RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

I have called RG3 the best QB I have ever seen. I haven't been drinking the Kool-Aid. I never touch the stuff. I grade QBs differently. I grade on physical talent, not on performance. In this post, I have formalized my method into a simple system to make it easier for others to understand.

For the purpose of comparing quarterbacks, performance stats and ratings are useless. However, we can compare them on physical talent.

Introducing the Quarterback Talent Grade (QBTG) --

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

The conventional method of grading quarterbacks stinks

Please consider this hypothetical:

Identical twins, Tom and Dave, were born to be high-grade NFL quarterbacks. Physically and mentally, they have identical skill sets. In the NFL draft, Dave unfortunately was drafted by a team that gave him poor support his entire career. Tom was lucky. The team that drafted him gave him outstanding support throughout his career.

You and I know that Tom and Dave are absolutely equal in ability because I told you so. But, how would anyone else know? They won't be able to see it in their performances. And since statistics measure performances, they won't be able to judge from quarterback statistics. Tom's QB rating for his career will be higher; his team will win more games; he will win MVP awards and Super Bowls. Lucky Tom will go into the Hall of Fame, while his identical twin Dave, absolutely his equal at the QB position, will not.

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

A more intelligent, but limited way to grade QBs

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.

Ordinary intelligence can be measured. The Wonderlic Test is adequate for my purpose. Football is more complex than most fans realize but it isn't rocket science. A very bright guy might learn his assignments faster, but one with an average IQ will learn them just as well in time. 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. In his pre-game preparation, Peyton Manning has raised the state of the art for QBs. I raise his grade as an exception to my rule. However, Peyton benefits from the smartest, simplest scheme in the NFL which masks his Grade B physical talent to play the position.

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 will use a scale of five to keep things simple:

5 -- maximum level talent

4 -- above average

3 -- average

2 -- below average

1 -- minimum level talent for a starting QB

Robert Griffin III, QBTG: Grade 27

4 -- deep passing (small sample)

5 -- mid-range passing

4 -- short-range passing

5 -- throwing on the move

4 -- extending plays

5 -- running threat

Aaron Rodgers, OBTG: Grade 23

4 -- deep passing

4 -- mid-range passing

5 -- short-range passing

4 -- throwing on the move

3 -- extending plays

3 -- running threat

Andrew Luck, QBTG: Grade 22

4 -- deep passing (small sample)

4 -- mid-range passing

5 -- short-range passing

3 -- throwing on the move

3 -- extending plays

3 -- running threat

Tom Brady, QBTG: Grade 16

4 -- deep passing

4 -- mid-range passing

5 -- short-range passing

1 -- throwing on the move

1 -- running threat

1 -- extending plays

[being able to extend a play within the pocket is my minimum level for a starting QB.]

Since this is not a grade of performance, these grades will change only on further evidence which changes my mind.

The head coach can have good reasons for designing his offense to use a pocket passer like Brady. Pocket passers are easier to find in the draft and they are likely to have longer careers than an athlete-quarterback, for example. But, when comparing them individually, a good athlete-QB represents the greater threat to defenses.

A high grade on talent doesn't guarantee success in the NFL even with good support. There are rare examples of QBs with emotional problems who failed, but we fans can't predict those.

Great post and breakdown. Rex Grossman threw more interceptions last year versus Philly than Robert Griffin III has thrown all year long. The kid is spectacular for this town.

His talent is undeniable. What truly astonishes me about RG3's game is how fluid-smooth he is when things break down around him. It's as if the guy has another sense or something. He's not 100% automatic in this regard, and it's simply ridiculous to expect that of him, but way more often than not; RG3 does amazing things to extend drives - simply amazing...

I like your theory, and your conclusion. He's got more natural talent and ability than any QB I've seen as well, and I'm SO happy he's on our team. Yesterday's performance should put all haters/skeptics away. I made a post yesterday about the difference in Sam Bradford's 44 attempts and RGIII's 15...he only HAS to throw it 15 times...he has other weapons, and with our injuries healing, we still have a shot at the playoffs. I don't know what will get me down off the ceiling today. Hopefully, nothing!!

Hail!!

Oldfan, you're actually underrating RGIII. A 4 on deep passing? I take it you didn't watch him in college, where he was pretty much the most accurate deep passing prospect ever. A 4 on extending plays? I'm just nitpicking, but you give him a 4 on what are probably his strongest areas. Brady is probably a 2 on the mobility related aspects, and Luck is probably a 4.

You're definitely right, RGIII is the best QB ever in terms of skillset; he's pretty much the Sean Taylor or Megatron of QBs.

Tom Brady is pretty good at extending plays, he's excellent at making subtle moves in the pocket. He obviously isn't a 4 or 5 because he can't do the things that RG3 can do, but he certainly should not be a 1. Either way, I think any rating system such as this would require a look at how well the quarterback reads and understands defenses, as interceptions- being statistics as you argued, are unreliable indicators of individual ability. RG3 is getting better and better each week at reading the defense in front of him. Andrew Luck is great at that, as is Tom Brady. This is how Peyton Manning would go from being say 17/30 to being 22/35. I mean sure, from a scientific perspective you don't want to try and shape these things to get the results you expect, but if your rating system doesn't reflect reality regardless of the teams around players (i.e. if two rookies look better than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning) then it isn't really all that useful for anything other than generating a number and saying "wow, look at all that talent".

Yes, I understand the idea is to judge them on their raw physical traits alone, but the mental side of the game is what makes Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who they are. If the teams and coaches around Peyton Manning really made a difference I don't think he'd have nearly 3,000 yards, 24 tds vs. 7 ints coming off major surgery this season. Denver is getting it done with DeMaryus Thomas and Eric Decker. They're not bad by any means but I believe they throw the Marvin Harrison/Reggie Wayne making Peyton look good stuff out the window huh? When two of the greatest passers of all time don't rate as highly as two (albeit highly talented) rookies, I don't know what the use of such a rating system is other than to make us feel good. The only current great QB I can think of who would grade out the way he's supposed to in this system is Aaron Rodgers, who would likely be something like 5,5,4,4,4,3 for 25/30. Still not as highly rated as Griffin. It's hard to say whether or not he would be the QB he is in another city however.

Is there any connection between your "Tom and Dave" and Tom Brady and David Carr?

I really think you should add a vision category.

It's not just is he making good throws at various depths, but is he seeing the field and making the best throw/decision he can at the time. Game tape should make that quantifiable. How often does a qb miss open receivers? How often does he understand the moving pieces well enough to see where the open guy will be?

Now, this may be a category that is harder to judge with only TV info and not coaches' tape, but it is critical that a good qb not only throw the bal well, but make smart decisions while throwing it. That's where Rex failed. He couldn't really see the field or he could never convince himself that he didn't have Farve's arm.

Oldfan, you're actually underrating RGIII. A 4 on deep passing? I take it you didn't watch him in college, where he was pretty much the most accurate deep passing prospect ever. A 4 on extending plays? I'm just nitpicking, but you give him a 4 on what are probably his strongest areas. Brady is probably a 2 on the mobility related aspects, and Luck is probably a 4.

You're definitely right, RGIII is the best QB ever in terms of skillset; he's pretty much the Sean Taylor or Megatron of QBs.

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.

I think giving Brady a 1 for extending plays is low. I also think the QBTG is too subjective (not to mention, I think intelligence does play a factor in overall talent.)

I will say RG3 is a rare talent. His athleticism is undeniable, and I believe he will be one of the best QB's to ever the play game. The way he makes everything look so natural, and his ability to make something out of nothing is simply amazing.

I really think you should add a vision category.

It's not just is he making good throws at various depths, but is he seeing the field and making the best throw/decision he can at the time. Game tape should make that quantifiable. How often does a qb miss open receivers? How often does he understand the moving pieces well enough to see where the open guy will be?

Now, this may be a category that is harder to judge with only TV info and not coaches' tape, but it is critical that a good qb not only throw the bal well, but make smart decisions while throwing it. That's where Rex failed. He couldn't really see the field or he could never convince himself that he didn't have Farve's arm.

The vision thing is important but too hard to judge. I try to avoid factors that others can't see and agree on.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 08:28 AM ----------

I think giving Brady a 1 for extending plays is low. I also think the QBTG is too subjective (not to mention, I think intelligence does play a factor in overall talent.)

I will say RG3 is a rare talent. His athleticism is undeniable, and I believe he will be one of the best QB's to ever the play game. The way he makes everything look so natural, and his ability to make something out of nothing is simply amazing.

Being able to extend plays in the pocket is my minimal level.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 08:27 AM ----------

Is there any connection between your "Tom and Dave" and Tom Brady and David Carr?

No.

Very interesting post. I disagree with some of your grades, but the thing about a scale such as the one you proposed is that it's completely subjective. What I view as good you may not. I think your idea for your system, though, is accurate. It's akin to a scouting system as you alluded to. Statistics are a flawed approach.

I would grade based on a few factors:

1) Intelligence - Not your typical IQ test, but football intelligence. Show film. Show defenses. Have the quarterback walk me through what they're seeing. Get a good feel for their decision making process. If they aren't great yet, that's okay if they're young. But I want to also see how they respond to being coached. I'll bring up a similar play again later. Bill Belichick does this and I think its an outstanding idea. When he is evaluating college prospects he gives them a quiz. He meets them in a classroom or in a hotel and gives them a list of things that the Patriots do. He diagrams it and walks them through. Then they take a break. When they come back in, Coach Belichick tells the kid to go to the board and explain everything he was just taught. It's a test to see how coachable a kid is, and how "football intelligent" they are. Coach Belichick calls this the "FBI" (Football Intelligence).

2) Position Specific Skills and Abilities: We're talking quarterbacks, so release point, how long it takes to get from "**** point" to release, accuracy, arm strength, throwing on the run, creating plays, "internal clock", etc. I don't care if a receiver drops the ball, I care about the placement. I'm grading the quarterback, NOT the receiver. I'd also take a look at how they do in each category. For instance, short throws. Are the majority of their throws short? Do they struggle with intermediate and deep throws? I would count completions and attempts, but I'd count every pass that is catchable to a receiver a "completion". I'd also listen to receivers and players on his team. They may have varying opinions, but I want to know how the ball feels coming in. Is it a "catchable" ball? That wouldn't be the most important part of my grade, but it would factor in. Extending plays fits here.

3) Work Ethic/Background/Morals: I'm not so much interested in a goody two shoes. I'm interested in finding out if the kid understands right from wrong and tries to live a good life. They can have discretions, I just don't want that to be the norm. I'd also evaluate their ability to work. I'd ask their coaches in college, perhaps even high school, what they were like. Are the arrogant with a lack of preparation? I want nothing to do with them. Are they a hard worker who wants to hone their craft to be a top notch player and doesn't just settle for "decent"? I'd value that.

I won't spend time arguing with you about the grades you gave. Scouts rarely grade a prospect out the same, why should fans? Besides, that's not the point of your post, I don't believe. Your point is a system based on factors besides statistics. I agree, or Kliff Kingsbury, Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang would be the best quarterbacks in history.

Tom Brady is pretty good at extending plays, he's excellent at making subtle moves in the pocket. He obviously isn't a 4 or 5 because he can't do the things that RG3 can do, but he certainly should not be a 1.

Being able to make those subtle moves within the pocket is my minimal level.

Either way, I think any rating system such as this would require a look at how well the quarterback reads and understands defenses, as interceptions- being statistics as you argued, are unreliable indicators of individual ability.

Impossible to grade.

RG3 is getting better and better each week at reading the defense in front of him. Andrew Luck is great at that, as is Tom Brady. This is how Peyton Manning would go from being say 17/30 to being 22/35. I mean sure, from a scientific perspective you don't want to try and shape these things to get the results you expect, but if your rating system doesn't reflect reality regardless of the teams around players (i.e. if two rookies look better than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning) then it isn't really all that useful for anything other than generating a number and saying "wow, look at all that talent".

What you are calling reality isn't reality. It has has been shaped by performances which cannot be separated from team support. Talent has nothing to do with experience or growth in the scheme.

Yes, I understand the idea is to judge them on their raw physical traits alone, but the mental side of the game is what makes Tom Brady and Peyton Manning who they are.

Sorry, but I don't believe that. Brady and Peyton's reputation is bolstered by their support systems.

If the teams and coaches around Peyton Manning really made a difference I don't think he'd have nearly 3,000 yards, 24 tds vs. 7 ints coming off major surgery this season.

Why not? He's using the same scheme he's played in for years. The scheme is a big support factor. He has a better defense than the Colts had to help him win games also.

I really liked Fran Tarkenton as a kid, and I personally see a lot of Tarkenton in Griffin. How would your rating system evaluate Tarkenton?

Also, basically boiling down your rating system, you are just saying potential but as an example you gave Brady graded a 16, while what would a young Michael Vick, Vince Young, Jamarcus Russell, Andy Dalton, Brandon Weeden, Ben Rothlisberger all grade? I am thinking guys like Vick, Russell, and Young would have all graded high while Dalton and Weeden would grade low, and Rothlisberger somewhere in-between.

...I would grade based on a few factors:

1) Intelligence - Not your typical IQ test, but football intelligence. Show film. Show defenses. Have the quarterback walk me through what they're seeing. Get a good feel for their decision making process. If they aren't great yet, that's okay if they're young. But I want to also see how they respond to being coached. I'll bring up a similar play again later. Bill Belichick does this and I think its an outstanding idea. When he is evaluating college prospects he gives them a quiz. He meets them in a classroom or in a hotel and gives them a list of things that the Patriots do. He diagrams it and walks them through. Then they take a break. When they come back in, Coach Belichick tells the kid to go to the board and explain everything he was just taught. It's a test to see how coachable a kid is, and how "football intelligent" they are. Coach Belichick calls this the "FBI" (Football Intelligence).

That all makes sense, but I don't have access to that information. I'm grading from a fan's perspective.

2) Position Specific Skills and Abilities: We're talking quarterbacks, so release point, how long it takes to get from "**** point" to release, accuracy, arm strength, throwing on the run, creating plays, "internal clock", etc. I don't care if a receiver drops the ball, I care about the placement. I'm grading the quarterback, NOT the receiver. I'd also take a look at how they do in each category. For instance, short throws. Are the majority of their throws short? Do they struggle with intermediate and deep throws? I would count completions and attempts, but I'd count every pass that is catchable to a receiver a "completion". I'd also listen to receivers and players on his team. They may have varying opinions, but I want to know how the ball feels coming in. Is it a "catchable" ball? That wouldn't be the most important part of my grade, but it would factor in. Extending plays fits here.

I take all of that into consideration when I grade. If he has a slow release, for example, that will show up in my grading. Remember, I'm not using stats to do this. It's my judgement based on my self-study of throwing a football that began many years ago, but it's still just from one fans perspective.

3) Work Ethic/Background/Morals: I'm not so much interested in a goody two shoes. I'm interested in finding out if the kid understands right from wrong and tries to live a good life. They can have discretions, I just don't want that to be the norm. I'd also evaluate their ability to work. I'd ask their coaches in college, perhaps even high school, what they were like. Are the arrogant with a lack of preparation? I want nothing to do with them. Are they a hard worker who wants to hone their craft to be a top notch player and doesn't just settle for "decent"? I'd value that.

I can't grade him on those things, but if an NFL QB with millions of dollars at stake doesn't do everything possible to maximize his opportunity, I think he's stupid (lack of ordinary intelligence).

I won't spend time arguing with you about the grades you gave. Scouts rarely grade a prospect out the same, why should fans? Besides, that's not the point of your post, I don't believe. Your point is a system based on factors besides statistics. I agree, or Kliff Kingsbury, Colt Brennan and Timmy Chang would be the best quarterbacks in history.

You're right about my point. I'm perfectly happy if others want to question my grades.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 09:04 AM ----------

I really liked Fran Tarkenton as a kid, and I personally see a lot of Tarkenton in Griffin. How would your rating system evaluate Tarkenton?

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

Also, basically boiling down your rating system, you are just saying potential but as an example you gave Brady graded a 16, while what would a young Michael Vick, Vince Young, Jamarcus Russell, Andy Dalton, Brandon Weeden, Ben Rothlisberger all grade? I am thinking guys like Vick, Russell, and Young would have all graded high while Dalton and Weeden would grade low, and Rothlisberger somewhere in-between.

Young would not have made the cut on the Wonderlic. His mechanics are poor also. I grade on mechanics. They are reflected in the passing grades.

I won't take the time to grade all those players. Dalton looks like a good pocket passer. Big Ben would be a tweener, you're right.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 09:15 AM ----------

Duplicate post

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.

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

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.

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.

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

As I said, I discard performance stats.

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.

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/showthread.php?344224-The-2011-Draft-Middle-to-Late-round-QBs&p=8225859&viewfull=1#post8225859

accuracy: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344224-The-2011-Draft-Middle-to-Late-round-QBs&p=8232565&viewfull=1#post8232565

some grades: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?344224-The-2011-Draft-Middle-to-Late-round-QBs&p=8230871&viewfull=1#post8230871

...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.

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.

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.