Rittenberg Ranks the B10 QB's

Newsome at ten?  He might be #2 or even 3 on his own team.

Marve ahead of Tate/Denard is a joke.

This list will look a lot different (from a Michigan fan's perspective) at year end. 

I understand us being near the bottom considering all the drama, but behind Adam Weber?  Isn't the dude coming off an abysmal season?

This is how I see it for preseason::

1. Tolzien - Good QB that doesn't make mistakes
2. Cousins - Solid pocket passer, decent mechanics, good arm
3. Stanzi - too many ints, else would be #1
4. D-Rob/Forcier - Expect big strides
5. Pryor - Honestly underperforming given what's been around him
6. Chappell - Might be inflated because of wtfPistol yards
7. Marve - Think this guy could be pretty good
8. Weber - LOL ints
9. Persa - Yeah no
10. Penn St - What QB?
11. Scheelchase - This guy could have Brees' accuracy and Manning's arm and STILL lose 10 games with the team he's on.

But I can't see where he's too far off - except putting Weber ahead of Tate/Denard.

We'll see how that one plays out.

Pryor has had exactly ONE good game from start to finish. He's been on a fantastic team, but as a QB, he's not as good as Stanzi or Tolzien, IME.

Why the slash?  Are Denard and Tate the same person?  I understand he only wanted to rank starters, and we don't "know" who will start for us, but treating them as the same person throws into question the credibility of this list, at least wrt Michigan.  It might not affect the top 3 or 4, but if he doesn't want to commit to who he thinks will start, how can he commit to their ranking?

this'll list be about as useful as bug spray in Iceland by the time the season's over...

The no. 1 job of a quarterback is to win games. All these guys will rise or fall based upon how their team does.

All that Tate, Denard or Devin need to do is help Michigan win and the rankings will take care of themselves.

If you read his reasons for the rankings it says that past performance and team success was a major component, no doubt Pryor is #1 in that case. I don't know how we could put Tate/Denard much higher without seeing sucess this year. Until we see it, its just hope from our perspective.

I've already been through this exercise so my opinion is known, but ranking Stanzi #2 is a straight up joke. He is more liability than asset at this point in his career. Maybe he'll be better this year, but that'll probably still be a long way from good.

Once I saw that, the list is a non-starter.

He lead the Bucks in rushing last year with almost 800 yards, and he's the conference's 7th leading returning rusher. His passing hasn't been phenomenal, obviously, but he hasn't really needed phenomenal passing numbers for OSU to win.  I don't see how he doesn't make a Top 3 given his track record and the fact he's going into his 3rd year starting.

He already puts incredible pressure on a D with his legs. If his passing game improves (he looked pretty good in spring game)  that pressure only gets ramped up.

I think if you ask Defensive coordinators around the league who they fear most, I think Pryor would be at the top of most, if not all of their lists.

IMHO this is worthless - yes it is based on past performance but I care this upcoming season - these rankings will look a lot different a year from now.

People love Marve for some reason, despite the fact he had a meh first season at Miami and kept running into off-the-field issues ranging from arrests to troubles in the classroom.  If he is even as good as Elliott was last year, then he'll be a great addition to Purdue, but I have my doubts. 

Stanzi and Weber are the only other guys I would question, since Weber lost the only good receiver he had in Decker and Stanzi, for all of his "love it or leave it" chutzpah, had exactly 2 more TDs than INTs in a low-pressure situation and may well be asked to carry a bigger load with the losses on defense. 

What's really striking to me here is that it looks like a rather mediocre set of QBs in the Big Ten this year when you look at the names all listed together. For instance, of the top 4, we have two rather inconsistent talents in Stanzi and Pryor and two solid but not great QBs in Cousins and Tolzien.

Based on starters alone and how I expect them to do this year, I might rank them like this:

1. Pryor assuming that the Oregon game was a sign of progress as opposed to a fluke. Not a great passer, but a very dangerous all-around threat.

2. Cousins. Put up the best stats in the conference last year despite an ordinary line and mediocre running game. As a junior, has more room to grow than Stanzi, Tolzien, or Chappell.

3. Tolzien. Was helped a lot by a strong line and running game, which he will have again this year. He should be at least as effective as he was last year.

4. Forcier/Robinson. Forcier was serviceable as a banged-up true freshman with ordinary talent around him. He's almost certain to be better, and Robinson may well be even better than that.

5. Chappell. More accurate and less error-prone than Stanzi even if he doesn't make as many big plays.

6. Stanzi. Too many picks, and only Weber was less accurate last year. He had to carry the offense due to the lack of a running game. He should have better RBs around him this year (they can't all get hurt every year) but a much weaker OL in front of him.

7. Marve assuming he has indeed made big strides since his awful freshman year at Miami. From here on down, we have question marks instead of solid starters. Marve could be much better or much worse, but 7th is a best guess.

8. Persa. Played ok in limited duty last year.

9. Weber. Easily the worst starting QB in the league last year and he's a senior, so I would not expect big improvement. Most of his offense returns for what it's worth, but Decker is gone.   

10. Scheelhaase. He couldn't have been as bad as Newsome was in the spring.

11. Newsome. He may eventually be good, but for this season I'd rather have Threet.