10 comments ESPN Decided to Rank The Top 10 NFL Head Coaches

Before I get to the ESPN ranking of the Top 10 NFL head coaches, I thought I would mention the title of this article Ken Rosenthal wrote for Foxsports.com last week when the Red Sox started the year off 0-6. It is titled, "MLB fans should not panic about the Red Sox this early in the season." Apparently the link was titled by someone other than Ken Rosenthal because his article is titled, "It's too early to panic, Red Sox fans." So Ken Rosenthal is worried about Red Sox fans being depressed, but Fox Sports is worried all of baseball will be negatively harmed by the Red Sox slow start.

Regardless, the people at Foxsports.com don't want just Red Sox fans to not panic, but MLB FANS should not panic either. I, for one, was terribly concerned about the Red Sox record because as we all learned from Bill Simmons last summer if the Red Sox aren't a good team then that means nobody else cares about MLB as a whole either. I have not slept much since the season began because the idea of a non-competitive Red Sox team is such a difficult thought to bear for me. If the Red Sox aren't any good, I would probably just give up on baseball, and most likely life, all together. The Red Sox set the fortunes for the entire season for MLB fans all over the globe. Masses are huddled by their television, just hoping the Red Sox win games and are relevant so they can go on loving baseball in America.

So I hope the Red Sox continue to win games so I can start watching the Atlanta Braves games again and not constantly be checking the Internet to see if I can enjoy the game I am watching or not based on the result of the Red Sox game. End my panic quickly, please.

Now on to the article for today. ESPN has decided out of boredom apparently to have their NFL bloggers list the Top 10 coaches in the NFL right now. It is the early part of April, the perfect time to rank the best coaches in the NFL. What gets me is that out of the 8 guys who give their opinion a total of 13 coaches got votes. This isn't a poll of the Top 5 coaches in the NFL, but the Top 10 coaches, and only 13 coaches got votes? Are the top coaches in the NFL really that easy to pick out? Apparently so.

Here's the Top 10, followed by the comments and finally (of course) my criticism of the choices.

Ranking the Head Coaches

1. Bill Belichick, New England Patriots
2. Mike Tomlin, Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Andy Reid, Philadelphia Eagles
4. Mike McCarthy, Green Bay Packers
5. Sean Payton, New Orleans Saints
6. Tom Coughlin, New York Giants
7. Rex Ryan, New York Jets
8. Lovie Smith, Chicago Bears
9. Mike Smith, Atlanta Falcons
10. M. Shanahan, Washington Redskins
10. John Harbaugh, Baltimore Ravens

What a definitive list I tell you. Guess who came in 13th on this list with TWO votes? Jim Caldwell. I wouldn't let him coach my Madden team.

Belichick wasn't the only coach voted on with conviction. Head coaches are the fifth installment of our Power Rankings series, and the 13 combined nominees from our ballots were the lowest number of nominees so far. Our panel nominated 17 tight ends, 17 pass-rushers, 16 wide receivers and 15 running backs.

I just can't believe 13 guys only got votes. No Raheem Morris?

There are certain coaches who have never coached in the NFL who should never get a vote. This is Ron Rivera, Pat Shurmur, Mike Munchak, and Jim Harbaugh. Apparently the guys at The Big Lead were so impressed with the mere hiring of Jim Harbaugh, they ranked him as the 9th best coach in the NFL. With all due respect, that's ridiculous. You can't even rank him until he coaches a game. How do you rank him as a coach in the NFL when he hasn't done anything but smile pretty at a press conference and have the sports media fawn over him?

Pittsburgh Steelers coach Mike Tomlin was second in the Power Rankings, and the lowest he rated was sixth on NFC West blogger Mike Sando's ballot. The minus-4 differential from Sando -- not a substantial disparity at all -- was the largest negative margin relative to final placement in the entire process.

West Coast Bias!

What this tells me is that I am either (a) a complete moron who doesn't see the 10 best coaches in the NFL is an easy list to compile, (b) there was a tremendous amount of groupthink, or (c) these coaches weren't really ranked on their current coaching ability. I find it hard to believe out of 10 spots available there are only 13 coaches who fill those spots.

"I favored coaches that walked into tough situations, won relatively quickly and then sustained the improvement over more than one season," Sando said in a statement issued through an NFC West blog spokesman.

So Mike Tomlin taking his team to two Super Bowls in his four years as a head coach isn't impressive because the team was already good before he got there? In the NFL, success in one season doesn't translate as well to success the next season. Just ask many of the Super Bowl participants from the last 10 years.

"We should view the success Bill Cowher enjoyed in a similar context. Both worked for an outstanding organization."

Ok, I can agree with this comment. That's a better reason for ranking Tomlin lower.

To be honest, I actually considered putting Cowher on my ballot just for the heck of it. But I opted against getting cute.

You "actually" considered doing this? But you "literally" didn't do it? Actually, this would literally be inaccurate since Bill Cowher hasn't coached in the NFL in five years. It would not be cute to do this, but incredibly inaccurate. You may as well put Bill Walsh in the rankings while you are at it.

(I hate the use of "actually" for emphasis and how the word "literally" doesn't mean literally to some people. These people who say things like, "My heart was literally pounding outside my chest," are mentally deficient. You would be dead if that happened. Literally means this actually happened, it is not to be used as a cute way of providing emphasis on how you WANTED to feel, but on what happened in reality.

We ranked Philadelphia Eagles coach Andy Reid third, and he was listed no lower than fifth -- on AFC West blogger Bill Williamson's and mine -- on anyone's ballot.

Somewhere 60% of Philadelphia Eagles fans started screaming at the computer.

"Consistency is very important for head coaches, and Smith has more non-playoff seasons than playoff seasons," Walker said.

This from a guy who ranked Mike McCarthy 4th in his rankings (3 of 5 years has made the playoffs, never had two winning seasons back-to-back until last year), Sean Payton 5th (3 of 5 years has made the playoffs, never had two winning seasons back-to-back until last year), and Tom Coughlin 6th (hasn't made the playoffs in two years). Still, these coaches deserve more consideration than Walker's next coach on the list. Mike Shanahan is 7th (hasn't had a team make the playoffs since 2005, though he has been consistent in his team's ability to have a sub- or near-.500 record) on Walker's list. There's no reason for this.

At least these three other coaches above Shanahan have made the playoffs more often than they haven't, so perhaps they are consistent at this present time. Mike Shanahan doesn't meet any of Walker's criteria. He has made the playoffs 7 of the 16 seasons he has coached.

Clearly, Walker only wants coaches who are the most consistent at this current time, unless they used to be a good coach in which case they are grandfathered into the list for some reason.

"Smith seems to be on the hot seat every other year in Chicago,

Because a head coach's ability should be judged by the fan's knee-jerk opinion of him.

and he missed the playoffs three consecutive times from 2007 through '09. Despite a good run last year, Smith is a pedestrian 34-30 since '07."

Mike Shanahan's record (7th on Walker's list) since 2007?

21-27. This impresses Walker apparently.

Atlanta Falcons coach Mike Smith came in ninth. He didn't appear on NFC North blogger Kevin Seifert's ballot because Smith hasn't won a playoff game yet.

But hey, Ken Whisenhunt's ability to go 5-11, and never have a better record than 10-6, in a weak NFC West impressed Seifert enough to put him 10th on his ballot. Who cares about 2 playoff appearances in a 3 year span in a tougher division?

Seifert swore it had little to do with that Falcons school bus commercial that gets played incessantly on NFL Network. Three other panelists omitted Smith, too.

The three other panelists who omitted Smith put the following coaches on their ballot instead:

Ken Whisenhunt (3), Mike Shanahan (3) and Jim Caldwell (1)

Because apparently a 33-15 record as a head coach is no match for being above average in a weak division, being a good coach 10 years ago, and being fucking clueless.

Eight teams have new coaches for 2011, ostensibly reducing the number of Power Rankings candidates to 24 from the jump.

Some of the "new" coaches have coached in the NFL before, so they could theoretically be ranked somewhere based on their previous performance. This certainly happened for Mike Shanahan since we only have one season as Redskins coach to judge him upon.

A two-year stint didn't prevent the panel from voting for Shanahan, whose body of work includes a pair of Super Bowl titles with the Denver Broncos,

In the 90's with a Hall of Fame quarterback. Since then his team has been in the playoffs 4 of 11 seasons and he has a 97-79 (55% winning percentage). More importantly, he hasn't won his division in the last four seasons he has coached.

"Shanahan may not have looked like a brilliant coach in his first year in Washington, but he deserves to be on this list," Williamson said.

No, he doesn't.

"He is not some old retread. With so much turnover in the coaching ranks, he is truly one of the last remaining of the old guard 'Super Coaches.'

Except he isn't a "Super Coach." Other than that, spot-on critique.

The guy has two rings

Again, from the 90's on a team with a Hall of Fame quarterback and his team has made it out of the Wild-Card round once since that time.

and a lot of playoff appearances.

Where his team did not fare well in the first game of the playoffs, by losing in the Wild-Card round, in 3 of those last 4 appearances.

My reasoning is that Ryan, despite not winning the Super Bowl, has a tractor-beam pull on his players -- and even other teams' players -- unlike any other coach in the league. Ryan carries serious clout with the people who matter most of all, the ones on his roster.

I agree. Rex Ryan is a great coach, despite not having coached for very long. If this were a column about college basketball, I think Jeff Goodman would suggest Rex Ryan immediately be inducted in the Hall of Fame because WHY WAIT UNTIL HE IS ACTUALLY ELIGIBLE?

Another to receive votes despite two years at the helm was Indianapolis Colts coach Jim Caldwell. He came in 13th overall, eighth on Kuharsky's ballot and 10th on Walker's.

Any ballot where Jim Caldwell is ranked among the Top 10 coaches of anything is a ballot that I question the validity and accuracy of.

"I do not think he's a particularly good game-day coach," Kuharsky said of Caldwell. "The rationale he had for the late timeouts that helped the Colts lose at Jacksonville and to the Jets in the playoffs was flawed.

"Sure, he may suck at actually coaching his team, managing the game, managing the clock, and getting a game plan together to win games. That's not Jim Caldwell's strong suit. He may not have much to do with his team's success, but let's pretend he does."

"But in terms of delivering a consistent message, setting expectations and holding a team together through an injury-riddled season, he did excellent work.

"He has coaching intangibles that people overlook! Look at his intangibles!"

And those are very important elements to the job."

"What's more important is he has Peyton Manning as his quarterback, and it is so hard to win games as a coach when you have a quarterback that pretty much runs the offense and you can focus on setting expectations through blank stares and writing down a consistent message in your Hello Kitty notebook before the game."

The floor is yours. Let us know if you agree or disagree.

I disagree with some of these votes.

The worst overall ballot by far is James Walker. His ballot looked like this:

1. Bill Belichick
2. Mike Tomlin
3. Andy Reid
4. Mike McCarthy
5. Sean Payton
6. Tom Coughlin
7. Mike Shanahan
8. John Harbaugh
9. Rex Ryan
10. Jim Caldwell

I have no real issues in #'s 1-6. Mike Shanahan I have a huge problem with and I don't see how you can put John Harbaugh over Rex Ryan if you are looking for a coach who has been consistent. Ryan has made the AFC Championship Game his first two years as a coach. Harbaugh should be ranked in the Top 10, but I wouldn't rank him above Ryan when using Walker's criteria. Of course, I think #10 is just a fucking disaster. The Colts did well last year with the amount of injuries they have, but I don't see how Jim Caldwell can be ranked in the Top 10 if all of his negative attributes deal with the actual coaching and management of an NFL game.

I also don't get how Mike Smith got left off the list at all. He's been pretty damn good with the Falcons so far, except for the 2009 season when the entire team was hurt. I think he has a sufficient excuse for a mediocre record that year.

John Clayton is the winner (loser?) for worst ballot in the "Did not pick Jim Caldwell on his ballot" division. His Top 10 ballot looked like this:

1. Bill Belichick
2. Andy Reid
3. Tom Coughlin
4. Sean Payton
5. Mike Tomlin
6. Lovie Smith
7. Mike McCarthy
8. Rex Ryan
9. Mike Shanahan
10. Ken Whisenhunt

The first thing I notice about Clayton's ballot is that I have no idea what criteria he used to make his choices. The closest guess I can make is he gave a great amount of consideration to how long a person had been an NFL head coach. That is the only reason I can explain Tom Coughlin and Lovie Smith over Rex Ryan and Coughlin over Mike Tomlin. This could easily be the worst ballot, actually it is, but I can't let James Walker off the hook for choosing Jim Caldwell. Three major comments:

1. I would love to know how the hell Ken Whisenhunt is a better coach than Mike Smith and John Harbaugh? Harbaugh and Smith are in tougher divisions AND they have had more success (in terms of record) than Ken Whisenhunt. It's madness. I can understand Tomlin 5th because he is a part of a successful organization, but what has Lovie Smith done that Mike McCarthy has not done at this point? Other than coach for a longer period of time of course. Then we have Rex Ryan at 8th on Clayton's ballot. Two AFC Championship Games in two years is apparently not an impressive feat.

2. There is Mike Shanahan again. What is the fascination with him? Is there something I am missing that makes him a great coach, other than his ability to destroy his quarterback's confidence at a moment's notice? He's like a superhero in that way. If he were a superhero he would fight off villains by ruining their confidence.

What's really, really crazy is John Clayton left Harbaugh and Smith off his ballot entirely, while putting Mike Shanahan on the ballot. What has Shanahan done in the past 5 years that says he is a Top 10 coach? I can't believe Harbaugh and Smith aren't better coaches than Shanahan right now. Short-term and long-term this doesn't make sense to me.

3. Andy Reid is 2nd and Tom Coughlin is 3rd? I don't even believe fans of these two teams could back up this argument. John Clayton clearly puts too much emphasis on how long a coach has been coaching.

What a disaster. I guess that's what happens when 8 different with 8 different set of criteria pick out the Top 10 coaches in the NFL. Again, what's so crazy to me is these guys all used different criteria to make the list but only came up with 13 nominees for the 10 spots. Any list like this is going to be subject to criticism, but there has to be some sort of set criteria so the list doesn't turn into a Lifetime Achievement Award. Short-term and long-term it doesn't make sense for Mike Shanahan to be anywhere on this list.

5 comments John Clayton Ranks The Quarterbacks In the NFL...It Doesn't Go Well

I am getting married this weekend so I will not be around for the next week. I do have some posts I have scheduled to post this upcoming week, so check back if you would like, but due to the fact I would not like to get immediately divorced I will not write anything next week on my honeymoon. If anyone is Hawaii over the next week, look for me. I will be the pale white guy with two cameras in his hand, binoculars around his neck, black sandals with socks, and a Hawaiian shirt.

The definition of elite is, "the best or most skilled members of a group."

John Clayton makes a list ranking the best quarterbacks in the NFL and then puts them in sub-categories. He lists 14 quarterbacks as being "elite" with a couple others being close to this level. That is 43.75% of the quarterbacks in the NFL that he considers elite. I realize quarterbacks who start in the NFL are elite because few get the opportunity to play quarterback in the NFL, but there aren't 14 quarterbacks that are considered the elite because that's just too many to fit the definition...plus there aren't 14 elite quarterbacks in the NFL at this point.

If John Clayton was in the military and he wanted an "elite group of soldiers" to perform a mission, he would pretty much want to choose every other soldier in each unit...at least based on his quarterback rankings.

The Golden Age of NFL Quarterbacks continues to evolve.Bubble screens make it easier for quarterbacks to continue drives through the air. More talent is moving into the slot in three-receiver sets, giving quarterbacks even more passing options.

So quarterbacks aren't really getting any better, it's just that offenses are becoming more sophisticated and the offensive talent is becoming more and more talented? So it is the Golden Age of Offenses and not really the Golden Age of Quarterbacks?

For the past couple of years, I've preached how the league is divided into teams with elite quarterbacks and those without them. To win in this league, you must have an elite quarterback. Without one, the season can be long and frustrating.

Trent Diler, Mark Rypien, Doug Williams, Brad Johnson have an argument with this statement. Other quarterbacks who have made the Super Bowl with their team, but not won it, also beg to differ. A great quarterback helps a team make the Super Bowl, but it isn't a "must" for some teams.

In ranking the league's starting quarterbacks, I have three categories. The first is the Elite level, which includes quarterbacks who can carry teams into the playoffs.

So not only does John Clayton not understand the definition of elite, he lowers the standard to say if a quarterback can led his team to the playoffs, he is elite. I can't think of a worse definition for an elite quarterback other than "a guy who throws a football with his arm to where the receiver can catch it."

An elite quarterback is one who can complete better than 60 percent of his passes, has the potential to throw for 4,000 yards and has fourth-quarter comeback ability.

At least he has a consistent standard he measures the quarterbacks against I guess.

The next category is what I call the Chad Pennington Division.

Chad Pennington has completed 60 percent of his passes, led his team to the playoffs and has fourth-quarter comeback ability. If only he had thrown for 4,000 yards he could be considered elite.

Pennington, a former starter who's now a backup with the Dolphins, doesn't have the strongest arm but he once was good enough to take a team to the playoffs with a good surrounding cast or a favorable schedule.

So being "elite" hinges mostly on throwing for a lot of yardage? The elite quarterbacks need a good supporting cast around them to get to the playoffs and I don't know how I feel about saying a quarterback has to take his team to the playoffs to be considered elite. That would put non-elite quarterbacks in the running for being elite and take out some elite quarterbacks. Not to mention unless John Clayton knows something we don't and the NFL is planning on putting 14, and not 12, teams in the playoffs this year all of these elite quarterbacks John Clayton named won't lead their team to the playoffs this year.

A good supporting cast helps every quarterback. Elite quarterbacks are greatly benefited by a good supporting cast also.

The third category I call the Hit-Or-Miss Division. It is filled with young QBs -- hello, Mark Sanchez and Kevin Kolb -- who easily could climb my ladder or veterans who have reached their ceiling (Jake Delhomme) and have no chance of moving up.

Delhomme has taken his team to the Super Bowl and has reached 60 percent of his passes, thrown for close to 4000 yards, and has shown himself to be capable of a fourth quarter comeback. I am not saying he should be moved up, I am just mentioning this. I wonder what time frame John Clayton is measuring a quarterback to say he is elite? It appears that one year of meeting his criteria puts a quarterback in the realm of "elite," while one bad year doesn't seem to take him out of the category, though sometimes it does.

In the Pennington and Hit-Or-Miss divisions, I rate the chances those QBs have to reach elite status. Some have a greater chance than others because they have not reached their ceiling. Others (Alex Smith, Byron Leftwich) have hit their head on the ceiling and have no chance to reach elite status.

So let the arguments begin.

Ranking quarterbacks is a losing proposition as it is. I am sure it leads to a lot of email for and against certain picks. No one will ever be happy with it. I am not happy with 14 elite quarterbacks in the NFL. Don't call the quarterbacks "elite" if you use a criteria that nearly includes 50 percent of the quarterbacks.

THE ELITE

1. Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts

Analysis: At 34, Manning doesn't show any signs of slowing.

Arrow is pointing: Up

I have no problem with the ranking, but John Clayton thinks Peyton Manning is going to get better this year? That's hard for me to believe. Maybe he will stay the same, but getting better would be hard to do. He had a great year passing last year, but it was because he had no running game and his interceptions were higher than usual.

3. Drew Brees, New Orleans Saints

Analysis: The combination of Brees and Sean Payton is scary. Brees is a master at finding the open receiver, and Payton is one of the best playcallers in the business.

Arrow is pointing: Up

Sean Payton should have nothing to do with this ranking. This is a ranking of quarterbacks in the NFL, not a ranking of best quarterback/coach combinations. If Payton is any way responsible for Brees success, I may argue that should knock him back a few spots in favor of quarterbacks who are elite no matter who their head coach is or at least don't have their coach's playcalling skill as part of the candidacy for his eliteness.

4. Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers

I can buy this ranking based on the Super Bowl wins, even though the Steelers won the game in spite of him. Roethlisberger threw for 4,000 yards for the first time last year.

5. Brett Favre, Minnesota Vikings

Arrow is pointing: Slightly down

Favre's arrow is pointing slightly down? He is 40 years old, injured, and has been pretty hit and miss in regard to his performance over the last 10 years. Does anyone really think he can come close to his performance from last year?

6. Aaron Rodgers, Green Bay Packers

Analysis: This could be the season Rodgers passes Favre as the best quarterback in the NFC North.

If by "this season" John Clayton means "last season" then this is a correct statement. Rodgers did extremely well behind a mediocre offensive line last year. I take Rodgers over Favre, which I am sure everyone could probably guess.

7. Philip Rivers, San Diego Chargers

Analysis: He's the biggest reason the Chargers stay ahead of the other AFC West teams.

That and the fact the other AFC West teams are just outright terrible most years.

9. Donovan McNabb, Washington Redskins

I don't think McNabb is still an elite quarterback in the NFL. He has never thrown for 4,000 yards so he doesn't even meet that criteria at all and he is constantly straddling the 60 percent pass completion marker. The elite quarterbacks ended at #8 with Tony Romo. Yet, John Clayton finds a way to throw a few more undeserving guys in there.

10. Carson Palmer, Cincinnati Bengals

Analysis: The additions of Terrell Owens, Jermaine Gresham and Jordan Shipley could allow Palmer to relive his 4,000-yard days.

Those days were in 2006 and 2007. Carson Palmer while still a good quarterback is not an elite quarterback anymore. He has more weapons this year, but an elite quarterback should not need two good receivers (Johnson and Owens), a 1000 yard rusher (Benson) and a potentially great tight end (Gresham) to be considered elite. If the supporting cast has to improve dramatically for a quarterback to be even sniffing elite status, that quarterback isn't elite.

11. Eli Manning, New York Giants

Arrow is pointing: Flat

So 34 year old Peyton Manning will improve and 40 year old Brett Favre will slightly not improve this year, but 29 year old Eli Manning won't get any better?

12. Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens

13. Matt Ryan, Atlanta Falcons

Neither of these quarterbacks have a 4,000 yard season, mostly because they have been in the NFL for such a short period of time. That's also my point. These two are great young quarterbacks, but they don't meet Clayton's criteria and they aren't elite quarterbacks as of yet.

14. Matt Schaub, Houston Texans

Analysis: Schaub finally moved into the elite group by staying healthy and throwing for a league-high 4,770 yards in 2009. (By the way, that was 270 yards more than Peyton Manning had last season.) The next step for Schaub and the Texans? Win in the AFC South and make the playoffs for the first time.

I like how Schaub will be a better quarterback in John Clayton's mind once his team makes the playoffs. So either John Clayton is handing out individual rankings based on how the team performs or he thinks Schaub needs to play better for his team to make the playoffs. The Texans haven't missed the playoffs because of anything Matt Schaub has done wrong, other than get injured.

CHAD PENNINGTON DIVISION

15. Jay Cutler, Chicago Bears

Analysis: Cutler was an elite quarterback in 2008 when he played for the Broncos, but 26 interceptions for Chicago in 2009 moved him out of my top group.

It's perfectly fair to judge Cutler negatively based on the fact he had a shaky offensive line, no running game and young receivers to work with. That's all his fault. He's not an elite quarterback and he may be ranked in his correct spot, but I have a few qualms with the reasoning.

With Mike Martz calling the plays, Cutler should regain his 4,000-yard form and re-emerge as the elite quarterback the Bears thought they acquired in a trade with Denver.

So he is not an elite quarterback, he just needs a good play caller? I am getting confused.

16. Kyle Orton, Denver Broncos

Chance of being elite: 10 percent

No. Kyle Orton has much less than a 10% chance of being elite. Even if he meets John Clayton's criteria, he is still not an elite quarterback as shown by his performance every other season in the NFL. His "elite" year would be an outlier over his entire career.

17. Matt Hasselbeck, Seattle Seahawks

Analysis:A three-time Pro Bowl selection, Hasselbeck lost his elite status because of two seasons getting rocked behind bad offensive lines.

Hasselbeck isn't as good of a quarterback because his offensive line isn't very good? I agree with Clayton's conclusion Hasselbeck isn't an elite quarterback, but you can't blame Hasselbeck and knock him down a few rungs on the quarterback ladder because he has had a shitty offensive line. That's ranking his skill based on the skill level of another position.

18. Vince Young, Tennessee Titans

Analysis: He's a 66 percent winner as a starter even though he struggles to complete 60 percent of his passes. Young isn't a great thrower, but he finds ways to win.
Chance of being elite: 10 percent

Vince Young has the same chance as Kyle Orton of being an elite quarterback? Young is a great example of why Clayton's 4,000 yard/lead his team to the playoffs/60% completion criteria is not a good judge of an elite quarterback.

21. Alex Smith, San Francisco 49ers

22. Matt Cassel, Kansas City Chiefs

We all know how I feel about Matt Cassel, but he has shown himself to be a better quarterback than Alex Smith. Ask ten coaches which quarterback they would rather have and I bet the majority say Matt Cassel.

Analysis: Cassel showed in New England that he can be a playoff-caliber quarterback if he's surrounded with pass-catchers with yards-after-the-catch ability. He lacks the downfield arm to stretch a defense, but if the Chiefs get him more playmakers, Cassel could thrive.

What quarterback couldn't be a playoff-caliber quarterback if he is surrounded with pass-catches with YAC ability? Give any quarterback worth a shit a bunch of playmakers and he will all of a sudden turn into a great quarterback. Again, Clayton is judging Cassel solely on the ability of the offense around him. If Cassel doesn't make his receivers better and they have to make him better, that doesn't mean he is a playoff-caliber quarterback. It means he is a quarterback lucky enough to have a good team around him.

HIT-OR-MISS DIVISION

23. Mark Sanchez, New York Jets

24. Kevin Kolb, Philadelphia Eagles

I think these quarterbacks should be switched.

25. Chad Henne, Miami Dolphins

Analysis: Henne has a strong arm and a flair for fourth-quarter comebacks, giving him a chance to be a top-level quarterback. It did seem as though defenses figured him out in the second half of the season, but Henne is smart enough to adjust. Plus, he now has Brandon Marshall as his main target.

The addition of Brandon Marshall doesn't mean Henne is a better quarterback than he used to be. It means he has better receivers on his team. It's a thin line, I realize that, but a quarterback isn't better simply because the people around him are better.

26. Byron Leftwich, Pittsburgh Steelers

Didn't Clayton already rank a Steelers quarterback? Why does Pittsburgh get two quarterbacks on this list ranked separately? East Coast Bias!

30. Sam Bradford, St. Louis Rams

31. Trent Edwards, Buffalo Bills

32. Matt Moore, Carolina Panthers

I realize Matt Moore isn't a great quarterback, but he has shown he can complete 60% of his passes in limited chances to start. Trent Edwards wouldn't start for any team in the NFL except for Buffalo. Fine, don't rank Matt Moore above Sam Bradford, but you have to rank him above Trent Edwards. Not only is a better quarterback, but Clayton even gave him a higher chance of being elite (5% chance for Moore, 0% chance for Edwards). So Clayton's ranking of Moore and Edwards doesn't even make sense given the information Clayton based it on.

So if you don't rank Moore above a guy who is a backup at best (Leftwich), a failed starting quarterback and a quarterback that is going to be traded/cut soon (Anderson/Leinart), and a rookie (Bradford) who has done nothing in the NFL yet, Clayton has to rank him above Trent Edwards.

33. Jake Delhomme, Cleveland Browns

This just makes me sad for him.

Like I said, any list of starting quarterbacks is a losing proposition from the start. Unfortunately, this was a list that never even had a chance since John Clayton listed nearly half of the starting quarterbacks in the NFL as elite. A quarterback can't be elite if half of the NFL is as good as he is.

6 comments John Clayton Just Doesn't Get Why New Head Coaches Make All Those Personnel Changes

While the rest of the world is fawning over Stephen Strasburg, all while telling everyone not to fawn all over Stephen Strasburg (I wonder if Steve Phillips would trade Strasburg plus other players for Oswalt now?), John Clayton is answering his mail from readers. Specifically, he is answering questions about why new NFL head coaches make all of those personnel changes when they take over a team? You would think he could give the logical answer that a head coach wants new players because obviously the old players didn't work out too well or the previous head coach would not gotten fired.

You would be wrong.

As interesting as the offseason has been, it's been an off year for doing deals because of the potential labor problems of 2011. Only 21 players received contract extensions worth more than $4 million a year. That's less than one player per team.

So let me get this straight...21 contract extensions of $4 million or more out of the 32 teams is less than one player per game? I'm glad to have John Clayton here to help me do basic math or else I would be lost.

It reminds me of what a lady said to me two days ago. She told me her and her husband have been married longer than they have known each other. I would hope that is the case. Maybe this lady is married to John Clayton. I should ask her.

Sure, there will be some extensions. Expect the Redskins to do one with quarterback Donovan McNabb in the next week or two. The only holdup was the contract McNabb did with the Eagles on June 12, 2009. Players have to wait one year before re-doing a renegotiated contract.

(Dan Snyder) "Let's re-sign that new quarterback we traded for...David McDonald or whatever his name is. I read an article in Sports Illustrated that said he led his team to the Super Bowl last year. Give him a 7 year $100 million dollar contract."

(Redskins employee) "He actually led the Eagles to the Super Bowl a few years ago, it wasn't last yea---"

(Snyder stabbing the employee in the chest repeatedly with his finger and standing on a stool to look in the employee's eyes) "I don't give a shit when the hell Donovan McDavid led the Eagles to the Super Bowl. I fucking love the Eagles. They are my favorite band of all-time (starts singing "Take It Easy"). Has that extension for McDavid been signed yet?"

(Redskins employee looking very confused) "You just told me to do it, I just sent the message to Bruce Allen to get it done."

(Snyder talking while taunting a group of school children on a tour of the Redskins facilities who are outside Snyder's office) "Who the hell is Bruce Allen?"

(Redskins employee) "He's the guy you hired to be the General Manager of the Redskins."

(Snyder punches the employee in the face and flexes his muscle in front of the school children) "Don't tell me who the hell I hired and didn't hire, those are my decisions to make."

(Redskins employee mopping up his own blood) "Yes sir, I won't do that again. Just a side note, McNabb is going to be 34 years old soon."

(Snyder) "Well Brent Fark is still playing in the NFL and he is 40 years old, so it sounds like quarterbacks can play until they are at least 40 years old. No more questions, the decision has been made. Good, now go get me Dennis McMasters and tell him to come up here and I will tell him to his face he is getting a contract extension. Since he is only going to be 34 years old next year, let's make it a 9 year $140 million dollar deal. "

I envision every conversation with Daniel Snyder goes this way.

On Friday, McNabb would be free to do a new deal, and you know Redskins owner Dan Snyder won't let him hit free agency next year.

Oh yes, where would the logic be in letting a 34 year old quarterback become a free agent?

Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will get contract extensions at some point, but it won't be soon. Both are up at the end of the season, and both are the most important players on their teams.

Only in a John Clayton mailbag can you learn that Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the best players on their team. Without information like this from John Clayton, we would all be lost.

Now for the question about new head coaches:

Q: How come when teams hire a new coach, sometimes the argument is made that the coach doesn't have the players to run his offensive or defensive scheme and then takes two to three years changing the roster and releasing good players. In the end, shouldn't a coach try to find the best scheme that fits the current roster and maximize the talent at hand rather than spending two to three seasons changing the roster?

Eric in Montreal

There is a ton of reasons, of which I will just list a few, why a new NFL head coach changes the roster to fit the scheme he wants to run and doesn't keep the old scheme to fit the players he has:

1. The head coach won't be releasing any really good players. Most likely he will be trying to trade these players. So any player that gets released can be thought of as not a good player or a player that needed to be replaced.

2. The previous scheme did not work, so why would the new head coach keep the scheme if he doesn't favor that scheme or have experience running it? This just seems logical. The previous scheme didn't work and the new coach doesn't want to run the offense/defensive scheme...so why continue with what is not working and the new head coach doesn't like?

3. Why the hell would a coach find a scheme that reflects the talents of a roster full of guys who got their coach fired? 75% of the time when a coach gets fired, it is because the team stinks or the coach did a bad job of coaching that team. I don't think finding a scheme to fit the talents of a team that went 5-11 is a good choice compared to finding a scheme that fits the most talented players on that team and finding other talented players who fit that scheme.

4. Why the hell would an NFL owner hire a coach that is pretty much going to do nothing different from the coach that got fired? Unless you are the Buffalo Bills of course.

5. Why the hell would a new NFL head coach ruin his (possibly) one good chance of running an NFL team because he didn't want to get rid of too many (most likely shitty) players who got the previous coach fired? If you have been hired as an NFL head coach, wouldn't it make sense to coach that team your way to hopefully maximize your chances for success? I think so.

There's no way John Clayton agrees with this questioner, right?

A: Eric, I agree with you 100 percent.

Wrong, he agrees. I disagree with John Clayton 100 percent.

It's driving me crazy watching all these 4-3 teams bring in new coaches and try to switch to the 3-4.

While still thinking John Clayton is wrong, I will admit it does annoy me when fans of a team just think his/her favorite team can switch to the 3-4 defense and all of a sudden great things will happen. That being said, the Jets ran the 3-4 last year and it worked out well. That is an instance of a team running a new scheme (in that it was a more aggressive 3-4 compared to what Mangini ran) with somewhat different players and it worked out. Now Rex Ryan has gotten rid of some players he didn't like and replaced them with players he wants on his team...and it looks like the Jets have the best defense in the NFL, at least on paper. If you have the personnel for the 3-4 defense and think that is the best fit for your team, I say run it.

The Dolphins switched to the 3-4 recently and it worked out well for them. I am not saying every team should switch to the 3-4, I am just saying if the new coach favors the 3-4 defense and it doesn't fit the personnel, well then tough shit. The NFL is a copycat league, so more teams will be trying to switch to the 3-4 defense, but if the new coach that comes in is used to running that defense I think it makes sense to switch.

Head coaches with Cleveland, San Francisco and the New York Jets lost their jobs while they tried to rebuild their rosters to fit the schemes instead of fitting the schemes to the talents of the players on the current roster.

Eric Mangini, Mike Nolan, and Romeo Crennel all had success previously with their schemes as assistant coaches. It would have been lunacy for them to abandon the principles and scheme they believe in to ensure a team full of players who weren't winning games could have their "talents" fitted to the offense/defense.

It didn't seem like Rex Ryan had a huge problem running the 3-4 defense after Eric Mangini got fired. He changed the Jets defense to a more attacking defense and it paid off. It is fine to take players on the roster and try to maximize their talents, but it doesn't make sense to take players without talent and build the scheme around them...regardless of whether a team switches to the 4-3, 3-4, or the 46 defense. Good head coaches don't get rid of "good" players when they take over a team, they do fit those players to their new scheme. If the previous scheme with the same players failed, why try it again? Why keep guys who fit an old scheme just to keep them on the roster? It would be absolutely stupid.

A new NFL head coach should implement his scheme when he takes over a team, he shouldn't let the current talent dictate how he wants the offense or defense run.

One thing you know about head coaches is they like to pick the players and that's why most new head coaches have 20 or more new players on their roster during their first season.

Why the hell would they not want to pick their own players? Nobody is bitching when Bill Parcells starts running the 3-4 defense in Miami and starts signing players the players he likes. Nobody is complaining when Mike Shanahan starts running the offense the way he likes for it to be run and gets rid of Jason Campbell in the process because he doesn't fit what he wants to do. It makes perfect sense for a new coach to want his own players on the roster.

There is obviously a fine line in overhauling the roster, like I question why Josh McDaniels has gotten rid of talented skill players when I think he could have easily fit them into the scheme of what he wanted his offense to do. There is a difference in getting rid of talented players clean players from the old regime off the roster and trying to implement talented players and it just not working out.

Overall, a new coach bringing in his own players is not a bad thing. Should Raheem Morris have kept Tampa Bay the way it was under Jon Gruden? I don't know, but it looks like Morris is on the right track. Should Jim Schwartz have done nothing to improve the Lions team and just hoped he could find a way to fit the talent on the roster better to the scheme the team usually run? If he had done this, he should have been immediately fired.

Many times when the head coach is fired, there is no benefit in maximizing the talents on the roster, it is time to sort over in some ways.

The NFL doesn't give enough time for complete reconstructions of the roster.

One sentence earlier John Clayton is talking about how some coaches have 20 new players on the roster (about 40% of the team) and now he says there isn't enough time to redo the roster completely. If a coach doesn't get enough time to rebuild the roster, that isn't on the NFL, but that is on the ownership of that team. But John Clayton should decide if teams are making too many changes to their team under a new coach or if they have enough time to make wholesale changes. I am not sure it can be both.

A team with a top quarterback could buy the coach the time to survive but most teams that hire new coaches don't have that quarterback.

Some teams may give up on coaches too early, that could be true, but I thought the question was why new head coaches try to reconstruct the entire roster and John Clayton stated he didn't know why new head coaches do this. Now John Clayton is saying some head coaches aren't given enough time to make changes to the roster.

What doesn't make sense is that Clayton is essentially arguing for a new head coach to be given 5-6 years to make changes to the team, when this isn't realistic. Why would a new head coach take 5-6 years to reconstruct a team when he can get rid of the dead weight and compete in 2-3 years? Does John Clayton want a new head coach to just take longer to get rid of the dead weight? It sure seems that way.

The Dolphins went from 1-15 to making the playoffs in one year. That's why new head coaches cut "good" players and try to bring their own scheme to their new team.

The Panthers went from 1-15 to the Super Bowl in two years with a new defense and offensive scheme.

If a team like the 2009 Colts have the pieces in place already, then radical changes aren't needed for a new head coach, but if a new coach takes over a team like the 2009 Bills, then it is obvious a new scheme and new players are necessary. Not doing an overhaul of the team is just begging for your team to fail.

That's why teams such as Detroit and Buffalo have been down for as long as they have.

They also haven't hired the right guys to get the appropriate quarterback and make the appropriate changes to the team. Both of those teams didn't need minor fixes, but major changes, and that is what Jim Schwartz has brought to the Lions and what Chan Gailey needs to bring to the Bills.

I still don't know why John Clayton agreed with this questioner. Crappy NFL teams are generally crappy for a reason. Keeping players "with talent" who fit the scheme that was previously run probably isn't a smart move. Continuing to do what you have always done will usually get you what you have always gotten.

The bottom line is that it isn't too hard for an NFL team to turn around its fortunes quickly in the age of the salary cap, so the smartest move for a new coach is to trust in the scheme he has run and get rid of the players who don't fit the scheme and don't have the talent to fit the scheme. Why the hell would a new coach stick with the old scheme and old players? It doesn't make sense for a new head coach going to a team that wasn't any good to do this and expect to succeed.

I am disappointed in John Clayton for not understand that a team which has been struggling would benefit from new players and a new offense/defensive scheme.

13 comments Clayton and King NFL Mailbags Make Me Question Human Intelligence

Just a reminder, I have started a NCAA Tournament Bracket Pick 'Em in a Yahoo league if anyone is interested in joining. The ID is "8624" and the password is "eckstein." Feel free to join and of course we won't be able to make the picks until the brackets are announced.

The two mailbags I am covering today, one of Peter King and one of John Clayton, both will make me somewhat question whether human beings actually have working brains or not...mostly it is the John Clayton mailbag that is the culprit. We get our first 2 page mailbag from Peter King this year, which always excites me because I love the bad journalism that is inherent in either the writer or the reader in a mailbag...and the more pages, the better.

In the first 24 hours of our Five For Fighting fundraiser for Army First Sgt. Mike McGuire's 135-member company being deployed to Afghanistan later this year, and for other U.S. troops in the war zones, you've donated $59,744 to the USO for the cause. I asked for $5 per person, but so many of you have done so much more. We've had 2,394 donors (as of 9:30 a.m. today), which translates to $24.96 per donation.

Let's start this day off with a "Full House" moment. I say a lot of not-nice and critical things about Peter King. When it comes to banding his readers and others together to help people or a cause, Peter is usually one of the first people to do this. I was critical of him holding an entire fundraiser for Dr. Z not because I didn't think Dr. Z deserved it, but because I thought there were other people who had strokes in the same situation as Dr. Z who could be helped as well. Just like when I make slightly bitter comments about breast cancer research money, it is not because I don't support breast cancer research, but because there are more cases of prostate cancer than breast cancer every year and breast cancer research gets quite a bit more funding than prostate cancer research.

Peter is doing a good deed by getting this money together for Mike McGuire and his company. While other sportswriters use their forum to campaign for General Manager jobs and encourage their readers to flood the Inbox of a team executive to ensure this happens, Peter King uses his forum to raise money for worthy people and causes. So hats off to him.

Enough rambling. What I am saying is Peter King is a good guy for getting his readers to contribute money to the USO fund and Mike McGuire's company. So good job Peter King, you are a good man, but I am still going to mock some things you write. Like right now...

When I asked NFL scouts and execs about the quarterbacks in this draft, the one word I heard a couple of times about Oklahoma's Sam Bradford was "frail.''

This could be because Bradford has had some injuries in college and he does look a little frail. I wouldn't say Bradford is frail, but any time a quarterback has an injury to his throwing shoulder it causes concerns among NFL scouts.

When we met, I thought I'd be meeting a Matt Ryan clone -- a tall kid who needed to fill out. Bradford doesn't look like he needs to fill out right now.

It sounds like Peter King has a little crush. It's like "The Bachelor" every single year for Peter. There are a ton of white NFL quarterback prospects to peruse through and we just don't know which one will get the rose at the end of the ceremony. By the way, "the rose" is also known in this case as "having Peter King call you after a game repeatedly, talk about you fondly in his MMQB, want to interview you at least twice a year, and perhaps show up outside your window late at night when he is in town."

It's interesting -- Bradford as a college player physically compares to Ryan.

Matt Ryan: 6'4" 213 pounds
Sam Bradford: 6'4" 235 pounds

So yes, I guess they are the same size but Bradford is 22 pounds heavier than Ryan, so it's not like they are clones or anything.

If Bradford checks out physically, which is a very big but (Ryan had no such major shoulder surgery entering his NFL career), I've got to think, like Ryan, that Bradford will be a top-five pick in the draft. St. Louis, picking first, and Washington (fourth) are the best bets to get him.

Here's the weird part about everyone saying Mike Shanahan will take Sam Bradford with the 4th pick...Mike Shanahan has a huge ego and is known for working well with quarterbacks. Don't you know he wants to mold Jason Campbell into a workable NFL quarterback just to show he can do it? I have no doubt he will draft a quarterback at some point, but it wouldn't shock me if it wasn't in the 1st round. I know there isn't a huge sample size to compare it to, but Shanahan had success with Griese and Jake Plummer, both of which were not 1st round draft picks. I just think with Shanahan being a QB guru-type head coach, he may think he can get a guy in the later rounds (2nd/3rd) and develop that guy while Jason Campbell runs out the string as the starting quarterback.

I was curious to measure Ryan, picked third by the Falcons in 2008, against Bradford. Ryan's career completion percentage: .599. Bradford's .676. Ryan's career yards per attempt: 6.92. Bradford's: 9.41. Ryan's career touchdown-to-interception ratio: plus-19. Bradford's: plus-72.

So based on their college career, Sam Bradford is a better pro prospect...by a lot. Of course we need to factor in the players and the system each quarterback played with in college. Since I can't currently think of any offensive players that played with Ryan at Boston College and I just rattled off 6 names in my head of offensive skill players, not including offensive linemen, who played with Bradford at Oklahoma...I will assume the talent around Ryan at Boston College held him back a little and the talent at Oklahoma helped Bradford.

But I'd be surprised if he gets past Washington at four. And I agree with Adam Schefter, who said the other day he expects the Rams to pick him number one overall if they consider Bradford a no-doubt franchise quarterback.

This is a pretty obvious statement. If any team considers Bradford to be a no-doubt franchise quarterback, that team will probably take him. The Lions and Bucs drafted quarterbacks last year so they wouldn't draft Bradford this year, but no teams without a quality quarterback would generally pass on a no-doubt franchise quarterback. Unfortunately, no-doubt franchise quarterbacks really don't exist that often, so there is always some doubt.

I asked Bradford if he thought he'd justify such a high pick.

What kind of stupid-ass question is this? Does Peter King think Sam Bradford is going to say "no" and basically throw millions of dollars out the window? This is why I think Peter's interviewing style is a joke to some people. He asks obvious questions or questions that have obvious answers. He has a pretty "lobbing softballs" style of interviewing.

"Coach Payton, how does it feel to win the Super Bowl?"

"Mike Vick, do you feel like you can come back to the NFL and compete?"

"Sam Bradford, do you think you are worth the risk for an NFL team to take?"

Re the Sean Payton/Jerry Jones/wine spat from yesterday's column:

Sean Payton has been murdered, his house condemned and his family forced into exile in the jungles of Brazil?

Ellenport wrote, "I asked Sean if he had spoken to Jerry since the Dallas dinner on Saturday night. He said yes -- he actually stopped by at the end of the dinner Saturday night to see them.

Jerry Jones announced when he saw Payton that night that until Payton apologizes every important unrestricted free agent or restricted free agent from the Saints would get a massive offer sheet from the Cowboys. The Saints will never be able to match any of these offer sheets...and also he just bought the Saints and Sean Payton is fired.

Here's Sean's reply from the chat:

'I was at the Dallas dinner Saturday -- stopped by at the end of their dinner, and we had some good laughs. Jerry and I chatted, and we had the empty wine bottle right next to us. Jerry was going to bring it back to Dallas with him as a keepsake, but it accidentally broke that night at the restaurant!' "

It "accidentally broke that night at the restaurant?" Did it "accidentally break" when Jerry Jones tried to smash Sean Payton's face in with it? Did it "accidentally break" when Jerry Jones got incredibly angry and threw the bottle into the wall? I think it is hilarious and slightly suspicious the bottle is now broken. How do you break an empty wine bottle that is just sitting on a table at a restaurant? I'm no detective, but these circumstances around this broken wine bottle are suspicious.

Ironic Hockey Note of the Day: Fifty hours after Sidney Crosby shot the puck through the legs of Ryan Miller in the most dramatic hockey moment since 1980, guess who matches up at the Igloo in Pittsburgh?

Martin Brodeur and Sidney Crosby?

Sidney Crosby. Ryan Miller.

I was WAY off. That is ironic. Who would have thought two teams in the NHL would have two players who were in a gold medal game a couple days before on OPPOSITE TEAMS in an NHL hockey game? Has this ever happened before? Like ever?

(Although I'm told Miller may not play and the Sabres may give him time to recover mentally and physically from the grind of the Olympics.)

Ok, so it's really not ironic since the two players aren't going to face each other? Thanks for nothing Peter.

Don't tease me with your ironic hockey thoughts and then let me know the ironic hockey thought may never actually happen. It's just cruel.

From Harvey Greene (media relations director, Miami Dolphins) of Davie, Fla.: "Enjoyed reading your note today about the Canada-USA hockey game. I was in charge of the press box setup for the entire hockey tournament at the Olympics (I just got back from Vancouver a few hours ago), and I can tell you I never saw a sporting event quite like that gold-medal game (or even the Canada-USA and Canada-Russia games that preceded it). The entire country, from Vancouver to Halifax, was on pins and needles the entire game and when Crosby scored, I'm sure the explosion of sound in Canada Hockey Place was duplicated in every city and hamlet across the country.

"There just isn't anything like that comparable in the States. We don't have a 'national' team in any sport that the entire country truly cares about.

Umm...the Yankees and the Red Sox?

ESPN just saw this comment and said, "Oh yeah, we will MAKE there be a national team the entire country cares about. We don't care if we have to ram coverage of this event where the new national team of our choosing plays down our viewers throats. Don't tempt us to manipulate the masses to prove a point."

Years from now, people will remember exactly where they were when he scored, which, with rare exceptions, usually only take place when a major tragedy strikes.

Those rare exceptions being mostly people can remember where they exactly where when any of their favorite teams won a title of some sort, which happens every year. So in America where there is no "national" team, there are a bunch of regional teams that can cause the same emotions in fans of that team. Canada's joy was on a larger scale, but on a smaller scale fans of American sports teams feel the same way Canada did pretty much every year.

From Ethan T. of Indianapolis: "I noticed you listed Jimmy Clausen as possibly slipping to the second round. Are teams that concerned about his character that he'd drop that far? I watched him throughout his college career -- he can make all the throws and you can't question his toughness after the beatings he took as a freshman and sophomore. He might be cocky, but what football player isn't to some extent?''

PK: He's likely going to be the second-rated quarterback in the draft, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him in the first round to anyone needing a passer, like Seattle with the 14th pick.

Yes, because after kicking his ass for 3 years while coaching USC and playing Notre Dame, Pete Carroll is going to immediately want Clausen on his team as the starting quarterback.

(I am kidding Notre Dame fans, I know the Trojans didn't kick the Irish's ass this year and Carroll may very well want Clausen. I just thought it was amusing USC beat Notre Dame 3 times when Carroll coached USC and Clausen played for Notre Dame...and then Carroll would draft Clausen.)

Cody Jones of Shreveport, La.: "I'm just tired of the overtime thing. There's no guarantee that both teams get to touch the ball in the previous four quarters, so why change it for overtime? Should we guarantee that both teams get a possession every quarter? No, that's sissy-fied. You don't want to go to overtime? Score more points. You don't want to lose in overtime? Score more points or stop the opposing team. The game is not decided by a coin flip, it's decided by the coaching and the men on the field. Always has been. I don't care about the percentages of win-loss in OT. Both teams already had their chance to touch the ball in four quarters! Politically, I'm Independent, but this sounds like liberal football. Make sure everybody gets a fair chance. Rubbish.''

(Cody Jones then cuts his arm with a knife and bleeds all over his keyboard to prove his toughness, goes outside and arm wrestles a crocodile to the ground with his bare hands, puts a dress on the crocodile and then beats the shit out of the crocodile for being weak, and finally hammers nails into the soles of his feet and starts to run a marathon.)

PK: If you created a system in football in 1974, when kickers made six of 10 field goals and kicked off in OT from the 35-yard line, why does the system have to be the same in 2010, when kickers make eight of 10 field goals and kick off from the 30? Laws are amended all the time in the real world to adjust to the times.

I am just disappointed Peter King didn't come back with his usual, "my goodness you are angry young man" type response.

I am actually shocked the NFL has made an NFL overtime change that seems to make sense and doesn't seem half-assed or incredibly stupid. I am not sure if this is an illusion or actual progress...of course the fact I like the proposed NFL overtime change ensures this overtime idea will never get approved by the NFL owners.

From Shawn of Tempe, Ariz.: "My wife tolerates being a football widow each season. And she tolerates me referring to NFL draft weekend as a national holiday. But taking over the TV on Thursday, canceling Friday night plans, and leaving work early two days in a row is unacceptable to even me. This makes league coverage inaccessible to a huge percentage of loyal fans. Now that the NFL is king how about maintaining a fan-friendly approach instead of creating seat license fees, exorbitant satellite TV pricing, and now inaccessible draft coverage. Can you start a MMQB: CFL column?''

There is a lot of angry readers in Peter's mailbag today, but none are mad at Peter himself. I like it when they are mad and angry at Peter more than when the readers are just generally angry.

The draft was money on Saturday, a national holiday for football fans, and now, even though the league is sure to get better TV ratings by having the draft spread over three days (two in prime time), there will be something lost with this format. I don't like it at all. I suggest you write to Roger Goodell at the NFL in New York, or Tweet him (@nflcommish) to register your objections, and urge him to change it for 2011.

Or there could be a protest, like a large group of people refuse to watch the draft, which could affect viewership of the draft and would cause ratings to go down, thereby making the NFL change the draft time back to when it was this past year. But that won't happen because people are going to watch the draft anyway and the NFL won't ever change the draft time back to where it was. See, as long as people make time to watch the NFL Draft, the NFL wins on this issue, but if people actually refuse to watch then the NFL will change it back...but no one is going to refuse to watch.

Now let's get to John Clayton's mailbag and his readers who are borderline crazy and very amateur sounding when it comes to asking pertinent NFL questions.

Sometimes, players take gambles that fail. Other times, players take gambles that work.

(The sound of Bengoodfella being bored to death with the thought of reading a John Clayton column.)

As it turns out, Peppers, who wasn't franchised and will leave the Panthers after free agency starts, is in a no-lose situation even if he doesn't get significantly more than what the Panthers were willing to pay him from 2009 through 2012.

Which seems to be a bit up in the air. The Panthers offered between $13-$14 million per year last summer and didn't even bother negotiating with Peppers this year that much, which should tell any potential suitors something about Peppers.

According to sources, six to eight teams are interested in signing Peppers when free agency starts. He needs to get $34 million over the next three years to equal the money the Panthers were willing to pay him, and that, according to sources, seems easy to obtain.

Again, Peppers is a great player but he turned down a reported 4 year $52 deal from the Panthers last summer and a deal the summer before to make him easily the highest paid defensive player in the NFL. I am not sure how Clayton got the $34 million number because I am pretty sure the offer wasn't constructed to give Peppers $18 million his last season and it was a longer deal than 4 years. Whatever, let's move on...

Peppers' departure from Carolina isn't about the money. Even if he signs for the same money as he would have with the Panthers, Peppers wants to take his game to another level.

One way Peppers can take his game to the next level is to TRY HARD EVERY SINGLE GAME! That's a really good way to do it. Look, I like Peppers and I have no sour grapes about this. He could get 24 sacks this upcoming year and it wouldn't shock me because he can do that. Easily. I am not exaggerating. I think Peppers could get 24 sacks if he really wanted to...but he has to want to, which I don't think he does.

I am not the only one who thinks Peppers takes plays off. I can see Peppers having one good year and then going back to his 10 game "try-hard" schedule with 6 games going through the motions and just generally acting like he doesn't give a shit. That's the upside for Peppers, the fact he will get paid by some team. The downside is he is going to go to a team where he doesn't have UNC Tar Heel fans in the crowd to love him unconditionally because he went to their school and he is going to get called out for some stuff he does (or doesn't do) on the field.

Let's get to Clayton's retarded readers:

Q: For years, something has really bothered me about the draft strategies of NFL teams. If a club has a big, glaring weakness on its roster, why doesn't it use multiple draft picks to address it? I think the Rams should draft two or three quarterbacks, the Bills should draft three or four offensive linemen, the Bears should draft two or three safeties, etc. Sure, you're sacrificing depth, but at least you're taking a bold step to solve a major problem. What gives?

Nathan in Coralville, Iowa

What gives is that this is potentially the dumbest idea I have ever heard. It's the same reason when you have a headache you don't take 30 Advils to take a bold step to fix the whole headache problem. This would be a roster overdose. It makes sense to do this if a team is looking to overhaul a position on the team, but it makes no sense in trying to fix a depth chart problem like not having a clear cut #1 quarterback or right tackle. A team has to allocate its draft picks well and this isn't the way to do this.

As I say, life is not a fantasy draft. Teams just can't pick and choose how to fill a position and worry about trading the players who don't fit in later.

Fortunately, John Clayton explains fairly well why this wouldn't work.

A: Some teams get into trouble by reaching for players to fill needs. To reach twice might be even more dangerous. It may not be a bad idea if the position is deep enough that when the "need" player is available, he ranks among the best players available to a team. Often, that isn't the case. You've seen in recent drafts that safety has been a position without much depth. Drafting two for need could make a team go 0-for-2. It's rare that a draft is deep enough for a team to take two quarterbacks and hope to be successful.

Q: Would it be logical or even possible for a Michael Bush-for-Michael Vick trade because the Raiders need a quarterback and the Eagles released Brian Westbrook?

I don't think this trade would be logical or even possible. The Eagles don't really seem like a team that would want Michael Bush. That's exactly what JaMarcus Russell needs, Mike Vick to mentor him and push him for the starting spot on the depth chart. I would love to see this happen. Maybe then the Raiders could see how Vick scrambles and try to convince JaMarcus Russell to lose 70 pounds and turn into a scrambling quarterback. I would love to watch Vick and Russell work together.

Also, is there any possibility of Peppers going to the Raiders?

A: It makes sense for the Eagles, but it doesn't make sense for the Raiders... Al Davis likes a vertical stretch offense, and he's banking on JaMarcus Russell working hard this offseason and trying to show he isn't a bust.

Please make this happen Mr. Davis. In fact, I want "Hard Knocks" to focus on the Raiders this year and maybe have Vick take Russell out on the town one night.

Peppers would add more pass rush, which is needed. You get the feeling things won't work out well on offense. If that's the case, why not bid for Peppers on defense?

I am not sure I can buy John Clayton's personnel management style of, "our offense sucks so let's just spend a lot of money on defensive players." He said something similar about Peppers in a question in this mailbag about the Bears. It appears John Clayton thinks if a team stinks on one side of the ball, it makes sense to load up on the other side of the ball and spend money there. Rather than spend a ton of money on Peppers, why not find free agents that can make the offense better for the Raiders? You know, so the offense doesn't stink. It's nice to get a defense that is dominate, but why not work on the weak offense and strengthen the defense with the money that could be spent on one defensive player? This is mostly true if you are the Raiders and have a lot of needs on the roster.

Sign a mid-level free agent or two for defense and give Russell some good offensive skill players to work with in free agency or through trade. $16 million or whatever Peppers wants can go a long way. Or does this make too much sense and that is why Clayton doesn't suggest it?

Q: Being a Giants fan, it's obvious that we have holes on defense. Given our great WR depth, do you think we could trade Mario Manningham to the Dolphins for the No. 12 pick?

We have a new submission for "Fan that overrates his team's players WAY too much." Mario Manningham for the #12 pick in one of the best NFL drafts in a few years? Is this guy high or just stupid? Manningham didn't have a terrible year, last year but he is in no way worth a Top 15 pick in the NFL Draft.

We could even add in Jonathan Goff.

Oh, I didn't know the Giants would add in a guy who has a total.............

27 career tackles. Consider this deal done then. A backup wide receiver and a backup linebacker for the #12 pick in the draft. This is they type of deal Bill Parcells would make all the time in the Bizarro NFL.

A: Come on, do you really think Manningham would be valued at the 12th pick in the draft? Clearly, that's overvaluing a receiver who is becoming a backup. At best, he might net a fourth-round choice.

I get the feeling the guy who wrote this question, Leo from New York, doesn't seem well equipped to properly evaluate NFL players or doesn't understand how much value a player may have. Either that, or he REALLY likes Mario Manningham and hopes other NFL teams share his view.

Q: I am a big fan of your work, but I disagree with your belief that the Bills need to draft a quarterback (specifically Jimmy Clausen) this year. You stated the Bills' front office destroyed its O-line, so why would it be wise to put a rookie passer behind one of the worst lines in the league?

Fantastic point. Let's see how John Clayton responds.

A: You're right about the offensive line problems being a factor, but why would the Bills have to start Clausen immediately?

They wouldn't have to, but then the Bills would have passed on selecting an offensive tackle in this fairly good NFL draft and will have to hope they can find an offensive tackle later in the draft, in free agency or in next year's draft. It's fine to sit Clausen with the offensive line still being a huge problem with the Bills, but why not fix the offensive line first? Or you could do both...

They could use Trent Edwards as a bridge to Clausen. I don't think you have to worry about it, because I don't think Clausen will drop that far. If that's the case, the Bills need to draft an offensive tackle.

It's a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Fix the offensive line first or get a good quarterback first. I fall under the "fix the offensive line first" argument. I guess this is why teams have multiple draft picks. They can choose an offensive tackle in the 1st/2nd round or a quarterback in the 1st/2nd round.

Q: What do you think the best-case scenario is for the Eagles this year at quarterback? Do you ride Donovan McNabb out for one more year? As an Eagles fan, I would try to trade him for the most possible value. Kevin Kolb doesn't seem like a good fit as a starter, even though he hasn't had a chance to really prove himself. Vick is a question mark. Is it possible for the Eagles to look at the draft? Maybe someone like Tim Tebow?

Joe in Lindenhurst, N.Y.

I can not wait for Tim Tebow to get drafted by some team, any team, just so fans of every NFL team will quit talking about him as a possibility for their team. It's like a broken record at this point and I want it to stop.

Let's see John Clayton sort of answer the question.

A: The best scenario is to keep McNabb and continue to groom Kolb.

Kevin Kolb has been in the NFL for three years now. Why the hell does he still need grooming? Shouldn't he be ready at this point? After three years of being a backup, his rookie contract is going to run out and the Eagles will have groomed him for another team. I am not saying Kolb is ready to start, but I think all the grooming he needs should be done by now. So either he sucks or he just needs to wait his turn...but no more grooming should be necessary.

Vick doesn't have much, if any, trade value, so I think he will get cut.

John Clayton doesn't realize that nowhere in that question was there a mention of Mike Vick getting traded. I am not sure exactly what question he thinks he is answering when he wrote this.

Q: My question relates to the likely cap-free year. All the focus I have seen so far has been on the cap portion. I'm more interested in the floor aspect. I can see many teams that will lower spending greatly in the event of a cap-free year. What are your thoughts in relation to this?

Les in Perth, Australia

A: The salary-cap floor last season was $111 million. I predict you may see more than a dozen teams not spend to that level.

The NFL: Where it feels like the lockout started a year early.

In fact, I predict payrolls in general will drop $20 million to $30 million per team...More than half the unrestricted free-agent deals will be one-year deals for less than $1 million. Owners will be pocketing a lot of money this season.

Then the owners will be asking the players to pay in money to help pay for stadium expenses when many of the stadiums were funded by tax-payer dollars. It sounds like the owners have some credibility problems in my opinion.

So here is my take on the lockout situation. The owners are going to save a shitload of money this year and use that money for their own personal use. They want the players to help pay for stadium expenses for a team they bought and own because they claim they can't afford to pay for some of these stadium expenses. Boo-hoo. The players obviously don't want to do this, so they may need Congress to force the owners to open up the books to see how much money the owners are making. The only thing we know for sure is the owners are going to make a shitload of money this year because they are preparing a confrontation with the player's union where their main claim is they don't make enough money to run their business.

I think I may be on the player's side on this lockout issue.

9 comments John Clayton Attempts To Name Top 10 Quarterbacks of All-Time Using a Constantly Moving Standard

I don't think I have ever covered anything that John Clayton has written on this site. Acting on a tip from Martin (a thank you to him) in the comments from the Tuesday post that read:

John Clayton has an interesting article up right now on tWWL about the Top 10 Qb's of all time, and by interesting, I mean terrible. It's like reading an article by a 65 year old baseball writer. He does everything but call Brett Favre "gritty". He meanders all over the place, rates guys based on Super Bowl wins...and then doesn't.

So of course I was going to check this article out and read it all the way through...and it turns out Martin is exactly right. Welcome to the blog John Clayton, you have created a movable standard for ranking the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time and that's a good way to get featured here. This should be fun.

I listed what I consider to be the Top 10 quarterbacks in the NFL right now last year, so I have no problem with a writer making lists giving his personal opinion on where players should be ranked. In fact if you search the Internet, you can come up with tons of lists that I probably don't have a problem with that list the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time.

There's this one from 2006 that uses a method which puts Bart Starr 13th, Mark Brunell 23rd, and Craig Morton 26th. Do I disagree with some of these, yes, but at least the guy had a method he used to rank the quarterbacks.

There are even two I found from Bleacher Report, which sometimes isn't the best site to get information from. There was a method used here, and here. In fact the second link from Bleacher Report has a ranking that probably focuses a little bit too much on team statistics like wins and voting for the Pro Bowl, while not actually giving enough points for individual statistics. The method may be off, but it's a method.

Here's another list from 2008. He has Bart Starr and Brett Favre at #2 and #1 respectively on his list. Clearly this list is inaccurate because he states Brett Favre has two Super Bowl rings, which he doesn't, but he didn't use a movable standard so I am too lazy to attack it right now.

My personal favorite Top 10 all-time quarterback last was the anti-Brett Favre list, it made me laugh.

My point is that in making a list of the best all-time quarterbacks, you can't use a movable standard. One player can't be ranked above another player due to Super Bowl rings won, but then discount Super Bowl rings for another player. Enough exposition, let's just check John Clayton's version out.

Peyton Manning and Brett Favre have Super Bowl rings on their minds as they get ready for their respective conference championship games, but both have other things at stake Sunday.

Each future Hall of Famer can enhance his status among the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history.

Super Bowl rings should have an impact when determining the greatest player at quarterback of all-time. I don't think it should necessarily have a huge impact, so just by starting off and saying Manning or Favre can enhance their status on Clayton's list rubs me the wrong way. So because Manning wins 2 Super Bowl rings, he is now better than another quarterback? One (incredibly important, I realize that) game makes that much of a difference? I spoke briefly about this in my Peyton Manning post from a couple days ago and I still feel this way. There is more that goes into a Super Bowl winning quarterback than just the quarterback. Don't me wrong, a quarterback performing well in the Super Bowl is impressive and important, but a Super Bowl is a reflection of the team, not just the quarterback.

Terry Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls, but does this have more to do with the fact he played with one of the greatest defenses ever, great running backs and wide receivers, or because he was personally a great quarterback? I don't have the definitive answer, but I don't think Bradshaw should be ranked above a quarterback who had better regular season numbers because he has more Super Bowl rings than the other quarterback. Of course it seems John Clayton would agree with me since he ranks Bradshaw #9 on his all-time list...but Bradshaw and Bart Starr are the only quarterbacks Clayton doesn't rank using Super Bowl wins as a major component of where he ranks on his list.

I still go back and forth on whether Unitas or Montana should be No. 1, but that's a debate for another time.

Well of course. In a list when comparing where Brett Favre and Peyton Manning rank in the Top 10 all-time of quarterbacks, which lists the quarterbacks in order of their ranking all-time, let's not worry about that whole silly debate of who is #1 all-time. What really matters is that we get the exact positioning of the quarterbacks on the rest of the list correct. Who cares that the #1 quarterback of all-time may not be correct, because we have the rest of the list correct!

(This is pretty typical ESPN thinking by the way...who cares if there isn't complete accuracy in what is being written/reported, at least part of it is factual, that's all that matters)

Currently, I have Favre at No. 5, slightly behind John Elway of the Denver Broncos and ahead of Dan Marino of the Miami Dolphins. If Favre's Minnesota Vikings beat the New Orleans Saints for the NFC title and subsequently win the Super Bowl, it might be time to start thinking about giving him the No. 4 slot.

This is what I call John Clayton's "Super Bowl standard" which he will deviate from fairly quickly.

So what we have here is that Brett Favre isn't as good of a quarterback as John Elway until he also wins a Super Bowl late in his career with a great running back and defense. At that point, once Favre has won another Super Bowl, then and only then will he be better than John Elway. It doesn't matter how Favre performs in the Super Bowl, that ring alone makes him a better quarterback than Elway because he has equaled Elway's Super Bowl ring total.

With a second Super Bowl ring, Favre could pass Elway and start drawing consideration for even a higher ranking.

Nevermind Favre had one of the greatest seasons in the history of the NFL for a 40-year-old, he can only get a higher ranking by winning another Super Bowl. I like how Clayton is using a team achievement like a Super Bowl win to make Elway better than Favre over the history of the NFL, but when Favre's team achieves another Super Bowl victory, this will propel Favre individually past Elway...even though they both have the same amount of Super Bowl rings.

Who cares that Elway was 2-3 in his career in Super Bowls, while Favre is currently 1-1. THAT team statistic doesn't matter. If Elway went 2-8 in Super Bowls in his career while Favre was 1-1, that still means Elway is a better quarterback because Elway has more victories in the Super Bowl. John Clayton doesn't care about how many losses a quarterback has in the Super Bowl, just wins. So John Clayton can't even really keep his team statistic evaluation of a quarterback consistent.

Throw in the fact Elway has been outperformed in the Super Bowl by Favre statistically in every Super Bowl they have each played in, and I think Clayton is being a little arbitrary with his evaluation of Elway over Favre. So even though Favre is a better regular season quarterback than Elway, he has lost (and appeared in) less Super Bowls than Elway, and played better than Elway when given the chance to be in the Super Bowl...he is still not as good of a quarterback as John Elway. Until he wins another Super Bowl of course.

This makes no sense to me. I am not saying I think Brett Favre is a better quarterback than John Elway, I just don't think John Clayton's method of comparing these two in any way makes sense.

Obviously, Favre beats Elway for stats.

This is madness. As I stated the other day in my Peyton Manning post, how can we just ignore the regular season statistics for a quarterback since that contains the largest sample size available to evaluate a quarterback? To make matters worse, Favre has played better in the regular season AND the postseason than Elway, yet dumbasses like John Clayton think Elway is better than Favre because Elway has one more ring than Favre. I know Elway beat Favre head-to-head in the Super Bowl, but if we are comparing these two quarterback shouldn't we compare their performances in this Super Bowl to evaluate which one was better? If so, Favre wins again.

This drives me mad. John Clayton uses team statistics in comparing Elway and Favre to the point he actually doesn't care about ranking these two quarterbacks appropriately in regard to their individual numbers, but based solely on the team statistic of "Super Bowls won." Ranking the best quarterbacks of all-time is an opinion, just have the standard being used stay consistent, that's all I ask.

As great as Elway's arm was, he had a 57 percent career pass-completion percentage. Favre has 62 percent career accuracy playing primarily in a West Coast offense.

I am pretty sure Elway ran the West Coast offense under Mike Shanahan or at least some form of it. So I don't understand what Favre playing in the West Coast offense has to do with anything.

Elway has the edge on Favre for playoff victories (14 to 13), but getting that second Super Bowl ring would put Favre ahead of Elway.

So John Clayton is ignoring nearly EVERY SINGLE INDIVIDUAL STATISTIC that says Brett Favre is better than John Elway and EVERY SINGLE POSTSEASON STATISTIC that says Favre is better than Elway, and focusing on how many postseason wins and Super Bowl wins each has to determine which quarterback was better. AND if Favre matches Elway in Super Bowl victories, then and only then, is he at that point better than Elway on John Clayton's all-time list. This is madness.

I am not saying Favre is a better all-time quarterback than Elway, I am saying the way John Clayton measures whether Elway is better than Favre is not the way to compare the two players accurately.

The Indianapolis Colts' Manning could be the biggest gainer if he gets Super Bowl ring No. 2. Currently, I have him eighth. Tom Brady of the New England Patriots is No. 7. It's such a tough list to put together that I have greats Terry Bradshaw of the Pittsburgh Steelers and Bart Starr of the Green Bay Packers at Nos. 9 and 10, respectively.

This is the John Clayton "this guy was just a better quarterback" standard being used to measure which quarterback should make his all-time Top 10 list. This is the part where Super Bowl victories are not regarded as highly and Clayton starts ranking the quarterbacks based on which quarterback was actually better individually. I think this standard should have been used the entire time to determine the order of the Top 10 all-time quarterback list.

Using John Clayton's original "Super Bowl wins" criteria for the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list both Bart Starr and Terry Bradshaw should be pretty high on the list since they have 6 Super Bowl titles between them. Of course now that Clayton has changed criteria these two quarterbacks are stuck at #9 and #10. A lack of consistency is a real problem with John Clayton's quarterback rankings. He can't seem to decide how to rank the quarterbacks and when he is in any doubt, he just starts using Super Bowl victories to make the final determination.

Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady.

And we are back to the "Super Bowl ring criteria" to decide which quarterback is better.

Getting that second Super Bowl ring would start the debate that Manning is ready to pass Brady. While it can be argued that Brady had more talent around him in New England,

Pretty much anything can argued, it's just whether this can be argued and actually be correct. I don't think Tom Brady had more talent around him than Peyton Manning, but it also doesn't matter to me. I think Peyton Manning is a better all-time quarterback than Tom Brady. There is always the "well, Manning made the players better" argument to discount Manning (and his overall high ranking among the all-time best quarterbacks) compared to Brady, which does make some sense, but Manning has played with Reggie Wayne, Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Edgerrin James, and Brandon Stokely. At least three of those guys are Hall of Fame players or could very well have a Hall of Fame career before their careers are over. I tend to think those players are good in their own right, away from Manning.

Tom Brady has played with Randy Moss, Wes Welker, Corey Dillon, David Givens, David Patton, and Troy Brown. Except for Moss and Welker (both of which were not on any of the 3 New England Patriots Super Bowl winning teams), Brady hasn't had an inordinate amount of talent around him on offense compared to Manning...especially on the three New England Patriot Super Bowl Champion teams. I would still rank Manning over Brady on an all-time list.

Manning's 8-8 playoff record doesn't come close to Brady's 14-4 playoff mark.

John Clayton is impressed with Brady's career playoff record. If Manning wins one more Super Bowl, the fact Manning will have a 10-8 record and one less Super Bowl ring than Brady, John Clayton will completely forget about this Brady's playoff record and the amount of Super Bowl rings he has won and say Manning was the better quarterback. So:

8-8 + 1 Super Bowl ring < 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings

10-8 + 2 Super Bowl rings > 14-4 + 3 Super Bowl rings

Again, this doesn't make complete sense to me.

So the "Super Bowl ring" criteria means everything in comparing quarterbacks, unless it doesn't, in which case the fallback is an arbitrary count of Super Bowl rings compared to a player's regular season career. I say arbitrary because each player can move up in Clayton's rankings based arbitrarily on how many Super Bowl rings he has compared to the player above him.

Brett Favre has to equal John Elway's Super Bowl ring total to pass him while Peyton Manning doesn't have to equal Tom Brady's Super Bowl ring total to pass him. Just a little consistency is all I need.

Like Elway, Manning has seen so many rings slip away.

Elway has lost 3 Super Bowls out of 5 Super Bowls he appeared in, while Peyton Manning has appeared in 1 Super Bowl total. John Elway has appeared in AND lost two more opportunities for a Super Bowl ring than the number of Super Bowls Peyton Manning has ever appeared in.

Elway has had 5 chances in a Super Bowl to get a ring, while Peyton Manning has had one chance in a Super Bowl. There is no comparison between these two in regard to "rings slipping away" because Elway had more chances in the Super Bowl to win a ring than Manning.

Until the Colts' Jan. 16 AFC divisional playoff victory over the Baltimore Ravens, the Colts and Manning had lost three divisional round games after a bye week. Elway had three Super Bowl losses in his first seven seasons.

These are two completely and utterly different things. There is a huge difference in losing in the Super Bowl and losing in the Divisional Round...like two victories in each year's playoff difference. I would say by playing in 5 Super Bowls and winning 2 of them, compared to Manning's one appearance and ring, Elway actually had more rings slip away.

His offensive line might be the least talented in the playoffs. Because of that line, Manning can't count on a consistent ground game to help his play-action passing attack.

Don't tell Gregg Easterbrook this. He thinks the Colts have one of the best offensive lines in the playoffs just by the fact they are in the AFC Championship Game.

It would be easy for Manning to pass Brady on my list if he gets a third Super Bowl ring.

I like how John Clayton is pretty much only comparing quarterbacks using how they fared in the playoffs. Why doesn't he just call it "The Top 10 all-time best quarterbacks in the playoffs in NFL history?" Isn't that what he is doing? Where in this entire column have we seen Clayton compare these players using their regular season statistics? This isn't really a "Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time" list if he is only comparing postseason statistics is it?

In fact, if Manning could win the Super Bowl this year and get one more before he retires, I'd have to consider him for my top three, challenging Unitas, Montana and Graham.

The idea of having Manning pass these guys passed solely on Super Bowl rings is driving me crazy. If Super Bowl rings are SO important to the "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument that a superior quarterback with 1 ring is ranked below an inferior quarterback with 2 rings (unless it is Terry Bradshaw or Bart Starr of course) then just base the entire "greatest quarterback of all-time" argument on Super Bowl rings. Of course John Clayton contradicts his own standard by saying Manning could pass Brady with 1 more Super Bowl ring, which would still give him one less Super Bowl ring than Brady has.

1. Johnny Unitas, Baltimore Colts and San Diego Chargers:
2. Joe Montana, San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs:
Flip these around and they will be accurate. Of course John Clayton has made it clear a list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time isn't the best place to decide who the best quarterback of all-time is. I am not sure when a better time to decide who is #1 would be.

3. Otto Graham, Cleveland Browns:
Under John Clayton's measurement of Peyton Manning's career where he is docked spots in the Top 10 due to his poor career playoff record, I wonder how Otto Graham, who was a stellar 4-3 in his career in the playoffs is #3 on Clayton's list?

4 John Elway, Denver Broncos: He won two Super Bowls in his final two seasons to legitimize one of the NFL's greatest careers. He led the Broncos to five Super Bowl appearances.
I think it is interesting how John Clayton is giving complete credit to John Elway for his 2 Super Bowl victories but not taking away any credit for the 3 Super Bowl losses the Broncos had in the prime of Elway's career. So basically: The 3 Super Bowl losses weren't Elway's fault, but the 2 Super Bowl victories were won because of John Elway. It's always the sign of a good player ranking system where a quarterback gets credit for games won but not blame for games lost.

6. Dan Marino, Miami Dolphins: Marino had one of the greatest arms in the history of the game. It's a shame he went to only one Super Bowl.

And because he went to one Super Bowl, he can't move further up John Clayton's list. It's a shame this entire list is based on what the quarterback did in the postseason.

7. Tom Brady, New England Patriots: His three Super Bowl rings and 14-4 playoff record ranks him ahead of Peyton Manning, but Manning is on the rise.

Oh yeah, that's right. Peyton Manning may have better overall career statistics compared to Tom Brady, but Brady's 3 Super Bowl rings ranks him over Manning. John Clayton will not count Manning's regular season statistics until Manning wins another Super Bowl, at which point John Clayton will then start to count that Manning was a better regular season quarterback than Manning in favor of Manning...but not until he gets that 2nd Super Bowl ring. Got it?

9. Terry Bradshaw, Pittsburgh Steelers: Because the Steelers won their first two Super Bowls relying on the Steel Curtain defense and a solid running game, Bradshaw might have slipped through the cracks among the all-time greats.

So in essence John Clayton is giving credit to other quarterbacks for Super Bowl victories, as if they accomplished it on their own, but he ranks Bradshaw lower than other quarterbacks because of the supporting cast he had around him for two of the Steelers Super Bowl victories.

Actually I am doing a lot of writing when I should just say that any list which doesn't have Steve Young or Fran Tarkenton on the list isn't a Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time list in my mind. Either way, John Clayton has posted a great list of the Top 10 quarterbacks of all-time if you only compared them using postseason statistics and changed the standard by which you compared the players for each player. This was a lazy list by John Clayton that relied too much on postseason numbers and a movable standard.

-One more thing I wanted to show everyone. Everyone who reads this probably knows I greatly dislike Leonard Little and think he has gotten off incredibly easy for his vehicular murder of another driver while he was drunk (and then he drove drunk AGAIN and got caught)...well I saw this tidbit on Profootballweekly.com the other day:

Word out of Rams Park is that the odds are about "60-40" that veteran DE Leonard Little will call it a career. There is also a possibility, however, that Little, an unrestricted free agent, could sign with Carolina. Little lives in Charlotte and would be reunited with former Rams D-line coach Brian Baker.

Leonard Little lives in Charlotte? And I have driven those streets at night innocently without knowing he was on those streets with me? How did I miss this? More importantly, if Leonard Little played for the Panthers, what would my reaction be?

I wouldn't boycott the team, but I also couldn't cheer for him. Fortunately, the Panthers don't seem to be in the market for an old, defensive lineman on the last legs of his career, but the very idea he could be in Carolina has caused me great consternation.

I really, really, really am not a Leonard Little fan.