacular, I seem to remember that the Ravens won something like 5 games that year without scoring an offensive TD...3 in a row. That doesn't speak well for the offense that year as whole, but we all know that the QB is a HUGE factor and takes more of the blame than any other 1 player.

As for Jake D., I think he was an excellent QB last year...lets see if he can now be a consistent QB.

[kevnz]

You ask if the Ravens would have gone as far with Tony Banks - the answer is obviously no, not because Dilfer is a great or even good QB, but because Tony Banks was so awful.

So they did win because of Dilfer? Cause that's what you're saying. Simple fact, had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year

[wookie]

Simple fact, had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year

Ask Ray Lewis if he feels the same way. I think you know what he would say.

The Ravens could have won with Akili Smith at QB that year, the defense was what won them the title. The Giants could not move the ball on them, and this after they took apart the Vikings 41-0 in the NFC title game.

Face it, this was a Buccaneers situation all the way, the Bucs could've won the Super Bowl with me at QB that year. The Defense scored as much as the offense in that game, so you link Dilfer with Brad Johnson as the QB's who just happened to be starting for the team that won that year.

But seriously, aren't we all glad that when the Bengals win the Super Bowl it will be because of a solid team effort and our QB could end up being the MVP because I already think he's better than Dilfer or Johnson. :player:

[kevnz]

Ask Ray Lewis if he feels the same way. I think you know what he would say.

The Ravens could have won with Akili Smith at QB that year, the defense was what won them the title. The Giants could not move the ball on them, and this after they took apart the Vikings 41-0 in the NFC title game.

I'm sure Ray Lewis knows that they never would have gotten to the Super Bowl if Banks had been starting, Dilfer was extremely popular with the defensive players cause he ddin't cost them games.....Dilfer came in and played the game and let the D win, he didn't turn the ball over all the time like Tony Banks did. Akili sucked as a QB and he would have done just as bad as Banks did, neither one of them knew how to manage a game and that's just what Dilfer knew how.

The giants couldn't move the ball in the Super Bowl? They never would have played the Ravens, they would have played the titans that year cause the Ravens wouldn't have made it to the big game, hell they wouldn't have made the playoffs full stop if Dilfer hadn't come on as the starter.

Was Dilfer a gamebreaking QB? No. Did Dilfer need to be? No. He played the game smart and kept his team in it, and that's something they didn't have with Tony Banks starting.

[ckj414]

So they did win because of Dilfer? Cause that's what you're saying. Simple fact, had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year

Reading comprehension people, reading comprehension! By saying "had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year", you're literally saying that he's the only QB that would have worked for the Ravens that year. Thats incorrect. If its not Dilfer starting then its someone else, and there are a great many someone else's that could have accomplished the same thing. Dilfer was just in the right place at the right time.

Besides, look at my original quote:

"You ask if the Ravens would have gone as far with Tony Banks - the answer is obviously no, not because Dilfer is a great or even good QB, but because Tony Banks was so awful."

Where do I even remotely imply that the Raven's success had anything to do with what Dilfer brought to the table? I specifically said "NOT because Dilfer..."

Dilfer was an average QB, and as an average player, he brings nothing to the table over and above an 8-8 record. Why? Because thats what a team full of 'average' will get you.

[kevnz]

So they did win because of Dilfer? Cause that's what you're saying. Simple fact, had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year

Reading comprehension people, reading comprehension! By saying "had dilfer not started the Ravens would not be Super Bowl champs that year", you're literally saying that he's the only QB that would have worked for the Ravens that year. Thats incorrect. If its not Dilfer starting then its someone else, and there are a great many someone else's that could have accomplished the same thing. Dilfer was just in the right place at the right time.

Besides, look at my original quote:

"You ask if the Ravens would have gone as far with Tony Banks - the answer is obviously no, not because Dilfer is a great or even good QB, but because Tony Banks was so awful."

Where do I even remotely imply that the Raven's success had anything to do with what Dilfer brought to the table? I specifically said "NOT because Dilfer..."

Dilfer was an average QB, and as an average player, he brings nothing to the table over and above an 8-8 record. Why? Because thats what a team full of 'average' will get you.

That's crazy. Of course other QB's could have led the Ravens to the Super Bowl, But they only had 3 options so it's not relavent, So ONLY DILFER COULD HAVE LED THEM TO THE SUPER BOWL, jeez it's pretty simple to figure out that that pulling a QB out of your ass isn't an option ... Dilfer knew what to do and what not to do. Plus he had to backing of his team, something that is even more important than actual skills.

[ckj414]

That's crazy. Of course other QB's could have led the Ravens to the Super Bowl, But they only had 3 options so it's not relavent, So ONLY DILFER COULD HAVE LED THEM TO THE SUPER BOWL, jeez it's pretty simple to figure out that that pulling a QB out of your ass isn't an option ... Dilfer knew what to do and what not to do. Plus he had to backing of his team, something that is even more important than actual skills.

Ah, you're being literal and I'm being conceptual, a fundamental difference. Let me take this back to square one. For me this has nothing to do with who Dilfer's back-up was or who the Ravens should have signed to play QB instead. This is purely about the impact of the starting QB, or even any solitary player, on a team, Dilfer being just one example. Simply put, did the Ravens win because of Dilfer or in spite of him? I say in spite of him. Consider two other examples, Mark Rypien and Doug Williams. Did the Redskins win their last two Super Bowls because of them or in spite of them? I think we all know the answer.

Average players on great teams aren't the factor that brings success. Now when you consider even worse options (Tony Banks instead of Dilfer for example), an average player could be construed as the factor that minimizes failure, but from there how do you make the leap of saying that the team won 'because' of so-and-so average joe? Granted its just semantics, but now we're getting in to a personal pet peeve of mine - the overly glorified QB. As the most visible player on the team, the QB gets far more than his fair share of the glory and the blame, which in the end isn't fair to his teammates and is inaccurate in terms of football-science, if there is such a thing. Of course there is, we'd usually just call it the 'Xs and Os'.