PDA

View Full Version : Ben Roethlisberger remains underrated on 'Top 100'


Hawaii 5-0
06-14-2012, 01:07 AM
Ben Roethlisberger remains underrated on 'Top 100'

By Gregg Rosenthal
June 14, 2012

Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger is a two-time Super Bowl champion. Practically every game he plays is on national television. And yet he's still underrated.

Roethlisberger came in at No. 30 on NFL Network's "Top 100: Players of 2012" rankings, which is up 11 spots from 2011. He's the fourth-ranked quarterback on the list, which would make it seem like he's plenty respected.

And yet he was behind running backs Frank Gore, Arian Foster and Ray Rice on this installment of the show alone. We love that trio, but all running backs are replaceable. Roethlisberger was behind Clay Matthews during an off year. He's behind teammates James Harrison and Troy Polamalu. Please.

If you were starting a team from scratch, would you consider taking any of those players before Roethlisberger? Big Ben is still improving. Harrison and Polamalu are declining.

There is a misperception about Roethlisberger's 2011 campaign. He was not the reason that Pittsburgh fell short. In fact, we'd argue he took big-time steps as a decision-maker and quarterback compared to his excellent 2010 season, which ended in a Super Bowl shootout loss.

Now 30 years old, Big Ben is at that sweet spot where his mental approach to the game has improved while his physical skills have yet to wane. Aaron Rodgers is there. Tom Brady and Drew Brees are already past it.

We're not saying Roethlisberger should be ranked ahead of those three players, but he deserves to be in the discussion. He deserves to be a lot higher than No. 30.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d829ce93f/article/ben-roethlisberger-remains-underrated-on-latest-top-100

tanda10506
06-14-2012, 02:52 AM
He's always underrated but that list is stupid, Vonte Leach is ABOVE Peyton Manning for crying out loud!

steelfury02
06-14-2012, 06:53 AM
the time the voting takes place is a little odd too

Atlanta Dan
06-14-2012, 07:34 AM
This has the same significance as the weekly "power rankings" during the season (none)

It's a way for NFL Network to broadcast what passes for new programing during the offseason

OX1947
06-14-2012, 11:31 AM
UGH, why couldnt he have drove them one more time in SB 45. I'm still not over it. It crawls in my being still. (bleep)!!!!

teegre
06-14-2012, 11:43 AM
UGH, why couldnt he have drove them one more time in SB 45. I'm still not over it. It crawls in my being still. (bleep)!!!!

I know what you mean, brother.

I was CERTAIN that we were going to see a repeat of the regular season game from the prior year against the Packers: last second (literally) TD to Wallace: 32-31.

If only SOMEONE had called a time-out, to regroup. Alas...

teegre
06-14-2012, 11:55 AM
Oh, and back to the main topic.

IMO: BR is #1.

Admittedly, I am completely biased... because I wanted him to be drafted, and stated that he'd lead the Steelers to 6 SuperBowls, winning 5 of them. I think he's THAT good. Forget stats & numbers...it's about wins...better yet: its about TROPHIES.

This year, with a GOOD O-line (& some great WRs), he will show everyone who the best QB in the league truly is (statistically, winning-wise, and championship-wise). I see a 52 TD season, an MVP, and another Lombardi Trophy (w/ a possible SuperBowl MVP). [I am most sure about the third item on this aforementioned list (another SuperBowl victory).]

Hawaii 5-0
06-14-2012, 05:17 PM
IMO: BR is #1.



if Ben had driven us down the field against the Packers to win his 3rd Super Bowl ring he very well may have been voted #1.

teegre
06-14-2012, 05:40 PM
if Ben had driven us down the field against the Packers to win his 3rd Super Bowl ring he very well may have been voted #1.

I was watching the 2008 America's Game (or maybe it was just the NFL Films re-csi)...anyway, at the end of that game, Tomlin took a time-out, which allowed the offense to regroup.

In 2010, after a bad play (or two & with his team reeling) Tomlin did not call a time-out...and the offense looked unorganized.

I am NOT blaming Tomlin; the players have to make catches, but after two miscommunication plays/two misfires, TAKING a time-out (instead of "saving" them) might have allowed BR & his receivers to exhale, get on the same page, & reorganize. Alas...

Steel Peon
06-14-2012, 05:48 PM
A little too much of washing of Ben's balls there, Mr. Rosenthal. Yeah sure, Ben had a lot to do with us getting to SBXLV, but he also majorily contibuted to us losing it too. Let's also not forget his dismal rating in XL as well. Sure he's a great QB, and surely the toughest one ever, but even "box o' rocks" Eli Manning is looking a lot better. Hell, I'm just glad he's as high on the list as he is, because I'd take Eli, Peyton, Brees, Rodgers, Brady, or maybe even Newton ahead of Ben these days. I love the guy, but he can certainly use a little deflation from this article.

zcoop
06-14-2012, 05:52 PM
I was watching the 2008 America's Game (or maybe it was just the NFL Films re-csi)...anyway, at the end of that game, Tomlin took a time-out, which allowed the offense to regroup.

In 2010, after a bad play (or two & with his team reeling) Tomlin did not call a time-out...and the offense looked unorganized.

I am NOT blaming Tomlin; the players have to make catches, but after two miscommunication plays/two misfires, TAKING a time-out (instead of "saving" them) might have allowed BR & his receivers to exhale, get on the same page, & reorganize. Alas...

Why didn't BR call the TO? No way he's #30 but this kind of thing may have been factored into ranking.

mikegrimey
06-14-2012, 05:57 PM
I was watching the 2008 America's Game (or maybe it was just the NFL Films re-csi)...anyway, at the end of that game, Tomlin took a time-out, which allowed the offense to regroup.

In 2010, after a bad play (or two & with his team reeling) Tomlin did not call a time-out...and the offense looked unorganized.

I am NOT blaming Tomlin; the players have to make catches, but after two miscommunication plays/two misfires, TAKING a time-out (instead of "saving" them) might have allowed BR & his receivers to exhale, get on the same page, & reorganize. Alas...

I'm don't remember Tomlin calling any timeout after a bad play on the last drive in SB 43. He called a timeout after Holmes was tackled at the 6 yard line, a 40 yard play which.

Also, didn't the team only have 1 timeout left in SB 45, with about 60 seconds to play and over 70 yards to go? Using a timeout on your own side of the field at that point in the game would have been disastrous anyway.

teegre
06-14-2012, 05:59 PM
Why didn't BR call the TO? No way he's #30 but this kind of thing may have been factored into ranking.

I have often wondered the same thing. He "used" to call time-outs at the end of games, but it has been a few years (as if the coaches took that "power" out of his hands).

Hawaii 5-0
06-14-2012, 06:57 PM
Harrison and Roethlisberger are in the top 30 of NFL’s top 100

June 14th, 2012 by April O'Neil

Last night the NFL released number 21-30 on their top 100 of 2012 list, and two Steelers made that section of the list. James Harrion came in at number 29 and Ben Roethlisberger came in at number 30. This makes 5 Steelers that have made the list to date with still the top 20 players in the NFL to go. Mike Wallace, Maurkice Pouncey and LaMarr Woodley also made the list. The Steelers only have one more person left on the list and that’s Troy Polamalu. It’s no surprise that he will come in somewhere in the Top 20.

James Harrison dropped down 8 spots from last year’s list where he came in at 21st. That’s not surprising considering the injuries he had this year with his back and his eye. He had a slow start to the season. He definitely picked it up towards the end and is still one of the best at his position.

Ben Roethlisberger actually moved up 11 spots this year since he came in at number 41 last year. Roethlisberger had one his better statistical seasons this past year. But in that area he is still not in the top with Brady, Brees and company as far as yards and touchdowns. But I look for that to change with the new offensive coordinator this year. Hopefully next year he’ll crack the Top 20.

http://bleedblackandgold.com/blog/2012/06/14/harrison-and-roethlisberger-are-in-the-top-30-of-nfls-top-100/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BleedBlackAndGold+%28Bleed+Bl ack+and+Gold%29

teegre
06-14-2012, 09:21 PM
I'm don't remember Tomlin calling any timeout after a bad play on the last drive in SB 43. He called a timeout after Holmes was tackled at the 6 yard line, a 40 yard play which.

Also, didn't the team only have 1 timeout left in SB 45, with about 60 seconds to play and over 70 yards to go? Using a timeout on your own side of the field at that point in the game would have been disastrous anyway.

XLIII: I don't recall when the time-out occurred (nor did I say when), but I do indeed know that as BR was heading toward the LOS, from the sideline, Tomlin called a TO. They regrouped (which is my point), and went on to score.

XLV: In the last SuperBowl, I could have sworn that they had at least two time-ours left. Regardless, getting on the right page (as opposed to spike, misfire, misfire) was worth more than saving the TO...as in: they saved a TO, but then only left themselves with one down.

Regardless of the specifics, XLIII was a calm drive; XLV was a confused mess.

Lady Steel
06-14-2012, 09:29 PM
if Ben had driven us down the field against the Packers to win his 3rd Super Bowl ring he very well may have been voted #1.

I don't know about that. The NFL/Commish doesn't like the Steelers. And I don't even want to talk about how much ESPN dislikes them.

teegre
06-14-2012, 10:27 PM
I don't know about that. The NFL/Commish doesn't like the Steelers. And I don't even want to talk about how much ESPN dislikes them.

Re: ESPN
Colin Cowherd, Trent Dilfer, Tom Jackson, John Clayton, and Merrill Hoge all LOVE the Steelers. And, Mark Schlereth and Tedy Bruschi respect the Steelers.

Millers the sh!t
06-14-2012, 11:36 PM
Oh, and back to the main topic.

IMO: BR is #1.

Admittedly, I am completely biased... because I wanted him to be drafted, and stated that he'd lead the Steelers to 6 SuperBowls, winning 5 of them. I think he's THAT good. Forget stats & numbers...it's about wins...better yet: its about TROPHIES.

This year, with a GOOD O-line (& some great WRs), he will show everyone who the best QB in the league truly is (statistically, winning-wise, and championship-wise). I see a 52 TD season, an MVP, and another Lombardi Trophy (w/ a possible SuperBowl MVP). [I am most sure about the third item on this aforementioned list (another SuperBowl victory).]

If any of this comes true I'll send you a gift. What color Mercedes do you want?

mikegrimey
06-15-2012, 05:26 AM
XLIII: I don't recall when the time-out occurred (nor did I say when), but I do indeed know that as BR was heading toward the LOS, from the sideline, Tomlin called a TO. They regrouped (which is my point), and went on to score.

XLV: In the last SuperBowl, I could have sworn that they had at least two time-ours left. Regardless, getting on the right page (as opposed to spike, misfire, misfire) was worth more than saving the TO...as in: they saved a TO, but then only left themselves with one down.

Regardless of the specifics, XLIII was a calm drive; XLV was a confused mess.

So you don't even know when this timeout happened in SB 43, how can you be sure it happened?

As for SB 45, using your last timeout with 1 minute remaining and more than 70 yards to go, would have been a hail-Mary sentence. Even had they picked up the first down they would have been spiking the ball after every play.

As for SB 43 being a calm drive, I wouldn't call it that, Ben was swarmed with defenders on it, it started with a holding penalty putting us back 10 yards, Ben had to run out of the pocket for a 4-yard run once. It may look "calm" in retrospect only because it ended well, it was actually a microcosm of that steelers teams season: not stylish, a little harder than it should have been (Holmes and Ben misfiring on an easy score the play before they hooked up) and with a splash play (Holmes 40 yarder where the defender slipped.)

teegre
06-15-2012, 08:44 AM
So you don't even know when this timeout happened in SB 43, how can you be sure it happened?

As for SB 45, using your last timeout with 1 minute remaining and more than 70 yards to go, would have been a hail-Mary sentence. Even had they picked up the first down they would have been spiking the ball after every play.

As for SB 43 being a calm drive, I wouldn't call it that, Ben was swarmed with defenders on it, it started with a holding penalty putting us back 10 yards, Ben had to run out of the pocket for a 4-yard run once. It may look "calm" in retrospect only because it ended well, it was actually a microcosm of that steelers teams season: not stylish, a little harder than it should have been (Holmes and Ben misfiring on an easy score the play before they hooked up) and with a splash play (Holmes 40 yarder where the defender slipped.)

How do I know that they took a time-out? Because they did.

In XLIII, throughout that final drive, they were calm. Yes, DURING the plays, BR was scrambling, but when doesn't he scramble!?! I am talking about BETWEEN the plays. And, they were much calmer. Heck, even when Tone dropped the first catch in the end-zone, BR calmly told him, "I'm coming back to you." [Because they had THREE more plays to score; ergo, no need for panic.]

Versus XLV, where they were running to the line, BR yelling plays, WRs throwing their hands up (because they didn't hear the play), and running wrong routes.

Again, saving a time-out was worthless, when you limit yourself to ONE play. If they had used the time-out, to regroup, they would have had four plays to convert. Then, sure, they would have been limited to sideline passes, but getting that initial first down is the hardest part of any drive. AND, when they missed on fourth down, they still had that last time-out... better to have used it (as you aver: at the "wrong time"), than to not have used it at all.

teegre
06-15-2012, 08:46 AM
If any of this comes true I'll send you a gift. What color Mercedes do you want?

Black stripe, yellow paint.

mikegrimey
06-15-2012, 12:06 PM
How do I know that they took a time-out? Because they did.

In XLIII, throughout that final drive, they were calm. Yes, DURING the plays, BR was scrambling, but when doesn't he scramble!?! I am talking about BETWEEN the plays. And, they were much calmer. Heck, even when Tone dropped the first catch in the end-zone, BR calmly told him, "I'm coming back to you." [Because they had THREE more plays to score; ergo, no need for panic.]

Versus XLV, where they were running to the line, BR yelling plays, WRs throwing their hands up (because they didn't hear the play), and running wrong routes.

Again, saving a time-out was worthless, when you limit yourself to ONE play. If they had used the time-out, to regroup, they would have had four plays to convert. Then, sure, they would have been limited to sideline passes, but getting that initial first down is the hardest part of any drive. AND, when they missed on fourth down, they still had that last time-out... better to have used it (as you aver: at the "wrong time"), than to not have used it at all.

Actually you don't know if they called a timeout and there's no proof they did, your insistence on this is pointless.

You're right about the receivers getting the calls in SB 45 vs 43 but wrong about the timeout
You assume calling a timeout would have resulted in a first down, not so, theyd still have to execute
And you forget they had already got one first down on the drive, so the "first and hardest" first down that you think the last timeout should have been sacrifice for, had already been gotten
The drive stalled after a short completion to ward and 3 straight incompletions
You're strategy would be wrong either way though, keeping that timeout was essential, it was the only thing that would give us a chance to get hear the endzone outside of a hail Mary.

teegre
06-15-2012, 12:54 PM
Actually you don't know if they called a timeout and there's no proof they did, your insistence on this is pointless.

You're right about the receivers getting the calls in SB 45 vs 43 but wrong about the timeout
You assume calling a timeout would have resulted in a first down, not so, theyd still have to execute
And you forget they had already got one first down on the drive, so the "first and hardest" first down that you think the last timeout should have been sacrifice for, had already been gotten
The drive stalled after a short completion to ward and 3 straight incompletions
You're strategy would be wrong either way though, keeping that timeout was essential, it was the only thing that would give us a chance to get hear the endzone outside of a hail Mary.

To say that a time-out was not called simply because I personally don't remember the "exact" moment that is was called is asinine. [It was called.]

The above seems to make me think that you are one of those people not worth even discussing anything with...

No matter what I say, you will NEVER agree with my intent/my point, because you are either bogged down in minutia (of when exactly the time-out was called) or stuck on your "opinion". Ergo, YOU are right: the gameplan of keeping the time-out worked like a charm: ZERO points...and a LOSS. But, hey, you have your time-out still...which is all that is important, right?

I'll try one more time:
You are correct: Ward got the initial first down.  Regardless, the point is the same: First down to Ward.  HURRY to the line.  Spike.  Then, misfire, misfire.  Calling a time-out, to regroup, could have avoided the two misfires.  [Saving a time-out does a team NO good, if they don't convert...which, via being on different pages, they didn't accomplish (they didn't convert).]

MY POINT
Once again, my point is: between plays, in XLIII, there was an air of calm; in XLV, the offense seemed confused. I, personally, would have called a time-out (to regroup), but you...you can keep that time-out, the zero points, and the loss.

SUMMATION
We'll just agree to disagree. Good day.

mikegrimey
06-15-2012, 01:30 PM
To say that a time-out was not called simply because I personally don't remember the "exact" moment that is was called is asinine. [It was called.]

The above seems to make me think that you are one of those people not worth even discussing anything with...

No matter what I say, you will NEVER agree with my intent/my point, because you are either bogged down in minutia (of when exactly the time-out was called) or stuck on your "opinion". Ergo, YOU are right: the gameplan of keeping the time-out worked like a charm: ZERO points...and a LOSS. But, hey, you have your time-out still...which is all that is important, right?

I'll try one more time:
You are correct: Ward got the initial first down.  Regardless, the point is the same: First down to Ward.  HURRY to the line.  Spike.  Then, misfire, misfire.  Calling a time-out, to regroup, could have avoided the two misfires.  [Saving a time-out does a team NO good, if they don't convert...which, via being on different pages, they didn't accomplish (they didn't convert).]

MY POINT
Once again, my point is: between plays, in XLIII, there was an air of calm; in XLV, the offense seemed confused. I, personally, would have called a time-out (to regroup), but you...you can keep that time-out, the zero points, and the loss.

SUMMATION
We'll just agree to disagree. Good day.



I find it funny that you think I'm being asinine because I refuse to validate an unsupported statement you made. You're the one who is so sure about this mystery timeout in 43, but you can't even prove it and seem interested in proclaiming it as irrefutable proof of better coaching in 43.

As for your logic of sacrificing your last timeout, just because the offense failed to produce doesn't mean they should have called a time out. You're attempting to frame the issue as a "maybe success or certain doom" either or choice, whereas the team would have had to execute either way.

Your way could just have easily resulted in a turnover on downs, and almost certainly would have resulted in a loss, how often do teams march 67 yards in under 60 seconds with no timeouts? Between completions and
The necessary spikes we'd be spending more than 10 seconds a play, that's on a short play! It's not impossible but highly improbable, odds are the game would have ended on a hail Mary. Most would take their chances with saving the timeout and trying to get closer to the redzone before throwing up prayers.

Just because the offense failed doesn't mean your alternative would have resulted in success.

mikegrimey
06-15-2012, 01:45 PM
Just looked up the play by play for 43

In the second half we used our first timeout on defense, on a drive Arizona scored on

The last two were used on our game winning drive
One after Ben scrambled for 4 yard to the Arizona 46. ( with about a minute left) and the other after Holmes 40 yard catch and run that took us to the 6.

In the first half we used 2 on defense 1 on offense, the first on a 3rd and goal at the beginning of the second quarter, maybe this is the one you're referencing? That's all good but there's a big difference between using a timeout to organize your guys for a 3 Ed down when you've got 3 to kill and it's the 2nd quarter. Throwing out your last of the game is a much riskier decision to make, not comparable.

teegre
06-15-2012, 02:16 PM
I find it funny that you think I'm being asinine because I refuse to validate an unsupported statement you made. You're the one who is so sure about this mystery timeout in 43, but you can't even prove it and seem interested in proclaiming it as irrefutable proof of better coaching in 43.

As for your logic of sacrificing your last timeout, just because the offense failed to produce doesn't mean they should have called a time out. You're attempting to frame the issue as a "maybe success or certain doom" either or choice, whereas the team would have had to execute either way.

Your way could just have easily resulted in a turnover on downs, and almost certainly would have resulted in a loss, how often do teams march 67 yards in under 60 seconds with no timeouts? Between completions and
The necessary spikes we'd be spending more than 10 seconds a play, that's on a short play! It's not impossible but highly improbable, odds are the game would have ended on a hail Mary. Most would take their chances with saving the timeout and trying to get closer to the redzone before throwing up prayers.

Just because the offense failed doesn't mean your alternative would have resulted in success.

TAKING THE TIME-OUT: While it may or may not have worked, it had more than zero chance for success.  I'm not saying it's 100%, but it's better than what transpired.  

NOT TAKING IT:  As we all now know, alas, it was a zero.  

One final thought on the time-out in XLV: in order to even attempt a Hail Mary, the Steelers first had to get into Hail Mary range...  Ergo, making sure that they COVERTED that critical (albeit early) first down was game-breaking.  No first down equals end of game...  Thus, saving a time-out for a "possible" Hail Mary attempt was fruitless, because they first needed to get close enough.  I'd rather have taken my chances AFTER the converted a crucial first down.  

COOL, CALM, COLLECTED...ASSUMING...ETC...

"ASSUMING" that the Steelers did not use a time-out in XLIII, they were still far calmer & more organized (than the were in XLV)...which is the essence of my entire point.  

Regardless of what transpired in XLIII...  in XLV, if they needed to "regroup" (w/ a time-out) then whether or not they took a time-out (or three) at the end of ANY other game is irrelevant.  They NEEDED to take a time-out, and they didn't.  

[Side-bar:]  
Q:  Are you seriously telling me that they didn't look befuddled, disorganized, & confused at the end of XLV?  

[Back to our discussion:]  
"ASSUMING" that the Steelers did NOT use a time-out in XLIII, you contend that in XLV, they "needed" that last time-out in order to drive 92 yards.  Well... if the aforementioned "assumption" is true (no time-out taken) ...well... just two years prior, the Steelers didn't "need" a time-out to go the same distance (92 yards) in essentially the same amount of time (2 minutes)...right?  Ergo, using the time-out in XLV (to regroup) makes EVEN more sense...because they didn't even need a time-out in XLIII...right?  

teegre
06-15-2012, 02:31 PM
In the second half we used our first timeout on defense, on a drive Arizona scored on

The last two were used on our game winning drive
One after Ben scrambled for 4 yard to the Arizona 46. ( with about a minute left) and the other after Holmes 40 yard catch and run that took us to the 6.

The one I remember/to which I have referring, was the one near the 50. BR was racing towards the LOS, and Tomlin called a time-out.

And, indeed: the difference between using one's "last" time-out and one's "next-to-last" time-out is HUGE. Excellent point.

BUT... regardless, my point is still the same: the team looked calm in XLIII...whereas, they needed to regroup in XLV.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-15-2012, 02:55 PM
Its its supposed to be based on last years performance. I'd say its reasonable that 29 players in the NFL had better years last year than Ben.

LVSteelersfan
06-15-2012, 06:02 PM
I think Ben is about where he should be personally. Some of the stuff he does is head scratching. A good percentage of the sacks he takes are his fault regardless of how bad the Oline is. I would venture to guess that the QBs that will be ahead of him on this useless list all get rid of the ball faster and will trade off losing a down to throw the ball away instead of losing yards. Ben's play in the red zone is baffling at times although I suspect a lot of that was Arian's fault by putting him in empty backfield sets on third and goal in the red zone. 30 is not that bad when all is considered. I am sure his reputation, whether it is deserved or not, has a lot to do with it since it is just a popularity contest by the players.

tony hipchest
06-15-2012, 06:04 PM
Black stripe, yellow paint.

:chuckle: NICE!

Avoid-Lloyd
06-15-2012, 06:36 PM
Its its supposed to be based on last years performance. I'd say its reasonable that 29 players in the NFL had better years last year than Ben.

No it's suppose to be a countdown of who do you think will have the better 2012 season. I think a lot of the players are confused when they vote. If it were a countdown of the best players only by the season before then you could look at stats only and judge it that way. If that were the case then Clay Matthews wouldn't even make the list. He started 16 games and only had 6 sacks.

Kingmagyar
06-16-2012, 10:57 AM
For the real top 100 list they should have the league's 32 General Managers anonymously conduct a 3 round draft with 4 extra picks at the end to reach 100. There is no way Ben Roethlisberger gets picked 30th. If anything all the top 10 QBs easily are the first 10 picks in the mock draft That would be as close to a real 100 as you could get..

You know the list is utter BS when Vontae Leach is on it at 45! Ahead of Pouncey, Mike Wallace, Woodley and 50 other guys every GM in the league would want instead of Leach.

teegre
06-16-2012, 11:22 AM
For the real top 100 list they should have the league's 32 General Managers anonymously conduct a 3 round draft with 4 extra picks at the end to reach 100. There is no way Ben Roethlisberger gets picked 30th. If anything all the top 10 QBs easily are the first 10 picks in the mock draft That would be as close to a real 100 as you could get....

That is the most intelligent thing that I've read in a long, long time. Wow!!!...great post.

In the actual draft, QBs go early, because GMs know the value of the "franchise" QB. In this "Top 100" draft, the top ten would absolutely be dominated by QBs. Maybe AP goes top ten...maybe...but, BR, Brees, Brady, Peyton, Eli, Rivers would all be in there.

Oh, and Joe Flacco is the obvious #1 overall...because, he is the "best" QB in the NFL. Fourth in his own division, but the best in the NFL.

Again, great post.

Hawaii 5-0
06-19-2012, 04:16 PM
Cosell Talks: Re-Examining Roethlisberger

by Greg Cosell

http://nflfilms.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ap060205015922.jpg?w=226&h=300

It’s interesting how NFL quarterback evaluation and perception work. If you win a Super Bowl early in your career, you are classified a “winner,” and it is left at that, with nothing more needed to be said. Very often, continuing (and realistic) evaluation diminishes, or even ceases, because what more need a quarterback do than win a Super Bowl?

This brings me to Ben Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger, the third quarterback selected in the 2004 NFL Draft, after Eli Manning and Philip Rivers, started his first NFL game in late September of his rookie season. He did not lose a regular season start that season. He followed that in 2005 with nine wins in his 12 starts, culminating in four playoff wins and a Super Bowl championship. If you include the 2004 and 2005 postseason, Roethlisberger won 27 of his first 31 NFL starts.

The Steelers beat the Seahawks 21-10 in Super Bowl XL in Detroit. Other than the fact that the NFL title was on the line, it was not a very compelling game. Roethlisberger, by his own admission, played poorly. The argument could easily be made that it was the worst performance by a winning quarterback in Super Bowl history. That was seen as irrelevant. The Steelers won and Roethlisberger was the quarterback — case closed.

Roethlisberger’s win-loss mark is extraordinary. He has prevailed in almost 71 percent of his regular season starts. His playoff record is 10-4, with two Super Bowl titles. Yet I would submit that few quarterbacks have shown as much improvement over the course of their careers as Roethlisberger. It’s easy to overlook that because of his early success.

There’s a second consideration at work here, and it may be just as important. I’m referring to the manner in which Roethlisberger so often plays. There has been an unconventional element to his style, and that element resonates. It’s a sandlot, make-it-up-as-you-go approach that is both original and spectacular. Much of it derives from Roethlisberger’s unparalleled physical strength; he is just plain ol’ country strong, with the ability to shed pass rushers and get in a position to make throws.

There might be no better example of this than a play Roethlisberger made in the regular season in 2008 against Jacksonville. He had defenders hanging all over him and was still able to deliver an accurate throw to Hines Ward. What made it even more memorable was it came on third-and-8, late in the fourth quarter, with the Steelers trailing by a point. They won the game, of course. For many, that single play was the definitive snapshot of Roethlisberger’s career portfolio: what he’s capable of physically and the competitiveness with which he plays, especially in the fourth quarter.

http://nflfilms.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ap111208145552.jpg?w=199&h=300

I remember vividly, in my preparation for Super Bowl XLIII, watching all of Roethlisberger’s throws from the previous two years, 2007 and 2008. At that time, in late January of 2009, I formed a strong view after hours and hours of film study: Roethlisberger was a fantastic player at times, but his game was uneven.

A quick point to provide context. There are two distinct parts of every play: the pre-snap phase, when the quarterback is at the line of scrimmage, appraising the defense, waiting for the snap; and the post-snap phase, which of course occurs after the ball is snapped. The defense, in simple terms, is trying to minimize the quarterback’s capacity to understand and isolate what he’s seeing before the snap. If you don’t get a clear picture before the snap, it’s much more difficult to be consistently successful.

In January 2009, Roethlisberger was not very good before the snap. One of the reasons he moved as often as he did was his inconsistency in recognizing blitz concepts at the line of scrimmage. He was still processing information, trying to decipher the defense during his drop into the pocket. You cannot be controlled, decisive and precise as a quarterback playing that way. It was the singular reason Roethlisberger had such a strong tendency to play sandlot football.

The best way to portray Roethlisberger at that point in his career was this: When his pre-snap read was correct, he was outstanding, delivering with rhythm, timing and accuracy. When the picture was a little cloudy and muddied, his predisposition was to rely on his instincts. Roethlisberger was more of a reactionary quarterback, responding to (and countering) the defense after the snap with his strength, exceptional movement ability and extraordinary downfield vision on the run.

Gradually over time, Roethlisberger has gotten better and better. He’s more aware before the snap of the ball, and he’s more disciplined in the pocket. While he still has the ability to impress with his idiosyncratic combination of physicality and movement, his game is now less arbitrary, less random, more structured, and therefore more consistent. This is rarely acknowledged, however, because there has been no clear quantifiable means by which to measure the progress. The Steelers still win and Roethlisberger still makes plays. As I said earlier, case closed. End of discussion.

That misses the point entirely. One part of Roethlisberger’s improvement for which he does not get enough credit is his ability to make throws consistently from the pocket. It sounds strange to say that, because that’s the essence of NFL quarterbacking: delivering from the pocket. Yet the continued emphasis on his distinctive style has led many to disregard his pocket passing. I charted all 60 of Roethlisberger’s pass plays of 20 yards or more in 2011. Only five of them came outside the pocket. Time and again, Roethlisberger exhibited one of the most essential attributes necessary to play at a consistently high level: the ability to stand in the pocket in the face of pressure and deliver the ball with accuracy. That’s an element of his play that often gets overlooked. It shouldn’t.

Roethlisberger has a natural ability to throw with just the right amount of touch. Does he have a strong arm? Yes. But I would contend that he is more of a finesse passer with power than a pure arm-strength passer. The difference may be subtle, but it’s significant. It’s one reason he has the ability to throw from different platforms, without his feet always being set and on balance. Overall, few quarterbacks in the NFL have Roethlisberger’s throwing skill set.

In his early years, Roethlisberger was an instinctive, intuitive player who was special at times, but who had sandlot tendencies that limited his consistency. Now, after eight years as the Steelers’ starter, he’s a far more mature, disciplined quarterback. That will only lengthen his career. Will we continue to see those signature plays that have defined his career? Certainly. But my guess is we’ll see fewer of them, because he’s a better overall player.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/06/19/cosell-talks-the-ever-improving-ben-roethlisberger/?module=HP11_content_stream

austinfrench76
06-19-2012, 11:10 PM
It's always been this way. He is unconventional. So be it, here's to a 3rd SB!!!

Steelerindc
06-20-2012, 08:07 AM
I know what you mean, brother.

I was CERTAIN that we were going to see a repeat of the regular season game from the prior year against the Packers: last second (literally) TD to Wallace: 32-31.

If only SOMEONE had called a time-out, to regroup. Alas...

Yes, that was my thought exactly in those last moments. Call a time out and get it together.

lloydwoodson
06-22-2012, 07:29 AM
For the real top 100 list they should have the league's 32 General Managers anonymously conduct a 3 round draft with 4 extra picks at the end to reach 100. There is no way Ben Roethlisberger gets picked 30th. If anything all the top 10 QBs easily are the first 10 picks in the mock draft That would be as close to a real 100 as you could get..

You know the list is utter BS when Vontae Leach is on it at 45! Ahead of Pouncey, Mike Wallace, Woodley and 50 other guys every GM in the league would want instead of Leach.

I think the other glaring deficiency in the list is the lack of offensive linemen. Jake Long and Joe Thomas are 59th and 82nd on the list despite being almost unanimously considered the best two LTs in the NFL. Top LTs are always drafted in the top 5.