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

[SirClintonPortis]

You're slightly different metrics than I am. My list was made in response to a poster saying there were only 7-8 actual franchise QBs and we shouldn't be whining as much about it since others were in similar situations. Thus, I was trying to weight the concepts I call "[perceived] benefit provided to their respective franchises/fanbases" and "worthiness and likeliness to be invested in either in the future" along with their actual ability and their "objective" utility QBs provided to any team. There's no way Pitt is not going to withdraw their commitment to Ben and he is very skilled QB to get a team with an outright terrible o-line to the SB and win it, even if he may stink as a person. Romo, Eli, etc, all have their teams committing giant contracts to them and they're good QBs, but they have their flaws.
And yeah, "franchise QB" can come with a ton of definitions. I guess I was using one that factored all of the aforementioned elements.

Trying to engage in sabermetrics trying to discretize, for lack of a better word, how much utility comes from the QB and how much comes from everyone else is a giant pain in the arse, hard to measure, and would not have addressed the point I was responding to, although I do consider it an exercise worth undertaking to get "even closer" to what actually goes on on the field.

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.

Perhaps I should make Hasselbeck and Bulger's sub-tiers for the "ok" tier. Thoroughness was not my main concern when posting.

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.

Pocket presence is something that's easy to tell. I only watched the Raiders-Cowboys game, so I'm stuck with the qualitative equivalent of t-distribution inference. But since the Pukes have one the best damn pass rushes in the league, he was almost always having to "feel" the pressure, and not once did he display complete ignorance or oblivious to it. His accuracy was subpar, but he got rid of the ball when he had to and with a small margin for error.
Also, in the same game, the commentators were talking about how Gradkowski was able to place the ball where his receiver can make the play. You can't tell very well whether JC17 meant to place it somewhere or it just happened to be there.

Moore only had one bad game against NE, and he at least played adequately for the others, if not better.

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.

Hasselbeck still has the human capital to work the WCO like a charm for his team and probably can adjust to another O if needed since he was able to comprehend the WCO. Garrard can do what at the age of 32? Be blessed with a good running game and still post fewer TDs than even JC17? Seattle still can use Hasselbeck, Garrard is on his way out the door by now.