Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

QB's: Game managers or playmakers?


SkinsHokieFan

Recommended Posts

This has been an interesting thought for me the past few years, and its something that I feel can lead to a worthwhile discussion

It has been en vouge to talk about having a QB who won't always win you the game but won't exactly "lose" it for you either

My thought is, that concept is totally crap

Obviously there are ways a QB can blow a game for you. Throwing an int in the 4th quarter, fumbling a snap, making a bad turnover. Pretty obvious stuff

Obviously there are ways a QB can win the game for you. Lead your team on a 4th quarter drive for the game winning TD, pick apart an oppsoing D all day

So my question is, what the heck is with this concept of a "game manger" QB

An example that is always pointed to was Trent Dilfer with the Ravens. Apparently he did not "win" games for the Ravens in 2000

Tom Brady after his first superbowl win was seen as this type of QB. Brad Johnson is seen as this type of QB, as is Ben Rothlisberger

However each of these guys made big plays in the playoffs and Superbowl to "win" their teams the Superbowl.

Do we have that "game manager" on this team? Is Mark Brunell not going to win us games but only prevent us from losing games? I'll point to the 2 Dallas games as examples of where MB "won" the game for us.

So what is with this concept of the "won't win it for us but won't lose it for us either" QB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last season, when we needed MB to make plays he did that. Three in a row in Dallas in week two if you count the huge run where he juked the defender in mid field. When healthy he is more than just a game manager. He'll make plays for you with his arms and legs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be both. Trent Dilfer is an extreme example and is easily the worst QB to win a SB but he still made some big plays in the 2000 SB against the Giants. But before you can win a game you have to make sure you don't lose it trying to force things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have to be both. Trent Dilfer is an extreme example and is easily the worst QB to win a SB but he still made some big plays in the 2000 SB against the Giants. But before you can win a game you have to make sure you don't lose it trying to force things.

I agree.

But I think all winning QB's ARE both

I do not understand the concept that a QB can be pedestrian and still win the Superbowl. He had to have made plays somewhere for his team to win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "game manager" tag is more about playing within yourself and taking the big plays as they come, not forcing anything. "Game manager" QBs are less likely to take that 30 yard shot into tight coverage because of the possibility of an interception, but that doesn't mean they won't take the 60 yard bomb into single coverage when they've got the advantage. Basically, they just have to avoid anything Aaron Brooks does and just stay within the flow of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a game manager QB as a role player. He calls the plays and is good at managing the timeclock. They are also a good leader and can run the plays as planned and practiced. For the most part I feel Brunnell is a game manager and not a playmaker. Brunnell was able to run for some first downs and make quick decisions based on what he saw coming at him.

An example of a playmaker would be McNabb. When the lines fails instead of being on his back like Bledsoe he escapes the pocket and is able to make plays to keep the drive alive. Michael Vick and Jake Plummer are also playmakers. Peyton Manning is the best game manager playing right now. The way he manages the clock and his players in the no huddle is simply amazing.

Think about it, there is a reason why WR's and QB's learn each other so well starting at OTA's. The WR's are running routes and the QB throws at a certain part of the route and they should be there. The more your QB is able to manage what blitz is coming at him the better he will get the ball to your WR (taking for granted he does his job as well).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All QB's are a different makeup of both. Dilfer didnt make a lot of big plays for his team, but he didnt screw up either and give the opposing teams short fields.

The other side of that coin is Brett Favre. The man IS the gunslinger and is HOF bound. But even in his best year, when he threw for 4400+ yards and 38! Tds, he still threw 13 picks.

Both these guys have SB rings. :whoknows:

The really great ones these days like Manning, Brady, and Palmer are very good at both.

Different guys get it done differently. Personally i'd take the guy that will win the game over the guy that wont lose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think MB's strength is that he doesn't try to force a play if it's not there. Brett Favre, for all this strengths, will force a throw and eat the INT if it happens. MB will not. Sure it's more conservative, but it also makes managing the clock easier.

I'm sure Gibbs prefers to have more control over the game. I can see someone like Gruden or Shanahan tolerating a more aggressive QB who throws into coverage to try clinch a TD with 3 mins left in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game managers win Superbowls. Playmakers don't.

In the past 20 years, here are the game-managers who've won SBs.

Rothelisberger, Brady, Johnson, Dilfer, Warner, Elway (at age 37 & 38), Aikman, Rypien, Simms/Hostetler, Montana, Schroeder/Williams, Simms, McMahon

Here are the playmakers who've won SBs.

Young, Favre.

And to be honest, I'm not sure Young at age 33 was much of a playmaker anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game managers win Superbowls. Playmakers don't.

In the past 20 years, here are the game-managers who've won SBs.

Rothelisberger, Brady, Johnson, Dilfer, Warner, Elway (at age 37 & 38), Aikman, Rypien, Simms/Hostetler, Montana, Schroeder/Williams, Simms, McMahon

Here are the playmakers who've won SBs.

Young, Favre.

And to be honest, I'm not sure Young at age 33 was much of a playmaker anymore.

To say that Brady and Elway arent playmakers is NUTS! They are/were adept at managing games too, but who else would you rather have run a 2 minute drill. Montana and Aikman go on that list too. The year Warner won the SB, he threw for over 4800 yards!

Like I said, the big winners have the ability to be both playmakers and manage a game expertly. The ones that are just managers all share one common trait......they had killer defenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Game managers win Superbowls. Playmakers don't.

In the past 20 years, here are the game-managers who've won SBs.

Johnson, Dilfer, Elway, Aikman, Rypien, Simms, Hostetler, Montana, Williams,

Here are the playmakers who've won SBs: Young, Favre.

I think it is an even mix and looks more like this:

Managers: Johnson, Dilfer, Elway, Aikman, Rypien, Simms, Hostetler, Williams,

Playmakers: Young, Favre, Warner, Montana, Brady, McMahon, Rothelisberger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has been an interesting thought for me the past few years, and its something that I feel can lead to a worthwhile discussion

It has been en vouge to talk about having a QB who won't always win you the game but won't exactly "lose" it for you either

My thought is, that concept is totally crap

Obviously there are ways a QB can blow a game for you. Throwing an int in the 4th quarter, fumbling a snap, making a bad turnover. Pretty obvious stuff

Obviously there are ways a QB can win the game for you. Lead your team on a 4th quarter drive for the game winning TD, pick apart an oppsoing D all day

So my question is, what the heck is with this concept of a "game manger" QB

An example that is always pointed to was Trent Dilfer with the Ravens. Apparently he did not "win" games for the Ravens in 2000

Tom Brady after his first superbowl win was seen as this type of QB. Brad Johnson is seen as this type of QB, as is Ben Rothlisberger

However each of these guys made big plays in the playoffs and Superbowl to "win" their teams the Superbowl.

Do we have that "game manager" on this team? Is Mark Brunell not going to win us games but only prevent us from losing games? I'll point to the 2 Dallas games as examples of where MB "won" the game for us.

So what is with this concept of the "won't win it for us but won't lose it for us either" QB?

When it comes down to the playoffs and every team is balanced and disciplined, game managers do what is needed to win while playmakers make the mistakes that cause you to lose. Any good championship QB has to be a game manager first and a playmaker only when really necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Brady and Elway arent playmakers is NUTS! They are/were adept at managing games too, but who else would you rather have run a 2 minute drill. Montana and Aikman go on that list too. The year Warner won the SB, he threw for over 4800 yards!

.

I agree with you PB (wow thats gotta be a first), and my premise in this thread is that the concept that there is a "game manager" as a QB is bunk

I just don't see how you "manage" a game without making plays. Being reckless like Brett Favre is one thing, but did Tom Brady and Ben Rothlisberger not make any plays? :whoknows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that Brady and Elway arent playmakers is NUTS! They are/were adept at managing games too, but who else would you rather have run a 2 minute drill. Montana and Aikman go on that list too. The year Warner won the SB, he threw for over 4800 yards!

I see a game manager as a player that needs a good supporting cast to direct, whereas a playmaker can make an offense go practically by himself.

Elway WAS a playmaker for most of his career. However, he didn't win a SB until he slowed down and the Broncos decided to get themselves a bonafide running game. The most dangerous weapon on the 97-98 Broncos was not Elway. It was Davis.

Aikman was the ultimate game-manager. He was a brilliant cog in a well-oiled machine, but there's no way he ever did it himself. That was Emmitt's team all the way. St Louis was Faulk's team. Once those two backs started slowing down so did their offenses.

Montana and Brady? I guess you could make a case for them, but I always thought of them as QBs known more for their heads than their arms.

Playmakers: Young, Favre, Warner, Montana, Brady, McMahon, Rothelisberger

I completely and utterly disagree about McMahon and Roethlesberger. Both of those guys were asked to do little more than hand the ball off and occasionally chuck it down the field. They both did it very well, but they certainly weren't the central focus of their offense by any stretch of the imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry,

Can you name any QB that ever won the Superbowl all by my himself?

I can see the point you are making in that a gamechanging QB can make an O pretty much go by himself, I don't think the Colts would be nearly as effective without Manning

But is there any QB who didn't have to make plays and lead his team to victory that has won the Superbowl?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Henry,

Can you name any QB that ever won the Superbowl all by my himself?

I can see the point you are making in that a gamechanging QB can make an O pretty much go by himself, I don't think the Colts would be nearly as effective without Manning

But is there any QB who didn't have to make plays and lead his team to victory that has won the Superbowl?

Playmaking, at least in my view of it, is more about making plays that weren't there before. Sure, Roethlisberger threw it deep to Ward and ran it in, but it wasn't as if he wasn't taking what the defense was giving him. Brady is an incredible game-manager, but you're never going to see him try to make something out of nothing in that "Wow did you see that" manner of a Favre or Vick. He's ruthlessly effective and very good, but he's not a playmaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My take is that a game manager relies on ability to read coverages and is smart enough to know when to throw the ball away and not force a throw when the receiver is not clearly open. A playmaker relies on arm strength and accuracy to get the ball to a receiver even when the receiver is well covered.

A good game manager is primarly concerned with not throwing an interception especially when deep in ones own territory as it will result in points for the other team; or when you are deep in the opponents territory as it will result in not scoring at least a field goal.

From a coaches standpoint I think that if your team has a very good defense that can keep opponents from scoring a lot of points then the feeling is that we can win the game if we don't give up any turnovers. Thus a QB that is a good game manager is who you want.

If your defense is not too good then you feel that your offense needs to score a lot of points. Thus a QB that can make plays is who you want.

Of course late in a game if you are ahead then you want a good game manager; but if you are behind then you need a playmaker.

Ideally you want a QB that is good at both of course.

I think last season Patrick Ramsey is more of a playmaker and Mark Brunnel more of a game manager. When Pat threw those interceptions Joe Gibbs immediately felt he would rather have a good game manager in there and switched to Mark Brunnel.

I tend to think playmakers are born talent while game management can be learned as one gains experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playmaking, at least in my view of it, is more about making plays that weren't there before. Sure, Roethlisberger threw it deep to Ward and ran it in, but it wasn't as if he wasn't taking what the defense was giving him. Brady is an incredible game-manager, but you're never going to see him try to make something out of nothing in that "Wow did you see that" manner of a Favre or Vick. He's ruthlessly effective and very good, but he's not a playmaker.

That explains it better than I did. A playmaker makes things happen with his amazing talent, whereas a game manager makes things happen within the framework of the offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely and utterly disagree about McMahon and Roethlesberger. Both of those guys were asked to do little more than hand the ball off and occasionally chuck it down the field. They both did it very well, but they certainly weren't the central focus of their offense by any stretch of the imagination.

Being a playmaker doesn't always mean that you are the central focus of the offense. Dave Megget was a playmaker. Alvin Harper was a playmaker. McMahon & Rothlesbeger are both pretty bad at managing games. Their skills came from their ability to makes plays when no play appeared to be there. In Super Bowl XL Rothlesbeger didn't do much of anything, but he did scramble out of the pocket and throw a prayer TD to Hines Ward.

Kurt Warner was a monster. Just because he wasn't the focus of the offense doesn't mean he wasn't a playmaker. He was throwing deep and throwing often and leading the league in yards and TDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That explains it better than I did. A playmaker makes things happen with his amazing talent, whereas a game manager makes things happen within the framework of the offense.

I think ALL good QB's have to work within the framework of their offense to win. QB is the position that sets up the other guys. Great WR's cannot be effective without a QB to get them the ball.

Also, you mentioned about how QB's are effective using their heads vs. their arms. I think the QB position is 90% head, 10% physical, with some variance for guys like Vick and the really mobile guys. Still a QB's job is to get the ball in the hands of his playmakers. If you are down by 6 with 2 minutes to go and need to go 80 yards, would you rather have Peyton Manning and 3 decent recievers, our would you rather have Marvin Harrison and Joey Harrington? I take Manning every time.

Tom Brady is definitely a playmaker. How many 2 minute drills has he executed in clutch situations? How much talent has he really had at WR?

Rothleisburger hasnt really been asked to be a playmaker yet because his team is so good on defense and running the ball. BUT, when his team has needed him to step up and make the big play, he's done it almost every time. You dont get a record like Brady and Big Ben without being able to get it done yourself from time to time. These guys arent phenomenal athletes like McNabb/Vick and they dont have the huge arm like Favre. What they do have is that winning mentality and a knack for making plays when the chips are down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imo, a qb just needs to stay within himself and do what his team needs. if that's being a playmaker (ie vick), then make plays, but the team will also have to live with the negative consequences that invariably happen when a playmaker tries to do too much.

if the team just needs a game manager (ie brunnel), then manage the game, but don't fall into the trap of impatience because the offense will rarely make the big play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PB, I understand what you're saying but the difference is Tom Brady is playmaking by understanding the defense, making the correct read and hitting the open man. That's playing smart and heady. Running around dodging tackles for 14 seconds until someone finally pops open a la McNabb is playmaking. The reason he put all those QBs into the game manager category is because they all made plays based on understanding the game and taking what was given as opposed to using their physical skills to make something out of nothing. Brady will take a sack and come back and find the open guy on the next play, the playmakers will duck, dodge, weave, underhand, ect to make the play that shouldn't be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...