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

[terpskins10]

I don't understand. We've seen this story on this board over and over again and Oldfan still finds a way to bait everyone into the discussion. He'll never sway anyone and no one will ever sway him. Why argue?

[Skinsinparadise]

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.-

RG 3 is more dangerous IMO than the Brady/Manning types because he can kill you in multiple ways. I was just thinking this recently, imagine RG 3 with the Eagles or Giants WRs corp? you can throw a 5 yard slant to Victor Cruz and he can take it 70 yards for a touch down. That bomb that Aldrick Robinson dropped likely would have been caught by D. Jackson. Heck picture RG 3 throwing to our upcoming opponent's the Falcons Wrs.

As much as Shannahan loves having a top QB, he beats to death the supporting cast stuff. Here's a statement where he covers both topics at the same time.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/jeff_diamond/07/19/mike-shanahan/index.html

"Everybody is looking for a franchise quarterback, and we had a chance to get someone special who can be here 10 to 15 years," said Shanahan. "Robert has great arm strength, he can run and make plays with his feet, he's strong and will get stronger. It's obvious he has all the intangibles -- the work ethic, he studies the game, wants to be a good player, wants to win, the way he handles himself. Football is important to him.

"We've got to surround him with good players. The Elways, the Youngs ... they all needed good players around them to be successful. "

http://www.wtop.com/363/3026338/Shanahan-Not-worried-about-season-predictions

My plan with Robert is to make sure he has the right supporting cast, where we don't put all the pressure on one guy," Shanahan says.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 11:30 AM ----------

I don't understand. We've seen this story on this board over and over again and Oldfan still finds a way to bait everyone into the discussion. He'll never sway anyone and no one will ever sway him. Why argue?

RG 3 is current and being discussed to death right now, this isn't an old argument. As for the post about Campbell, recall Oldfan grading him out constantly as a C, nothing special.

[redskins59]

So, do you still rank Cutler as the best QB in the league, or are Cam Newton and RG3 better?

[terpskins10]

RG 3 is current and being discussed to death right now, this isn't an old argument. As for the post about Campbell, recall Oldfan grading him out constantly as a C, nothing special.

Not RG3 specifically, I mean Oldfan's idea about intangibles not mattering and all that. Most people aren't going to agree and no one will convince him of their side.

[Knick]

2 years...

[Burgold]

I think if the argument was a good, complimentary crew is essential and a qb, even a great qb can't do it alone was made... no one would argue.

But if the argument is that Joe Montana and Chad Pennington in their primes are equal or that Jeff George was in reality the best qb of all time... or that Cam and RGIII right now are better QBs than Brady and Peyton, but...

It's a little tougher to swallow. After all, who was the best qb we've had since the glory years (excluding possibly this year)

Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson of the noodle arm, slow foot, mediocre accuracy, etc was better than Donovan McNabb or Jeff George (with much better measurables on the same exact team) or a dozen other physically superior specimens. For this reason, if no other, Oldfan's theory doesn't wash.

Put Brad Johnson and Jeff George on the same team with the same coaches and if it were the measurables that mattered most, velocity and spiral, strength, speed of foot, agility, etc. Why in the world was Johnson SOOOOO much better.

[Skinsinparadise]

This is Shanny being asked by Chicago sports writers about Cutler

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/bears/tag/_/name/mike-shanahan

"I don't care what quarterback you have, you have to have a good supporting cast," Shanahan said. "And not only a good supporting cast, you have to have a system that really relates to the players.

"That's what you're working for as a head coach in the National Football League, to put all of that together."

[Oldfan]

... 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.

One of the things scouts agreed on about Jason Campbell coming out of Auburn was that he was a natural leader. It was BS of course. When you ask a dozen people to define what they mean by "leadership," they will give you a blank stare at first and then a dozen different answers. I can't take seriously your claim that leadership is clearly visible and you can see it in Tom Brady.

When a QB get in the face of a teammate on national television, I see an egotistical prick. I don't care if his name is Brady, Manning or Cutler. When things go bad for him, Peyton pouts like somebody just stole his favorite toy. That's taken as a sign of how much he hates to lose. When Cam pouts, it's immaturity.

As for why Ryan plays well in the regular season but not as well in the playoffs...before you look for emotional weakness in Ryan, I suggest you consider that he was likely up against better defenses in the playoffs.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 11:58 AM ----------

So, do you still rank Cutler as the best QB in the league, or are Cam Newton and RG3 better?

I can't answer that right now.

I haven't seen enough of Jay since his knee injury to be sure, but he seems to be a tad slower.

I still haven't seen enough of Cam or Robert to give a final grade on their passing ability. But I am very impressed with both.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 12:02 PM ----------

Not RG3 specifically, I mean Oldfan's idea about intangibles not mattering and all that. Most people aren't going to agree and no one will convince him of their side.

I have had PMs asking me my opinions on RG3. There are people who are interested. If you are not...

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 12:09 PM ----------

...Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson of the noodle arm, slow foot, mediocre accuracy, etc was better than Donovan McNabb or Jeff George (with much better measurables on the same exact team) or a dozen other physically superior specimens. For this reason, if no other, Oldfan's theory doesn't wash...

IMO, you are wrong in your assessment of Brad Johnson. But even if you were right, one exception would not disprove a general rule.

[DCsportsfan53]

[/color]I stopped reading after this line.

Sage advice, wish I had done the same when I saw you attempt to suggest that intangibles and playoff/championship success don't factor into accurately judging a QB.

[Burgold]

[/color]IMO, you are wrong in your assessment of Brad Johnson. But even if you were right, one exception would not disprove a general rule.

If you don't want to talk about Brad vs. Jeff in terms of armstrength, velocity, and measurable skills... would it help to switch to Sonny vs. Billy? Did Billy really have a better arm, tighter spiral, and more measurables than Sonny?

(Mind you, a lot of folks thought George Allen was wrong, but he believed in Billy over Sonny.)

[Oldfan]

If you don't want to talk about Brad vs. Jeff in terms of armstrength, velocity, and measurable skills... would it help to switch to Sonny vs. Billy? Did Billy really have a better arm, tighter spiral, and more measurables than Sonny?

(Mind you, a lot of folks thought George Allen was wrong, but he believed in Billy over Sonny.)

Jeff George was a head case. If you read the OP more carefully, I did not say that the intangibles never matter. So, don't argue as though that's my position.

And the Sonny/Billy discussion has squat to do with the argument in my OP.

[Burgold]

How about Vinny Testaverde vs. Tom Brady then. Same team. Vinny had a better arm at that point, tighter spiral, and may have even been more mobile (don't remember)... the team took a huge jump when the weaker armed guy took over.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to figure out your position. Billy vs. Sonny. Doug Williams vs. Jay Schroeder. Brad vs. Jeff. Vinny vs. Tom. Joe Montana vs. Steve Young.

In which of these cases does your theory hold up and why?

[Koala]

Chad Pennington= Joe Montana huh?

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

Jay Cutler. Is better. Than Peyton Manning.

Can we get an nnt for this dude already , out of mercy for the boards readers

[Oldfan]

Jay Cutler. Is better. Than Peyton Manning.

Can we get an nnt for this dude already , out of mercy for the boards readers

Can't stand to read opposition to your precious opinions?

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 12:46 PM ----------

How about Vinny Testaverde vs. Tom Brady then. Same team. Vinny had a better arm at that point, tighter spiral, and may have even been more mobile (don't remember)... the team took a huge jump when the weaker armed guy took over.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth just trying to figure out your position. Billy vs. Sonny. Doug Williams vs. Jay Schroeder. Brad vs. Jeff. Vinny vs. Tom. Joe Montana vs. Steve Young.

In which of these cases does your theory hold up and why?

You probably mean Bledsoe not Testaverde and there was very little obvious difference between Bledsoe and Brady on the tangibles. Moreover, the Patriots passing game was only about average in those early years regardless of which QB was under center. That Patriots defense was the much stronger unit.

As for figuring out my position, I suggest you read the OP again. If there is something in that argument you don't understand, quote the part that you don't understand and I will try explaining it better.

[Jumbo]

Jay Cutler. Is better. Than Peyton Manning.

Can we get an nnt for this dude already , out of mercy for the boards readers

You are about 100 times more likely to get your own account suspended in one way or another then OF. That's using the ES staff metric.

[Ashburn Dave]

I have Chad Pennington on a par with Bart Starr and Joe Montana

I stopped reading after this line.

[21cents]

umm ya your wrong. Cam Newton is hardly a good qb. He put up decent stats last year but it was bcause most of the games they lost and he was just putting up stats in garbage time.

[Oldfan]

I stopped reading after this line.

You missed the chance to learn something.

[HailToTheRedskins14]

What exactly is the point? You say intangibles are for "BS artists" but then say "Well, intangibles do matter, too". You say it is important to have a good surrounding cast, but that's obvious. I don't get how this makes Newton and RG3 better than Peyton and Brady. Are you saying that throwing a tight spiral on a line and having tape-measure athleticism with a good surrounding cast makes a good QB? That's obvious.

But decision making is important. You put a guy like Jason Campbell on any team in the league, and then people will just say "Well, his supporting cast sucks. Look how often he gets sacked. WR's must not be getting open, and his OL sucks." Well...no. If a QB holds onto the ball all day and is scared to pull the trigger, then the supporting cast doesn't matter. And things like leadership make an offensive line want to block for the guy. The intangibles trickle all over the team. The offensive line will work harder to buy a guy like Tom Brady time because they know he can do something with the ball. If they have a guy behind him looking like a deer in headlights, what's the incentive?

I've read the first post three times and can't seem to get the argument here. Where does hard work off the field come into play? Attitude? I feel like you're saying that stuff doesn't matter, but I know you'll say it does. Am I incorrect in understanding that the measurables are the most important part of a QB? And more important that "intangibles" like leadership, intelligence, decision-making, and work ethic?

[Jumbo]

I stopped reading after this line.

I also suggest people stop popping into the thread at this point just to "contribute" this kind of post (no reflection on AD who is a fine poster, himself). At this point it's a response worthy of a spam violation. Argue the OP.

I see a few basic points I agree with, for instance (like many typical ways various QB ratings/stats are used in evaluation by fans are relatively insubstantial and quite team-reflective) and some I don't (like subjective evaluation and importance of leadership and football/intelligence/decision making--both real in my world and both hard to give objective measure in some metric form). So join the conversation or move on.

(meaning the drive-by slams are represented well enough. continued repetition is not adding anything. while the OP offers a controversial claim, it's hardly the dumbass deal some like to make it out to be, particularly noting how many actual dumbass threads many here seem just fine with ).

[Skinsinparadise]

Oldfan

Greg Cosell from NFL films, who I threw some posts at you on a different thread. Cosell is sort of becoming the defacto accepted study film expert by the NFL shows. you might be interested in these links. His position doesn't perfectly dovetail yours (he for example factors supporting cast as key but also esteems the value of a QB higher in importance) but he does on a number of points -- he's a big into a QB's skill set is by a mile the key, loves Bill Walsh and thinks him being ahead of the curve helped his QBs succeed, loves Cutler, etc. Here are some excerpts from those 2 articles.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/02/23/cosell-talks-matt-flynn-and-the-art-of-quarterbacking

Coach Walsh always believed the play of the quarterback could be, and, in fact, had to be manipulated and managed by the passing game schematics and by extension the play-calling. You had to understand the quarterback’s physical attributes, and structure the offense, specifically the passing game, accordingly. I remember him telling me that he threw the skinny post with Dan Fouts (Walsh was the Chargers’ offensive coordinator in 1976, for one season), but not with Joe Montana. He said Montana could not make that throw very well. The overriding point was this: the passing game concepts, i.e., route combinations and reading progressions, had to maximize the quarterback’s strengths and minimize, or even eliminate, his limitations. Walsh was the first coach to apply this conceptual construct, and he forever changed the way in which coaches design pass offense.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/02/07/cosell-talks-once-again-its-the-quarterback/

All these traits are visible and discernible on film. They are some of the subtleties of quarterback play, the nuances demanded at the NFL level. It’s a highly disciplined craft. Critical moments in big games are not defined by random and arbitrary play. It’s tangible and quantifiable skills that most often produce the memorable plays. Eli Manning has reached the point in his development in which he has mastered many of them. Manning simply plays the position the right way. That’s the reason he performs well in the fourth quarter. It’s a function of measurable attributes that produce consistent execution over time.

[elkabong82]

When comparing athletes I always prefer to look at how they are performing in comparison to their peers. I feel that cross-era comparisons are difficult and require a lot of context, but that the peer-to-peer comparison lets you know how they stack up in the league in their own time. The quality of their competition has to be considered as well. The greater the competition, the greater that players' standing.

RG3 right now is performing like a top of the league QB, and his competition is really, really tough. Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Peyton are all first ballot HOFers, and you still have some other QBs playing who have won multiple Superbowls and are likely HOFers, though a lot of their success is also thanks to their team.

The future is bright, and right now Shanny looks like a genius for doing the trade.

[ILikeBilly]

I don't know if there is a way to grade it, but we all have seen over and over again these WRs, some no-names and others great, but they just make these incredible catches for QBs like Brady, Manning, Montana (and I see it alot with P Rivers in San Diego.) I think it is because of ball placement and velocity. It is like the ball sticks in the receivers gut or floats down like a feather (when needed.) This makes the good QBs great. Drives are extended, TDs are scored and magic happens - a Taurus becomes a Maseratis. A rising tide raises all ships and the same could be said about QBs. It may not add up to Super Bowls, but it does add up to victories and playoff appearances.

[Oldfan]

What exactly is the point? You say intangibles are for "BS artists" but then say "Well, intangibles do matter, too".

Read this again. "I ignore the intangibles because they can't be seen and graded with any accuracy." It doesn't matter how important the intangibles are. What matters is that when we try to compare QBs, they can't be graded with reliable accuracy.

I don't get how this makes Newton and RG3 better than Peyton and Brady.

You didn't get this?

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.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan

Greg Cosell from NFL films, who I threw some posts at you on a different thread. Cosell is sort of becoming the defacto accepted study film expert by the NFL shows. you might be interested in these links. His position doesn't perfectly dovetail yours (he for example factors supporting cast as key but also esteems the value of a QB higher in importance) but he does on a number of points -- he's a big into a QB's skill set is by a mile the key, loves Bill Walsh and thinks him being ahead of the curve helped his QBs succeed, loves Cutler, etc. Here are some excerpts from those 2 articles.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/02/23/cosell-talks-matt-flynn-and-the-art-of-quarterbacking

Coach Walsh always believed the play of the quarterback could be, and, in fact, had to be manipulated and managed by the passing game schematics and by extension the play-calling. You had to understand the quarterback’s physical attributes, and structure the offense, specifically the passing game, accordingly. I remember him telling me that he threw the skinny post with Dan Fouts (Walsh was the Chargers’ offensive coordinator in 1976, for one season), but not with Joe Montana. He said Montana could not make that throw very well. The overriding point was this: the passing game concepts, i.e., route combinations and reading progressions, had to maximize the quarterback’s strengths and minimize, or even eliminate, his limitations. Walsh was the first coach to apply this conceptual construct, and he forever changed the way in which coaches design pass offense.

http://nflfilms.nfl.com/2012/02/07/cosell-talks-once-again-its-the-quarterback/

All these traits are visible and discernible on film. They are some of the subtleties of quarterback play, the nuances demanded at the NFL level. It’s a highly disciplined craft. Critical moments in big games are not defined by random and arbitrary play. It’s tangible and quantifiable skills that most often produce the memorable plays. Eli Manning has reached the point in his development in which he has mastered many of them. Manning simply plays the position the right way. That’s the reason he performs well in the fourth quarter. It’s a function of measurable attributes that produce consistent execution over time.

You hooked me onto Cosell in an earlier thread and much of his theory in grading QBs dovetails with my own.

You talked about Walsh fine-tuning the QB's results by adding some plays and eliminating others. This is something that a decent youth coach does for his QBs. You find out what throws he can make and those he can't you eliminate. As I recall, Steve Young and Joe Montana had identical INT percentages down to four places.

One thing often missed is that coaching to win championships and coaching to make the QB look good are two very different things. To me, the Indianapolis strategy could have been designed by Archie Manning because it seemed designed intelligently to make the QB look good and not so bright if the goal was to win championships.