RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[NLC1054]

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.

The thing about it is, unless you're obstruficating, nothing on the mental side of things should be "insider" knowledge if you have an working internet connection and any will to learn the game.

It's true that all your average fan has access to see, or the will to see, is stats. And it's true that stats don't tell the whole story. But they do a better job of painting an overall picture of a quarterback's performance than relying purely on physical traits

What we have here is Oldfan saying that performance doesn't matter, basically because a quarterback's performance will be heavily influenced by the system and the coaches around him. The issue is that it treats a quarterback as merely another cog in the wheel.

It doesn't take insider knowledge to know how heavily Tom Brady (I know I keep hammering on Brady but I'm not defending him so much as making a point) influences the offense, particularly over the course of the last 3-4 years. The Patriots didn't even have an offensive coordinator in 2009 and 2010. Brady was, for all intents and purposes, calling his own plays.

It only takes a Google search to understand how the Patriots no huddle system works. The Patriots system is, basically, a hybrid between the Air Coryell and Run and Shoot systems that revolves heavily around a two-tight end personnel package. Brady will call a play in the huddle, but the play he calls in the huddle might be completely different once they get to the line of scrimmage. When they approach the line of scrimmage, Brady diagnoses the coverage and has to determine who's blitzing, who's dropping. He then has to communicate to his offensive line the correct protection scheme. Then, based on the coverage, he has to communicate to his receivers what the proper route to run is, and trust that his receivers know what adjustments to make based on the coverage.

In the run and shoot, routes can basically change on every different coverage. Not just on hot routes, but just a route tree in general. It's a ton of information for a quarterback to process, and Brady has to communicate all of that information to the offense before the ball is snapped. He has complete control over the offensive huddle, with the latitude to change plays and audible and change almost every aspect of the offense on the field. Particularly in the no huddle, or the "sugar" huddle.

When Cassel was in the game, the offense the Patriots ran in 2008 didn't look much like the historic offense than was on the field in 2007. Oldfan asked if Brady is not tightly controlled. I say no, he's not. He references one instance in which Belichick informed Tom Brady (who was playing in his first game since coming back from his ACL and was getting a little "restless" in the pocket, shall we say) to set his feet and throw the ball as proof that Brady is tightly managed. The Patriots relied on a more run centric, play action based passing attack with Cassel, which featured Cassel rolling out and throwing a lot more screens (which is saying something, because the Pats are a pretty screen heavy team), with shorter, less complicated routes and less audibles.

The same can be said of Peyton Manning and how he ran the offense in Indy and how he's slowly adapting to the offense in Denver while he works in conjunction with Mike McCoy.

Grading on physical stats is a bad measurement because it ignores too many other factors. It removes applicable data to a quarterback's talent level to come to a conclusion that is easily disproved by the number of physical specimen's who straight up busted. Quarterbacks who are better athletes do technically allow an offensive coordinator to do more in an offensive scheme in terms of what routes you can run and that kind of thing, but if you don't have it between the ears, or your unwilling to stay in the pocket, it doesn't matter how good you are physically.

Michael Vick (at least until Robert came along) was the most physically gifted quarterback in the NFL. Pound for pound, in raw arm strength terms, he might have the best cannon in the game, and we all know how dangerous his legs are. But he still has a tendency to want to bail out of the pocket if a play takes too long to develop. In 2010, it seemed like he'd shaken then habit. In 2011, the habit came back. He leaves big plays on the field because he trusts his legs more than he trusts what he sees in the passing gain. So he may scramble and make a spectacular looking play based on his athletism, but he'll leave a potential touchdown on the field because he didn't want to hang with the play.

The same can be said of Cam Newton.

It can be stated that the systems and support systems around these two guys aren't the most stable at the moment (it was much more so in 2010 and 2011 than it is in 2012), but when you watch tape or watch the games and watch them critically instead of as a mere observer, as athletic as those two are, they leave the kinds of plays on the field that a Tom Brady or a Peyton or Eli Manning or Matt Schaub or Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees can't and don't. None of those guys are the kind of athletes as Cam and Vick, and perhaps that forces them to focus more intensely on the passing game.

It's also hard to knock those quarterbacks for playing in more quarterback friendly systems when Carolina basically adopted Auburn's offense to make Cam comfortable and Vick is playing for Andy Reid, who allegedly has this great knack for designing a quarterback friendly pass offense that many quarterbacks like A.J Feeley and Jeff Garcia and Donovan McNabb and Kevin Kolb have flourished in. Someone like Cutler was locked into a stringent system under Martz where he couldn't audible or dictate his own plays. Now with Mike Tice and Jeremy Bates who has far more freedom and latitude, and yet he still makes the same sort of boneheaded decisions.

And now it looks like Blaine Gabbert, who was supposed to be the prototype for what athletic young quarterbacks should be, is going to be usurped for a job by Chad friggin' Henne.

Sometimes the problem with being more athletic, is that your whole life, you've been able to "out-athlete" someone. To get away with things that people who aren't the same kind of athlete you are. The hard lesson of the NFL is that you have to learn to get out of the mentality if you want to succeed. For the guys who aren't athletes, you have to make up for the lack of legs with the lack of arm with something else.

Physical traits are just a bad way of evaluating a quarterback's ability, unless you already have an idea in your head that those who are more athletic are always going to be better, regardless of how they perform on the field. Ultimately, how quarterbacks perform on the field is all that matters. The role of the quarterback in a team's success is indeed exaggerated, but it's important, and having a really, really good, smart quarterback, sometimes, is better than having the more athletic quarterback.

Luckily it seems like RG3 is both.

[Oldfan]

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).

I'm a member on that site. Have been for quite a while.

I have been disappointed with them lately. They used to have a disclaimer on their individual stats warning for example that their metric didn't rank McNabb, it ranked Philly's offense with Mcnabb at QB. In other words, they recognized that they couldn't separate the QB from his team. They don't have the disclaimer anymore but the problem didn't go away.

I use the team stats as fairly reliable. The unit stats, I'm not sure about but they are probably decent, but the individual stats should be junked.

You can tell the QB stats are unreliable because, when a QB moves from team to team, there is a wide fluctuation. If the stat was grading the QB alone, his DVOA shouldn't have those wide fluctuations.

Here's an example which also supports my argument on the positive effects of the Patriot's support system on QB performances:

Cassel 2008 was ranked 18 on DYAR

Cassel 2009 was ranked 44 on DYAR

[NLC1054]

You can tell the QB stats are unreliable because, when a QB moves from team to team, there is a wide fluctuation. If the stat was grading the QB alone, his DVOA shouldn't have those wide fluctuations.

History suggests that quarterbacks who move around a lot typically aren't good enough to stick with one team.

[skinnyskins]

Well said NLC.

[Oldfan]

History suggests that quarterbacks who move around a lot typically aren't good enough to stick with one team.

There are enough exceptions to that rule to support my comment.

[skinnyskins]

I'm a member on that site. Have been for quite a while.

I have been disappointed with them lately. They used to have a disclaimer on their individual stats warning for example that their metric didn't rank McNabb, it ranked Philly's offense with Mcnabb at QB. In other words, they recognized that they couldn't separate the QB from his team. They don't have the disclaimer anymore but the problem didn't go away.

I use the team stats as fairly reliable. The unit stats, I'm not sure about but they are probably decent, but the individual stats should be junked.

You can tell the QB stats are unreliable because, when a QB moves from team to team, there is a wide fluctuation. If the stat was grading the QB alone, his DVOA shouldn't have those wide fluctuations.

Here's an example which also supports my argument on the positive effects of the Patriot's support system on QB performances:

Cassel 2008 was ranked 18 on DYAR

Cassel 2009 was ranked 44 on DYAR

No system is perfect. But you’re cherry-picking. I can cherry pick to show Campbell ranked 22 in 2009 in WAS, and ranked 17 in 2011 in OAK. Also Cassel was 18 in 2008, then bounced back in 2010 to be 14. It's not as unreliable as you make it seem. You also didn't say how your scores are more reliable or were generated.

But anyways, getting to the point of this thread and the system itself. As NLC eloquently put, there are ways to determine the impact and effectiveness of a QBs metal capacity and talent. Physical ability alone is a poor indicator of QB talent.

[Oldfan]

No system is perfect. But you’re cherry-picking. I can cherry pick to show Campbell ranked 22 in 2009 in WAS, and ranked 17 in 2011 in OAK. Also Cassel was 18 in 2008, then bounced back in 2010 to be 14. It's not as unreliable as you make it seem.

Giving an example isn't cherry-picking. I'm not going to spend a half hour to prove to you what most people well-informed on football stats take for granted. However, if you would like to keep yoursel busy for awhile, look up Jeff Garcia. He started for three different teams. Jake Plummer, Steve Young, Jake Cutler are some others off the top.

You also didn't say how your scores are more reliable or were generated.

My scores? If you mean my grades, those have been more than adequately explained.

But anyways, getting to the point of this thread and the system itself. As NLC eloquently put, there are ways to determine the impact and effectiveness of a QBs metal capacity and talent. Physical ability alone is a poor indicator of QB talent.

Well, that's wonderful! Why don't you and NLC put something together and if it makes sense, I'd love to add it.

[illone]

I don't use the college game at all in my grading.

If you are grading on talent, and not performance, wouldn't you want as much information as possible to form an accurate rating? Performances change, and are often dictated by talent around a guy so I get the part about leaving that out of the equation, but leaving out his college information seems like a huge gaffe to me. He was drafted into the league based on that talent so it's not like this is new information. We knew he was a smart, hard working football player before this.

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

Im confused about how you come to your grades. Not the grades themselves I wont argue the individual numbers. However if we cant grade a quarterbacks talents based on performance than how exactly do we determine something such as deep passing talent?

For deep passing grading, is it strictly arm strength or is accuracy involved too? If its just arm strength Im not sure that is enough evidence to use as a grade. If accuracy is involved how can we grade strictly on talent with performance variables such as: Did the receiver run his route correctly or did the pass appear to be off because he changed routes with the ball in mid air? Did the receiver adjust well while the ball was in the air to make the deep pass seem more accurate than it was?

Using your own argument of performance effecting talent grades I am wondering how we can grade on something like deep passing without using what the receiver contributed to make the play? I guess Im wondering how your scale breaks down further, exactly what do you use to determine the numbers of 1-5 for deep passing?

[KDawg]

Physical traits are just a bad way of evaluating a quarterback's ability, unless you already have an idea in your head that those who are more athletic are always going to be better, regardless of how they perform on the field. Ultimately, how quarterbacks perform on the field is all that matters. The role of the quarterback in a team's success is indeed exaggerated, but it's important, and having a really, really good, smart quarterback, sometimes, is better than having the more athletic quarterback.

Luckily it seems like RG3 is both.

This was an excellent post. And for the record, I see things similar to you. But the whole diatribe on Brady, from pretty much everyone, was completely off the mark simply due to the fact that you guys weren't arguing against Oldfan's system. You were arguing in favor of another one that you simply cannot put in a quantifiable measure. But that doesn't say anything about Oldfan's measure of physical abilities, in fact, he's even admitted that his measurement isn't the best. He was purely grading on the physical because his position is you can't grade the rest. I thought long and hard about that in the past as I've seen a similar style of argument from OF. And he frustrated the hell out of me, too. Then I took a step back and realized that he was making me think, and while I didn't agree, I couldn't disprove his theory. There is nothing saying that physically, including all measures of physical ability, that he's wrong. And that's what he sought to post.

I mean it when I say I love when he posts. It makes you think and focus on the debate at hand.

Kudos to coming back and writing a meaningful post, but it still didn't discredit Oldfan's PHYSICAL ONLY grades.

Frustrating, isn't it? I lost more than one debate with him because I did what you're doing. Put great thought into posts and then had him one line me to death. I got so freakin' mad in my younger days... Actually, abut your age. Wasn't that long ago

Then I thought about it. He's not out to get anyone. He's out for good football conversation.

[Oldfan]

It's true that all your average fan has access to see, or the will to see, is stats. And it's true that stats don't tell the whole story. But they do a better job of painting an overall picture of a quarterback's performance than relying purely on physical traits

But we don't want to compare the performances of Luck and RG3 with their respective teams. We want to know which is the better quarterback.

Where Q is the quarterback and S is his support system,

Q + S = Q ....doesn't make sense.

Q + S = ...a useless number for our purpose

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 05:54 PM ----------

Im confused about how you come to your grades. Not the grades themselves I wont argue the individual numbers. However if we cant grade a quarterbacks talents based on performance than how exactly do we determine something such as deep passing talent?

For deep passing grading, is it strictly arm strength or is accuracy involved too? If its just arm strength Im not sure that is enough evidence to use as a grade. If accuracy is involved how can we grade strictly on talent with performance variables such as: Did the receiver run his route correctly or did the pass appear to be off because he changed routes with the ball in mid air? Did the receiver adjust well while the ball was in the air to make the deep pass seem more accurate than it was?

Using your own argument of performance effecting talent grades I am wondering how we can grade on something like deep passing without using what the receiver contributed to make the play? I guess Im wondering how your scale breaks down further, exactly what do you use to determine the numbers of 1-5 for deep passing?

I'm not a scout, but if you read some of the scouting reports for QBs online -- and subtract the mental aspects from them -- that's the ground I cover. You mentioned deep passing. I'll use that as an example. I use donovan McNabb as a prototype for a good deep passer. Donovan had other weaknesses in his game, but he excelled at deep passing.

I watch the flight of the ball; its trajectory; the touch; and naturally how often he hits his target. Arm strength is important, but a QB can be a good deep thrower if he can anticipate his receiver getting open and get the pass off a tad sooner.

I want to see the ball spiral consistently. It's a matter of physics. Wobblers affect accuracy especially in wind.

That's enough to give you the idea, but there's a lot more to the grading. You can't do this with statistics. There are too many variable that aren't QB.

If the QB reminds me of Donovan, I'll give him a five on deep passing.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 06:03 PM ----------

...Then I thought about it. He's not out to get anyone. He's out for good football conversation.

(sigh) I wouldn't bank on that, Fella.

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 06:13 PM ----------

If you are grading on talent, and not performance, wouldn't you want as much information as possible to form an accurate rating? Performances change, and are often dictated by talent around a guy so I get the part about leaving that out of the equation, but leaving out his college information seems like a huge gaffe to me. He was drafted into the league based on that talent so it's not like this is new information. We knew he was a smart, hard working football player before this.

I don't use his college play because I'm not grading him as a prospect and the college game is very different than the NFL verson, thus it can be deceptive.

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

I can see how some of those can be used to determine the physical aspects of passing. Doesnt something like how often he hits the target fall under the variable of supporting cast though? It would be easier to hit targets who have a knack for getting separation and adjusting well to deep throws. While a weaker recieving corps would make it harder to showcase deep passing talent due to them not being able to get open.

Lets say Donovan was on a team with a weak supporting cast of receivers who lacked the ability to get open often. Since they arent good enough to get separation we dont see anticipation throws on deep passes. How do we then come to the conclusion he actually is good at anticipating when we dont see it often enough due to his weak supporting cast?

[Oldfan]

duplicate post

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 06:37 PM ----------

I can see how some of those can be used to determine the physical aspects of passing. Doesnt something like how often he hits the target fall under the variable of supporting cast though? It would be easier to hit targets who have a knack for getting separation and adjusting well to deep throws. While a weaker recieving corps would make it harder to showcase deep passing talent due to them not being able to get open.

Lets say Donovan was on a team with a weak supporting cast of receivers who lacked the ability to get open often. Since they arent good enough to get separation we dont see anticipation throws on deep passes. How do we then come to the conclusion he actually is good at anticipating when we dont see it often enough due to his weak supporting cast?

I wait for opportunities to grade. A weak WR group would offer fewer opportunities per game. So, it takes longer to get a fair size sample.

if the receiver has to adjust, that's not a great throw.

[skinnyskins]

Giving an example isn't cherry-picking.

Giving one example out of many is exactly what cherry-picking is.

Well, that's wonderful! Why don't you and NLC put something together and if it makes sense, I'd love to add it.

In addition to what NLC went into, we can rate mental talent. It is fairly easy to see if a QB has a history of making mental errors (i.e. throwing into triple coverage, missing open receivers, bad penalties), if they have poor game management (i.e. delay of game penalties, poor clock management), if they effectively audible into productive plays, Im sure there are more as well. These are a few examples that could be given a 1-5 ranking as effectively as you give rankings to throwing and extending plays.

[JCSMCPCCrskins]

duplicate post

---------- Post added November-21st-2012 at 06:37 PM ----------

I wait for opportunities to grade. A weak WR group would offer fewer opportunities per game. So, it takes longer to get a fair size sample.

if the receiver has to adjust, that's not a great throw.

Ok, that does makes sense. You mentioned anticipation as an attribute of a good deep thrower, but would that necessarily be a physical talent? Putting the ball in a certain place would be, but I think anticipation falls more under the mental aspect no?