RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[Oldfan]

I have called RG3 the best QB I have ever seen. I haven't been drinking the Kool-Aid. I never touch the stuff. I grade QBs differently. I grade on physical talent, not on performance. In this post, I have formalized my method into a simple system to make it easier for others to understand.

For the purpose of comparing quarterbacks, performance stats and ratings are useless. However, we can compare them on physical talent.

Introducing the Quarterback Talent Grade (QBTG) --

Definition: "quarterback support" includes receivers, protectors, coaches, scheme, defense and special teams.


The conventional method of grading quarterbacks stinks

Please consider this hypothetical:

Identical twins, Tom and Dave, were born to be high-grade NFL quarterbacks. Physically and mentally, they have identical skill sets. In the NFL draft, Dave unfortunately was drafted by a team that gave him poor support his entire career. Tom was lucky. The team that drafted him gave him outstanding support throughout his career.

You and I know that Tom and Dave are absolutely equal in ability because I told you so. But, how would anyone else know? They won't be able to see it in their performances. And since statistics measure performances, they won't be able to judge from quarterback statistics. Tom's QB rating for his career will be higher; his team will win more games; he will win MVP awards and Super Bowls. Lucky Tom will go into the Hall of Fame, while his identical twin Dave, absolutely his equal at the QB position, will not.

The truth is -- we cannot grade and compare quarterbacks based on their performances.


A more intelligent, but limited way to grade QBs

The only intelligent way to grade Tom and Dave is to learn to grade their skill sets. If we do it right, we should discover that they are equal in talent.

Ordinary intelligence can be measured. The Wonderlic Test is adequate for my purpose. Football is more complex than most fans realize but it isn't rocket science. A very bright guy might learn his assignments faster, but one with an average IQ will learn them just as well in time. Aside from ordinary intelligence, I generally ignore opinions in scouting reports on the mental side of the quarterback's game. I regard them as too often biased and unreliable.

It doesn't matter how important the mental factors are in football -- except for ordinary intelligence, the mental aspects can't be reliably graded. In his pre-game preparation, Peyton Manning has raised the state of the art for QBs. I raise his grade as an exception to my rule. However, Peyton benefits from the smartest, simplest scheme in the NFL which masks his Grade B physical talent to play the position.

Essentially, I recommend grading QBs as a scout would but only on his physical talent -- what he can do with his arm and his legs. We should try to answer the question -- How much of a threat does he pose to defenses when they game plan? Athletic QBs obviously have a distinct advantage in my grading system because they can be more valuable weapons for their offensive coordinator.


I will use a scale of five to keep things simple:

5 -- maximum level talent
4 -- above average
3 -- average
2 -- below average
1 -- minimum level talent for a starting QB

Robert Griffin III, QBTG: Grade 27

4 -- deep passing (small sample)
5 -- mid-range passing
4 -- short-range passing
5 -- throwing on the move
4 -- extending plays
5 -- running threat

Aaron Rodgers, OBTG: Grade 23

4 -- deep passing
4 -- mid-range passing
5 -- short-range passing
4 -- throwing on the move
3 -- extending plays
3 -- running threat

Andrew Luck, QBTG: Grade 22

4 -- deep passing (small sample)
4 -- mid-range passing
5 -- short-range passing
3 -- throwing on the move
3 -- extending plays
3 -- running threat

Tom Brady, QBTG: Grade 16

4 -- deep passing
4 -- mid-range passing
5 -- short-range passing
1 -- throwing on the move
1 -- running threat
1 -- extending plays
[Being able to extend a play within the pocket is my minimum level for a starting QB.]



Since this is not a grade of performance, these grades will change only on further evidence which changes my mind.

The head coach can have good reasons for designing his offense to use a pocket passer like Brady. Pocket passers are easier to find in the draft and they are likely to have longer careers than an athlete-quarterback, for example. But, when comparing them individually, a good athlete-QB represents the greater threat to defenses.

A high grade on talent doesn't guarantee success in the NFL even with good support. There are rare examples of QBs with emotional problems who failed, but we fans can't predict those.

[Redskins Ruckus]

Great post and breakdown. Rex Grossman threw more interceptions last year versus Philly than Robert Griffin III has thrown all year long. The kid is spectacular for this town.

[Chump Bailey]

His talent is undeniable. What truly astonishes me about RG3's game is how fluid-smooth he is when things break down around him. It's as if the guy has another sense or something. He's not 100% automatic in this regard, and it's simply ridiculous to expect that of him, but way more often than not; RG3 does amazing things to extend drives - simply amazing...

[Dallsux]

His talent is undeniable. What truly astonishes me about RG3's game is how fluid-smooth he is when things break down around him. It's as if the guy has another sense or something. He's not 100% automatic in this regard, and it's simply ridiculous to expect that of him, but way more often than not; RG3 does amazing things to extend drives - simply amazing...

It is truly breath-taking, literally & figuratively, to watch him. I find myself holding my breath as the pocket collapses around him & he starts to wander from the pocket with a defender hot on his heels & then...like that, he's down the field, turning a sure sack into a 25 yard gain. It doesn't seem to me that he has blazing speed, but his ability to escape tackles & make great decisiosn is, as you say, undeniable. I still can't believe he wears B&G. I am very thankful he does.

He was nearly perfect yesterday. (of course, you wouldn't know it listening to Billick & his cohort slobbering all over Andy Reid & the Eagles all day).

It was awesome to see him pick them apart like that with relative ease. I hope to see the same kind of effort from the team on Thursday in Dallas.

PLEASE, Redskins, help RG3 beat Dallas! :

[skinsmarydu]

I like your theory, and your conclusion. He's got more natural talent and ability than any QB I've seen as well, and I'm SO happy he's on our team. Yesterday's performance should put all haters/skeptics away. I made a post yesterday about the difference in Sam Bradford's 44 attempts and RGIII's 15...he only HAS to throw it 15 times...he has other weapons, and with our injuries healing, we still have a shot at the playoffs. I don't know what will get me down off the ceiling today. Hopefully, nothing!!
Hail!!

[No_Pressure]

Tom Brady is pretty good at extending plays, he's excellent at making subtle moves in the pocket. He obviously isn't a 4 or 5 because he can't do the things that RG3 can do, but he certainly should not be a 1. Either way, I think any rating system such as this would require a look at how well the quarterback reads and understands defenses, as interceptions- being statistics as you argued, are unreliable indicators of individual ability. RG3 is getting better and better each week at reading the defense in front of him. Andrew Luck is great at that, as is Tom Brady. This is how Peyton Manning would go from being say 17/30 to being 22/35. I mean sure, from a scientific perspective you don't want to try and shape these things to get the results you expect, but if your rating system doesn't reflect reality regardless of the teams around players (i.e. if two rookies look better than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning) then it isn't really all that useful for anything other than generating a number and saying "wow, look at all that talent".

Yes, I understand the idea is to judge them on their raw physical traits alone, but the mental side of the game is what makes Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who they are. If the teams and coaches around Peyton Manning really made a difference I don't think he'd have nearly 3,000 yards, 24 tds vs. 7 ints coming off major surgery this season. Denver is getting it done with DeMaryus Thomas and Eric Decker. They're not bad by any means but I believe they throw the Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne making Peyton look good stuff out the window huh? When two of the greatest passers of all time don't rate as highly as two (albeit highly talented) rookies, I don't know what the use of such a rating system is other than to make us feel good. The only current great QB I can think of who would grade out the way he's supposed to in this system is Aaron Rodgers, who would likely be something like 5,5,4,4,4,3 for 25/30. Still not as highly rated as Griffin. It's hard to say whether or not he would be the QB he is in another city however.

[Oldfan]

Tom Brady is pretty good at extending plays, he's excellent at making subtle moves in the pocket. He obviously isn't a 4 or 5 because he can't do the things that RG3 can do, but he certainly should not be a 1.

Being able to make those subtle moves within the pocket is my minimal level.

Either way, I think any rating system such as this would require a look at how well the quarterback reads and understands defenses, as interceptions- being statistics as you argued, are unreliable indicators of individual ability.

Impossible to grade.

RG3 is getting better and better each week at reading the defense in front of him. Andrew Luck is great at that, as is Tom Brady. This is how Peyton Manning would go from being say 17/30 to being 22/35. I mean sure, from a scientific perspective you don't want to try and shape these things to get the results you expect, but if your rating system doesn't reflect reality regardless of the teams around players (i.e. if two rookies look better than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning) then it isn't really all that useful for anything other than generating a number and saying "wow, look at all that talent".

What you are calling reality isn't reality. It has has been shaped by performances which cannot be separated from team support. Talent has nothing to do with experience or growth in the scheme.

Yes, I understand the idea is to judge them on their raw physical traits alone, but the mental side of the game is what makes Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who they are.

Sorry, but I don't believe that. Brady and Peyton's reputation is bolstered by their support systems.

If the teams and coaches around Peyton Manning really made a difference I don't think he'd have nearly 3,000 yards, 24 tds vs. 7 ints coming off major surgery this season.

Why not? He's using the same scheme he's played in for years. The scheme is a big support factor. He has a better defense than the Colts had to help him win games also.

[No_Pressure]

Being able to make those subtle moves within the pocket is my minimal level.

Impossible to grade.

What you are calling reality isn't reality. It has has been shaped by performances which cannot be separated from team support. Talent has nothing to do with experience or growth in the scheme.

Sorry, but I don't believe that. Brady and Peyton's reputation is bolstered by their support systems.


Why not? He's using the same scheme he's played in for years. The scheme is a big support factor. He has a better defense than the Colts had to help him win games also.

Again, what is this being used for other than a circle jerk where we learn that RG3 is the greatest QB of all time? What does any of this matter? If the grades reflected the subsequent performance of the QB then it would be fine, and if your rating system could be A. Quantified in any way rather than giving subjective numbers to support a player's attributes, or B. Used to predict whether or not X player has what it takes, then it would be useful for anything at all. What is the function of this? What is the application? Michael Vick was maybe a 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5 in his prime. That gives him 25 points. That puts Michael Vick as a more talented player than Peyton Manning. Does anybody other than Michael Vick believe that Michael Vick is more talented than Peyton Manning?

Also, since you're making your observations of individual physical ability based off samples which come from observing these players playing football, and therefore playing as parts of an offensive system and depending on other players, your observations are inherently tainted by something as simple as an offensive coordinator's desire to showcase a player's ability in one area vs. another. We run RG3 all the time. Michael Vick, as many will remember from the Falcons was probably every bit as fast and elusive as RG3, only Andy Reid has decided not to allow Vick to get killed by doing designed runs (but rather having him sit stationary behind a terrible offensive line). Andy Reid has not been showcasing Michael Vick's running ability, and as a result, if your sample on Vick is from the past 2-3 years one might conclude that he is a 2-3 in running threat and extending a play, even though his actual physical ability is much higher. Maybe a player's sample comes from the west coast offense and even though they have a deep arm like Jeff George, they're not really showcasing that fact because they're good on short completions and YAC as part of their philosophy, therefore he gets a 4 in deep throws because you don't see it very often, therefore he must not do it all that well, right?

This is all so subjective and none of it has any application which is helpful in predicting or discussing anything of importance. It is merely a thread for us all to read and gawk at how good RG3 is in every number of areas. We don't need a chart to prove that.

[Oldfan]

Again, what is this being used for other than a circle jerk where we learn that RG3 is the greatest QB of all time? What does any of this matter? ...

It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way.

[skinnyskins]

It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way.

Meh. I would say it's a way to judge a limited number of subjective criteria that doesn't paint the full picture of the criteria needed for a complete QB.

[No_Pressure]

It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way.

Okay, so you want a different way to judge a quarterback. If your system is dependent upon your own opinions based off what you see that makes it nothing more than conjecture. Again, what is the purpose- or should I say, the application of this? How are we going to take your system and use it to better understand the world of football? Or are we just going to use it to point out that RG3 is as awesome as we already know he is? We already know this number is not an indicator for how well a QB will do, it isn't even a good measure of potential since JaMarcus Russel would probably rate higher than a lot of quarterbacks (and we know now that the fact that he was a lazy idiot doomed him before he even got started). This isn't an indicator of anything. It doesn't show anything or explain anything. If your point was that great quarterbacks are the product of great teams then sure, I agree to a certain extent without even getting into the whole chicken and the egg argument. It's just that we don't need some rating system to highlight that fact.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

Oldfan, you're actually underrating RGIII. A 4 on deep passing? I take it you didn't watch him in college, where he was pretty much the most accurate deep passing prospect ever. A 4 on extending plays? I'm just nitpicking, but you give him a 4 on what are probably his strongest areas. Brady is probably a 2 on the mobility related aspects, and Luck is probably a 4.

You're definitely right, RGIII is the best QB ever in terms of skillset; he's pretty much the Sean Taylor or Megatron of QBs.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, you're actually underrating RGIII. A 4 on deep passing? I take it you didn't watch him in college, where he was pretty much the most accurate deep passing prospect ever. A 4 on extending plays? I'm just nitpicking, but you give him a 4 on what are probably his strongest areas. Brady is probably a 2 on the mobility related aspects, and Luck is probably a 4.

You're definitely right, RGIII is the best QB ever in terms of skillset; he's pretty much the Sean Taylor or Megatron of QBs.

I don't use the college game at all in my grading. Example: a good set of college WRs can separate and adjust to make the QB look better than he really is. Not that easy in the NFL.

On the deep throws, I will compare him to Donovan McNabb who I gave a five. If he's comparable to Donovan, I'll raise his grade.

But, hey! Your opinion counts as much as mine. I hope you're right.

[The Robert Griffin Experience]

I don't use the college game at all in my grading. Example: a good set of college WRs can separate and adjust to make the QB look better than he really is. Not that easy in the NFL.

On the deep throws, I will compare him to Donovan McNabb who I gave a five. If he's comparable to Donovan, I'll raise his grade.

But, hey! Your opinion counts as much as mine. I hope you're right.

Well, the 4 seems like just hedging your bets. You really have to look at RGIII's ball placement. For example, look at where he places the ball on the 61 yard bomb to Moss. While Moss made a great play to get in position to make the catch in traffic, the DBs really had no chance at making the play, unless Moss flat out gives up on the play. At best, Boykin gets a hand on it, but there was pretty much zero chance of an INT.

A lot of RGIII's incomplete deep balls, RGIII has excellent ball placement but the WR simply fails to make the play. And most deep balls, unless the WR is wide open as Robinson was (which was another brilliant deep pass, hit him perfectly in stride, even if Asomugha had blanketed him it's probably still a TD, it was that well thrown), the WR still has to make a play in the air.

The best deep ball throwers are the ones that can throw into double coverage and allow the WR the best chance to make the play.

[Oldfan]

Well, the 4 seems like just hedging your bets.

I don't agree. On a small sample, a 4 seemed fair.

You really have to look at RGIII's ball placement. For example, look at where he places the ball on the 61 yard bomb to Moss. While Moss made a great play to get in position to make the catch in traffic, the DBs really had no chance at making the play, unless Moss flat out gives up on the play. At best, Boykin gets a hand on it, but there was pretty much zero chance of an INT.

A lot of RGIII's incomplete deep balls, RGIII has excellent ball placement but the WR simply fails to make the play. And most deep balls, unless the WR is wide open as Robinson was (which was another brilliant deep pass, hit him perfectly in stride, even if Asomugha had blanketed him it's probably still a TD, it was that well thrown), the WR still has to make a play in the air.

The best deep ball throwers are the ones that can throw into double coverage and allow the WR the best chance to make the play.

I judge deep throwing on several factors, but the most important is accuracy, on a small sample size, I've seen a couple of underthrown balls and a couple overthrown. But judging by trajectory, the touch looks good and the arm strength is there.