RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[Mahons21]

Okay, didn't know where you were going with that.
I think evaluating skillset is different form evaluating performance.
If performane is to be judged it must be derived from a grade not from traditional counting stats.

I agree, but I don't think skill set is synonymous with level of talent (not trying to imply you do). Rather I think your skill set helps determine your potential, what you make of your potential though is on you, and is what I would consider to be an accurate measure of talent.

Sorry I'm doing a poor job communicating my point on my phone I'll post from home later.

[cphil006]

My fault. I've confused you. Let me reword that paragraph, so that it is clear.

In my hypothetical, the twins Tom and Dave would have the talent to run the no huddle equally well. However, since he is given better team support, Tom's performance would look better. And it is on the appearance of a better performance that the opinion of the bandwagon would be based.

I understand that. Now lets's get back to reality. For those that follow football, Tom Brady is one of the top three QBs in the league. Or do you think that's a biased opinion?

[greenspandan]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101)

this is why both "QBTG" and ESPN's "Total QBR" will never amount to anything more than someone's opinion.

[Oldfan]

Is it just me or does the purpose of this thread seem to be less about pumping up the awesomeness of Bob Griffin, and more about knocking down Tom Brady (for whatever reason). Maybe that wasn't the original intention--maybe--but that's definitely where it's at now.

I'm not knocking Brady, I'm knocking the unintelligent approach to grading QBs that overrates him and others like him because they play with superior support advantages.

I am curious though Old Fan, how does Romo score out on your system?

I haven't put numbers on Romo yet. I'll do that when I have the time.

I

[cphil006]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101)

this is why both "QBTG" and ESPN's "Total QBR" will never amount to anything more than someone's opinion.

I agree... that's why I'm shaking my head about this thread.... I think TS's going in circles with how complex and accurate he declares it is, yet it's entirely based on his own skewed, subjective and loose opinion.

[cphil006]

I'm not knocking Brady, I'm knocking the unintelligent approach to grading QBs that overrates him and others like him because they play with superior support advantages.

I

you make this too easy. How intelligent do you grade your own approach considering it's extremely subjective. Do you watch and then grade and how much film do you have access to? Do you take every deep ball into account that's he's thrown whether it's wide-open or in single or double coverage?

So you think that Tom Brady is overrated? I'm wondering what superior support he has?

[Oldfan]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101).

Which is better an intelligent, subjective grading or a stupid, objective one?

My grades are subjective, but based on visible evidence. Differences in grades can be intelligently debated.

[skinnyskins]

Why do you assume that all bust QBs would score highly on my grading? How did that conclusion come about? In fact, I can't see any on your list that I graded highly.

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

Since this is subjective, Ill go ahead and apply the rankings to some of those players listed to show the flaws in the system:

Jamarcus Russel - 20
4 - Deep Passing
3 - Mid Passing
3 - Short Passing
4 - Throwing on the run
3 - Extending Plays
3 - Run Threat

Vince Young - 19
2 - Deep Ball
3 - Mid Ball
2 - Short Ball
4 - Throw on the run
4 - Extending Plays
4 - Run Threat

Colt McCoy - 19
2 - Deep Ball
3 - Mid Ball
4 - Short Ball
4 - Throw on the Run
3 - Extending Play
3 - Run Threat

Eli Manning - 13
4 - Deep Ball
3 - Mid Ball
3 - Short Ball
1 - Throw on the run
2 - Extending Play
1 - Run Threat

Peyton Manning - 17
3 - Deep Ball
5 - Mid Ball
5 - Short Ball
1 - Throw on the run
2 - Extending play
1 - Run Threat

[greenspandan]

Which is better an intelligent, subjective grading or a stupid, objective one?

My grades are subjective, but based on visible evidence. Differences in grades can be intelligently debated.

all i'm saying is both your and espn's ratings boil down to plain old opinion (well supported or not). a statistic can certainly be misleading, but at least it is guaranteed to be objective by definition.

i object to ESPN's marketing of their opinion as an alternative to statistical measures such as the old fashioned QB rating. one is a number, the other is commentary.

[Oldfan]

you make this too easy. How intelligent do you grade your own approach considering it's extremely subjective. Do you watch and then grade and how much film do you have access to? Do you take every deep ball into account that's he's thrown whether it's wide-open or in single or double coverage?

So you think that Tom Brady is overrated? I'm wondering what superior support he has?

I grade like a scout. Scouts grade differently. Mine is based on visible evidence only. Other knowledgeable posters can debate with me if they disagree. Some already have. But, primarily we see pretty much the same things.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:06 PM ----------

all i'm saying is both your and espn's ratings boil down to plain old opinion (well supported or not). a statistic can certainly be misleading, but at least it is guaranteed to be objective by definition.

i object to ESPN's marketing of their opinion as an alternative to statistical measures such as the old fashioned QB rating. one is a number, the other is commentary.

It's not an objective method. If you can come up with an objective method that makes sense, you will get rich.

Football scouts give their subjective opinions based on their experience. I'm doing the same. Others on this board are very capable of checking my work. A few have shown up in this thread.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:27 PM ----------

Since this is subjective, Ill go ahead and apply the rankings to some of those players listed to show the flaws in the system:

You didn't show a flaw in my method. You showed you don't grade QBs very well. EXAMPLE: Besides a low Wonderlik grade, which would have disqualified him in my grading method, Vince Young has terrible mechanics, even worse than Jason Campbell's as a rookie.

Your grades would not withstand, critical judgment by knowledgeable posters.

My thread has already drawn four very knowledgeable posters who are perfectly capable of spotting serious flaws in my grading. A few thought my four should have been raised to a five on RG3's deep ball. Our difference of opinion was due to the fact that I based my judgment on NFL not college plays.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:39 PM ----------

I understand that. Now lets's get back to reality. For those that follow football, Tom Brady is one of the top three QBs in the league. Or do you think that's a biased opinion?

I think you only have that opinion because you are unable to grasp the idea that a QB's performance is powerfully affected by his team support.

I think you jumped on a bandwagon opinion without thought.

[BobGriffin]

I think whats missing is that intangibles cannot be quantified. That's what separates top ten busts and all-pros. If you look at the majority of the top qb pics within the past decade they will all score highly.

[NLC1054]

I understand that. Now lets's get back to reality. For those that follow football, Tom Brady is one of the top three QBs in the league. Or do you think that's a biased opinion?

Thing about Oldfan is, he already thought Tom Brady was an overrated quarterback, and that you could slip a guy like Marc Bulger into his shoes and get the exact same production. He already thought Tom Brady was a system quarterback more bolstered by the head coach he feels is the best in the NFL than by any sort of talent. He already thought Jay Cutler was the best quarterback in the league from a raw physical standpoint and said we shouldn't settle for anyone but someone who matched his exact physical profile.

He thought all this BEFORE he even knew about Robert Griffin III. He was lukewarm on the whole idea of trading up, and I do believe he concerned him a run-first guy, and he barely watched any of him at Baylor.

Oh, but NOW Robert Griffin III matches all his specifications, and that makes RGIII the best quarterback in the league. As someone who was on the RGIII bangwagon far before Oldfan, Robert's the most gifted, athletic quarterback to be drafted in a long time, and his development is lightyears ahead of where any of us thought it'd be. And he's STILL not the best quarterback in the NFL. At least not yet.

Because if this was really a fact based analysis stripped of analysis on who the best quarterback in the NFL was, Aaron Rodgers----who fits ever physical talent characteristic Oldfan claims he values---would rank first. Not RGIII.

Aaron Rodgers---29
---------
5- Deep Passing
5- Mid-range passing
5- Short-range passing
5- Throwing on the run
5- Extending plays
4- Running threat

But don't expect Oldfan to actually respond to this. I guess that's what I get for asking him to ignore my post. But if you're looking for an example of why this is bull****, Aaron Rodgers is it.

He just felt the opportunity to slag on Tom Brady was good.

[Oldfan]

I think whats missing is that intangibles cannot be quantified. That's what separates top ten busts and all-pros. If you look at the majority of the top qb pics within the past decade they will all score highly.

The top picks don't all score highly. For example, a pocket passer like Tom Brady could not possiblly score as highly on his talent with both arm and legs as Robert Griffin. But if a team designs a scheme for a pocket passer, they will ignore mobility scores.

Intangibles are important, but there are no experts in what can't be seen, IMO.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 06:16 PM ----------

Out of curiousity (and you may have already answered this as I only loked on the first page), what do you define as "extending the play"?

I only ask because you gave Brady a 1, and I'd like to respectfully disagree, provided I have the same definition. I view extending the play as moving around to keep defenders from being able to sack you. I'd give Brady at least a 2 or maybe a 3 based on the movement in the pocket. He and Peyton are amazing at moving slightly in the pocket to extend the play long enough for a receiver to get open.

If you define it differently though, as being able to run, then I agree with you, and would suggest adding a "pocket presence" category, because that's also a critical aspect of being a QB.

As an example, let's compare Ben Roethlisberger, Tom Brady, and RG3. All three can "extend a play" IMO. Brady does it through moving around in the pocket. Ben does it mainly from being made of concrete and being unable to be tackled, and RG3 does it with his mobility. Based on your grading scale, I would give Brady a 3 in that, Ben a 4, and RG3 a 5. If there were a pocket presence category, RG3 would grade a little lower, probably a 3, Ben around a 3 and Brady a 5.

Input?

Being able to extend the play in the pocket is my minimum requirement. I give it a one. If the QB is an absolute statue, I could give it a zero I suppose. But most QBs develop some ability to extend a play within the pocket.

Brady 's ability to do it gets hyped because his fans have to find some explanation for his outstanding performances. They can't claim that it's because he has a better skill set.

Pocket presence is a vague concept, and since it's vague, people can claim expertise they don't have to assess it.

I watch footwork in the pocket. Tom Brady has a bad habit of throwing off his back foot even when not forced to do it by pressure. I noticed it before hearing Belichik with a microphone on him castigating Brady for it when Brady didn't seem to want to hear it. "Step into your throws!" Belichik reminded him impatiently.

Some QBs can get away with throwing off the back foot. Brady can't. His ball floats.

[Hitman21ST]

Being able to extend the play in the pocket is my minimum requirement. I give it a one. If the QB is an absolute statue, I could give it a zero I suppose. But most QBs develop some ability to extend a play within the pocket.

There should be a difference though between "minimum level talent" and "minimum requirement" though. I agree that most QBs should be able to extend the play in the pocket. But look at John Skelton or Kevin Kolb - they don't have that ability. Their pocket awareness is nonexistent. That should be the "minimum level talent". Moving around in the pocket to extend the play (a la Brady or Manning) should be around a 3. Manning I might even give a 4 to, because his pocket awareness is outstanding. He steps up when need be, he does those subtle moves that help make a great QB.

Brady 's ability to do it gets hyped because his fans have to find some explanation for his outstanding performances. They can't claim that it's because he has a better skill set.

Pocket presence is a vague concept, and since it's vague, people can claim expertise they don't have to assess it.

It's not really that hard to assess. Does he climb the pocket when he should? Does he move left or right to avoid the pass rushers within the pocket? If so, then he gets a good grade. If not, then he doesn't.

I watch footwork in the pocket. Tom Brady has a bad habit of throwing off his back foot even when not forced to do it by pressure. I noticed it before hearing Belichik with a microphone on him castigating Brady for it when Brady didn't seem to want to hear it. "Step into your throws!" Belichik reminded him impatiently.

Some QBs can get away with throwing off the back foot. Brady can't. His ball floats.

And if I were arguing for footwork, then you would have a point. However, being able to extend the play inside the pocket has nothing to do with footwork in the setting you are talking about. Vick's ability to extend the play is great. His footwork is lousy. That doesn't lessen his ability to extend at all though. Same with Brady. However bad his footwork is, he can extend plays with his moving in the pocket.

[Mahons21]

Regarding what weight to give mobility v passing:

I'm not sure quite how to weight them universally. To accurately weight them, one would first need to know what scheme said QB would be running (as all scouts do).

As you've stated, the mobility of a QB in lets say the NE offense, is essentially meaningless. Side note I'm a big believer that Ryan Mallett is going to be stud one day in that offense, it suits him perfectly.

Regarding methods of how to evaluate QBs accurately, I've come up with an idea of my own, let me know what you guys think.

First we must understand that to evaluate QBs in the method I'm about to put forth, you either need an infinite amount of time or to be a football analyst.

I think you'd have to watch every snap a QB takes that isn't a designed RB rush. First you must grade the difficulty of the play, a curl v a cover-3 isn't going to get you a good grade here, but a corner route v cover-2 certainly will. RG3's scramble for a first on that 3rd down v Philly would get a high score of difficulty. I would grade this on a scale of 1-3.

I would then look at how successful said QBs were on these plays, but not the outcome of the play itself. If a QB delivers a perfect bucket throw that someone drops, said QB isn't going to be graded poorly for said play. On the other hand, if a QB has success on a play he shouldn't I would deduct points, ie RG3 throwing into double covergage going for a TD. I'd give this play a 3 for difficulty, but then deduct a pt for the poor decision, putting it in with the intermediate level 2 plays.

Once all these statistics are compiled I would look at the success rate of each QB on the three different levels.

Hypothetically:
Brady is successful on 85% of level 1 plays, 80% on level 2 plays, and 45% on level 3 plays.
I'd then compare these statistics between QBs and arrive at my own subjective ranking.
Now please feel free to tear it my method fellas , try and take it easy if you can.