Which QB age 25 and under will have the better 2013?

[OakBlack 28]

I think I can easily say Andrew Luck. He is poised to make a monumental improvement over last year, without doubt. Wilson and Kaepernick are ahead of Dalton and Ponder..IMO. And RGIII would be behind Luck. But that's about it. I'm still not sold on Bradford or Newton either!

[Thanatos 2,847]

I think its Luck. I agree with Dutch that Luck or Newton are the two most talented, (as far as sheer talent at the position goes), with Wilson not that far behind.

 

Luck also has, by far, the easiest schedule of the three. He needs to cut down on his poor decision making, which there was a lot of that last year, (30 adjusted INTs), but a lot of rookies do that in year 1 and settle in nicely later on.

[AllYouNeedIsLovie 377]

The homer in me wants to say Freeman, but I will go with Luck. He has a pretty easy schedule again, I think he'll be smarter with the football this year and I think he is the most talented out of all these guys.

[UndecidedFrog 12]

Luck, and it won't be close.

[Minny 33]

I voted for Tannehill. He impressed me alot last year despite having arguably the worst WR corps in the NFL. He has height, arm strength, mobility, you name it. Plus he had the 2nd highest completion% in the NFL when under pressure last year according to Pro Football Focus. I actually think out of all the rookie QBs from last year, he'll end up having the best career.

[AllYouNeedIsLovie 377]

I voted for Tannehill. He impressed me alot last year despite having arguably the worst WR corps in the NFL. He has height, arm strength, mobility, you name it. Plus he had the 2nd highest completion% in the NFL when under pressure last year according to Pro Football Focus. I actually think out of all the rookie QBs from last year, he'll end up having the best career.

 

Yea, I like Tannehill a lot and I feel like he goes under the radar because of the great years Luck, RG3 and Wilson had. I'm very intrigued to see what he does with a legit deep threat in Mike Wallace and a solid TE with Dustin Keller. Tannehill is still very raw as a QB and I think this guy is only going to get better. Definitely someone I have my eye on for this year.

[Dutch 874]

Yeah, Tannehill didn't bloom in his first year like the rest of these guys but he showed flashes of being able to become a franchise QB. The weapons around him weren't as good either. I think he takes a huge step this year.

[KempBolt 498]

Luck is the boring answer, but I also think the right one. He has all the tools, his protection will be better, he has some nice weapons, and a lot of the rookie mistakes should go away. He's also not one of the guys running very often so I don't worry too much about him missing time with an injury.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

Luck, and it won't be close.

 

Really?

 

I would think the opposite. Indianapolis, while having a cushy division schedule, plays the NFC West this year. One statistic that I find pretty good in terms of predictability of team success is passing efficiency differential. That is, your efficiency versus what you allow.

 

Here are the teams that were more efficient than their opponents last year:

 

1. Seattle Seahawks (+27.9 QBR)

1. Green Bay (+27.9)

3. Denver (+26.0)

4. San Francisco (+20.6)

5. Atlanta (+19.8)

6. Baltimore (+14.0)

7. New England (+11.2)

8. Chicago (+9.9)

9. Pittsburgh (+9.8)

10. Houston (+9.3)

11. Washington (+8.6)

12. Cincinnati (+5.8)

13. San Diego (+4.6)

14. New Orleans (+2.4)

15. Dallas (+1.8)

 

Ten of the 12 playoff teams shared this advantage. And most on this list that didn't make it were in the hunt for a playoff berth until late in the season. Only San Diego and New Orleans stand out as outliers and that's due to good/great QB play despite allowing QBs to thrive with poor defenses.

 

Here are the teams that allowed a higher passing efficiency than they produced

 

16. Carolina (-3.1)

17. Buffalo (-4.1)

18. St. Louis (-4.9)

19. NY Giants (-5.7)

20. Tampa Bay (-7.4)

21. Miami (-7.5)

22. Detroit (-10.3)

23. Arizona (-10.5)

24. NY Jets (-11.7)

25. Cleveland (-13.1)

26. Jacksonville (-15.0)

27. Oakland (-15.8)

28. Tennesee (-15.9)

29. Indianapolis (-16.0)

30. Minnesota (-17.1)

31. Philadelphia (-22.9)

32. Kansas City (-38.5)

 

If you believe this is a passing league, and that you need to be better at passing than your opponents, then Indianapolis has a tough road to hoe. Normally, statistics can tell you anything, but as can be seen, the good teams basically fare well in this particular stat, while bad teams generally do not. It is a fairly predictive statistic on future success.

 

Indianapolis played 5 games against teams with a better efficiency than allowed in 2012. They will face 7 in 2013 including 3 of the top 4. I would expect the division to sweep Indy this year.

 

If it's "Luck no doubt", then it's likely going to be predicated on having a good year but missing the playoffs. I don't see them reaching 10 wins this year, and I don't see them in the playoffs either. That is a team that is incredibly one dimensional. They are fortunate to be in a division that they can feast on bad teams -- almost assuring them of 4 wins. But their non conference and intra conference matchups are much much harder this year.

 

I see them struggling to hit 8-8. And while I would agree, that Luck has significant room for improvement -- he also produced at a pretty high level last year. And despite that, his team was mired with the dregs of the league in terms of being worse at passing efficiency than their opponents. They have significant defensive issues that Luck doesn't factor in at all.

[Dutch 874]

Really?

 

I would think the opposite. Indianapolis, while having a cushy division schedule, plays the NFC West this year. One statistic that I find pretty good in terms of predictability of team success is passing efficiency differential. That is, your efficiency versus what you allow.

 

Here are the teams that were more efficient than their opponents last year:

 

1. Seattle Seahawks (+27.9 QBR)

1. Green Bay (+27.9)

3. Denver (+26.0)

4. San Francisco (+20.6)

5. Atlanta (+19.8)

6. Baltimore (+14.0)

7. New England (+11.2)

8. Chicago (+9.9)

9. Pittsburgh (+9.8)

10. Houston (+9.3)

11. Washington (+8.6)

12. Cincinnati (+5.8)

13. San Diego (+4.6)

14. New Orleans (+2.4)

15. Dallas (+1.8)

 

Ten of the 12 playoff teams shared this advantage. And most on this list that didn't make it were in the hunt for a playoff berth until late in the season. Only San Diego and New Orleans stand out as outliers and that's due to good/great QB play despite allowing QBs to thrive with poor defenses.

 

Here are the teams that allowed a higher passing efficiency than they produced

 

16. Carolina (-3.1)

17. Buffalo (-4.1)

18. St. Louis (-4.9)

19. NY Giants (-5.7)

20. Tampa Bay (-7.4)

21. Miami (-7.5)

22. Detroit (-10.3)

23. Arizona (-10.5)

24. NY Jets (-11.7)

25. Cleveland (-13.1)

26. Jacksonville (-15.0)

27. Oakland (-15.8)

28. Tennesee (-15.9)

29. Indianapolis (-16.0)

30. Minnesota (-17.1)

31. Philadelphia (-22.9)

32. Kansas City (-38.5)

 

If you believe this is a passing league, and that you need to be better at passing than your opponents, then Indianapolis has a tough road to hoe. Normally, statistics can tell you anything, but as can be seen, the good teams basically fare well in this particular stat, while bad teams generally do not. It is a fairly predictive statistic on future success.

 

Indianapolis played 5 games against teams with a better efficiency than allowed in 2012. They will face 7 in 2013 including 3 of the top 4. I would expect the division to sweep Indy this year.

 

If it's "Luck no doubt", then it's likely going to be predicated on having a good year but missing the playoffs. I don't see them reaching 10 wins this year, and I don't see them in the playoffs either. That is a team that is incredibly one dimensional. They are fortunate to be in a division that they can feast on bad teams -- almost assuring them of 4 wins. But their non conference and intra conference matchups are much much harder this year.

 

I see them struggling to hit 8-8. And while I would agree, that Luck has significant room for improvement -- he also produced at a pretty high level last year. And despite that, his team was mired with the dregs of the league in terms of being worse at passing efficiency than their opponents. They have significant defensive issues that Luck doesn't factor in at all.

 

Awesome list pertaining to last year. But if this league has proved anything, it has proved to be unpredictable at best. I don't see using stats from last year to be an accurate indicator for future success. That's completely disregarding the progression and regression aspect of the game.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

Awesome list pertaining to last year. But if this league has proved anything, it has proved to be unpredictable at best. I don't see using stats from last year to be an accurate indicator for future success. That's completely disregarding the progression and regression aspect of the game.

 

Good point. If I compare 2012 to 2011 here's the list of teams that progressed/regressed by a differential of more than 10:

 

1. Denver (+40.7)

2. KC (-28.9)

3. Seattle (+26.4)

4. Detroit (-26.1)

5. Washington (+25.4)

6. NY Jets (-23.1)

7. New Orleans (-22.3)

8. Chicago (+20.7)

9. Tampa Bay (+20.6)

10. Oakland (-17.2)

11. NY Giants (-16.5)

12. Minnesota (+16.3)

13. Cincinnati (+15.6)

14. Philadelphia (-15.4)

15. St. Louis (+14.2)

16. Houston (-13.2)

17. Tennesee (-13.0)

18. Indianapolis (+12.9)

19. Atlanta (+12.7)

20. Dallas (-10.8)

 

You can look at this list and give good common sense reason why the numbers are what they are. I'm alarmed by what I see for Indianapolis. I mean this was a team that went from 2-14 to 11-5. Painter to Luck. To see such a modest jump in efficiency differential leads me to one of two conclusions:

 

1. Luck wasn't efficient at all

2. Luck was far more efficient but the defense regressed significantly

 

I'd have to go with #1. Indianapolis had an efficiency rating below Ponder/Locker/Tannehill and Vick. Barely above Gabbert. Can Luck improve a lot? Sure obviously he can and probably will. Looking at the year to year chart, it looks like a boost of 10 or more improvement should be attainable through nothing more than just Luck being 1 year experienced.

 

 

But what is most interesting, is that Seattle is sitting there up near the top of this list and posted the second highest increase in the league year over year. That despite the fact that they already had a top 5 defense statistically to begin with. Theoretically, it should have been much MUCH harder to gain a net advantage when the defense was already extremely good to begin with.

 

Washington also saw a vast improvement even though their efficiency allowed remained virtually unchanged. Wilson and Griffin produced vast improvement single handedly.

 

Indianpolis was actually much worse in 2011 and improved their efficiency allowed by almost 10 (9.8) in 2012. So from an efficiency standpoint, Luck merely improved the Colts passing efficiency by a score of 3.1 over Painter the year before.

 

Obviously, this is about QBs and who will have the better season. But because all of these young QBs are in different situations, and asked to do different things, how do we compare them? If Luck has a better statistical year, but they end up 7-9 and out of the playoffs, did he have a better year? If Wilson ends up taking a team to the conference title game or beyond, but with a modest statistical year, did he fail?

 

Obviously, the teams with good QB efficiency differential stand a much greater chance of reaching the playoffs. Luck has to improve in that regard by a lot if he wants to remain a fixture in the postseason.

[Jules 98]

At times you gotta let rookies just be rookies....many of them will screw up. My God, does anyone else remember Peyton Manning's rookie season and the 28 interceptions? He had even more offensive talent then Luck and we went 3-13. Granted I hate to compare too, different eras and the game has changed.

 

Still in Indy, reasonable fans have learned to be PATIENT. We live in an era of instant gratification and over analysis.

 

Besides, I would rather a rookie have some ups and downs. You need room to IMPROVE.

 

Before the season started and after Irsay literally "cleaned house" from top to bottom I said the one thing I was looking for was going to go beyond stats.....I was not going to nitpick the stats of the Colts. I wanted to see leadership, intangibles and most of all HOPE. Hope that things have changed and would improve outside of the Polian era which was getting stale and predictable with poor drafting.

 

I got what I wanted. 11-5 was a season many did not expect. I look for wins first before stats. I never even in my life played fantasy football either, I don't care.....

 

We lost on the road in the playoffs to the eventual Super Bowl champs too. Not much to be ashamed of.

 

 

JMO

Edited June 11, 2013 by Jules

[Thanatos 2,847]

I don't really think that stat shows much Attyla, given that it relies on QBR which is a broken way of measuring QBs.

 

Nor do I think the West sweeps Indy, I think Indy splits, (Rams and Cards wins). What you're not taking into account is the improvement of Luck in season 2. If its not there, then sure, Indy struggles to get to 8-8. If it is there, then they're in the playoff hunt again. Schedule, outside of the NFCW, is just too easy.

[Attyla the Hawk 197]

I don't really think that stat shows much Attyla, given that it relies on QBR which is a broken way of measuring QBs.

 

I would agree. QBR is a pretty amorphous formula of statistics. The only thing I find compelling however, is that year to year, the teams whose efficiency is greater than opponents efficiency make the playoffs at close to 80% clip -- and those that don't make it tend to all still be competing for playoff spots late into the year. Those teams whose efficiency is lower than allowed make the playoffs about 10% of the time. I don't for a second think that QBR sufficiently breaks down quality to a fine point at all. But there does seem to be an undeniable link between team success and being more efficient than your opponents. I don't know if QBR is directly attributable for that. I really kind of doubt that. But I do think that it's an accurate byproduct of perhaps something else that is.

 

For certain, the new NFL QB model has been efficiency. The notion of having 'point guard QBs' is relatively new. And the realization that college efficiency tends to be a prime indicator of professional success -- there is probably something to that. Especially as QB ratings formula evolve and reward/weight the impactful plays more and minimize the high percentage/low reward plays -- we should see a move from the notion of efficient -- to impactful.

 

If making the postseason and having playoff success accounts for a QB having a better year relative to other candidates, then that's a metric that Luck is going to need to improve on or continue to defy if he wants to remain in the conversation with Wilson and Griffin. Otherwise, he'll run the risk of being relegated to the Romo/Newton/Rivers class of QBs who put up good primary stats, but can't seem to make the playoffs or do anything once they get there. Good QBs who thrive statistically and are seen as elite or nearly so.

 

I do agree, Luck does have the fortune of playing in a garbage division and his conference is generally weaker as well. So there is that. But the game is cyclical. The AFC will undoubtedly surge ahead of the NFC overall at some point. I'd expect Indianapolis to be at the front of that surge.

 

Looking at other young signal callers over the past few seasons -- their improvement from year 1 to 2 efficiency wise was pretty modest. Honestly, the bigger jumps tend to come from adding WR talent or having WR talent finally come together. Which would be a indicator that both Tannehill and Bradford could see significant improvements this year. Likewise, one should probably see a huge leap for Carson Palmer, as Arizona has abundant receiver talent. If Palmer has anything left, that is a team that should be looking to hit the 10 win mark.

 

And of course, there is significant reason to be over the top excited for Seattle fans, as we tied for the greatest efficiency surplus in the entire league, have a QB clearly coming into his own and entering his second season and we added one of the elite receivers in the league in Percy Harvin. So the potential is there to really put some distance between ourselves and the rest of the league.

 

Either way, it's going to be a great ride nonetheless. Luck is certainly a marquee talent. I'm hoping Seattle can show up and play tough when we visit this year.

[Archi545 2]

I am torn as hell on this list. As a 'Hawker I tend towards Russell Wilson. See the progression through the year with more responsibility added each game and the outstanding way he responded finally gives me hope. However, I was watching replays with Luck and saw just how awful his O line was. I completely lost track while counting the number of times that boy was hit, either as he threw, before he threw, or after he threw. Most of those throws were good throws, too. Completed a ton under a mammoth ton of pressure and didn't cave. In fact, it seems like he enjoyed it.

 

So, as a 'Hawks fan, I do believe that Russell Wilson will lead us farther to the ultimate goal with a complete team, Luck will be progressing behind an awful O-line, getting hit and yet leading comebacks.

 

Respect the hell out of both and root for Luck to lose whenever he faced the 'Hawks!

[KempBolt 498]

I am torn as hell on this list. As a 'Hawker I tend towards Russell Wilson. See the progression through the year with more responsibility added each game and the outstanding way he responded finally gives me hope. However, I was watching replays with Luck and saw just how awful his O line was. I completely lost track while counting the number of times that boy was hit, either as he threw, before he threw, or after he threw. Most of those throws were good throws, too. Completed a ton under a mammoth ton of pressure and didn't cave. In fact, it seems like he enjoyed it.

 

So, as a 'Hawks fan, I do believe that Russell Wilson will lead us farther to the ultimate goal with a complete team, Luck will be progressing behind an awful O-line, getting hit and yet leading comebacks.

 

Respect the hell out of both and root for Luck to lose whenever he faced the 'Hawks!

 

I this it's so impressive that Luck did what he did under Bruce Arians, behind this line:

 

Castonzo-Linkenbach-Satele-McGlynn-Justice

 

Indy definitely overspent here and there in FA, but Donald Thomas, Gosder Cherilus, and especially Pep Hamilton are going to be big upgrades for him.

[Dutch 874]

It's interesting how the season has played out so far. Here's my order at the moment.

 

1. Andrew Luck - I have Luck first because he has made the least mistakes only committing two turnovers. He's played two tough teams. The Dolphins in which he lost by 4 and the 49ers which he won. His stats weren't impressive against the 49ers but he made the right throws, didn't have any costly mistakes and still contributed putting points on the board.

 

2. Cam Newton - Cam Newton has played relatively well in his 3 games. His completion percentage could be better but he's not making a lot of mistakes and he's making plays. They were in position to win in both of their losses but D. Williams fumbled in the redzone against the Seahawks and Lukechly had a PI called that gave the Bills a reset of downs in the redzone with less then a minute left. (Can't believe I left him out by accident)

 

3. Ryan Tannehill - Tannehill has shown a huge jump from last year to this current season. He has played very well and his play is the reason why they are 3-1. The only reason Tannehill isn't first on my list is because he has the most turnovers out of the bunch. He has 8 turnovers so far which isn't good. He's turned the ball over every game so far and it will be hard to sustain that success if he continues to do so. His defense has had his back so far but you can't expect that to happen throughout the season. However, that 4th quarter comeback win against the Falcons with like 1 minute left (I believe) was impressive.

 

4. Russell Wilson- Wilson stat wise hasn't done a lot. He doesn't have to do much to win games because of the Seahawks defense. However, he has made plays when his team needed it which is the most important. Wilson right now hands down is the most elusive QB in the league. His scrambling ability is second to none and was a thrill to watch last week against the Texans. You can't coach that.

 

5. RG3 - Outside of the first game in the first half against us (Eagles) and the Detroit game (not putting any points on the board), RG3 hasn't been all that bad. He's actually making a lot of plays and has thrown for over 300 yards in his 3/4 games and is top 5 in passing yards but their defense is abysmal. He hasn't made many plays with his feet but he'll get better in my opinion as the season goes along.

 

6. Sam Braford - Sam Braford really doesn't have much to work with. The Rams have no running game and are dead last in that category and they don't appear to have a clear #1 receiver. Outside of that 49ers game he hasn't played that bad. Well he could have done more against the Cowboys but their defense was getting thrashed too.

 

7. Andy Dalton / Colin Kaepernick - It was hard separating these two. Dalton's stats look better but his play is mediocre. He's getting carried but a good defense and A.J Green. If A.J Green doesn't have a good game, Dalton can't effectively utilize his other weapons to have success. Kaepernick hasn't really had a good game outside of the Packers game. Kapernick has thrown less then 170 yards in his last 3 games and has 7 turnovers to his 5 TDs. He faired well against the Rams but they aren't playing particularly well right now.

 

8. Christian Ponder - The offense/aerial attack seemed to come alive when he wasn't in the game. He can't make plays down the field.

 

9. Josh Freeman -

Edited October 1, 2013 by dutchff7

[Thanatos 2,847]

Um. Dutch.

 

Edited October 1, 2013 by Thanatos19

[OSUViking 505]

My vote still goes with Christian Ponder.

[Dutch 874]

Um. Dutch.

 

 

Accidently left Cam off. I was moving too fast

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

Might be a hard one to believe because he's been in the league for God knows how long now. But Stafford's been playing pretty well excluding this past game against the Bears where he was pedestrian, and he's still 25.

 

Teams have been taking away the deep balls which has essentially turned the Lions into a west coast offense. But with a little bit of balance (finally), he's looked very sharp. I'd make an argument he's been the best of the bunch.

Edited October 3, 2013 by DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F

[Dutch 874]

I forgot Stafford is in that age group. He got in the league very young. I added him to the list as well.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Alright ladies. Time to resurrect this.

 

In my mind its gotta be Wilson first, no?

 

Second off this list, IMO, and perhaps I am biased, but to me its Cam.

[BC 331]

Wilson takes him team farther if that matters more to you, or you can over-value those juicy numbers and take Luck/Stafford and admire how many times per game they throw and rank them that way, but it all has to do with how you're asking the question.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Stafford? Lol. Stafford was awful this season. Luck wasn't that good either, tbh.