Robert and Cam are better than Tom and Peyton, but...

...

Some race cars are considerably more powerful and faster than others. Logically then, drivers cannot be fairly graded and compared based on the performances of the car and driver. The same is true with the performances of quarterbacks and the teams they play for. The "Quarterback Rating" rates the performance of the QB and his team. It is not a grade that can be used to fairly compare QBs.

I grade QBs on the tangible evidence, the things I can see him do with his arm and his legs. I ignore the intangibles because they can't be seen and graded with any accuracy. Furthermore, there are no impartial experts on the intangibles. The head coach and his OC are experts on the intangibles of their QB, but we can't expect them to be impartial when they offer information. Moreover, they are not experts on the intangibles of the other 31 QBs for comparison. In common usage, the QB's intangibles are for BS artists who use them to hype the guy they like or to trash the guy they don't.

Since I don't grade QBs on team accomplishments, I'm unimpressed by championships, MVPs, and I think the Hall of Fame is a crock. And, since I grade on tangible skill-sets and not on team accomplishments, I have Chad Pennington on a par with Bart Starr and Joe Montana -- all had very accurate but weak arms. Bart and Joe are in the HOF because they drove Maseratis. Chad won't be because he drove a Taurus.

I group QBs into "pocket passers" and "QB-athletes." Cam Newton and RG3 are QB-athletes. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are pocket passers. I rank the athletic QBs higher than pocket passers because they are more valuable weapons. They can beat you with both their arm and their legs. Against the same opponent, the pocket passers need more support to win.

So, if the goal is to win championships, is it better to draft a pocket passer or an athlete quarterback? This is not an easy question to answer. I waver back and forth on it. Even though they have less value compared to the athletes, pocket passers can be found as draft bargains; they have much longer careers; leg injuries don't limit their effectiveness; and they miss fewer games because of injury.

There's a Catch 22 involved with the athletes. The more you use their legs in your scheme, the more they are worth. But, the more you use their legs, the greater the risk of injury.

Oldfan,

You are one of the most thoughtful and insightful posters on ES, so I'm baffled as to how you can discard the intangibles when evaluating NFL QBs. I understand your premise.... We can't "measure" leadership or toughness or clutchness like we can arm strength, speed, etc. so rather than "guess" let's focus on what we know. I get it. But in the case of the QB, I just don't think it works.

You would fit in very well with the saber metrics crowd in baseball. All of the "new" stats that have changed the way the sport is evaluated are a means to eliminate the guessing game and boil analysis down to nuts and bolts. In baseball this works... Although its a team game players are on island most of the time performing as individuals. Also, there is a 162 game sample size which allows for numbers and core analysis to really tell a tale.

Football is a game based very heavily on emotion and timing. Nature of the sport. Only 16 games played in an entire season. Metrics and tangibles don't tell as much of the story in football.

There is an "it" factor with QB that likely frustrates an analytic crowd. But it's not hogwash. It is very real. When I look at Cam Newton I certainly see a fantastic athletic specimen. He is absolutely more impressive than Brady or Peyton or even Rodgers. But he is missing something.... And I will admit to not being smart enough to tell exactly what it is but I can tell something isn't quite right. The sulking, pouting, and clear self doubt matters to me. I think it manifests itself in fumbling the ball away with the game on the line. Intelligence in QBs is paramount; not just football smarts, but actual book smarts too. It's why the NFL places a premium on the Wonderlic test. It's a huge component.

I rate QBs the following way

1. Athletic ability: speed, arm strength, etc.

2. Intelligence

3. Intangibles

While only number one can be truly measured, it is SO important in QBs that I don't think any reputable analysis can be formed by dismissing 2 and 3.

The intangibles are what made Joe Montana great. Why did he always seem to make the right read on 3rd and 8 in the 4th quarter? I don't know. But he did it over and over and over again.

It's why I am so enamored with RG3. He seems to marry all three of the elements. He is insanely physically gifted and highly intelligent. He is also cool, calm, and has a natural ability to lead. He has all the elements. His big question mark is his frame and whether or not he will consistently be able to use one of his greatest weapons (his legs) to his advantage.

Not many posters I respect more than you Oldfan, but if you tell me you only rate QBs on measurables I'll tell you the discussion ends right there.

It is really a hard question to answer whether pocket passers or athletes at QB are better for the team. I have a feeling though that it's moving more to the athletes because even the pockets passers have some nice speed now a days. The only qbs that I rarely see run now are probably the Manning brothers and Brady. As far as intelligence and intangibles go I think they can be taught up or at least that's what most coaches believe .

I'd add that the ability to improvise is a very important quality in judging QBs. It's not just how fast, strong, agile, or smart they are, but how well they adapt when things go wrong and chaos ensues... And it's that reason, in part, that separates Montana from a Pennington or a Brunnel

Kleese- nice response. Couldn't agree more, other than I would even rank Intelligence #1 instead of #2. The position of QB in football relies SO much on DECISION MAKING, being able to make the quick read, understanding defenses, etc.

Well, this should get interesting.:munchout:

So I guess Tony Banks was a much better QB than Sonny - stronger arm, far more mobile. If only he'd played for a team with great WRs...like the Rams.

Does anyone remember this comparison of Luck, Griffin, Newton, etc?

Trying to define some of the intangibles with pocket skill matrix?

http://www.dawgsbynature.com/2012/2/23/2820025/why-robert-griffin-is-more-advanced-as-a-quarterback-that-andrew-luck

Anyway, as far as something like leadership goes one only needs to look at what happens to players like Rivers and Culter vs some of the other best QBs in the game... when the game isn't going their way but still have some sort of chance they tend to fold most of the time rather than rise to the occasion. (Maybe I'm miscategorizing Rivers, but definitely Cutler with his sulking)..

So where does Vince Young rank on this? He's a great athlete, probably not too far below Newton and RG3. But he sucks as a QB.

I have to completely disagree with this. RG3 and Newton are not anywhere near Peyton and Brady. I think one of the most important things to look at is consistency, and Peyton and Brady definitely have it. Newton is having a sophomore slump and there's no way to tell if RG3 will fall back down to earth once the league picks up on him. Newton may never rebound. It is just impossible to compare RG3 after 4 games to Brady, a three time Superbowl winner. I don't care what kind of car he's driving, he's driving it pretty darn well.

Kleese- nice response. Couldn't agree more, other than I would even rank Intelligence #1 instead of #2. The position of QB in football relies SO much on DECISION MAKING, being able to make the quick read, understanding defenses, etc.

I agree with you Kleese, and to add to the discussion that an elite qb improves the team around him. That is what Peyton manning, Tom Brady drew Bree's to name a few have done. Chad Pennington is no where near these elite qbs. Arm strength is also way overrated in terms of measuring how good a qb is or is going to be.

kleese:

We agree that statistics are far more useful in Baseball than in Football. We disagree on why that is true. I think it's because Football is the consummate team sport. Quarterback performance can't be isolated and measured because his performance is an interaction with his teammates. That's why the QB rating is not actually a QB rating.

We also agree that ordinary intelligence is an important factor and that's measurable. When I wrote about the intangibles, I was generalizing to keep the OP brief.

When you talk about an "it" factor that you think you can see, I think you are deceiving yourself. I think you are seeing what you want to see. Example: The TV shows the QB on the sideline chewing out his WR. What does this scene tell you? If you are a typical NFL fan, it depends on who the QB is. If it's Jay Cutler, you see Jay being an egotistical prick. If it's Tom Brady, you see Tom showing intensity and leadership.

There's a simple explanation for Montana's success on final drives. If you were to analyze the first, fifth, eighth or any drive including the final drive of any great offensive team over several seasons of data, you are likely to find that they were well above average on all of them. Montana has been given credit for great intangibles by those who overrate the QB position because they can't explain his contribution to the team's success by claiming he had great tangibles.

Chad Pennington= Joe Montana huh?

Nothing to see here, same old same old.........

I'm not sure what to think, (correct me if i'm wrong)but this is coming from the same guy that argued Cutler > Peyton Manning?

I'm sorry but the logic behind the OP is a steaming pile. By that measure let's just grade a QBs career by their combine numbers and how well they can throw a ball through a tire. If RGIII's fast start shows us anything it's that the rest of the offense is hugely dependent on the caliber of QB. This is largely the same offense that hasn't been able to score 20 points for God knows how long. Suddenly you plug him in and we can all see the difference. I don't care what metrics or smell test you use to suggest Chad Pennington should even be allowed to stay on the same floor in a hotel as Bart Starr and Joe Montana is laughable. The great QBs elevate their offenses and find ways to make their squad successful. Tom Brady didn't have much talent around him early on. Look at what Manning is doing with the offense in Denver. How'd it do with Tebow and Neckbeard? QBing in the NFL is about the intangibles and leadership qualities of the player more than anything else, the talent is secondary. What a ridiculous thread.

So where does Vince Young rank on this? He's a great athlete, probably not too far below Newton and RG3. But he sucks as a QB.

Vince has lousy mechanics (the tangibles) and may not be bright enough to play the position.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 10:15 AM ----------

I'm not sure what to think, (correct me if i'm wrong)but this is coming from the same guy that argued Cutler > Peyton Manning?

That's right. If you graded QBs intelligently, you'd come to the same conclusion.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 10:17 AM ----------

I'm sorry but the logic behind the OP is a steaming pile. .

I stopped reading after this line.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 10:21 AM ----------

So I guess Tony Banks was a much better QB than Sonny - stronger arm, far more mobile. If only he'd played for a team with great WRs...like the Rams.

Grading the tangibles begins with grading the QBs ability to throw a football.

I agree with Old Fan, Jason Campbell is three times the qb that Peyton or Brady could ever hope to be.

Better arm, better mobility, better size. Plug him into their teams and they're instantly better. More to the point, John Beck on the Patriots would be unbeatable. Better arm, better measurables.

I agree with Old Fan, Jason Campbell is three times the qb that Peyton or Brady could ever hope to be.

Better arm, better mobility, better size. Plug him into their teams and they're instantly better. More to the point, John Beck on the Patriots would be unbeatable. Better arm, better measurables.

Cut the sarcastic crap and stop giving me stupid positions to defend. Try debating what I actually wrote and see if you can find a logical flaw.

So why do teams continue to pay big salaries for guys like Brady and Manning instead of trading for a bunch of picks and plugging a guy in? Why didn't they trade Brady for Pennington and two first rounders? Why do the most successful coaches in the league appear to completely disagree with this stance?

Cut the sarcastic crap and stop giving me stupid positions to defend. Try debating what I actually wrote and see if you can find a logical flaw.

You said that height, speed, agility matter most and you discount intangibles.

So, I give a quarterback who has better speed, agility, height... and compare him to ones with weaker arms, slower legs, and slighter stature and you say I'm being unfair to you. If they're all interchangable apples based on tangible physical qualities then placing a superior physical player on a great team should make the great team even better, right?

It's your argument that doesn't hold up. I'm using concrete examples to show its absurdity.

So why do teams continue to pay big salaries for guys like Brady and Manning instead of trading for a bunch of picks and plugging a guy in? Why didn't they trade Brady for Pennington and two first rounders? Why do the most successful coaches in the league appear to completely disagree with this stance?

You misread if you thought I meant that Pennington was better than Brady. Tom has a grade A arm, IMO. Chad's was grade B because his lack of arm strength allowed defenses to compress the field.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 10:42 AM ----------

You said that height, speed, agility matter most....

I didn't say that.

I'm going to add prescience to intelligence. Call it experience or what you will, but a QB's ability to SEE/KNOW what's going to happen before it does. To have the game unfold in slow motion while they make lightning quick decisions. Their ability to manipulate/orchestrate what's going to happen by looking or moving this way or that. Elite QB's control the game, mediocre QBs are merely reactionary and let the game determine what they do.

Where does the Ryan Leaf/Peyton Manning fiasco show up on this scale?

Maybe you didn't mean it, but what you said is...

I grade QBs on the tangible evidence, the things I can see him do with his arm and his legs. I ignore the intangibles

I guess that could mean that you are judging more than physical traits, but it sure sounds like your metric is based on what you can see in terms of size, speed, strength... I think it's fair to suppose that you include accuracy even though I'd argue accuracy is an intangible. Accuracy is based, after all, not only on the throw itself, but timing between qb and receiver, correct blocking, good throwing lanes, etc.

I'm going to add prescience to intelligence. Call it experience or what you will, but a QB's ability to SEE/KNOW what's going to happen before it does. To have the game unfold in slow motion while they make lightning quick decisions. Their ability to manipulate/orchestrate what's going to happen by looking or moving this way or that. Elite QB's control the game, mediocre QBs are merely reactionary and let the game determine what they do.

There definitely is such a factor, however I think you are giving this intangible factor too much weight. QBs reach the elite status for most fans when they have outstanding supporting casts.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 11:00 AM ----------

Maybe you didn't mean it, but what you said is...

I guess that could mean that you are judging more than physical traits, but it sure sounds like your metric is based on what you can see in terms of size, speed, strength... I think it's fair to suppose that you include accuracy even though I'd argue accuracy is an intangible. Accuracy is based, after all, not only on the throw itself, but timing between qb and receiver, correct blocking, good throwing lanes, etc.

Accuracy is tough to grade but it can be seen. For me, it starts with the ability to throw a consistently tight spiral. This isn't an aesthetic factor. It's Physics. Over 30 yards, a pass that wobbles will miss its target by up to five feet.

Then we can watch where the ball is received. Does it allow the receiver to add YAC?

There are several other factors.

There are dozens of factors we can see under the heading Athleticism when discussing QBs. Being able to throw on the move, changing arm angles, elusiveness, speed...

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 11:09 AM ----------

Where does the Ryan Leaf/Peyton Manning fiasco show up on this scale?

You tell me. Why do you think it is relevant?

Cut the sarcastic crap and stop giving me stupid positions to defend. Try debating what I actually wrote and see if you can find a logical flaw.

By ignoring championships and NFL success you're missing a variety of very important qualities in a QB. There's a LOAD of complexities that we can't even go through in this discussion that a championship guy just brings. As well as the ability for a coaching staff to bring out and utilize their talents. RG3 is getting utilized as we speak. But what about our counter opponent this week - Matt Ryan. He's about as good as it gets in the regular season, but this guy doesn't perform well in the playoffs. I know for a fact how well he performs because I have a lot of friends who are Falcons fans, I also watched this guy at BC (was born up there), saw his last home game vs Miami in person, and have followed him since day 1.

Matt Ryan is awesome in the regular season.

IN 3 playoff appearances he has never tossed more than 199 yards. He's thrown 3 TD's and 4 INT's.

He also has 2 games with less than a 4.99 yards per attempt. These are Alex Smith numbers at best, and I'd love to hear how you grade Alex Smith, because I seem to be the only one who thinks the guy is still a stiff Jason Campbell who's been holding down a job for way too long. There's a reason the 49ers were dying for a half broken PEYTON MANNING.

My overall point here is a couple things: In my eye's QB's need to do a few things to be considered REAL GOOD. And I evaluate QB's on their leadership which is CLEARLY visible. Their physical ability to move the ball through ANY MEANS. Their accuracy, are they leading a receiver? Does their receiver have to stop short, wait, get nailed, do these happen often? Does he have poise and confidence in the face of pressure? And my other quality - SUCCESS. You're not a good QB if your team is not succeeding. POINT BLANK. There's a reason Brady and Manning are UP there. Since 2001 why has Brady appeared in 5 Superbowl's and fell short of making it, EVERY SINGLE YEAR aside from 2002 and when Matt Cassel became QB due to injury.

Brady is coached well, but he also has some of these most important QB qualities of ALL time. You can't teach his ****. Point blank. Brady is a god damn leader, in the face, he's a leader to the everything the NFL could know and want. He also understands his point and his role, if you plugged some of these QB's in his role, they couldn't hold a candle to his composure. Brady is calm, cool, collected ALL throughout all phases of his public life as we know it. Interviews, in the pocket, post game pressers, post Superbowl pressers, on the sideline. The guy just has COOL down. He had his knee blown up, and came back to shatter passing records. He's a freak, and he will be a legend when it's all said and done. But bare in mind, he's not a legend because of Bill, aside from everything in Bill's power to get him in there, and teach him what he knows, just like ANY and ALL QB coach combos. Brady has the IT factors. Manning also has the IT factors, but his were more readable from the get go.

When I see RG3 I see power, passion, the will to win, excitement, accuracy, speed, PIN POINT accuracy, the smarts, and he is ****ing COOL. My only one thing with RG3 right now, it's ONE thing. How he is handling the sideline from my perspective. I don't know him enough or have seen enough of his teammate to teammate reactions to understand how he is a leader. Truth be told, leaders say **** you don't want to hear in the moment. A leader is someone who tells it like it is. Brady is a leader every time he's in the face of one of his young ass tight ends, or when it was Randy Moss, or what have you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVphiMBbGaM&feature=related

My problem with Cam Newton is his lack of leadership. He is very immature for his position, and that team will be held back to his immaturity at such an important position. In fact, hes' not even the leader on that team: Steve Smith is. And smith tells him what's up. There's a reason why Cam had impressive rookie numbers - because teams allowed him to do it in the 3rd and 4th quarters. But Cam is not ready right now. RG3 looks more ready for it than he does. The one thing you can't take away from RG3 so far, he's been in EVERY game with the ball in his hands with two 2 minute eruptions. The refs, Fred Davis, Josh Morgan, blame who you want, but RG3 was there, the score was within reach and had some things gone our way, we might be talking up a different story through week 4.