RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[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.

[Long n Left]

"Oldfan" and "simple," are two words that should never be uttered in the same sentence.

[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.

[Blue Collar Skins]

Tarkentom would be off the chart for extending plays but not as high in the passing grades.

Tarkenton had a ton of passing records, and still holds some.

[Oldfan]

Tarkenton had a ton of passing records, and still holds some.

As I said, I discard performance stats.

[Mahons21]

I think you're underestimating the intelligence/information factor. It's not that a guy like Peyton is actually more intelligent, rather he just spends that much more time preparing. So whether or not someone is as intelligent as him, doesn't matter, because he's shown that no one is more committed to be being prepared than he is, outside of maybe Ray Lewis.


Peyton's ability to put his offense in a scenario that highly likely to succeed through creating mismtaches etc. is unparalleled in the NFL. While it may not actually be talent in the sense of arm-strength/ball placement, it puts his team in a great position to succeed as is evidenced by his NFL career.

Furthermore, though the offense Peyton runs is simple, the way he himself runs it is not. Otherwise we'd see teams all over the NFL copy-catting what Peyton does.

[darrelgreenie]

Introducing the Quarterback Talent Grade (QBTG) --

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

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

...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....

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 like it. The general concept is a lot like how I view QBs.
Except I view intelligence as unknowable from my vantage point the same way you view mental aspects.

If you don't mind here are some links:
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8225859

accuracy: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8232565

some grades: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8230871

[Oldfan]

...Furthermore, though the offense Peyton runs is simple, the way he himself runs it is not. Otherwise we'd see teams all over the NFL copy-catting what Peyton does.

As I wrote in the OP, I make an exception in Peyton's case. I add a couple of points to his grade because he has advanced the state of the art for being prepared. But, I think his supporters get carried away with the hype to try to explain how someone lacking talent could produce those performances. I explain it mainly by the scheme advantages.

As for the copy-catting -- the visible part of the scheme has been copied. Tom Moore was the first to use the shotgun in a base offense in the NFL. Today, 60% of the NFL passing is done from the gun. What hasn't been copied is the simplicity of the scheme. Coaches generally are not drawn to simple schemes that let the players just go out and play the game.

[skinnyskins]

Tom Brady is arguably the greatest QB to ever play and you have him as a much lower talent than RGIII and Luck? This rating system is seriously flawed.

[clskinsfan]

Nice post. But you are undervaluing Brady's ability to extend a play. He doesnt do it the way RG3 does. He shifts in the pocket better than any QB in history and always seems to find the open guy while doing so. RG3's talent is off the charts no doubt. But I will take Brady's super bowl wins at this point .......Maybe those are coming for RG3 in the future? We will see and I'm glad I am a Skins fan and can watch it possibly happen.

[Oldfan]

I like it. The general concept is a lot like how I view QBs.
Except I view intelligence as unknowable from my vantage point the same way you view mental aspects.

If you don't mind here are some links:
http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8225859

accuracy: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8232565

some grades: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthre...=1#post8230871

In the posts you linked, you are grading as a scout would -- with your own modifications. I do the same, but I grade him on the talent displayed while playing at the NFL level. I have no interest in his team-related performances.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 10:23 AM ----------

Nice post. But you are undervaluing Brady's ability to extend a play. He doesnt do it the way RG3 does. He shifts in the pocket better than any QB in history and always seems to find the open guy while doing so. RG3's talent is off the charts no doubt. But I will take Brady's super bowl wins at this point .......Maybe those are coming for RG3 in the future? We will see and I'm glad I am a Skins fan and can watch it possibly happen.

Extending a play in the pocket shows a minimal level performance. If a QB can't do that much he's probably not worth grading.

[KDawg]

Tom Brady is arguably the greatest QB to ever play and you have him as a much lower talent than RGIII and Luck? This rating system is seriously flawed.

I don't think you're fully grasping the idea. Oldfan's premise is Brady had better surrounding talent and scheme than perhaps a better skilled quarterback who wound up on a lesser team. Also, Oldfan's system is based on the Wonderlic. I don't believe that's an accurate assessment of FBI. But that's a preferential thing. Intelligence plays a role in Brady's success, as does system and surrounding talent. JaMarcus Russell had the physical traits. They were through the room. But his FBI was awful and his scheme fit was inaccurate.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

very, very subjective thread. But I love RG3, so I dont care, lol.

[Oldfan]

Tom Brady is arguably the greatest QB to ever play and you have him as a much lower talent than RGIII and Luck? This rating system is seriously flawed.

I think you mean "arguably" for anyone who thinks that they can grade a QB by using his performances to measure him.

How about going back to the OP and reading my argument on why that doesn't make sense? Find a flaw in my argument if you can.

[DogofWar1]

Nice post, and I like the basic concept, but I think there might be a bit too much weight on the mobility of the QB. How would a QB playing at the level of Vick during his initial stint in Atlanta grade out? It looks like Vick would probably snag 5s across the board on the bottom 3 scores, and maybe 2s and 3s on the top three, and would probably come out to around a 20.

That's the one concern I'd have with the rating system, that a highly mobile QB with mediocre passing ability would probably grade out higher than Brady, or say Manning, who can demolish a defense from the pocket, but can't run.

In my humble opinion, it'd probably be best to rate the top 3 ratings on a 1-10 scale, and the bottom 3 on a 1-5 scale. The maximum becomes out of 45, and passing ability becomes paramount over pure mobility, but mobility still plays a large role. Brady and Manning would get perfect marks on passing, worse ones on the mobility ones, and end up in the mid-30s. Meanwhile, someone like Vick (even on a good day) would probably still only end up in the mid-20s.

I do agree on your point about surrounding talent though. Stafford, Carr, and dozens of others had talent, and basically had it wasted. Brady, Rodgers, Big Ben, Mannings all had solid supporting casts, and have been consistently good as a result.