Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sportige)   Who knew that having a 1,000-yard rusher, a 1,000-yard receiver, a 3,000-yard passer, someone with at least 15 sacks, and two players with 100 tackles apiece doesn't mean anything in the NFL?   (sportige.com) divider line 118
    More: Interesting, NFL, tackles, rushers, Karlos Dansby, Brian Hartline, Colin Kaepernick, Irina Shayk, Ryan Tannehill  
•       •       •

7159 clicks; posted to Sports » on 26 Dec 2012 at 12:46 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



118 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-26 09:28:17 AM  
Dan Marino did.
 
2012-12-26 10:37:55 AM  
... because the NFL is pretty much a random number generator with n about 1/100th that in MLB.
 
2012-12-26 11:51:36 AM  
I forget who said it..

"Just win, baby!"
 
2012-12-26 12:49:30 PM  
Over a quarter of Hartline's 1,014 yards came in one game, so...
 
2012-12-26 12:57:17 PM  
3000 is a poor year nowadays
 
2012-12-26 12:58:00 PM  
What is impressive about those individual numbers?

3000 yards passing? That's pretty average to below average these days.

1000 yards rushing/receiving? It means your top rusher/receiver didn't miss any significant amount of time

15 sacks? Ok, that's pretty good

100 tackles? Pretty much a few those on every team.
 
2012-12-26 12:59:35 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Over a quarter of Hartline's 1,014 yards came in one game, so...


Yards are nice. Points are better, and Hartline got very VERY few touchdowns.

/angry and bitter fantasy owner
//also, I despise when defenses are ranked on yards or pts exclusively
 
2012-12-26 01:03:28 PM  
Here's a stat:

Miami is -8 in turnover differential and 25th in scoring.

1,000 yards rushing and receiving has been meaningless since the NFL went to 16 games. Is averaging 63 yards per game really impressive?

3,000 yards passing is less than 200 yards per game, again not impressive.
 
2012-12-26 01:05:44 PM  
3,000 yards means nothing these days. Hell, the 4,000 yards club ain't exactly exclusive anymore. Basically, yards passing means nothing because they're so easy to come by. A quarterback either gets his team into the end zone, or he sucks and needs to be replaced.

Red Zone and 3rd down efficiency. That's what separates the men from the boys at the QB position.
 
2012-12-26 01:08:33 PM  

thecpt: Incorrigible Astronaut: Over a quarter of Hartline's 1,014 yards came in one game, so...

Yards are nice. Points are better, and Hartline got very VERY few touchdowns.

/angry and bitter fantasy owner
//also, I despise when defenses are ranked on yards or pts exclusively


Him and Ogletree probably won the "fool's gold" award for fantasy waiver wire pickups this year, although I'm sure that there's somebody else I'm forgetting.
 
2012-12-26 01:08:56 PM  
Even using yards as legit, Miami has the 22nd ranked QB, 16th RB, and 15th receiver... and they're mediocre.

Sooo it pretty much works out.
 
2012-12-26 01:16:49 PM  
7-8

the only numbers that actually matter.
 
2012-12-26 01:17:08 PM  

MugzyBrown: Here's a stat:

Miami is -8 in turnover differential and 25th in scoring.

1,000 yards rushing and receiving has been meaningless since the NFL went to 16 games. Is averaging 63 yards per game really impressive?

3,000 yards passing is less than 200 yards per game, again not impressive.


This x infinity. People are hung up on numbers from a 14 game season, and even then 1,000 yards wasn't a guarantee of superstar material (71 ypg instead of 63 ypg), but it was done with fewer carries (iirc) in a more run-focused NFL with fewer restrictions on the defense.
 
2012-12-26 01:17:33 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Him and Ogletree probably won the "fool's gold" award for fantasy waiver wire pickups this year, although I'm sure that there's somebody else I'm forgetting.


Heywood-Bay maybe. Possibly the definition of inconsistency. Painful, dreadful inconsistency.
 
2012-12-26 01:17:45 PM  
Their 1000yd WR got 1/4 of his yards in one game.
 
2012-12-26 01:18:24 PM  
Imagine the records if they has let Tebow play.
 
2012-12-26 01:20:37 PM  
Come on, the Lions are about to have a 2,000 yard receiver and a 5,000 yard passer and guess what -- those numbers don't mean shiat, either.

/Lions fan
//Yes, I'm biter
 
2012-12-26 01:36:10 PM  
was this article written 10 years ago? reggie bush and cameron wake are the only stars.
 
2012-12-26 01:37:30 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: thecpt: Incorrigible Astronaut: Over a quarter of Hartline's 1,014 yards came in one game, so...

Yards are nice. Points are better, and Hartline got very VERY few touchdowns.

/angry and bitter fantasy owner
//also, I despise when defenses are ranked on yards or pts exclusively

Him and Ogletree probably won the "fool's gold" award for fantasy waiver wire pickups this year, although I'm sure that there's somebody else I'm forgetting.


Andre Brown after his one good game.
 
2012-12-26 01:39:14 PM  
A thousand yards in a season? You mean a starting player averaged approximately 60+ yards a game and their team isn't 16-0?

It's a silly standard. We should be talking 1,500-yard thresholds.
 
2012-12-26 01:43:32 PM  

meanmutton: Come on, the Lions are about to have a 2,000 yard receiver and a 5,000 yard passer and guess what -- those numbers don't mean shiat, either.

/Lions fan
//Yes, I'm biter


you can use your teeth but you don't want to be a biter.

Here:
QB: 274/514/3208
RB: 383 / 1398
WR/TE: 274/3208
(1990 New England Patriots Team Totals. Nobody broke 100 tackles)

Now that bites!
 
2012-12-26 01:45:48 PM  

Wadded Beef: A thousand yards in a season? You mean a starting player averaged approximately 60+ yards a game and their team isn't 16-0?

It's a silly standard. We should be talking 1,500-yard thresholds.


Hm... AP at 1898, Marshawn Lynch at 1490, Jamaal Charles at 1456, and Alfred Morris at 1413 are the only RBs with a realistic shot at it (although Arian Foster is at 1328, which is close enough, I guess), and (with the notable exception of Charles) they're all either playoff-bound or in hunt for it on week 17. I like it.
 
2012-12-26 01:52:30 PM  
Its almost like there needs to be two RB standards.

If you're a 'standalone' back, then 1500 should be the stud threshold. But if you're on a team that plays running back by committee, then 1000 is a fine season.

Plus, while we're at it: Passes that hit the intended receiver in the hands, and end up going the other way? You can give a DE credit for a half-sack, the damned receiver should get a half-pick demotion credit. Lighten it up on the passer a bit in that situation: He did his job correctly.

In the modern pass-wacky NFL, 4000 yards should be the new stud number for a QB.
 
2012-12-26 01:53:34 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Wadded Beef: A thousand yards in a season? You mean a starting player averaged approximately 60+ yards a game and their team isn't 16-0?

It's a silly standard. We should be talking 1,500-yard thresholds.

Hm... AP at 1898, Marshawn Lynch at 1490, Jamaal Charles at 1456, and Alfred Morris at 1413 are the only RBs with a realistic shot at it (although Arian Foster is at 1328, which is close enough, I guess), and (with the notable exception of Charles) they're all either playoff-bound or in hunt for it on week 17. I like it.


Yeah, I don't mean to belittle those with a thousand yards, but if we're talking 'elite' status...
 
2012-12-26 01:56:17 PM  

Wadded Beef: A thousand yards in a season? You mean a starting player averaged approximately 60+ yards a game and their team isn't 16-0?

It's a silly standard. We should be talking 1,500-yard thresholds.


1,500 yards is a high number that is only achieved by very talented backs who stay healthy (or are named Adrian Peterson and don't need knees) and get all the carries. Only about 4 guys should reach that this season (Peterson, Lynch, Charles, Morris). I'd rather measure running backs by yards-per-carry with a weight for number of carries or % of team carries. A guy who gets 1500 yards on 400 carries is less valuable than a guy who gets 1300 yards on 250 carries, and his career will be over in two years.

Now, if you want to talk useless stats, tackles is complete shiat. Kirk Morrison led the Raiders in tackles a few seasons; almost all of which were about 5-7 yards past the LOS on running plays. A ton of tackles means: your offense stinks and the defense is always on the field, the defense stinks and can't get the opponent to punt, or you are a poor player who is always targeted in the run/pass game.
 
2012-12-26 01:58:07 PM  
They're also 7-8 with the potential of being 8-8.  That means they're very close to the playoffs.  Some improvements next year, and there's no reason to think they won't get in.

If this article were about a 3-12 team, yeah, that would be interesting.
 
2012-12-26 02:01:14 PM  
The Bears could set the record for defensive TDs and it still wouldn't guarantee a playoff spot.
 
2012-12-26 02:08:18 PM  

germ78: The Bears could set the record for defensive TDs and it still wouldn't guarantee a playoff spot.


My prediction, not that it is worth anything, is that the Bears take the 6th seed. Redskins over the Cowboys, Packers over Vikings, Giants over Eagles, and Bears over Lions resulting in the Bears making it.
 
2012-12-26 02:09:44 PM  
Yards from Scrimmage. That's a better standard.

1500+ crew at week 16:
A. Peterson MIN
C. Johnson DET
D. Martin TB
J. Charles KC
M. Lynch SEA
R. Rice BAL
C. Spiller BUF
A. Foster HOU

Not all of them are perennial all-pros, but it's a good indicator of players that are good enough to carry a team. Or that they were playing from behind a lot as a WR...

Or both - looking at you Megatron.
 
2012-12-26 02:11:38 PM  
Just for fun, I looked at the Giants stats from last year, since they were barely a playoff team but were world champions
Bradshaw only had 659 yards rushing. The team had 1427.
Of course they had an almost 5,000 yard passer (4933) and Cruz (1536) and Nicks (1192)
Their safety (Rolle) led the team in tackles, though JPP was a monster with 72 tackles and 16.5 sacks. Teamwise they had 20 interceptions and 24 fumble recoveries.
I don't really have a point. Maybe, everyone has a chance? Follow your dreams? You can do anything if you set your mind to it? Don't take the brown acid?
 
2012-12-26 02:25:51 PM  
All those number don't mean a thing if you can't get the ball in the endzone, and apparently Miami had a problem with that. Also receivers and QB's will have huge numbers if your team is constantly behind by a huge amount. And finally, your defense can have some huge numbers, but give up a lot of points especially when the offense is constantly leaving them with a short field to defend. It seems like all of these things were the case with Miami this year.
 
2012-12-26 02:30:35 PM  
The top 3 QBs in passing yards so far this year won't make the playoffs (Brees, Stafford, Romo).
 
2012-12-26 02:35:04 PM  

Dull Cow Eyes: The top 3 QBs in passing yards so far this year won't make the playoffs (Brees, Stafford, Romo).


Romo can still make the playoffs. He'll have to drag his team there kicking and screaming, but it's possible.

/but I hope they don't
//because they've got no chance if they go
 
2012-12-26 02:40:56 PM  
Look at Andrew Luck... Sets the rookie record for passing yards... people applaud.

But then you look and see he's attempted more passes than just about anyone, has a historically crap percentage for this era (worse than everyone, everyone, in the NFL not named Chad Henne), throws the most interceptions in the entire NFL, and thise while his team has the easiest schedule of every AFC team in the NFL, and the worst QB rating in the entire NFL among regular QBs not named Brandon Wheeden (now that Sanchez is benched)..

Yet there is a demographic that thinks OMG Yaaaaardage! and even suggest him as an MVP candidate. The worst performing QB in the league for everything other than yardage, against the easiest schedule. "Buuut. Yaaaaaarrrrrrdage!!"

Numbers mean very little unless you put them in some sort of meaningful context.
 
2012-12-26 02:45:46 PM  

ISO15693: Look at Andrew Luck... Sets the rookie record for passing yards... people applaud.

But then you look and see he's attempted more passes than just about anyone, has a historically crap percentage for this era (worse than everyone, everyone, in the NFL not named Chad Henne), throws the most interceptions in the entire NFL, and thise while his team has the easiest schedule of every AFC team in the NFL, and the worst QB rating in the entire NFL among regular QBs not named Brandon Wheeden (now that Sanchez is benched)..

Yet there is a demographic that thinks OMG Yaaaaardage! and even suggest him as an MVP candidate. The worst performing QB in the league for everything other than yardage, against the easiest schedule. "Buuut. Yaaaaaarrrrrrdage!!"

Numbers mean very little unless you put them in some sort of meaningful context.


Yeah, with a few exceptions, I think it means that you can find numbers to support just about any narrative that you want.
 
2012-12-26 02:47:32 PM  
Also of note: The league leader in passing yards has NEVER won the Super Bowl.
 
2012-12-26 02:54:16 PM  

xaks: Also of note: The league leader in passing yards has NEVER won the Super Bowl.


Drew Brees would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-12-26 02:58:13 PM  

booztravlr: xaks: Also of note: The league leader in passing yards has NEVER won the Super Bowl.

Drew Brees would like to have a word with you.


I think he means on the year that you were the leader. Rivers was the leader that year IIRC.
 
2012-12-26 02:59:07 PM  

thecpt: booztravlr: xaks: Also of note: The league leader in passing yards has NEVER won the Super Bowl.

Drew Brees would like to have a word with you.

I think he means on the year that you were the leader. Rivers was the leader that year IIRC.


Yup. Sorry I didn't think to add that part, I thought it was implied. My bad.
 
2012-12-26 02:59:08 PM  

xaks: Its almost like there needs to be two RB standards.

If you're a 'standalone' back, then 1500 should be the stud threshold. But if you're on a team that plays running back by committee, then 1000 is a fine season.

Plus, while we're at it: Passes that hit the intended receiver in the hands, and end up going the other way? You can give a DE credit for a half-sack, the damned receiver should get a half-pick demotion credit. Lighten it up on the passer a bit in that situation: He did his job correctly.

In the modern pass-wacky NFL, 4000 yards should be the new stud number for a QB.


obviously you are talking fantasy football otherwise the likely list of 'stud' qbs

1 Drew Brees 4,781
2 Matthew Stafford 4,695
3 Tony Romo 4,685
4 Tom Brady 4,543
5 Matt Ryan 4,481
6 Peyton Manning 4,355
7 Andrew Luck 4,183
8 Carson Palmer 4,018
9 Aaron Rodgers 3,930
10 Josh Freeman 3,843
11 Joe Flacco 3,783
12 Eli Manning 3,740
13 Matt Schaub 3,733
 
2012-12-26 03:00:27 PM  

booztravlr: xaks: Also of note: The league leader in passing yards has NEVER won the Super Bowl.

Drew Brees would like to have a word with you.


Not the year that he won the Super Bowl. Matt Schaub was ahead of him.
 
2012-12-26 03:06:24 PM  

ISO15693: Look at Andrew Luck... Sets the rookie record for passing yards... people applaud.

But then you look and see he's attempted more passes than just about anyone, has a historically crap percentage for this era (worse than everyone, everyone, in the NFL not named Chad Henne), throws the most interceptions in the entire NFL, and thise while his team has the easiest schedule of every AFC team in the NFL, and the worst QB rating in the entire NFL among regular QBs not named Brandon Wheeden (now that Sanchez is benched)..

Yet there is a demographic that thinks OMG Yaaaaardage! and even suggest him as an MVP candidate. The worst performing QB in the league for everything other than yardage, against the easiest schedule. "Buuut. Yaaaaaarrrrrrdage!!"

Numbers mean very little unless you put them in some sort of meaningful context.


You mean like 10-5 and in the playoffs? As a Colts fan, I'll say Luck *is* overrated quite a bit for the reasons you point out. But he's something like 9-1 in games decided by a TD or less, and has 7 or so (?) game-winning 4th quarter drives under his belt already, as a rookie. There's some intangible-ness to his game. We saw Manning for a decade toss enormous numbers out there - and were grateful for it - but Luck is something else entirely.

That being said, they'll lose their opening playoff game by 3 TDs, at least. It's a good start, he'll get better in the stat column as he matures.
 
2012-12-26 03:13:36 PM  

farbekrieg: xaks: Its almost like there needs to be two RB standards.

If you're a 'standalone' back, then 1500 should be the stud threshold. But if you're on a team that plays running back by committee, then 1000 is a fine season.

Plus, while we're at it: Passes that hit the intended receiver in the hands, and end up going the other way? You can give a DE credit for a half-sack, the damned receiver should get a half-pick demotion credit. Lighten it up on the passer a bit in that situation: He did his job correctly.

In the modern pass-wacky NFL, 4000 yards should be the new stud number for a QB.

obviously you are talking fantasy football otherwise the likely list of 'stud' qbs

1 Drew Brees 4,781
2 Matthew Stafford 4,695
3 Tony Romo 4,685
4 Tom Brady 4,543
5 Matt Ryan 4,481
6 Peyton Manning 4,355
7 Andrew Luck 4,183
8 Carson Palmer 4,018
9 Aaron Rodgers 3,930
10 Josh Freeman 3,843
11 Joe Flacco 3,783
12 Eli Manning 3,740
13 Matt Schaub 3,733


No, I don't play fantasy football.

So, are you making the case that it should be *higher* than 4000? I'm open to discussion. What do you think the 'stud' number should be?

/honestly, curious
 
2012-12-26 03:21:15 PM  

xaks: farbekrieg: xaks: Its almost like there needs to be two RB standards.

If you're a 'standalone' back, then 1500 should be the stud threshold. But if you're on a team that plays running back by committee, then 1000 is a fine season.

Plus, while we're at it: Passes that hit the intended receiver in the hands, and end up going the other way? You can give a DE credit for a half-sack, the damned receiver should get a half-pick demotion credit. Lighten it up on the passer a bit in that situation: He did his job correctly.

In the modern pass-wacky NFL, 4000 yards should be the new stud number for a QB.

obviously you are talking fantasy football otherwise the likely list of 'stud' qbs

1 Drew Brees 4,781
2 Matthew Stafford 4,695
3 Tony Romo 4,685
4 Tom Brady 4,543
5 Matt Ryan 4,481
6 Peyton Manning 4,355
7 Andrew Luck 4,183
8 Carson Palmer 4,018
9 Aaron Rodgers 3,930
10 Josh Freeman 3,843
11 Joe Flacco 3,783
12 Eli Manning 3,740
13 Matt Schaub 3,733

No, I don't play fantasy football.

So, are you making the case that it should be *higher* than 4000? I'm open to discussion. What do you think the 'stud' number should be?

/honestly, curious


despite everyone knocking it, im a fan of the Qb rating (not the espn total qb r or whatever), it is still flawed, but with league rules as they are you get rid of some of the bigger garbage time all stars (carson palmer, eli manning, josh freeman im looking at you guys), or some guys who have just thrown ALOT (stafford/luck).

1 Aaron Rodgers 106.2
2 RG3 104.1
3 Alex Smith 104.1
4 Peyton Manning 103.7
5 Matt Ryan 100.2
6 Tom Brady 98.3
7 Russel Wilson 98
8 Ben Roethlisberger 95.5
9 Drew Brees 94.9
10 Tony Romo 92.5
11 Matt Shaub 92.4
12 Joe Flacco 88.2
13 Cam Newton 88.0

/is a little more indicitive of their success this season (imo) of course
 
2012-12-26 03:25:46 PM  

Frozboz: ISO15693: Look at Andrew Luck... Sets the rookie record for passing yards... people applaud.

But then you look and see he's attempted more passes than just about anyone, has a historically crap percentage for this era (worse than everyone, everyone, in the NFL not named Chad Henne), throws the most interceptions in the entire NFL, and thise while his team has the easiest schedule of every AFC team in the NFL, and the worst QB rating in the entire NFL among regular QBs not named Brandon Wheeden (now that Sanchez is benched)..

Yet there is a demographic that thinks OMG Yaaaaardage! and even suggest him as an MVP candidate. The worst performing QB in the league for everything other than yardage, against the easiest schedule. "Buuut. Yaaaaaarrrrrrdage!!"

Numbers mean very little unless you put them in some sort of meaningful context.

You mean like 10-5 and in the playoffs? As a Colts fan, I'll say Luck *is* overrated quite a bit for the reasons you point out. But he's something like 9-1 in games decided by a TD or less, and has 7 or so (?) game-winning 4th quarter drives under his belt already, as a rookie. There's some intangible-ness to his game. We saw Manning for a decade toss enormous numbers out there - and were grateful for it - but Luck is something else entirely.

That being said, they'll lose their opening playoff game by 3 TDs, at least. It's a good start, he'll get better in the stat column as he matures.


I think their record this year just proves how bad the AB play was last year, not necessarily how good Luck is. Is Luck better than anyone they threw out ther in 2011 - yes, but he's the 3rd best rookie QB in the league by nearly all measures except passing yards.
 
2012-12-26 03:28:37 PM  
xaks:
So, are you making the case that it should be *higher* than 4000? I'm open to discussion. What do you think the 'stud' number should be?

/honestly, curious

and of course i forgot to say what the cut off point for 'elite' is i would say QBR of 95.0

/take that drew breesus!
 
2012-12-26 03:28:43 PM  

farbekrieg: xaks: farbekrieg: xaks: Its almost like there needs to be two RB standards.

If you're a 'standalone' back, then 1500 should be the stud threshold. But if you're on a team that plays running back by committee, then 1000 is a fine season.

Plus, while we're at it: Passes that hit the intended receiver in the hands, and end up going the other way? You can give a DE credit for a half-sack, the damned receiver should get a half-pick demotion credit. Lighten it up on the passer a bit in that situation: He did his job correctly.

In the modern pass-wacky NFL, 4000 yards should be the new stud number for a QB.

obviously you are talking fantasy football otherwise the likely list of 'stud' qbs

1 Drew Brees 4,781
2 Matthew Stafford 4,695
3 Tony Romo 4,685
4 Tom Brady 4,543
5 Matt Ryan 4,481
6 Peyton Manning 4,355
7 Andrew Luck 4,183
8 Carson Palmer 4,018
9 Aaron Rodgers 3,930
10 Josh Freeman 3,843
11 Joe Flacco 3,783
12 Eli Manning 3,740
13 Matt Schaub 3,733

No, I don't play fantasy football.

So, are you making the case that it should be *higher* than 4000? I'm open to discussion. What do you think the 'stud' number should be?

/honestly, curious

despite everyone knocking it, im a fan of the Qb rating (not the espn total qb r or whatever), it is still flawed, but with league rules as they are you get rid of some of the bigger garbage time all stars (carson palmer, eli manning, josh freeman im looking at you guys), or some guys who have just thrown ALOT (stafford/luck).

1 Aaron Rodgers 106.2
2 RG3 104.1
3 Alex Smith 104.1
4 Peyton Manning 103.7
5 Matt Ryan 100.2
6 Tom Brady 98.3
7 Russel Wilson 98
8 Ben Roethlisberger 95.5
9 Drew Brees 94.9
10 Tony Romo 92.5
11 Matt Shaub 92.4
12 Joe Flacco 88.2
13 Cam Newton 88.0

/is a little more indicitive of their success this season (imo) of course


Yeah, as weird as it is to have something that tops out at 153.6 (IIRC), I have yet to see anything that's consistently better. QBR isn't as awful as some people make it out to be, but it's pointless because it's just a worse version of what we already had.
 
2012-12-26 03:42:10 PM  

Incorrigible Astronaut: Yeah, as weird as it is to have something that tops out at 153.6 (IIRC), I have yet to see anything that's consistently better. QBR isn't as awful as some people make it out to be, but it's pointless because it's just a worse version of what we already had.


Yea, it's 153.8 I think, but I agree, while it ain't great it is a lot better than any other replacement we've seen.

Sadly, there's too much blame and too much credit for so-called 'skill positions' and not others, and that is a problem too.
 
2012-12-26 03:45:24 PM  

farbekrieg: xaks:
So, are you making the case that it should be *higher* than 4000? I'm open to discussion. What do you think the 'stud' number should be?

/honestly, curious


FWIW, I don't think yards should necessarily be a measure of how good a QB is. So much of that stat these days is dependent on what kind of system the QB is playing in. As mentioned above, the top 3 guys in yards this season are missing the playoffs. The first places I look are TD/INT ratio and wins.
 
2012-12-26 03:46:04 PM  
Im not sold on Kaepernick being the 4th best qb in the league under total qbr but excuse the formatting so you have some sweet sexy numbers to look at

Total QBR, Passer Rating, Yards

1> Peyton 82.7 1 Aaron Rodgers 106.2 1 Drew Brees 4,781
2> Brady 77.5 2 RG3 104.1 2 Matthew Stafford 4,695
3> Ryan 76.7 3 Alex Smith 104.1 3 Tony Romo 4,685
4> Kaepernick 76.1 4 Peyton Manning 103.7 4 Tom Brady 4,543
5> Rodgers 72.6 5 Matt Ryan 100.2 5 Matt Ryan 4,481
6> RG3 71.1 6 Tom Brady 98.3 6 Peyton Manning 4,355
7> Smith 70.1 7 Russel Wilson 98 7 Andrew Luck 4,183
8> Wilson 70.0 8 Ben Roethlisberger 95.5 8 Carson Palmer 4,018
9> Bressus 67.3 9 Drew Brees 94.9 9 Aaron Rodgers 3,930
10> Eli 65.1 10 Tony Romo 92.5 10 Josh Freeman 3,843
11> Romo 64.9 11 Matt Shaub 92.4 11 Joe Flacco 3,783
12> Shaub 64.8 12 Joe Flacco 88.2 12 Eli Manning 3,740
13> Luck 64.6 13 Cam Newton 88.0 13 Matt Schaub 3,733
 
Displayed 50 of 118 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report