RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[cphil006]

I think the QB position is vastly overvalued, thus all QBs on winning teams are overrated including Peyton. To me the man is remarkable for getting the absolute maximum perormance from limited talent. He's not a great passer. But, that weakness is masked by the fact that he was given a very smart NFL scheme by Tom Moore which he's still using in Denver.

http://smartfootball.com/offense/pey...-colts-offense

You say Peyton Manning is not a great passer?

We can tell you why Peyton Manning is a great passer. Can you tell us why he is not a great passer?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

So what makes Tom Brady not great? Do you feel Tom Brady is not elite? Overrated?

I don't know enough to make that claim, I was simply pointing out that players can be good and still be overrated. To my untrained eye, I think Brady is good or great, but I know that Oldfan spends a lot more time looking at these things than I do.

[Oldfan]

Pray tell why Tom Brady is overrated and not great. Is this the arguement you stand by?

My argument has been made that he i overrated. Your comprehension and acknowledgement is not within my control.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:10 PM ----------

...We can tell you why Peyton Manning is a great passer. Can you tell us why he is not a great passer?

Well, I could do that, but it would require a half hour of my time and you have a closed mind so I won't bother. I can also tell you why you think he's a great passer. It's because you base it on his performance which has been enhanced by great support, a very smart scheme in particular.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

You say Peyton Manning is not a great passer?

We can tell you why Peyton Manning is a great passer. Can you tell us why he is not a great passer?

Can we all agree that he's not a good Papa John's pitch man?

[Oldfan]

Brady is tied for the second highest career passer rating of all time (96.8) (minimum of 1500 attempts). But, OF doesn't care because he has his personal opinions and is smarter than the collective knowledge of the world.

I don't care because bogus numbers don't interest me. The OP explains why they're bogus, and you have not tried to counter that argument -- a wise decision on your part.

[cphil006]

My argument has been made. Your comprehension and acknowledgement is not within my control.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:10 PM ----------

Well, I could do that, but it would require a half hour of my time and you have a closed mind so I won't bother. I can also tell you why you think he's a great passer. It's because you base it on his performance which has been enhanced by great support, a very smart scheme in particular.

Questioning my intellect via comprehension is interesting, but having no basis takes it to another level. You're funny. I believe you dug yourself in a hole and are too stubborn to climb out.

Your arguement is Brady is not great. Your support and proof for that theory is nonexistent.

Your arguemnt for Manning would have potential, but scouts picked him to be the best QB in the draft before they knew what "scheme" he would run... it was based on his talent (not your athletic rating) including potential. Ryan Leaf had his based on "talent" including his throwing... and he didn't pan out, not because he was given a crappy scheme, but because he simply wasn't a great QB.

I seriously scratch my head along with 99.9% of the world on your position that Tom Brady is not great and neither is Peyton Manning. While myself and others have pointed to factual proof why our position stands, you've failed to present any evidence to backup your stance.

[cphil006]

I don't care because bogus numbers don't interest me. The OP explains why they're bogus, and you have not tried to counter that argument -- a wise decision on your part.

The OP is your post. You say it's bogus in your post. But, do you ignore his incredible accomplishments because it doesn't help your arguement. How can it be bogus if it actually happened?

[NLC1054]

That's not the point he made, brother. And you know how much I respect you and if not you should, and I think you're a smart dude. I think the overall negative feeling towards Oldfan is making you overlook the points being made. He's unorthodox and can certainly rub people in a poor way at times, but I don't think that's his goal. He's a smart guy and he thinks outside the box. I'm not sure that type of thinking should be frowned upon as much as it is. It's different, for sure.

I understand what he's saying on the surface. I can agree with that.

What I fundamentally disagree with is his claims that you could drop anyone into the Patriots system and they'd instantly be just as good as Tom Brady is. That goes beyond the simple assertion that Tom Brady gets too much credit for the teams success, which is a reasonable thought.

He's gone beyond that. He's said that guys like Marc Bulger and Kyle Orton could just as easily be Hall of Famers if they'd been lucky enough to be drafted by Bill Belichick. That's not me creating a strawman argument, that's what he's actually said. And that's the main point of contention I have. It discredits Tom Brady's entire body of work as purely part of the system that Belichick built. If Brady is a "Grade-A Pocket Passer", that means he'd consider guys like Bulger and Orton Grade-A pocket passers too. It either means that, or the only reason Brady is a grade-A pocket passer is because of the system, and if you removed him from that system he'd be far worse than he is.

It casts Tom Brady as an interchangeable part of the Patriots machine.

And everyone brings up Matt Cassel as the ultimate example of how and why Brady is an overrated quarterback and that anyone could run the scheme, without realizing how tightly managed Cassel was in 2008, or the fact that he got to sit on the bench and learn the system for three years; this isn't a rookie coming off the bench.

Cassel's wins came again the 2-14 Chiefs (when he came in to relieve Brady after he got hurt), 9-7 Jets (that he would lose to later that season), 7-9 49ers, 8-8 Broncos, 2-14 Rams, 7-9 Bills, the playoff bound Dolphins, 4-12 Seahawks, 5-11 Raiders, and 9-7 Cardinals (who did end up in the Super Bowl, somehow).

His completion percentage in those 11 wins was 67.0, and he threw 18 touchdowns. In the 5 losses, all of which were against teams with winning records, his completion percentage was 60% and he threw three touchdowns. That doesn't even speak to the fact that he had 6 games where he didn't throw a touchdown at all.

Cassel relied on the system far more than Brady ever did. And yet Cassel is constantly the guy bought up to discredit Brady. He was tightly controlled and heavily managed in every aspect of his game. Tom Brady has much more control over the offense than Cassel ever did, particularly from 2009 on forward as they moved to more and more no huddle and sugar huddle offensive strategies.

The offense, for all intents and purposes, is still Tom Brady's. He calls the plays, the audibles, he changes the offensive line protection. And Belichick (and McDaniels) have a hand in it, no doubt, but Brady's decision making, his ability to diagnose defenses and his accuracy are huge pluses that should not be ignored. Cassel was the exception, not the rule, and not even a particularly great exception once you actually break down the actual numbers and look at how different the play calling was with Cassel in the game compared to how Brady controls the game at the line of scrimmage.

I loved RG3 back when Oldfan still wasn't sure if we should draft him. I think he has the potential to be one of the best quarterbacks ever. I do not think Robert Griffin III is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. From a pure, physical standpoint? Yeah, he is. And yes, I get that's all this grading system is supposed to be about, the physical. But the part that bugs me and others is that he insists because RG3 has better physical attributes, that equates to him being more talented, which flat out makes him a better quarterback period.

And then, he throws out every other measure of how we judge quarterbacks. We can't use stats because they don't tell the whole story. Okay, fine. We can't accurately talk about his decision making because we don't know what decisions he's making. We can't talk about other quarterbacks, because usually the quarterbacks we bring up fall victim to the "he's only what the system makes him" argument as well. Every argument bought up as a reason to question his scouting method is thrown out as not worthy, until the only thing that remains is his way of doing things.

The league's history is littered with the dead careers of men who were physical marvels and workout warriors and had all the physical traits in the world, who ultimately bombed because they didn't have it between the ears, just as there guys like Tom Brady and like Peyton Manning and like Matt Schaub that don't have all the physical tools but make up for it with knowledge of scheme and ability to break down the defense, and maybe they may not run a whole lot or be super athletes, but they are no less capable of making outstanding plays.

His system from grading quarterbacks is fundamentally flawed and based on a bias he held before he even thought Robert Griffin III would be in burgundy and gold.

I get what he's saying. I fundamentally disagree with it. I don't agree with throwing out information you don't like and coming up with an "outside the box" formula to fit around a preconceived notion.

[KDawg]

All you've pointed out is Tom Brady recieves too much credit. Does he? How so?

He had an entire team around him in each of those Super Bowls. Including very good defenses and a sound offensive line. He also had a tremendous coaching staff centered around Belichick including Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis. Brady is often said to have "won" the Super Bowls. When reality is that he helped to win them. The fact that people say he won them makes him overrated.

Bellicheck receives most of the credit, yet he couldn't do squat in Cleveland.

This logic is used often. But remember what Belichick did in Cleveland (with a host of others, including his staff and his players).

He joined the team after the 1990 season, where the team went 3-13. He went 6-10, 7-9, 7-9 and 11-5 in the next four seasons. '95 was supposed to be THE year. And then Modell announced he was moving the team to Baltimore. I'd like to see anyone succeed under those conditions.

Furthermore, here are the guys who were on his Cleveland staffs:

Kirk Ferentz - Iowa HC
Jacob Burney - Redskins DL
Chuck Bresnahan - Former DC
Rick Venturi - Former DC/Interim Head Coach
Jim Bates - Former DC
Scott O'Brien - NE ST Coach
Mike Sheppard - Former OC, Current JAX WR Coach
Ernie Adams - NE Football Research Director
John Settle - Former CAR RB Coach
Nick Saban - NCAA National Champion, Alabama HC
Eric Mangini - Former HC/DC

And that's not saying anything about Pioli or Newsome.

Are you going to argue that he didn't have a profound effect on the landscape of the NFL, and wasn't successful in the least in Cleveland? I'd say he did slightly more the "squat"

so I've at least damaged the "support" arguement to a degree.

I'm not sure you have. I'll show you why:

Richard Seymour - 3x All-Pro
Ty Law - 2x All-Pro
Wes Welker - 2x All-Pro
Adam Vinatieri - 2x All Pro
Logan Mankins - 1x All Pro
Matt Light - 1x All Pro
Stephen Gostkowski - 1x All-Pro
Rob Gronkowski - 1x All-Pro
Jerod Mayo - 1x All-Pro
Randy Moss - 1x All Pro
Asante Samuel - 1x All-Pro
Mike Vrabel - 1x All-Pro
Rodney Harrison - 1x All-Pro

Keep in mind that's just All-Pros. And that doesn't include Wilfork, Bruschi, McGinest, Izzo, Brown, Dillon, Waters, Woody.

I'd say that's a pretty awesome support cast. Some of them are from the Super Bowls they lost... But to say he didn't have a support cast isn't valid (and to say, in turn, that these guys weren't supported by Brady would be asinine as well).

Even if he had a support system, he's a great and elite QB, that much I know and challenge anyone to present an arguement to the contrary.

Agreed. But not according to a PHYSICAL TRAITS model. Physically, he's not. Through the eyeball test he certainly is.

that he deems is a true measure of a quarterbacks greatness.

He never said that. This is something that you've made up, to be honest. He says it's their physical grade, but he says he can't predict someone's overall greatness because he can't separate performance individually versus team. He never said his system is a true measure of a quarterback's greatness. When you use that as an argument, you're arguing with yourself.

OF and people who post to these boards are not.

Which would include you, correct?

And how do you know people on this forum aren't "experts"?

Are you now saying that OF is smarter than all 50 of those people

In certain ways? Sure, why not.

not to mention the parade of coaches, fans, and GMs that would also agree that Brady is awesome at what he does?

Have you read these forums? Do you think anything a fan has to say, in general, is a valid backer to any argument? I wouldn't.

However, he is a very special player and deserves credit where credit is due.

Agreed.

I

f you want to argue it was Belichick all along then please remember that he flopped in Cleveland without a player like Brady.

See above response to cphil.

Also, nearly every OC and receiver has failed when they left NE for other opportunities and didn't have Brady to rely on (to be clear, Im not saying that Brady is the sole reason for NE's success, but he is a major reason).

Or, to play devil's advocate, Belichick

Not to mention, a player can win (and deserve to win) awards and championships and still be overrated. Success doesn't disprove someone being overrated.

Exactly.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:53 PM ----------

He's gone beyond that. He's said that guys like Marc Bulger and Kyle Orton could just as easily be Hall of Famers if they'd been lucky enough to be drafted by Bill Belichick.

He hasn't said that here, though. And I don't remember him saying that, but that certainly doesn't mean he hasn't said it.

or the only reason Brady is a grade-A pocket passer is because of the system, and if you removed him from that system he'd be far worse than he is.

To be fair, we don't know either way if that's the case.

but Brady's decision making, his ability to diagnose defenses and his accuracy are huge pluses that should not be ignored.

On a full-scale quarterback scale, you're correct. But again, Oldfan's point is that he can't as a fan grade everything else accurately. So he ONLY grades the physical. I can't speak for his past claims.

I do not think Robert Griffin III is a better quarterback than Tom Brady. From a pure, physical standpoint? Yeah, he is. And yes, I get that's all this grading system is supposed to be about, the physical. But the part that bugs me and others is that he insists because RG3 has better physical attributes, that equates to him being more talented,

Glad to see you get it.

which flat out makes him a better quarterback period.

Maybe you don't. I'm not sure he ever said that, to be honest. If he said it, I'm sure he means within the physical grading system.

And then, he throws out every other measure of how we judge quarterbacks. We can't use stats because they don't tell the whole story. Okay, fine. We can't accurately talk about his decision making because we don't know what decisions he's making. We can't talk about other quarterbacks, because usually the quarterbacks we bring up fall victim to the "he's only what the system makes him" argument as well. Every argument bought up as a reason to question his scouting method is thrown out as not worthy, until the only thing that remains is his way of doing things.

It is his grading scale.

His system from grading quarterbacks is fundamentally flawed and based on a bias he held before he even thought Robert Griffin III would be in burgundy and gold.

Stick to this premise and debate this. Not the Brady thing. The Brady thing is besides the point. Stick to WHY grading just the physical stinks, and help come up with a way to grade the mental without any "insider" knowledge. We, as fans, don't possess that. But I agree. His measure will never tell you the whole story.

I get what he's saying. I fundamentally disagree with it. I don't agree with throwing out information you don't like and coming up with an "outside the box" formula to fit around a preconceived notion.

Nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the hang up on one point. Dispute the system, not his subjective analysis

[cphil006]

He had an entire team around him in each of those Super Bowls. Including very good defenses and a sound offensive line. He also had a tremendous coaching staff centered around Belichick including Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis. Brady is often said to have "won" the Super Bowls. When reality is that he helped to win them. The fact that people say he won them makes him overrated.

This logic is used often. But remember what Belichick did in Cleveland (with a host of others, including his staff and his players).

He joined the team after the 1990 season, where the team went 3-13. He went 6-10, 7-9, 7-9 and 11-5 in the next four seasons. '95 was supposed to be THE year. And then Modell announced he was moving the team to Baltimore. I'd like to see anyone succeed under those conditions.

Furthermore, here are the guys who were on his Cleveland staffs:


Agreed. But not according to a PHYSICAL TRAITS model. Physically, he's not. Through the eyeball test he certainly is.


He never said that. This is something that you've made up, to be honest. He says it's their physical grade, but he says he can't predict someone's overall greatness because he can't separate performance individually versus team. He never said his system is a true measure of a quarterback's greatness. When you use that as an argument, you're arguing with yourself.

On the contrary... He starts off the thread with RG3 is the "greatest QB he's ever seen" and he tells why: He's got the highest athletic score according to his "talent grade" rating which is really his own measure of athletic ability at the QB position. So he correlates greatest of all time with the highest score on his rating system.

In certain ways? Sure, why not.

Have you read these forums? Do you think anything a fan has to say, in general, is a valid backer to any argument? I wouldn't.

Or, to play devil's advocate, Belichick

Exactly.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 01:53 PM ----------



He hasn't said that here, though. And I don't remember him saying that, but that certainly doesn't mean he hasn't said it.

To be fair, we don't know either way if that's the case.

It is his grading scale.

Nothing wrong with that. I just don't understand the hang up on one point. Dispute the system, not his subjective analysis

You pointed out that Brady had Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel... was Brady good because of them or are they considered good coaches because of Brady? They haven't really had much success elsewhere without Brady's coat tail to grab onto, have they? And even those coaches have changed over the years. I'm not arguing that Bellicheck is a good coach, it's the arguement that he claimed Brady is not great. Brady will go down as one of the greatest QB to ever play.

Even if Brady had a wonderful supporting cast. You can tell from his play, results, and watching him, that he is a great QB.

You're giving reasons why he had a supporting cast (although his defense doesn't really impact him as much as you're giving them credit), but no reasons as to why he's not a great QB? Does he not have a good long ball? inaccurate passer? can't check-down reads? can't handle pressure? any physical trait besides he can't run a 4.4? Anything concrete?

[Jumbo]

I wrote this below during a break, and right after the unedited post #348. I'm posting this now, though, and then will read what i missed while writing.

Great posts Mahon21 and KDawg and a number of others (NLC makes some good counterpoints, though with his frequent testiness---he's like a younger, more irascible Oldfan).

On the single point being most chewed-upon, even as a huge Peyton/Brady fan myself, I see much reasonableness (and even more logic) in OF's long time position on the exaggeration of QB talent in isolation, and have thought much the same for a long time. I don't think I am as "extreme" as he is in evaluation of it's degree, but I'm a lot closer than I am farther away. I also do it (the exaggeration effect) myself.

Remember, it is a cliche even among pros that the QB usually gets more credit and more blame that he should.

Many arguments and views (in fan/sports stuff particularly) are more emotionally driven than not---which doesn't mean that's all they are, it's just a big factor most of the time. Emotionalism and reactivity (many personality traits) stand out to me like dried blood does to luminal, including in written and other non-verbal communication).

What makes for stand-out repetitive success in pro football is so complex, with so many variables, that (for instance) even when you succeed all the way to the pinnacle of football coaching and land an NFL HC position, you can fail notably....and yet still get another try or two, partly because people know how variable things can be.

Or you can be rated and drafted a #1 QB by a huge consensus of fans/pros and fail. Or be rated a #6 and have outstanding success and a HOF career. It's very unlikely that it was simply so many knowledgeable and experienced observers misjudging the talent as "excellent" when it was apparently "not even good" or that it was all "misjudging" when a player player declared "a bottom round choice" was really a "HOF level" talent. Systems, coaches, owners, other players, schedules, luck, etc. all play HUGE roles in anyone's repeated success, even the QB. We all know this, I think.

There's SO many intertwined variables involved in repeated success in the NFL (whether of a player, team, or coach), significantly including runs (in length and times of occurrence) of good or bad fortune. It's all part of why pro football is the greatest team sport ever devised by man (in my analysis).

OF's actual scale is a fine effort IMO, and he is submitting it for modification if he feels a criticism passes his scrutiny (which can be a struggle). It's more of a fun thing to me, than some serious thing to let myself get pissy over in an argument about--but I think the IDEA is meaty enough and a great topic.

As I posted a couple weeks ago, though I had been keeping my feel firmly on the ground RG3-wise, I haven't seen a rookie QB (including Marino or Newton <who I don't think should be mentioned in Marino's class, but that's another story > show all the QB skills at the level he has (to the best I can evaluate such) in fifty years of watching this game from a fairly intelligent vantage point. Right now, I would say he has better QB skills than Brady (not sure about Peyton yet, overall--which is weird to even be saying) and is behind only in experience. I can only imagine the individual ceiling on this kid.

So I agree with OF's basic view/ranking of RG3, but what I mostly agree with is his comment about how hard it is to keep up with the sharper tacks (or "young bucks") in the forum. That makes me smile.

[Oldfan]

...What I fundamentally disagree with is his claims that you could drop anyone into the Patriots system and they'd instantly be just as good as Tom Brady is.

That's never been my position.

He's gone beyond that. He's said that guys like Marc Bulger and Kyle Orton could just as easily be Hall of Famers if they'd been lucky enough to be drafted by Bill Belichick.

Bulger yes. Orton no.

If Brady is a "Grade-A Pocket Passer", that means he'd consider guys like Bulger and Orton Grade-A pocket passers too.

Bulger yes. Orton no.

It either means that, or the only reason Brady is a grade-A pocket passer is because of the system,

No, it doesn't because I grade on his skill set, not his performance.

and if you removed him from that system he'd be far worse than he is.

His performance? Of course -- unless he went to a team offering him equal support. His skill set would travel with him, naturally

It casts Tom Brady as an interchangeable part of the Patriots machine.

It depends on who replaces him. The guy could be better or worse.

And everyone brings up Matt Cassel as the ultimate example of how and why Brady is an overrated quarterback and that anyone could run the scheme, without realizing how tightly managed Cassel was in 2008

Brady hasn't been tightly managed?

I don't agree with throwing out information you don't like and coming up with an "outside the box" formula to fit around a preconceived notion.

I don't either. What worthwhile information did I unnecessarily throw out?

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 02:38 PM ----------

The OP is your post. You say it's bogus in your post. But, do you ignore his incredible accomplishments because it doesn't help your arguement. How can it be bogus if it actually happened?

I don't "say it's bogus" in my OP, I argued that performance stats and team accomplishments are bogus for the purpose of grading QBs. Deal with that argument first and then we can move on.

[skinnyskins]

[/COLOR]I don't "say it's bogus" in my OP, I argued that performance stats and team accomplishments are bogus for the purpose of grading QBs. Deal with that argument first and then we can move on.

Since you believe this then how can you even begin to compare players? I find it hard to believe you watch every snap of every game and review tape of prospects coming out of college. You give arbitrary rankings based on what, your gut feeling after watching highlights on tv?

I don't believe individual player stats paint the entire portrait of what a player brings to the table, but most metrics are certainly better than YOUR gut feeling and this 'talent' indicator. Some metrics out there are better than others. I know you are aware of FootballOutsiders as you have used their DVOA in a previous post so you have some level of respect for their statistics. Although I don't expect you to care what these statistics say, it might be useful for intelligent people that take all information into account before jumping to a conclusion to see what actual professionals have to say on the subject.

FootballOutsiders has Brady at #1 in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2012 (#3 in 2010) in their DVAR system. This is a ranking that judges player value based on their replacement vs the league average, adjusted for opponent and situation; a great indicator to remove bias and use actual numbers, tape analysis, and scoring to judge a player and what they contribute to their team. Here is a link to explain the system (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/info/methods#dyar), and here is a link to the rankings (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/qb2012).

[KDawg]

You pointed out that Brady had Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel... was Brady good because of them or are they considered good coaches because of Brady?

Now you're starting to get it.

They also haven't had much success without Belichick.

Is it totally unrealistic to believe that synergistically they ALL helped each other succeed? I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility.

I'm not arguing that Bellicheck is a good coach, it's the arguement that he claimed Brady is not great. Brady will go down as one of the greatest QB to ever play.

We're really cooking now. Can you tell me, right now, that Tom Brady could WITHOUT a doubt go somewhere else and have the same kind of success that he had with New England? f so, how do you actually know?

I'll answer with my opinion. YeI believe he could have success. But not to the same level. Belichick helped him grow and used him appropriately. In turn, I think Brady helped to aide Belichick's plan to win multiple Super Bowls. Truly a symbiotic relationship.

On the flip, I can tell you that while I think Belichick would have been good without Brady (I think his improvement in Cleveland proved that point, to be honest, despite the constant shelling he gets for his Cleveland days) I'm not sure he's AS successful as he is now without him. I doubt he has the same kind of success.

You're giving reasons why he had a supporting cast (although his defense doesn't really impact him as much as you're giving them credit)

I call bull doo doo here. How does a defense not effect an offense? Field position, score, turnovers, etc. How does a special teams not effect both units? How do offense/defense not effect Special Teams? Again, everything is symbiotic.

but no reasons as to why he's not a great QB? Does he not have a good long ball? inaccurate passer? can't check-down reads? can't handle pressure? any physical trait besides he can't run a 4.4? Anything concrete?

You're confusing my position. I never said he wasn't. I was merely telling you why your argument won't work against Oldfan. He's not talking about the same things you are, and in turn, you CAN'T win this argument because you're arguing a totally different point.

Where you can get some headway is talking about the actual system and how to revamp it. Maybe you could come up with ways to help evaluate the mental aspect of the quarterback in a way that fans have access. But arguing his premise, which he has always claimed as his, about his specific grades isn't going to be a discussion that can be won by you. Giving him ways to evaluate better can be a debate that is won.

[Jumbo]

Synergism in these matters (and again, fortune plays a role in that ) is HUGE. Agree with every word, KDawg. (I am also a big fan of Football Outsiders).