MMQB: Ranking NFL Quarterbacks - #24 Foles, #22 Bradford

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Top 5 in my book is....

5. Matt Ryan

4. Tom Brady

3. Peyton Manning

2. Ben Roethlisberger

1. Aaron Rodgers

Eli Manning needs to be in the top 10 over Tony Romo.

Elmgrovegnome said:
I will never understand the attraction. I don't think she is hot, or pretty.
Click to expand...

Yup. Every woman on the U.S. soccer team is better looking than Giselle IMO. Yes, every single one.
 
dbrooks25 said:
I may be wrong, but I can't help but to think that if we never traded for Foles, he would be ranked higher than Sam. Not saying Foles is more talented, but I think the writers like to knock our players done a peg (mostly our offense) because they're Rams.
Click to expand...

THIS.

I feel that Bradford is the more physically gifted QB but if he was still with the Rams I guarantee he'd be ranked lower than Foles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrooks25
Rams43 said:
I realize that such a list is inevitably subjective.

Even so, to rank Foles 24th seems to fly in the face of his accomplishments over the past 2 years.

And two slots behind Bradford? The same Bradford that missed the last 25 games and isn't certain to be ready by opening day?

THAT Bradford?

Ummmmm... Okay...
Click to expand...

That struck me as odd, also...I agree that Sam is more talented, but I don't think you can go by perceived talent...He hasn't been on the field for a year and a half...
 
  • Like
Reactions: nighttrain
Well Foles was the 27th best QB in the league last year, 24 doesn't seem too far off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blue4
RAGRam said:
Well Foles was the 27th best QB in the league last year, 24 doesn't seem too far off.
Click to expand...

And the year before he was #1 in the league by the same stats. If the "analysis" of an article is basically the previous year's stats without any real interpretation, it's not worth much. And if that's what teams actually should expect to repeat, then the Raiders should have cut Carr this offseason, since he was 30th best supposedly. But 31 other teams in the NFL would have put in a waiver claim for him if Carr was cut.

Unless the interpretation has significant scouting included, I'd say the most likely scenario is that Foles is better than he looked (and keep in mind they were scoring a bunch and winning despite some major injuries on the OL). He isn't as good as he played in 2013, but is better than it seemed in 2014. He's somewhere in the middle of QBs iow. Which I think we all expect means that the Rams are contenders with him, with their defense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrooks25 and Stranger
Legatron4 said:
Nick Foles over a 16 game season:
4326 yards
26 touchdowns
20 interceptions(which I suspect would go down over a full season).

That would give him the best statistical season a Rams QB has had since Kurt Warner in 2001. Also just sayin.
Click to expand...
You're forgetting a few Bulger years, but yeah Foles at his worst is still miles ahead of anything we've had recently besides a healthy Bradford.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbrooks25
Where the hell is all this love coming from? Like I don't hold any animosity towards Bradford or how things went down.

But it's hard not to notice that not having played 1.5 years was damning for him before the trade and Foles was on the way up, but after 1.5 years isn't so bad and Foles was a fluke.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stranger
Angry Ram said:
Top 5 in my book is....

5. Matt Ryan

4. Tom Brady

3. Peyton Manning

2. Ben Roethlisberger

1. Aaron Rodgers
Click to expand...

I will say this; Matt Ryan is insanely consistent.

My first reaction was you ranked him too high until I went back and checked his stats. Dude is good and you can count on him
 
  • Like
Reactions: Angry Ram
Akrasian said:
And the year before he was #1 in the league by the same stats. If the "analysis" of an article is basically the previous year's stats without any real interpretation, it's not worth much. And if that's what teams actually should expect to repeat, then the Raiders should have cut Carr this offseason, since he was 30th best supposedly. But 31 other teams in the NFL would have put in a waiver claim for him if Carr was cut.

Unless the interpretation has significant scouting included, I'd say the most likely scenario is that Foles is better than he looked (and keep in mind they were scoring a bunch and winning despite some major injuries on the OL). He isn't as good as he played in 2013, but is better than it seemed in 2014. He's somewhere in the middle of QBs iow. Which I think we all expect means that the Rams are contenders with him, with their defense.
Click to expand...

The fact is he could be anywhere in between, it wouldn't surprise me to see him fully bounce back from 2014 and finish as a top 10 QB. But on the same hand it wouldn't surprise me to see him prove that last year was his level, have the Rams package their 1st and 2 2nd round picks to move up and get a QB in the 2016 draft.

That's why I love the trade so much, it gives us a low cost way of trying out a young QB, with the chance to be what we're looking for, without locking us in, and giving us the ammo to solve the issue once and for all.

Bottom line, Foles needs to play better than 2014. Can he? yes. Will he? I'm not going to blame someone for being sceptical.
 
I'd put Foles in the 20-25 range. Quibbling over a spot or two, nah.

It's funny how people can get over rankings. Last year this board was at best lukewarm towards Foles. Until the season starts, I can't say that I've moved off lukewarm just because he's a Ram. Only difference is now I actually care if he becomes elite. After the last two years, I no longer trust glowing off season reports.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CGI_Ram
I can't say I'd disagree with a lot of that. I'd put Rogers at number one. I'd drop Rothleisberger back a few spots. I'd move Stafford up a couple. Other than that, looks pretty accurate to me.
 
Rams' Foles ranked 24th among QBs
By Nate Latsch

http://www.scout.com/nfl/rams/story/1561255-rams-foles-ranked-24th-among-qbs

Andy Benoit at The MMQB published his rankings of the NFL’s 32 projected starting quarterbacks last week and he has one current and one former Rams quarterback among the bottom third on his list.
Benoit’s list includes Nick Foles at No. 24 and former Rams quarterback Sam Bradford at No. 22.

It’s certainly not to be taken as the definitive ranking of the league’s quarterbacks, but it is an interesting take from one of the top football analysts in sports media.

Of Foles, Benoit wrote, “Has no special traits and can be too methodical at times. But that doesn’t mean he can’t oversee a ball control offense like St. Louis.”

So there’s that — a glimmer of hope among the doom and gloom — when Rams fans read that their new QB isn’t very good. And he’s worse than their old QB, who also isn’t very good.

On Bradford, Benoit wrote, “He’s almost impossible to critique given his injury woes. But if healthy (huge if) he’s a snappy, accurate passer fit for a spread scheme.”

If it makes Rams fans feel any better, Benoit does have Seattle Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson ranked 12th — behind Eli Manning of the New York Giants and ahead of Matthew Stafford of the Detroit Lions.

It’s difficult to know what kind of player Foles will be for the Rams.

He proved he could be a winning quarterback with the Philadelphia Eagles, where he had a record of 14-4 the past two seasons. He was a Pro Bowler when he put up a ridiculous stat line in 2013. Then he was a guy who had 13 touchdown passes against 10 interceptions in eight games in 2014.

The answer likely lies somewhere in between the stats of those two seasons, but that may be good enough to make the difference in another losing season for the St. Louis Rams or their first winning campaign in more than a decade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back