Movies - many- But I have to put NETWORK on that list! Qb's , just on Geno ,His stats where better in 2022, But He played better down the stretch this year than last. Top 10 for Geno , NO- Right now top 15 ,Yes-
How dare you suggest people's opinion's need context and data to allow people to understand their conclusions! Outrageous! If people can't just espouse brain farts in real time, and without deliberation or contemplation, what will they do with themselves? How will they survive? Where will the content come from? What will I have to read with my morning coffee?
On a more serious note, I do think an average player can play like an excellent player (with excellent measurables) in the right system, with the right teammates, with the right coaches. I also think a very good player can look pretty bad, in the wrong system, with an insufficient supporting cast, with the wrong coaches. We may find that out over the next few years with Bryce Young. Data is important, but context is EVERYTHING.
Interesting thing, context. As with all things, the nuances of the discussion matter, but are the first thing lost in most debates these days when binary discussions seem to be the only thing people can have.
Well thought out article and very well explained. Every starting QB plays under a different OC and HC. Even every other offensive coach, on each of their teams, affect how well the QB will do,. Scheme and fit are also important. Great article Ken. So insightful.
got a darn good shot of winning the game. Never felt that would you know
For me, the top quarterbacks are
the ones that when under Center you felt that team had a darn good chance of winning the game That would include McComas., Stafford , Burroughs, Allen and a few others . they’re good, and can pull a rabbit out of the hat at any time..Never felt that with Gieno. there is an electricity about them, that is hard to define but easy to recognize. That’s why the NFL is made up of the haves and have Nots.
Wilson was asked which player most occupied his nightmares. With no hesitation, it was Aaron Donald. Hands-down.
Nobody makes my list unless we have watched them rally a team. Called the "It Factor". Mahomes has It. Montana had It. Jim McMahon (and that's just the 'M's'). Wilson has It, still. (Wake Up, Russ!) Kenny Stabler.., but I'm dating myself...
Just noting that Stroud was counted in the first 10, then again as number 18. But as you pointed out, fans of other teams will claim their young QB is top 10 as well.
I know there are some lists that look more to potential (like those ranking Richardson or Young higher), but if we were able to create a metric that looked only at recent play (1-2 years), availability/health (AaRod may generally be a top 5 QB, but that didn't help the Jets at all last year), and a mix of pressure faced (within a standard time frame like 2.5 or 3 seconds) and wide receiver separation, I believe that, while still subjective, Geno would show up in the top 15.
And yes, going week by week is too small a sample size. The stifling by Baltimore and shootout with Dallas both have to be factored in.
My question would be to anyone: who are 15 QBs better than Geno? Not on potential, or even value (although that does benefit him in some ways), but on play from last year, and possibly availability next year (meaning that for example Dre Greenlaw may be a "top-15" LB, but that's not going to do much for his team in 2024 likely). Not blaming QBs for injuries, but recognizing they can't continue to provide equivalent value to their team if they're not on the field.
Also, I think stats that are per play or per drive have to be of greater value, because a QB that gets 12 drives per game is just given more chances than one who only gets 10 drives a game.
I know I am the resident reminder of fantasy football's lurking influence on these discussions... and the game was born out of the need to quantify the "whose better" barstool debates. So, allow me to point out that Ian Hartitz is a fantasy football write from the Fantasy Life site, so everything he writes has an underlying application to fans coming from a fantasy centric POV. When he talks about Top-xx, it is usually only in regards to how many fantasy points those players will, or did, end up with.
That said, I feel a little Pete-y about these rankings... they come from non-football people, mostly, analysts from outside the fraternity of coaches, GMs, and decision makers. I just hope actual decisions aren't being made by people who give any credence to any of the so-called analysis and rankings of players. It is a dumbing-down of a players essence and contribution to his team.
I loved this article! Again, SSJ, you approach a topic with depth and rationality not seen in this world of people trying to get attention (clicks) regardless of the substance their words contain.
It is best to reduce our own egos when talking about the players by using phrases that indicate we are not presenting a definitive end-all, be-all, answer. We could all do a lot more of this in our lives, in general. Anyone with a shred of sense can see right through the BS of opinions presented as factual statements, as those statements make the writer/speaker look anywhere from silly and unimportant to disingenuous and dangerous, depending on the topic. Your consistent performance of this makes you thr best Seahawks writer out there...
Just on the AFI's top 100 movies front; Mrs. Turtleman and I have been working our way through that top 100 list as a New Year's declaration. Since watching movies isn't really a resolution. We decided to watch every one whether we had seen them or not. It's been pretty fun overall, but some have been bore-fests (Frankly in my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey), many have been depressing (the aforementioned Raging Bull being a prime example, and I could surely list 20 others by the time we finish), several I feel are only listed because they were groundbreaking for their time (Sunrise, A Night at the Opera, Swing Time, The General) and even more blow my mind that anyone thinks is an all-time great film (Tootsie leads that list).
But much like a greatest movie list is entirely subjective (from a simple viewing perspective -I am FAR more *entertained* by Windy City Heat or even The Room than Raging Bull, even though I realize which is "better"), ranking athletes is a fool's errand. Sure, Mahomes is objectively a better quarterback than Daniel Jones. But if you ask me if Daniel Jones is better than Baily Zappe, Desmond Ridder, or even the #1 overall pick in last year's draft, I have no idea. I could look up numbers, but what value are they when Bryce Young had the supporting cast he had with the Panthers? "Best of" lists are pretty much worthless and are made by people who often don't like that same things I do.
But as much as I just maligned lists and rankings, I'm about to watch The Grapes of Wrath tonight rather than an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm and will continue to do such until we've made it through all 100, assuming we can find them all. So yeah, lists get clicks. Even my own.
Movies can also be heavily dependent on mood, timing, and expectations. The Room certainly one of the few that has transcended all those factors, it has always made me laugh, 100% of the time. Those movies that you can watch 100 times without being bored, definitely different for everyone. Any movie that comes out today seems to pale in comparison to the best movies of the past, but then some movies of the past really were only of their time.
Movies - many- But I have to put NETWORK on that list! Qb's , just on Geno ,His stats where better in 2022, But He played better down the stretch this year than last. Top 10 for Geno , NO- Right now top 15 ,Yes-
Like Lake Wobegon:
“All the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and the children are above average “
Joe Flacco?!
“…and stop calling me ‘Shirley!’”
Really enjoyed that!
I really thought there was going to be a Seaside Joe top ten QB list at the end of this article.
Jay and Silent Bob is the best movie ever made. Everyone knows this.
How dare you suggest people's opinion's need context and data to allow people to understand their conclusions! Outrageous! If people can't just espouse brain farts in real time, and without deliberation or contemplation, what will they do with themselves? How will they survive? Where will the content come from? What will I have to read with my morning coffee?
On a more serious note, I do think an average player can play like an excellent player (with excellent measurables) in the right system, with the right teammates, with the right coaches. I also think a very good player can look pretty bad, in the wrong system, with an insufficient supporting cast, with the wrong coaches. We may find that out over the next few years with Bryce Young. Data is important, but context is EVERYTHING.
Interesting thing, context. As with all things, the nuances of the discussion matter, but are the first thing lost in most debates these days when binary discussions seem to be the only thing people can have.
Binary and Analytics are Phooey!
These never seem to make anybody's list. I can't understand it!
#1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s498oWofr48
#2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cqtc4WxLdbQ
#3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxjyVFW2ifI
#4: https://youtu.be/fZ7X5JDKmSI
#5: https://archive.org/details/key-largo-1948
Edward G. Robinson’s first scene in Key Largo is among the best movie entrances ever!
Well thought out article and very well explained. Every starting QB plays under a different OC and HC. Even every other offensive coach, on each of their teams, affect how well the QB will do,. Scheme and fit are also important. Great article Ken. So insightful.
It’s a Wonderful Life - gotta be in the top 100…. Surely.
Great article Joe. Here, here.
I’d rather go the pub test (or eye test as some seem to call it) any day.
I laughed out loud when this headline popped up in my email. It’s the most Seaside Joe headline I recall. ;-)
Excuse for someone garbled comment. Meant Mchomesof course,
For me, a top quarterback are the
one that one that when
under Center
you think they
got a darn good shot of winning the game. Never felt that would you know
For me, the top quarterbacks are
the ones that when under Center you felt that team had a darn good chance of winning the game That would include McComas., Stafford , Burroughs, Allen and a few others . they’re good, and can pull a rabbit out of the hat at any time..Never felt that with Gieno. there is an electricity about them, that is hard to define but easy to recognize. That’s why the NFL is made up of the haves and have Nots.
.
Wilson was asked which player most occupied his nightmares. With no hesitation, it was Aaron Donald. Hands-down.
Nobody makes my list unless we have watched them rally a team. Called the "It Factor". Mahomes has It. Montana had It. Jim McMahon (and that's just the 'M's'). Wilson has It, still. (Wake Up, Russ!) Kenny Stabler.., but I'm dating myself...
Just noting that Stroud was counted in the first 10, then again as number 18. But as you pointed out, fans of other teams will claim their young QB is top 10 as well.
I know there are some lists that look more to potential (like those ranking Richardson or Young higher), but if we were able to create a metric that looked only at recent play (1-2 years), availability/health (AaRod may generally be a top 5 QB, but that didn't help the Jets at all last year), and a mix of pressure faced (within a standard time frame like 2.5 or 3 seconds) and wide receiver separation, I believe that, while still subjective, Geno would show up in the top 15.
And yes, going week by week is too small a sample size. The stifling by Baltimore and shootout with Dallas both have to be factored in.
My question would be to anyone: who are 15 QBs better than Geno? Not on potential, or even value (although that does benefit him in some ways), but on play from last year, and possibly availability next year (meaning that for example Dre Greenlaw may be a "top-15" LB, but that's not going to do much for his team in 2024 likely). Not blaming QBs for injuries, but recognizing they can't continue to provide equivalent value to their team if they're not on the field.
Also, I think stats that are per play or per drive have to be of greater value, because a QB that gets 12 drives per game is just given more chances than one who only gets 10 drives a game.
I know I am the resident reminder of fantasy football's lurking influence on these discussions... and the game was born out of the need to quantify the "whose better" barstool debates. So, allow me to point out that Ian Hartitz is a fantasy football write from the Fantasy Life site, so everything he writes has an underlying application to fans coming from a fantasy centric POV. When he talks about Top-xx, it is usually only in regards to how many fantasy points those players will, or did, end up with.
That said, I feel a little Pete-y about these rankings... they come from non-football people, mostly, analysts from outside the fraternity of coaches, GMs, and decision makers. I just hope actual decisions aren't being made by people who give any credence to any of the so-called analysis and rankings of players. It is a dumbing-down of a players essence and contribution to his team.
I loved this article! Again, SSJ, you approach a topic with depth and rationality not seen in this world of people trying to get attention (clicks) regardless of the substance their words contain.
It is best to reduce our own egos when talking about the players by using phrases that indicate we are not presenting a definitive end-all, be-all, answer. We could all do a lot more of this in our lives, in general. Anyone with a shred of sense can see right through the BS of opinions presented as factual statements, as those statements make the writer/speaker look anywhere from silly and unimportant to disingenuous and dangerous, depending on the topic. Your consistent performance of this makes you thr best Seahawks writer out there...
Or at least top-xx
My grammar has been awful this week. Been studying for a big test... "who's better" is what I meant. I go too fast sometimes. Cheers!
Just on the AFI's top 100 movies front; Mrs. Turtleman and I have been working our way through that top 100 list as a New Year's declaration. Since watching movies isn't really a resolution. We decided to watch every one whether we had seen them or not. It's been pretty fun overall, but some have been bore-fests (Frankly in my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey), many have been depressing (the aforementioned Raging Bull being a prime example, and I could surely list 20 others by the time we finish), several I feel are only listed because they were groundbreaking for their time (Sunrise, A Night at the Opera, Swing Time, The General) and even more blow my mind that anyone thinks is an all-time great film (Tootsie leads that list).
But much like a greatest movie list is entirely subjective (from a simple viewing perspective -I am FAR more *entertained* by Windy City Heat or even The Room than Raging Bull, even though I realize which is "better"), ranking athletes is a fool's errand. Sure, Mahomes is objectively a better quarterback than Daniel Jones. But if you ask me if Daniel Jones is better than Baily Zappe, Desmond Ridder, or even the #1 overall pick in last year's draft, I have no idea. I could look up numbers, but what value are they when Bryce Young had the supporting cast he had with the Panthers? "Best of" lists are pretty much worthless and are made by people who often don't like that same things I do.
But as much as I just maligned lists and rankings, I'm about to watch The Grapes of Wrath tonight rather than an episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm and will continue to do such until we've made it through all 100, assuming we can find them all. So yeah, lists get clicks. Even my own.
“…bore-fests (Frankly in my opinion, 2001: A Space Odyssey)…”
Hear hear! A Night At The Opera, though, is a great movie no matter which generation is watching it.
Movies can also be heavily dependent on mood, timing, and expectations. The Room certainly one of the few that has transcended all those factors, it has always made me laugh, 100% of the time. Those movies that you can watch 100 times without being bored, definitely different for everyone. Any movie that comes out today seems to pale in comparison to the best movies of the past, but then some movies of the past really were only of their time.