Campbell: 'It's just totally different than it used to be'

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Favre's tier is a tad tounge-in-cheek because I have to account for the fact that he may not be coming back.

Ben has ridiculous pocket presence and by extension, ability to extend the play along with sufficient accuracy and late-game reliability.

I'm not the biggest proponent of using stats, but Rodgers has been amazingly consistent production-wise.

Besides, all that tier means is whether or not one should be certain that they've established themselves as QBs that the franchise can rely on, not whether they're going to the HOF.

Gradkowski has better pocket presence than Campbell and is stuck on bad team with arguably the most toxic work environment as well.

Moore helped revitalize a stagnant Carolina team and posted good stats against Minny.

Smithy can at least run the spread well.

Orton is a good game manager who doesn't shit things up and has good accuracy on shorter passes.

Lack of durability doesn't imply lack of ability in the case of Hasselbeck.

Bulger's "has-been" tier means just that. He may not be able to win outright against Campbell in a QB war NOW, but he would have crushed him in his prime.

Individual order within tiers doesn't matter. I've had enough of that reading debates on Fire Emblem units.
I'll move the "ok" tier above the wildcard one to stay consistent with the principle that tier represent [perceived] diminishing quality, with Bulger's tier and Favre's tier being the exception.

The tier's thing was just a clarity issue, I have no problem with tiering off data and throwing it in whatever order, I just had no idea what was and was not being implied by the order.

The one consistent principle that permeates your list is that you've put a premium on potentially random events in a small sample (Gradkowski's three wins with Raiders, Moore's excellent Vikings game, looking at Smith's replacement level performance as a vast improvement rather than a regression to mean), while devaluing consistent but unspectacular performance over a long period of time.

There's no way I would put a guy who was last productive in 2007 (Hasselbeck) over a guy who was even better in 2007, and has maintained a consistent level of average production since (Garrard). And the dudes who haven't proven that they can play at this level one way or another also don't get the nod over average performers, because that implies that average isn't valuable, which is a falsehood.

That would be the justifications for the differences in my list.