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

[brdawk20]

@ Once past the Xs and Os, coaches, players and commentators don't impress me with their knowledge of the game. It's not hard to spot their mistakes in reasoning or their misuse of statistics. What I'm offering here is a logical argument. Telling me that I'm wrong because most people disagree is a logical fallacy.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that those with the most experience on the subject would not agree with you. And frankly, I would tend to side with them, based on my own experience as an athlete.

[Oldfan]

But there is a lot more to being a successful QB than the ability to throw a football. If you are only grading based on these physical aspects your grade is incomplete - and I know you realise that.

The point you make about throwing under pressure from the defense is fair - just about any QB will perform better given better protection. Again I do agree that the supporting cast - of which pass protection is an important element - is important in a QBs production.

So is the ability to read coverages, anticipate receivers coming out of breaks, seeing where pressure is coming from and getting in the right protection, knowing where your hot read is against a specific blitz and making the right decisions based on processing all this information. You may say that this all intangible and then dismiss it from your ratings but to me that's as wrong as the fan who says a QB is great because the team he plays on won lots of games.

Of course it's very hard to grade these intangibles, maybe impossible for a fan, but that does not diminish their importance.

How have I diminished the importance of intangibles? My position is that, since we can't grade them fairly, we can't use them when we're trying to make a fair comparison of QBs.

Yes, you're right. My grading is incomplete. But, mine makes sense as far as I can take it. It rests on the likelihood that the QB with the best tangible tools will probably be the better QB. The alternative method is complete, but it's complete nonsense.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 04:44 PM ----------

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that those with the most experience on the subject would not agree with you. And frankly, I would tend to side with them, based on my own experience as an athlete.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 04:42 PM ----------

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that those with the most experience on the subject would not agree with you. And frankly, I would tend to side with them, based on my own experience as an athlete.

I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

[Oldfan]

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that those with the most experience on the subject would not agree with you. And frankly, I would tend to side with them, based on my own experience as an athlete.

Okay. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

[MartinC]

The alternative method is complete, but it's complete nonsense.

I would use the word flawed rather than nonsense and I would argue that your incomplete grading system is just as flawed.

[Oldfan]

Sometimes a thesis can come in handy.

What is the OP's point?

if you didn't recognize it, an argument was made in the OP with a conclusion and premises. The conclusion is "the point." Let me know if I can be of further help.

[GoSkins561]

Okay, so it boils down to who can run the fastest and throw the ball 50 yards accurately?

[MR2Drift]

Science doesn't work this way, you can't just throw out all the variables you can't measure and expect accurate results since they play a large part in the end equation. I agree that it is difficult to grade a player when there are so many variables but what you have to do is find a way to objectively measure them and not throw it out. For example When a player is considered "smart" what does that really mean? Does the wonderlic correlate to success, how about SAT/IQ and other measures of intelligence. What if it is not so much IQ/wonderlic/ whatever standardized test score but the amount of studying a player does at work and outside of it where he learns the opponents tendencies and studies his own weakness and incorporates other players strengths. It's most likely a combination of both but we still don't know if they are equally important or one is more important.

The issue is that we as fans are not privy to this information and other necessary information thus whatever grade we give a player it will be probably be inaccurate. This doesn't mean that we should disregard the intangibles just try to figure out ways of accurately measuring them.

[TheItalianStallion]

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.

Funny you say this, seeing as you're the one who started that "Tom Brady is a lesser QB than Jason Campbell" thread back in 2009.

[Oldfan]

Science doesn't work this way, you can't just throw out all the variables you can't measure and expect accurate results since they play a large part in the end equation. I agree that it is difficult to grade a player when there are so many variables but what you have to do is find a way to objectively measure them and not throw it out. For example When a player is considered "smart" what does that really mean? Does the wonderlic correlate to success, how about SAT/IQ and other measures of intelligence. What if it is not so much IQ/wonderlic/ whatever standardized test score but the amount of studying a player does at work and outside of it where he learns the opponents tendencies and studies his own weakness and incorporates other players strengths. It's most likely a combination of both but we still don't know if they are equally important or one is more important.

The issue is that we as fans are not privy to this information and other necessary information thus whatever grade we give a player it will be probably be inaccurate. This doesn't mean that we should disregard the intangibles just try to figure out ways of accurately measuring them.

You probably missed the post earlier where I acknowledged that intelligence is a measurable intangible, but it's an exception.

How about leadership. Can you define it? Is it really a factor? How could you possibly measure a QB's talent for it or its influence if any?

How about coolness under pressure? How do you grade QBs on two teams who are subjected to different amounts of pressure?

I could give you a long list of intangibles claimed by fans when hyping their favorite QB or trashing yours. My plan is to ignore it until they present evidence to support their claims. This isn't science. It's debate. The burden of proof is theirs.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 06:15 PM ----------

Funny you say this, seeing as you're the one who started that "Tom Brady is a lesser QB than Jason Campbell" thread back in 2009.

Can you link that thread, please. Can't believe I ever said that.

[Burgold]

It seems to me that you want to remove statistics and intangibles from the discussion to better fit your definition of what a great quarterback is.

Well, to be fair... the least important measure in judging a qb should be what happens on the fields. Completions, accuracy, td/int ratios, and wins or losses are irrelevent. So, are what happens to the productivity to that team when that qb doesn't play. If a Manning goes down and a 12-4 team suddenly becomes a 2-14 team that doesn't mean that Manning is any good. Simultaneously, if Cutler is traded from the Broncos and largely the same team qbed by a guy named Tebow takes them all the way to the championship game does much, much better (but is still tossed aside as garbage for a chance at Manning)... What that really means is that Cutler is a better QB than Manning.

That's why Manning is in Denver and Cutler Chicago.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 06:31 PM ----------

Funny you say this, seeing as you're the one who started that "Tom Brady is a lesser QB than Jason Campbell" thread back in 2009.

I remember that thread. It was funny then, and its funny today.

What that thread was really about though was that Brady looked absolutely horrific in one game where his oline was getting gashed. In fact, he looked as bad as Jason Campbell.

[Oldfan]

Oops! I thought I was being accused of saying that Campbell was better than Brady.

[Burgold]

I was wrongly accused. That was Burgold's thread.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?315158-Tom-Brady-is-a-lesser-qb-than-Jason-Campbell

Yup, I take credit for that one. It was funny too, esp. how many people took it completely at face value.

[TheItalianStallion]

Can you link that thread, please. Can't believe I ever said that.

Burgold said that (in tongue-in-cheek fashion, mind), not you.

Oops! I thought I was being accused of saying that Campbell was better than Brady.

Whoops, I should've refreshed the page before posting.

[MR2Drift]

You probably missed the post earlier where I acknowledged that intelligence is a measurable intangible, but it's an exception.

How about leadership. Can you define it? Is it really a factor? How could you possibly measure a QB's talent for it or its influence if any?

How about coolness under pressure? How do you grade QBs on two teams who are subjected to different amounts of pressure?

Leadership is numerous things but you can dissect it to more smaller measurable parts for example: Being the first in and last out is demonstrates that the player is committed which is a sign of leadership. Also Offseason training like when QBs have WR over for unofficial training sessions is another thing leaders do. While we don't have the an accurate number to represent these things that we can plug into some formula it doesn't mean that it can't be done just that no one is given access to all this info or no one has thought of it. Maybe if we had this data we can correlate it to some measure of success but currently we do not so it is difficult to say how much of an impact it has. Also yes these two examples might also coincide with "dedication" or "professionalism" but what you call it doesn't really matter as long as you account for these things.

My point is that all these things matter the more variables you can incorporate the better you will be. For example you say Montana=pennington due to their physical assets, now you find out that Montana has spent 3 weeks in the offseason training with his QBs and is at the training facility from 7am-8pm while Chad only spent 1 week with his receivers and goes to work from 10am to 7pm. WHo would you rather have on your team if these two QBs were the same everywhere else except in these two categories? Would you honestly say that these things don't matter so either is fine or would you want Montana?

[Oldfan]

Leadership is numerous things but you can dissect it to more smaller measurable parts for example: Being the first in and last out is demonstrates that the player is committed which is a sign of leadership. Also Offseason training like when QBs have WR over for unofficial training sessions is another thing leaders do. While we don't have the an accurate number to represent these things that we can plug into some formula it doesn't mean that it can't be done just that no one is given access to all this info or no one has thought of it. Maybe if we had this data we can correlate it to some measure of success but currently we do not so it is difficult to say how much of an impact it has. Also yes these two examples might also coincide with "dedication" or "professionalism" but what you call it doesn't really matter as long as you account for these things.

My point is that all these things matter the more variables you can incorporate the better you will be. For example you say Montana=pennington due to their physical assets, now you find out that Montana has spent 3 weeks in the offseason training with his QBs and is at the training facility from 7am-8pm while Chad only spent 1 week with his receivers and goes to work from 10am to 7pm. WHo would you rather have on your team if these two QBs were the same everywhere else except in these two categories? Would you honestly say that these things don't matter so either is fine or would you want Montana?

I would be very pleased to incorporate more reliable evidence into my grading method. As I told Martin, I recognize that my method is incomplete. I just don't feel that filling the holes with biased judgments makes any sense.

The most important factor in grading a QB is his ability to throw the football. I have some interesting discussions with members on this factor alone. It really doesn't interest me to hear that their favorite QB excels as a leader.

[Burgold]

One place to look in changing your calculus might be weighting 2 minute drives or half ending drives more heavily. It's during the 2 min drives where qbs often have to call their own plays and demonstrate more "leadership"

I think not all drives are the same and the conditions of the game... Behind, ahead, time running out, trying to run out the clock, etc all give important hints as to QB effectiveness

[MR2Drift]

I would be very pleased to incorporate more reliable evidence into my grading method. As I told Martin, I recognize that my method is incomplete. I just don't feel that filling the holes with biased judgments makes any sense.

The most important factor in grading a QB is his ability to throw the football. I have some interesting discussions with members on this factor alone. It really doesn't interest me to hear that their favorite QB excels as a leader.

I understand what you are saying in the end as a fan we will have a very incomplete picture but it is fun trying to piece it together just like how whats his name was claiming McElroy was the next Brady. We both agree that it can be better but one hasn't truly been provided hence the importance of scouts which do the same thing we are trying to do but have better information to pull from to make educated opinions. The biggest difference between you and me is that I enjoy trying to figure out how to quantify the intangibles, you on the hand don't seem like you want any part of it.

[HighOnHendrix]

It really doesn't interest me to hear that their favorite QB excels as a leader.

Harking back to your example of Pennington/Montana, this is what made Joe so good. His ability to manage the game, manage the pressure of the situation, and not only control his own play during comebacks and end of half scoring drives but to impart that confidence to his teammates -- that's why Montana is considered such a good QB. As an F1 fan, I like the racer analogy you made but I think the equipment is only part of the equation.

One place to look in changing your calculus might be weighting 2 minute drives or half ending drives more heavily. It's during the 2 min drives where qbs often have to call their own plays and demonstrate more "leadership"

I think not all drives are the same and the conditions of the game... Behind, ahead, time running out, trying to run out the clock, etc all give important hints as to QB effectiveness

I think this is where Griffin really impresses me the most. His leadership and poise are unbelievably good for a rookie. Combine that with top-notch athletic ability and you've got a winner.

[Enter Apotheosis]

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.

Feel like I've been seeing this a lot lately. Usually people miss out on a decent point because they get too upset by one somewhat incendiary line. Deciding to just ignore a post on that basis is fine but commenting about your decision to ignore it is pretty childish. Unfortunately, Oldfan managed to kick that nonsense off in his own thread which strikes me as especially terrible. If you're going to make a fairly bold assertion, you should stick it out and hear out your detractors in full before dismissing them.

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.

Disregarding things that are difficult to grade with accuracy is rubbish and a sign of laziness in my opinion. You have to consider all of the evidence at your disposal when comparing two players but you also have to be careful to weight said evidence according to your level of confidence in it.

I will also say that I've read and re-read each of your posts in this thread and I suspect you do have a very good point somewhere in your line of thinking although, if it exists, it is particularly elusive and I struggle to properly conceptualize what I think I'm seeing. If I'm not being too optimistic in that assumption, it seems to me that you do a poor job of making your message tangible to the rest of us. Fortunately, it seems like most people in this thread aren't as averse to intangible things as you are :pfft:

[NewEraofSkins08]

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.

Tough to put intelligence ahead of physical tools. Could go either way, but Fitzpatrick is a Harvard grad...doesn't make him a top 5 QB.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Tough to put intelligence ahead of physical tools. Could go either way, but Fitzpatrick is a Harvard grad...doesn't make him a top 5 QB.

There are different areas of intelligence to consider and not all of them are applicable to football. Fitzpatrick is a smart guy and that undoubtedly has helped to get him where he is today... but there are other QBs who I would easily qualify as more football brilliant who do not have the same kind of academic/testing prowess as Fitzpatrick.

[Bishop Hammer]

It's way to soon to compare RG3 and Newton to Brady and Manning. If they can stay relevant for multiple seasons then comparisos wouldn't be to out of line.

[kleese]

Oldfan,

I think what turns me off from your argument more than the dismissal of intanigbles is your dismissal of RESULTS. I agree with you that Jay Cutler is a better pure thrower and has better legs than Brady. But it seems as if you are saying that is where the debate ends? Cutler has a better arm and is more mobile, so therefore he is a better player, period? In addition to everything else we talked about how about including the ability to consistently harness whatever skillset you possess?

That is a big problem with Cutler and I don't think it's fair to blame that all on his supporting cast. Peyton, as an example, is like a robot....he almost never wavers. His throws may not be lasers, but he makes the correct read and release almost every time.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 08:36 PM ----------

It's way to soon to compare RG3 and Newton to Brady and Manning. If they can stay relevant for multiple seasons then comparisos wouldn't be to out of line.

Too soon to compare career accomplishments, but not too soon to compare skillsets and ability.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Too soon to compare career accomplishments, but not too soon to compare skillsets and ability.

It's a little bit premature to even do that. We're still learning a lot about RGIII's skillset and ability as they pertain to NFL-level competition whereas the book on a guy like Manning is all but written.

[stp240]

Peyton is running the same scheme he's used for 15 years. It's designed to put up useless numbers. I doubt he will win as many games as Tebow did in Denver.

---------- Post added October-6th-2012 at 02:24 PM ----------

It's not rocket science. I don't grade QBs by team stats. I grade them on the tangibles -- what they can do with their arms and their legs. Manning can't pass as well as Jay Cutler and he doesn't use his legs as well as Cutler.

I could go a lot further into the finer points, but that's the bottom line.

I have to address this...

I do like how you factor in each QB's situation. WR's, Coaches, O line, Good defense, good run game. I think some QB's do get more credit than deserved.

The overall system (as I understand it) is based on a QB's attributes, Mainly attributes you could likely judge from a 7 on 7 scrimmage.

THE deciding factor between average QB's and great QB's are all the things that you must judge in a game setting.

1. Pocket Presence

2. Quick Release

3. Looking off coverage

4. Situation awareness (down and distance)

5. Knowledge of defenses

6. Anticipation

7. Finding throwing lanes

8. Selling play action

9. Ability to read coverage

10. Ball security

11. Decision making

12. Experience

13. Ability to learn

14. Awareness to take advantage of match ups

15. How to interact with coaches

Jay Cutler is far less accurate than Peyton, he has a disadvantage in every category i just mentioned

With that said sky is the limit for RG3

I know because I played.