RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[Oldfan]

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

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

[Warpath11]

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.

It is not flawed, looking at physical talent alone Tom Brady is worth a 6 round pick at best. He has developed in a perfect vacuum for a QB. I would argue,as well as Oldfan would, a Jay Cutler put into a place like NE is going to have similar, if not better, success than Tom Brady most of the time.

[No Excuses]

It's only the rookie season which is mind boggling. I feel like I'm watching a seasoned vet. He is destined for greatness.

[KDawg]

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.

I responded originally with a stance of the GM. But as a fan, mobility matters. It's what we like to see. As a coach or GM, I would think mobility is always a plus, but you're more looking for a schematic fit for what you have/plan on having and what you want your offense to look like. Then again, I never think its bad to have a mobile quarterback.

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.

Valid in my opinion. But even though its a 1-5 rating, you need to make sure you take that into account. I'm not going to grade a prospect with a high mobility rating and poor passing ratings higher than a better passer. If a guy is really a bad passer, they probably have no business being graded as is. For instance, Denard Robinson. OUTSTANDING mobility, such a poor passer he doesn't even deserve to be graded.

I'd suggest a system that has a minimum passing score before a prospect is ever really considered.

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.

That would probably work. But it's just a variation of the system

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 10:47 AM ----------

It is not flawed, looking at physical talent alone Tom Brady is worth a 6 round pick at best. He has developed in a perfect vacuum for a QB. I would argue,as well as Oldfan would, a Jay Cutler put into a place like NE is going to have similar, if not better, success than Tom Brady most of the time.

I think this is discounting intelligence. I'd agree that Cutler has the physical traits of a quarterback, but that doesn't mean he'd be as successful as Brady. There are other factors in play. But as OF states, its difficult to accurately measure intelligence from our couches. From our couches, it would appear that Cutler could succeed in NE.

[skinnyskins]

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.

I am grasping the idea just fine. But, all you have to do is look at the end result to see that is is flawed and if this were posted in a non-Skins biased forum it would be laughed at.

Brady has worked with deep talent but not overwhelming talent at all positions. The defenses are usually average (below average the past few years) he has only worked with one premier receiver (Moss) for only one of his SBs, his RBs are mediocre to low level talent, and his TEs have only recently been dominant. However, he has excellent vision, can read defenses as well as Peyton, and has the talent to execute plays better than anybody (3 SBs and 5 AFC championships).

I like the premise of using subjective criteria to rank QBs, but when the results are so skewed to favor the player you like the most then the system is useless.

[Oldfan]

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.

Your point is valid. I may need to allow more weight on the passing, but it's very difficult to get a fix on how much that should be. The NFL hasn't had enough Vicks and Griffins to compare them with the pocket passers. However, in the Eagles game yesterday, I saw that Griffin was more valuable as a weapon on his own than any QB I've ever seen. And I saw the same sort of thing when Vick humiliated us last season.

[KDawg]

I am grasping the idea just fine. But, all you have to do is look at the end result to see that is is flawed and if this were posted in a non-Skins biased forum it would be laughed at.

I don't judge ideas based on if they are laughed at or not. I judge them based on logic.

Oldfan doesn't claim his system to be the best, or most accurate. He "advertises" it as being an intelligent way to judge a quarterback. Nothing can ever compensate for all factors. In that regard, I'd agree that it has flaws. But so does everything else.

This is specific to physical skill sets. What sets RG3 through the roof is his mental prowess as well. I'm not sure he was fair to some of the other prospects on the list, but that's the subjective aspect of the system at work. I wouldn't put RG3 too far ahead of Luck, if at all. I think they're much closer than he does. But that's subjective and it's based entirely on the physical. His system never claimed to be an accurate predicter of success due to a ton of variables. FBI is tough to measure from our couches.

Brady has worked with deep talent but not overwhelming talent at all positions. The defenses are usually average (below average the past few years) he has only worked with one premier receiver (Moss) for only one of his SBs, his RBs are mediocre to low level talent, and his TEs have only recently been dominant. However, he has excellent vision, can read defenses as well as Peyton, and has the talent to execute plays better than anybody (3 SBs and 5 AFC championships).

This is a combination of the surrounding talent being good enough to succeed (which is all you need, really) and scheme and coaching. Brady's intelligence and work ethic clearly play a role. And I'd argue that as a whole he's one of the greatest ever. But he was aided by a strong support system and coach. His physical skills aren't top tier. Which is what I believe this system is about.

I like the premise of using subjective criteria to rank QBs, but when the results are so skewed to favor the player you like the most then the system is useless.

Again, I'm not sure its supposed to be a predicter of overall success, but rather individual ability. When put in a team atmosphere, things can change. That said, I'd agree that RG3 shouldn't be that far ahead of the others. But where I do agree is that he's one of the most physically complete quarterbacks that has ever entered the NFL. Which makes sense. As we refine training techniques and nutrition and other things, quarterbacks (and all football players) should become faster and more athletic. That also said, RG3 is a freak of an athlete. I think Luck is right there. Oldfan doesn't. That's a subjective difference, but that's how scouts grade.

The difference is OF isn't trying to grade their intelligence. Scouts do, and have to. We don't have the same access they do. So again, he's grading on a purely physical scale with a minimal intelligence factor.

[skinnyskins]

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.

The main argument I have is that it doesn't even take into account several factors that make QBs successful or not. This includes vision (seeing plays develop and where people will be during the play), reading defenses (identifying the coverage and anticipating the weak points), timing (quickly getting rid of the ball and knowing where your people will be), communication and leadership (ensuring everybody is on the same page and having the respect and trust of your locker room). These are just a few and Im sure there are more.

[Oldfan]

I am grasping the idea just fine. But, all you have to do is look at the end result to see that is is flawed and if this were posted in a non-Skins biased forum it would be laughed at.

You are using circular reasoning: Tom Brady is great, in my opinion, so any system that doesn't grade him as great as I think he is is flawed. You are refusing to allow the possibility that your opinion is wrong.

Can you tell me how you arrived at your opinion? If it was by some intelligent means that I haven't considered, I'd like to hear about it.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 11:09 AM ----------

The main argument I have is that it doesn't even take into account several factors that make QBs successful or not. This includes vision (seeing plays develop and where people will be during the play), reading defenses (identifying the coverage and anticipating the weak points), timing (quickly getting rid of the ball and knowing where your people will be), communication and leadership (ensuring everybody is on the same page and having the respect and trust of your locker room). These are just a few and Im sure there are more.

And you are asking me to believe that you have the ability to see, grade and compare QBs on those things you mentioned?

I can tell you I don't.

[cphil006]

What about throwing the ball out of bounds instead of taking a sack? What about missing open guys downfield and instead dumping off to a RB? What about making an unessesary throw across the field for a two-yard loss instead of getting rid of it?

He's a rookie and he's exceeding rookie expectations, but you don't have enough categories in your rating "system"

[clskinsfan]

It is not flawed, looking at physical talent alone Tom Brady is worth a 6 round pick at best. He has developed in a perfect vacuum for a QB. I would argue,as well as Oldfan would, a Jay Cutler put into a place like NE is going to have similar, if not better, success than Tom Brady most of the time.

We will have to disagree on this point. Brady is far better at extending plays from the pocket and his passing accuracy is far superior to Cutlers. Cutler is talented but not in the same class as Brady. Cutler is prone to making the dumb mistake. His pocket awareness is poor as well. Brady just doesnt make mistakes. I would also argue that Brady has performed better with less talent at WR.

[KDawg]

What about throwing the ball out of bounds instead of taking a sack? What about missing open guys downfield and instead dumping off to a RB? What about making an unessesary throw across the field for a two-yard loss instead of getting rid of it?

He's a rookie and he's exceeding rookie expectations, but you don't have enough categories in your rating "system"

Again, not the point. He's not grading football intelligence. It's a factor that's tough for fans to grade. I originally replied from a GM perspective, but after really digesting it, he's not even suggesting that the system is appropriate for a use with a GM. It's just more accurate for fans to judge a QBs PHYSICAL traits. Many people believe that statistics and Lombardi's and Pro Bowls are an accurate way to judge a quarterback. I'd argue that's far more flawed than this system.

From a physical point of view, I like his system with a few tweaks. But it's definitely not an indicator of who the best overall QB would be. It's based ENTIRELY on physical tools.

I view his point on Brady and Manning as based purely on physical ability. They aren't the most physically gifted quarterbacks. He said nothing about their ability to match a system, be intelligent and lead. He may not believe they're the greatest overall quarterbacks of all time, including all factors, or he may think they're up there. I don't know, and it's not pertinent to the point. This is a system to grade physical ability

[skinnyskins]

You are using circular reasoning: Tom Brady is great, in my opinion, so any system that doesn't grade him as great as I think he is is flawed. You are refusing to allow the possibility that your opinion is wrong.

Can you tell me how you arrived at your opinion? If it was by some intelligent means that I haven't considered, I'd like to hear about it.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 11:09 AM ----------

And you are asking me to believe that you have the ability to see, grade and compare QBs on those things you mentioned?

I can tell you I don't.

Of course I don't have the ability to do that because Im not a professional football analyzer. But, I have enough sense to know that vision, reading defenses, and timing shouldn't be thrown out simply because they are hard to grade. What I can go on is watching Brady dominate for a decade and knowing that it takes more than deep ball, mid ball, short ball, and mobility to adequately judge talent.

[Oldfan]

...I wouldn't put RG3 too far ahead of Luck, if at all. I think they're much closer than he does...

I was surprised how good an athlete Luck is. It wasn't part of the pre-draft hype on him.

If Robert hadn't come in in the same year, I would have been saying that Luck is the best ever. He's much more talented than Peyton.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 11:22 AM ----------

Of course I don't have the ability to do that because Im not a professional football analyzer. But, I have enough sense to know that vision, reading defenses, and timing shouldn't be thrown out simply because they are hard to grade. What I can go on is watching Brady dominate for a decade and knowing that it takes more than deep ball, mid ball, short ball, and mobility to adequately judge talent.

Well, if you don't have the ability to grade those things, how did you determine that Tom's grade on those things should be higher than other QBs? Are you depending on the opinions of others? If so, who?

Here's what I think happens:

1) Brady's performance is better thn other QBs;

2) His performance can't be explained by anything that we can all see;

3) So, people make up crap for him that we can't see.

I think it's done with all the QBs who play with great support systems.

[KDawg]

I was surprised how good an athlete Luck is. It wasn't part of the pre-draft hype on him.

If Robert hadn't come in in the same year, I would have been saying that Luck is the best ever. He's much more talented than Peyton.

He's VERY similar to Cam Newton athletically. Luck's official time was a bit slower at 4.67 where Newton's was 4.59. Luck ran a 6.8 in the 3-cone, Newton ran a 6.92. Luck had a 36 inch vertical. Cam has a 35". Newton had a 10'6" broad, Luck had a 10'4".