http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000...tround-qbs

I think that list will likely shift a bit if Goff, Mahomes and maybe Watson do what many expect them to do, but I'd love to see Blake live up to this. 

Bortles has been the target of plenty of criticism over the years, but don't forget that he is the only player on this list with multiple playoff wins -- and he nearly reachedSuper Bowl LII. Offensive coordinator Nathaniel Hackett is a wonderful coach, and I think Bortles will continue to make strides under his tutelage. I just see something in Bortles, a smart guy who had to really learn the position after spending his college years on a run-centric UCF team. Losing receiver Allen Robinson to the Bears via free agency is tough. Still, he should take another step forward in 2018 and put doubts about his quarterbacking ability to rest. 

---

Seen this the other day. Or Blake could move up a few spots if he helps lead us to a SB

---

This confuses me. All the fantasy gurus have Mahomes rated really high well above the likes of Trubisky and Bridgewater who Gil has listed ahead of Mahomes.

Also. while I agree with Wentz being #1, I'm thinking Watson needs to be #2 here. ...not #5 behind Blake.

At least from a fanstasy perspective I'd say...

1. Wentz
   
2. Watson
   
3. Goff
   
4. Winston
   
5. Mariota
   
6. Bortles
   
7. Mahomes
   
8. Trubisky
   
9. Bridgewter
   
10. Lynch
    
11. Manuel
    
12. Manziel
    

---

'02

This confuses me. All the fantasy gurus have Mahomes rated really high well above the likes of Trubisky and Bridgewater who Gil has listed ahead of Mahomes.

Also. while I agree with Wentz being #1, I'm thinking Watson needs to be #2 here. ...not #5 behind Blake.

At least from a fanstasy perspective I'd say...

1. Wentz
   
2. Watson
   
3. Goff
   
4. Winston
   
5. Mariota
   
6. Bortles
   
7. Mahomes
   
8. Trubisky
   
9. Bridgewter
   
10. Lynch
    
11. Manuel
    
12. Manziel
    

It's not confusing at all if you assume Brandt is taking sample size into account here. 

Nearly anyone would tell you that Mahomes projects to play better than Bortles as the coming seasons unfold. 
A few less (but still many) feel the same about D Watson.  But the sample size for both of them is ridiculously small. 

I'm not completely sold on Watson yet, personally.  Still has more to prove for me. I wouldn't be shocked to see the better defenses "figure him out" to some degree.

---

This is almost as bad as the other dude who completely left Bortles off his top 32 QBs list. Well ok not almost that bad, but still bad. Gotta be honest with our dudes both ways.

Giving Bortles a big boost simply because he was drafted years earlier and thus has a sample size doesn't make any sense.

If you put all of these QBs in the draft right now there is no way Bortles gets drafted earlier than 8th from that list.

---

This confuses me. All the fantasy gurus have Mahomes rated really high well above the likes of Trubisky and Bridgewater who Gil has listed ahead of Mahomes.

Also. while I agree with Wentz being #1, I'm thinking Watson needs to be #2 here. ...not #5 behind Blake.

At least from a fanstasy perspective I'd say...

1. Wentz
   
2. Watson
   
3. Goff
   
4. Winston
   
5. Mariota
   
6. Bortles
   
7. Mahomes
   
8. Trubisky
   
9. Bridgewter
   
10. Lynch
    
11. Manuel
    
12. Manziel
    

From a fantasy perspective:

You are assuming that Watson won't get injured like he did last year. We only have one year to evaluate his durability and it wasn't good, not to mention any residual decline he may have from last season's injury. He also will face defenses that have had enough film to evaluate and find any weakness in his game if there is one.

In the league I play in Bortles was the #12 fantasy QB in 2017. In his bad 2016 season he was still top ten in fantasy points for a QB. Among the recent 1st round picks, only Wentz and Goff were ahead of him in fantasy points in 2017, and Wentz may not be ready when the season starts.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

This is almost as bad as the other dude who completely left Bortles off his top 32 QBs list. Well ok not almost that bad, but still bad. Gotta be honest with our dudes both ways.

Giving Bortles a big boost simply because he was drafted years earlier and thus has a sample size doesn't make any sense.

If you put all of these QBs in the draft right now there is no way Bortles gets drafted earlier than 8th from that list.

It's the old "proven vs unproven" dynamic. It makes plenty of sense. Plenty of these types of lists and rankings this time of year use it. Plenty of others don't. 

Just because you'd prefer an equation without that factor to form such a list doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense." 
You weigh sample size less than Gil Brandt does.   That's all.

---

It's the old "proven vs unproven" dynamic. It makes plenty of sense. Plenty of these types of lists and rankings this time of year use it. Plenty of others don't. 

Just because you'd prefer an equation without that factor to form such a list doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense." 
You weigh sample size less than Gil Brandt does.   That's all.

If it was a good sample sure. But it's two seasons of awful and two seasons of average via two very different routes.

Hoping for increased success from a small/unknown sample is more likely than hoping for increased success from a 4 year sample ranging from mediocre to way below mediocre.

I still strongly stand by what I said, if all of these QBs were thrown into the draft Bortles goes no higher than 8th (not including the current draft eligible QBs obviously).

---

Blake still has some growing to do but for the first time in his career I think his future as a NFL quarterback is in good hands based on the structure around him.

---

It's the old "proven vs unproven" dynamic. It makes plenty of sense. Plenty of these types of lists and rankings this time of year use it. Plenty of others don't. 

Just because you'd prefer an equation without that factor to form such a list doesn't mean "it doesn't make sense." 
You weigh sample size less than Gil Brandt does.   That's all.

If it was a good sample sure. But it's two seasons of awful and two seasons of average via two very different routes.

Hoping for increased success from a small/unknown sample is more likely than hoping for increased success from a 4 year sample ranging from mediocre to way below mediocre.

I still strongly stand by what I said, if all of these QBs were thrown into the draft Bortles goes no higher than 8th (not including the current draft eligible QBs obviously).

The bolded is simply your opinion and includes nothing definitive on the topic.  It's a reasonable take, but clearly there are plenty of folks including (the sometimes wacky) ol' Gil Brandt that don't necessarily agree that logic is a hard and fast rule. 

I do think most folks would indeed  (knowing what we know now)  draft Bortles somewhere in the 6th-8th range if all those QBs were magically in the 2018 draft.

It also doesn't hurt that the most recent part of that Bortles sample you are downplaying included a good 6 games of
above-average play - suggesting and upward trend.

---

But it's not opinion. Any probability stats course shows that a small or unknown sample is far more likely to result in a positive result than a large sample that has shown consistent mean or lower results on their respective future rolls.

And no I don't care about a 6 game sample, good or bad. That's minuscule. I will always downplay that.

---

But it's not opinion. Any probability stats course shows that a small or unknown sample is far more likely to result in a positive result than a large sample that has shown consistent mean or lower results on their respective future rolls.

And no I don't care about a 6 game sample, good or bad. That's minuscule. I will always downplay that.

LOL

I don't think Gil Brandt took that statistics course.  And yes, it's absolutely an opinion. We aren't talking about probability and "future rolls."  We are talking about human athletes and analysis of their on field performance. 

The degree to which you depend upon statistics to form or defend an opinion is absolutely astounding sometimes. 
 Not everything is math. Sometimes you watch a guy play football, then watch another guy play football and just decide which one you think is better. 

Besides all of that - your clear bias against Bortles shines through in your attempt to defend that opinion you think is something more than that.

---

But it's not opinion. Any probability stats course shows that a small or unknown sample is far more likely to result in a positive result than a large sample that has shown consistent mean or lower results on their respective future rolls.

And no I don't care about a 6 game sample, good or bad. That's minuscule. I will always downplay that.

LOL

I don't think Gil Brandt took that statistics course.  And yes, it's absolutely an opinion. We aren't talking about probability and "future rolls."  We are talking about human athletes and analysis of their on field performance. 

The degree to which you depend upon statistics to form or defend an opinion is absolutely astounding sometimes. 
 Not everything is math. Sometimes you watch a guy play football, then watch another guy play football and just decide which one you think is better. 

Besides all of that - your clear bias against Bortles shines through in your attempt to defend that opinion you think is something more than that.

 you make a great point and I'm glad your opinion is objective when it comes to this situation.

---

I'm actually pretty excited to see how Blake kicks on this offseason.

Last year he had to get those mechanics right and fight for his job (was very touch and go).

This year he has some modicum of security contract wise, has showed he can perform well in the playoffs and has another year with this offense + receivers.

He can really start working on his craft, fine tuning certain throws and adding some extra parts. I think we'll see his arm look more like the 2015 version too.

---

I dont know all his seasons are consistently average only different last year is his attempts got cut down. What about all the downs we cant complete passes single coverage when the box is loaded?

---

No Fun

Wow, just checked, Gil Brandt is 85 now. Still going strong.

---

Season Ticket holder since 2004.

 

        

But it's not opinion. Any probability stats course shows that a small or unknown sample is far more likely to result in a positive result than a large sample that has shown consistent mean or lower results on their respective future rolls.

And no I don't care about a 6 game sample, good or bad. That's minuscule. I will always downplay that.

I don’t disagree with your conclusion for the most part, but your stat work is confusing.

I think your first point is a bit misleading for 2 reasons.

The first is that the variables for each player change too much from season to season. I don’t know if they are really equivalent populations to draw conclusions from. I think people look for trends, at the moment Bortles would be difficult to predict.

The second reason is the danger of small/ unknown populations. Exploring potential solutions is always good, but I don’t agree that they are more likely to end in success unless you have a well controlled process. A humans ability to play football over years is often out of control.

---

I think Blake will have his best year as a pro in the 2018 season. Continuity is extremely important for a QB and for the first time in his career, he will have that. I'm not just talking about having an OC for 2 straight years.

2015. Lights up the stat sheet but Olsen doesn't let him train with House for some odd reason.
2016. Struggles mightily, Olsen fired midway through the season. Marrone hired as HC.
2017. New OC in Hackett but did get to work with House
2018. Same OC. Same off season workout. More weapons. Better Oline.

I think we will see just how good he can be this season.

---

I think Blake will have his best year as a pro in the 2018 season. Continuity is extremely important for a QB and for the first time in his career, he will have that. I'm not just talking about having an OC for 2 straight years.

2015. Lights up the stat sheet but Olsen doesn't let him train with House for some odd reason.
2016. Struggles mightily, Olsen fired midway through the season. Marrone hired as HC.
2017. New OC in Hackett but did get to work with House
2018. Same OC. Same off season workout. More weapons. Better Oline.

I think we will see just how good he can be this season.

Also should be the best line he's worked behind by a healthy margin.

---

I think Blake will have his best year as a pro in the 2018 season. Continuity is extremely important for a QB and for the first time in his career, he will have that. I'm not just talking about having an OC for 2 straight years.

2015. Lights up the stat sheet but Olsen doesn't let him train with House for some odd reason.
2016. Struggles mightily, Olsen fired midway through the season. Marrone hired as HC.
2017. New OC in Hackett but did get to work with House
2018. Same OC. Same off season workout. More weapons. Better Oline.

I think we will see just how good he can be this season.

Also should be the best line he's worked behind by a healthy margin.

I can't wait to see how great Norwell and Linder play side-by-side. I imagine they'll be among the few able to handle Aaron Donald and Ndamukong Suh should they face the Rams in the SB.

---

'02