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

[MarkRascadizzle]

I think the reason it's so difficult to accurately compare two quarterbacks at a 100 percent objective level is the same reason its nearly impossible to compare 2 head coaches. So much of their value is predicated on character, management, focus, ability to inspire players, ability to improve the mindset of 50+ men, etc. These are what the OP calls "intangibles" and then throws them out of the equation. In my opinion, just because you can't write an attribute down on a piece of paper in quantitative fashion, doesn't mean it's not a completely imperative component in evaluating a QBs worth on a team. This is because football is not played on a piece of paper, it is played on a field. A field containing hundreds of fluid variables on game day that can't be easily named. To discount a quarterback's ability to control, grasp, and overcome the pressures and lightening speed of the game, is irresponsible in my opinion.

While it's true that it's easy to BS a QB comparison saying that one's got better "intangibles," there are just too many variables to be completely objective.

[Oldfan]

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.

Give me an example. How would you go about quantifying leadership? You'll have to start by defining it in a football context. Is the rah rah stuff your idea of leadership? Is chewing out your teammate on national TV leadership? What exactly can a QB do to show leadership on the field beyond looking calm and calling the play?

The QB is the most important player but why does he have to lead off the field? In the Skins heyday quiet Art Monk was their leader.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 04:32 AM ----------

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

My position is that you have no way to grade those 15 categories in order to compare the two QBs. But, I'm only going to ask you to explain to me how you determined that Peyton was the more accurate passer.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 04:45 AM ----------

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. ..

Over time, good offenses will perform better-than-average on every drive including the final drive. If you could supply a stat showing that the 49ers final drives were better than their own average, it would support your claim.

Your comment is an example of giving the QB credit for an intangible that probably can be better explained by the fact that he played for a superior team.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 04:50 AM ----------

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.

It's not too soon for me because I'm grading on things that can be seen now.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 05:12 AM ----------

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.

There are about 15 scheme-related things I could mention to account for your observation. I'm going to mention just one.

Peyton has been throwing 75% of his passes from the shotgun. The shotgun offers disadvantages in the running game, but all QBs perform better in the passing game. Catch the snap, a one-step drop and the ball is away.

In contrast, the Bears are wedded to their running game. The QB goes under center, takes 3, 5 or 7 step drops... meanwhile the rush is on its way.

The more a QB has to move his feet, the less likely he is to throw an accurate pass. The scheme doesn't ask Peyton to move his feet much. He doesn't do it well.

If you want to draw a fair comparison to Jay Cutler, you have to go back to 2008. The Broncos offense was graded #1 on DVOA that season. They allowed just 11 sacks (NFL best) mainly because Shanahan's scheme used the shotgun and when he didn't, he had Cutler on the move with boots off the zone stretch.

[21cents]

oldfan, i just dont understand your argument. You cannot just say xx is a better qb then xy because he runs faster and throws further.

Thats like saying devin thomas is a better WR then wes welker because hes stronger, faster, taller.

Sports dont work that way. Talent cannot be measured by height, weight, speed. You can consider those but talent comes in the form of being able to do something better then everyone else.

Plus QB is a mental game. Thats why you dont see the dumb ones like vince young and jamarcus russell going anywhere.

[Oldfan]

...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.

I spent a few hours thinking about how to present a clear concise argument to make my point. When a poster opens his remarks by calling my effort a steaming pile, he's going to be dismissed.

Disregarding things that are difficult to grade with accuracy is rubbish and a sign of laziness in my opinion.

Difficult to grade? Prove to me that it is possible to grade any of the intangibles we have been discussing. I'll be pleased to incorporate your work into my grading if you will tell me how.

.

..it seems to me that you do a poor job of making your message tangible to the rest of us.

Well, that's one possible explanation for the disconnect.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 05:44 AM ----------

oldfan, i just dont understand your argument. You cannot just say xx is a better qb then xy because he runs faster and throws further.

Thats like saying devin thomas is a better WR then wes welker because hes stronger, faster, taller.

Sports dont work that way. Talent cannot be measured by height, weight, speed. You can consider those but talent comes in the form of being able to do something better then everyone else.

You are distorting my position. The QB's skill-set isn't just arm strength, speed or height.

Think of yourself as a defensive coordinator game planning for Brady or Manning. It's simple: You have to get them to move their feet. When they have to move their feet they are not nearly as effective.

Now think of yourself as game planning for Cam or Robert. It's a much tougher task because the OC can use them in several ways.

Plus QB is a mental game. Thats why you dont see the dumb ones like vince young and jamarcus russell going anywhere.

I acknowledged earlier that ordinary intelligence is a factor -- and it's measurable. But most of the starting QBs are smart enough to play the game.

[Oldfan]

I'm going to go deep on you guys. I'm invoking Occam's Razor which applies here. For example, in the claim that Joe Montana displayed an ability to raise his game in the clutch as evidenced by the 49ers final drive successes, there are two possible explanations:

1) Montana had this mysterious quality;

2) The 49ers had a great offense which had above-average success on all drives including the final drive.

Occam's Razor tells us that we should prefer the simple, mundane explanation over one that creates a quality that may not exist. It would require someone claiming that Montana had this intangible ability to show statistically that explanation two is not true.

The Joe Montana thing is just an example. If you claim that Brady's leadership is a significant factor when grading his performance, you will run into the same problem. The winning results on Brady's resume can be explained by simple, mundane causes that no football fan can deny. Leadership, on the other hand, doesn't even have a generally-accepted definition much less a proven effect on performance.

[MusicCitySkin]

I suppose football intelligence and an ability to read and manipulate a defense would count as "intangibles" even though those traits can, and have, been proven on film study--particularly with the technological advances in video. Your average football fan can now watch film where the entire field is visible. You can watch an entire play breakdown on your home computer. Imagine what the people that are paid to analyze football games do. When people talk about football intelligence, two names always come up: Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. You can say that it's only subjective, but when a great majority of people have the same opinions from the same observations, I think it may be time to concede.

[Burgold]

Remember the old legal definition of obscenity? I know when I see it. Yes, there are many definitions or styles of leadership, but that doesn't mean they're unobservable. Take it out of the realm of QB for a second. Why do so many great x and o tacticians fail miserably as head coaches, but thrive as coordinators?

Every human endeavor relies on a certain degree of psychological impact. Look at the effect of a good boss v a bad one on workplace productivity. QB is the same. It's not just the skills brought to the field, but confidence, calm, ability to improvise, etc. can we always quantify it... Like obscenity... We know it when we see it

[MusicCitySkin]

There are undoubtedly more perceived "intangibles" to address. I was only speaking of football intelligence. Leadership, confidence, calmness, etc. should all be considered when evaluating QBs. Picking and choosing what you want when evaluating quarterbacks is completely flawed. It's the same argument as "Rex Grossman is a good quarterback if you don't look at the turnovers." It doesn't work like that.

[zoony]

Jeff George, GOAT

[Oldfan]

I suppose football intelligence and an ability to read and manipulate a defense would count as "intangibles" even though those traits can, and have, been proven on film study--particularly with the technological advances in video. Your average football fan can now watch film where the entire field is visible. You can watch an entire play breakdown on your home computer. Imagine what the people that are paid to analyze football games do. When people talk about football intelligence, two names always come up: Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. You can say that it's only subjective, but when a great majority of people have the same opinions from the same observations, I think it may be time to concede.

Please define "football intelligence."

The QBs ability to read defenses requires ordinary intelligence and not a whole helluva lot of that. But, if the safety moves a split second before the snap he can outsmart any QB.

I'll concede that we now have better tools for analyzing the game and that there's a tiny percentage of football fans who know the game well enough to offer informed opinions. However, it would be a full-time job to compare the QBs of 32 teams on how well they read and react to defenses. If you have a link to a survey of such full-time experts, I hope you will post it.

The only expert I'm aware of doing such film study is Greg Cosell. Another poster brought him to my attention because his opinion on Cutler and his approach to grading QBs dovetails nicely with mine.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 08:18 AM ----------

Remember the old legal definition of obscenity? I know when I see it. Yes, there are many definitions or styles of leadership, but that doesn't mean they're unobservable. Take it out of the realm of QB for a second. Why do so many great x and o tacticians fail miserably as head coaches, but thrive as coordinators?

Every human endeavor relies on a certain degree of psychological impact. Look at the effect of a good boss v a bad one on workplace productivity. QB is the same. It's not just the skills brought to the field, but confidence, calm, ability to improvise, etc. can we always quantify it... Like obscenity... We know it when we see it

Right. You can see it. I can't.

[Burgold]

Jeff George, GOAT

Hey, I made this argument before... I even made it saying Jeff George and Brad Johnson were on the same team with the same players and coaches and the physically worse qb was much worse in performance.

That argument was dismissed... though I did get a nod. Oldfan said Jeff George was crazy (which I bet he can't quantifiably prove on tape)

[Oldfan]

Jeff George, GOAT

I suspect you are trying to make a point.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 08:28 AM ----------

Hey, I made this argument before... I even made it saying Jeff George and Brad Johnson were on the same team with the same players and coaches and the physically worse qb was much worse in performance.

That argument was dismissed... though I did get a nod. Oldfan said Jeff George was crazy (which I bet he can't quantifiably prove on tape)

Is it a reading problem or are you guys just dense? Jeff George does not contradict my position in the slightest. The same point has been explained multiple times.

[Mahons21]

OF, can't tell you how excited I was to see another one of your threads.

This would be my argument. While Cam and Robert may be the most phsically gifted QBs Far more goes into QB and team success than physical tools. and much of that is dependent on intangibles of the QB. For example preparation, no one is going to get convinced Manning is the GOAT because of his tangibles, he throws a duck and has cinder blocks for feet, but no one, absolutely no one prepares like Manning. Manning's level of preparation allows himself, and in turn his entire offense take advantage of the defense in countless situations. While this can't be measured. it can be argued logically, even more so now that he's changed surroundings.

Thus you can say Tom and Peyton aren't as physically gifted, but are more likely to help a team attain success due to a variety of other reasons. As a team I don't want the most physically gifted QB, I want the QB that gives me the best chance to win, and if that's a brady or Manning then so be it.

EDIT: If you only judge the tangibles you're going to be taking the Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell's of this world over Peyton Mannings.

[Burgold]

I

[/color]Is it a reading problem or are you guys just dense? Jeff George does not contradict my position in the slightest. The same point has been explained multiple times.

If many people are making the same mistake, chances are it is you being unclear versus a hundred posters being dense. Ask yourself this, how many in this thread seem to be getting or understanding what you are trying to explain?

Either you are wrong or you are unclear.

[MusicCitySkin]

Please define "football intelligence."

The QBs ability to read defenses requires ordinary intelligence and not a whole helluva lot of that. But, if the safety moves a split second before the snap he can outsmart any QB.

I'll concede that we now have better tools for analyzing the game and that there's a tiny percentage of football fans who know the game well enough to offer informed opinions. However, it would be a full-time job to compare the QBs of 32 teams on how well they read and react to defenses. If you have a link to a survey of such full-time experts, I hope you will post it.

The only expert I'm aware of doing such film study is Greg Cosell. Another poster brought him to my attention because his opinion on Cutler and his approach to grading QBs dovetails nicely with mine.

How do you know how much intelligence it takes to read and manipulate a defense? Ryan Fitzpatrick would be the best QB in the league if base intelligence mattered. That's why it's called football intelligence. You can't read a book on football and then go out there and coach a team to success, it takes a bit more than that. Understanding the game and manipulating it on the field to success is a measure of football intelligence. Peyton Manning has never been the most physically gifted QB, not even close. But he has continually gone out onto that field and imposed his will on opposing defenses. Can I entirely explain it? No, because I'm not a football expert. But people that are experts always refer to Peyton's ability to command an offense and pick a defense apart--they refer to his knowledge of the game, his ability to read a defense, his mental game, and his football intelligence. For crying out loud, he runs his own offense of his own design and has done so for several years now. Can I provide you with a completely tangible definition? No, but then I don't see things in black and white.

You ask for a link to very specific film breakdown, which is something I cannot provide. A simple google search will provide several examples of film breakdown, and I'm sure if you search hard enough, you'll find specific examples. There are people on this very message board that post their film breakdowns every week. You'd be naive to think fans of other teams aren't doing the same. But just to play along, I have found an 'All-22' film breakdown of Peyton Manning, which I think will be sufficient to give an idea of what I'm talking about. http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Film-session-Broncos-Levels-concept.html

Now a question. What was your opinion of JaMarcus Russell?

[Oldfan]

OF, can't tell you how excited I was to see another one of your threads.

Much appreciated.

This would be my argument. While Cam and Robert may be the most phsically gifted QBs Far more goes into QB and team success than physical tools. and much of that is dependent on intangibles of the QB. For example preparation, no one is going to get convinced Manning is the GOAT because of his tangibles, he throws a duck and has cinder blocks for feet, but no one, absolutely no one prepares like Manning. Manning's level of preparation allows himself, and in turn his entire offense take advantage of the defense in countless situations. While this can't be measured. it can be argued logically, even more so now that he's changed surroundings.

Thus you can say Tom and Peyton aren't as physically gifted, but are more likely to help a team attain success due to a variety of other reasons. As a team I don't want the most physically gifted QB, I want the QB that gives me the best chance to win, and if that's a brady or Manning then so be it.

I'll give Peyton the credit for advancing the state-of-the-art for preparation. On the other hand, if the goal was to mask a QB's weaknesses, his coaches gave him an outstanding scheme to do it. He's just not very talented.

Andy Reid designed a scheme to mask McNabb's weaknesses. They won lots of games, but no championships. The Colts designed a scheme to mask Peyton's weaknesses. They won a boatload of regular season games but just one Super Bowl.

Brady is another matter. He's a grade A passer. You can win championships with him.

As I said in the OP, the choice between a pocket passer and an athlete QB is a close call for a franchise. But, if we are talking about choosing up sides to play a football game, give me the athlete because he can do more on his own.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 09:27 AM ----------

How do you know how much intelligence it takes to read and manipulate a defense? Ryan Fitzpatrick would be the best QB in the league if base intelligence mattered. That's why it's called football intelligence.

I know what is involved in reading defenses. I don't call it football intelligence. I don't even know what that means. That's why I asked for a definition which you didn't give. I think it's ordinary intelligence. I think a QB with a 100 IQ could learn to do it. A QB with a 150 IQ could learn it faster but not any better.

But people that are experts always refer to Peyton's ability to command an offense and pick a defense apart--they refer to his knowledge of the game, his ability to read a defense, his mental game, and his football intelligence.

Yes, I know. But, how much weight can be put on that. It's football, not rocket science. It's not that complicated. How much better could he be at reading defenses than other QBs?

You ask for a link to very specific film breakdown, which is something I cannot provide.l]

That isn't what I asked for. never mind.

Now a question. What was your opinion of JaMarcus Russell?

Dumb. I said earlier that intelligence is a measurable intangible.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 09:47 AM ----------

If many people are making the same mistake, chances are it is you being unclear versus a hundred posters being dense. Ask yourself this, how many in this thread seem to be getting or understanding what you are trying to explain?

Either you are wrong or you are unclear.

I would accept your conclusion if this same problem wasn't prevalent on all the threads in this forum. If it's too much trouble for you to read the OP, then don't post.

If you read Post 2, kleese understood me just fine. So did others.

[MustangSteve]

I have to completely disagree with this. RG3 and Newton are not anywhere near Peyton and Brady. .

What part of this thread don't you understand? He just told you that RG3 and Cam were better lol. Do you ever believe what anyone says?

[Captain Injury]

The problem here is that the OP is unclear enough to draw confusion, and malleable enough to field defenses for attacks on its logic. It's a great strategy to generate conversation, but not one that can be evaluated through conversations like these, where less-than-concretely stated points can change easily when either party wishes to avoid losing face. Internet par.

[Oldfan]

The problem here is that the OP is unclear enough to draw confusion, and malleable enough to field defenses for attacks on its logic. It's a great strategy to generate conversation, but not one that can be evaluated through conversations like these, where less-than-concretely stated points can change easily when either party wishes to avoid losing face. Internet par.

Interesting. He accuses me of being vague, but doesn't give examples or specifics.

I'll bet he can't.

[MustangSteve]

Re: Robert and Cam are better than Tom and Peyton. I totally agree with Old Fan, those 2 QB's have been over rated for years. I just don't see what other fans seen in Brady and Manning.

[Burgold]

[/color]I would accept your conclusion if this same problem wasn't prevalent on all the threads in this forum. If it's too much trouble for you to read the OP, then don't post.

If you read Post 2, kleese understood me just fine. So did others.

Ah, so you're going with the "you're wrong" theory. I gave two possibilities for the mass disagreement. You were unclear or people think you're wrong. Since you dismiss the idea that you were unclear, clearly, people read your post and reasoning and disagree with it.

Truth is, your theory has a large gaping hole in it and as such can only be partially useful at best. It's looking at the gas consumption of a car without including the impact of wind, grade of the road, maintanance, how much weight the car is carrying, traffic density, etc. You're choosing the few categories that you can visibly see and disregarding everything that happens on the practice field, in the study room, or the even more ephemeral intangibles that occur on the field.

You even dismiss the notion that some qbs seem to be better at finishing off games or rallying their team... stating repeatedly that they actually aren't but that the behavior is just part of their average play and we just attribute it to end of the game, but that doesn't take into account that at the end of the game when the it's on the line the qb is liklier to take greater risks, concentrate harder, etc. Play isn't a constant and neither is effort.

Your rating system which you've admitted is incomplete is incomplete and that's why I and others so strenuously disagree with you. It's why sometimes more gifted quarterbacks perform worse on the same team with the same coaches under the same game conditions. The human element does count and needs to be factored in.

And perhaps that explains why the "athlete" qb has won so many fewer championships than the pocket passer.

[Captain Injury]

Addressing OP for hopefully useful clarity moving forward. For background, I am an educator, athletic trainer, and strength and conditioning specialist. I have trained athletes at the NFL level, and am used to academia where vetting assertions is common. I've used the Quotes to better format my input, but taken the name out of the quote because some of them are paraphrased.

{Metaphor = QB, Driver... Team, Car. Insinuates the team assists or hinders QBs ability to be evaluated.

It's a good metaphor

Statement: Quarterback rating is ineffective at measuring Quarterback play only.

[Good point.]

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

["Tangible Evidence" is drastically underdefined as such and this is leading to a lot of confusion. You need to present WHAT you mean and HOW is it to be judged and assessed. Remember that tangible things can be measured, but you've championed no measurements, so you've championed objective assessment versus subjective, but your definition of those objective measurables is subjective, which is rhetorically smart, but misleading.]

Paraphrased Statement: I ignore the intangibles because they can't be seen and graded with any accuracy. Furthermore, there are no impartial experts on the intangibles.

[Again, WHAT are the specific quarterbacking qualities you are discounting? You should list them for clarity in the OP. If you include an aspect of play in the "intangibles" category defined as such, you need to make sure they can't be 1) seen with accuracy, or 2) graded with accuracy, as you state. To do that, they must be at least listed clearly.]

Statement: Coaches and other affiliates are poor judges of subjective qualities because they are never impartial.

[Paraphrased. It's a great point.]

Statement: "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.

[At this point you need to clarifiy what a "tangible skill-set" is, which you haven't done besides the extremely vague "things i can see him do with his arms and legs." Your point that the supporting cast greatly affects the "success" of a QB is well stated and defined.]

Statement: 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.

[it would help to include a metric by which you decide who is an "athlete" and who is a "pocket passer." Also, "valuable" is a term that is not easily defined, or well defined here. Using your own metaphor, it is reasonable that a different type of driver is better for a different type of race vehicle. Defined as you have with "can beat you with both arm and legs" it would seem "versatile" is the term you meant, but versatility does not account for magnitude of effectiveness.]

Statement: 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.

[statement is that OP wavers on whether he finds one style of QB more effective than another. As a Strength and Conditioning Specialist, I feel obligated to offer that leg injuries DO have profound effects on less mobile athletes' efficetiveness, but a metric for analyzing that would be needed from the OP for it to be arguable.]

Statement: 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.

[This is conceptually solid, but very vaguely stated because there is no metric, and unhelpful if posters are to referr back to the OP whenever you deem them incorrect.]

Oldfan, I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with your premise. In fact, it's very well done as a debate piece because it is defendable since you provide virtually no metric by which you request your points be judged or debated. The friction in this thread stems from the contradiciton between "only using tangibles and ignoring intangibles" and the lack of any chosen metrics in the OP. If you are to consistently refer opposing viewpoints to the OP there needs to be a better stated assertion IN THE OP. Again, it's a great conversation piece, but if you are to field arguments and refuse criticism, there has to be much more in the way of objective information and chosen measurables from the OP.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 10:57 AM ----------

Interesting. He accuses me of being vague, but doesn't give examples or specifics.

I'll bet he can't.

That's antagonistic and pretty unnecessary.

[Oldfan]

Ah, so you're going with the "you're wrong" theory. I gave two possibilities for the mass disagreement. You were unclear or people think you're wrong. Since you dismiss the idea that you were unclear, clearly, people read your post and reasoning and disagree with it.

Truth is, your theory has a large gaping hole in it and as such can only be partially useful at best. It's looking at the gas consumption of a car without including the impact of wind, grade of the road, maintanance, how much weight the car is carrying, traffic density, etc. You're choosing the few categories that you can visibly see and disregarding everything that happens on the practice field, in the study room, or the even more ephemeral intangibles that occur on the field.

You even dismiss the notion that some qbs seem to be better at finishing off games or rallying their team... stating repeatedly that they actually aren't but that the behavior is just part of their average play and we just attribute it to end of the game, but that doesn't take into account that at the end of the game when the it's on the line the qb is liklier to take greater risks, concentrate harder, etc. Play isn't a constant and neither is effort.

Your rating system which you've admitted is incomplete is incomplete and that's why I and others so strenuously disagree with you. It's why sometimes more gifted quarterbacks perform worse on the same team with the same coaches under the same game conditions. The human element does count and needs to be factored in.

And perhaps that explains why the "athlete" qb has won so many fewer championships than the pocket passer.

1) I was not unclear about my position on intangibles. If I had said the intangibles don't matter, then throwing Jeff George out there would be relevant. From the OP:

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.

Kleese understood. In Post 2, he said: "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."

2) That most disagree with me isn't surprising, but who gives a damn? Most fans haven't given much thought to the game. They jump on media-generated bandwagons for their opinions.

3) I have given you my reasoning on such things as being clutch in final drives. If you don't agree, that's fine.

[Captain Injury]

Interesting. He accuses me of being vague, but doesn't give examples or specifics.

I'll bet he can't.

Betting is fine. I've reviewd your OP above and it doesn't contain unnecessary assumptions on your ability. Please refrain.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 11:13 AM ----------

So, Oldfan, for even more clarity on my part: the issue is that your OP doesn't include specific metrics for the conversation but that you ask people who disagree to be specific. Specific rebuttal to unspecific claim is a quagmire.

We need:

1) The specific measurables and metrics you consider to be tangbile and worthy.

2) The specific measurables and metrics you consider to be intangible and unworthy.

3) A Claim that is made based upon those specifics, I.E. "Arm strength, measured by maximum distance the ball can be thrown standing, and Speed, measured by 40-yard dash time, are better indicators of QB value, measured as WINS in a new QBs season versus WINS in the previous encumbant's last season (or whatever) than, say, Hall of Fame induction or Pro Bowl consideration.

Then, it can be researched and proven or disproven, rather than argued around.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 11:32 AM ----------

Hey, so I haven't seen anything more on this thread in a while. I've got to go to the bar to watch the game. Keep in mind I was never arguing your premise. I think it's interesting. I'm trying to provide tools so that you can be understood more clearly and we can get out of the circular stuff.

Have a great afternoon guys! HTTR!

[jgbkab1]

In another thread, some posters ranked Robert as the number one QB in the league up to this point. However, Robert is only ranked number one in QB rushing yards (which is a RB stat). Poise, leadership, "IT" factor, etc are some of the reasons given. The same case that fans of other teams can give for their QB. If you use these factors as your measuring stick, you can't objectively prove the true number one.

I don't necessarily dismiss intangibles from the discussion, but added to tangible stats gives your argument a more solid foundation.