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

[Jumbo]

Excellent post in every way, shape, and form Capt Injury. That comment has zero to do with my own views on the topic. And whatever else they do, OF threads inevitably prompt some very meaty and worthwhile football discussion.

[Oldfan]

..."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.

This comment would be fair if I were writing a scholarly article; but I wrote for an internet forum and members with a short attention span. Since this is a football forum, most readers are at least somewhat familiar with the way scouts evaluate the QB's tangibles. Furthermore, how I do it personally is not relevant to the argument I wanted to make.

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.

If I were writing an article, I would have done that. But, in a thread there's an opportunity to clarify such things during the discussion that follows. For example, I later clarified that intelligence was a measurable exception to my general statement.

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."

Point taken. I should have done that.

It would help to include a metric by which you decide who is an "athlete" and who is a "pocket passer."

I thought the QB examples I gave made that clear.

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.

I didn't mean "vesatile" but that line might have been worded better.

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.

Why would a metric be needed when drawing a direct comparison between two types? Isn't it clear enough when I lead the reader to the common sense idea that the more a QB depends on his legs, the greater concern we have for the degradation of his performance from a leg injury?

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.

I don't know what you mean by providing a metric. I presented an argument. Readers were able to debate the premises and the conclusion. Could you provide an example of what you are calling a "metric."

That's antagonistic and pretty unnecessary.

I thought it was necessary to provoke you into challenging me as you have rather than dropping one citical paragraph and running. Your contribution has made this a better thread.

---------- Post added October-7th-2012 at 12:48 PM ----------

...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.

My claim is that Robert and Cam are better than Tom and Peyton. Why do I need to specify metrics for you to debate that?

The premises are as follows:

From the OP: 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's a logical argument which can be countered by attacking the logic. That's all there is to it.

[zoony]

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.

[Oldfan]

After 186 strikeouts, my moderator-stalker, who is seldom wrong on a prediction because he seldom sticks his neck out to make a prediction finally connects! Give him a hand for this bump, guys!

[Oldfan]

duplicate post

[Burgold]

Simple question.

You have to build a team for this year. After the year, the league folds. No more team. Which quarterback do you want leading your team, Peyton, Brady, or Newton? For homeristic reasons, I'll exclude RGIII.

Right now, I think for one game or one season almost no one would choose Cam. There are many reasons why Montana was better than Pennington. Intangibles matter. Work-study habits matter. Leadership matters. Field vision matters. On the field, coaching and aligning of your team matters. Your peers faith in you and desire to fight for you and rally with you matter. That's why Robert McCune and Sultan McCullough aren't in the NFL and Alfred Morris is. Physical attributes matter, but they are but one component.

[Oldfan]

Simple question.

You have to build a team for this year. After the year, the league folds. No more team. Which quarterback do you want leading your team, Peyton, Brady, or Newton? For homeristic reasons, I'll exclude RGIII.

I take Cam because he's more of a threat to defenses than Brady or Peyton who require more help to win.

Right now, I think for one game or one season almost no one would choose Cam.

That's probably true, but all that means is that most fans follow the media opinions like lemmings.

There are many reasons why Montana was better than Pennington. Intangibles matter.

Intangibles do matter, but we don't have any way to fairly grade them.

You have ASSUMED that Montana had better intangibles than Pennington because Montana's team won championships and Pennington's didn't. You can't logically make that assumption. If Pennington had been the 49ers QB and Montana had gone to the Jets, you would be arguing that Pennington had the edge on the intangibles and that everybody agrees with you that Pennington was superior to Montana.

[Going Commando]

OF I think you can get a sense of intangibles from watching QBs play. I doubt you could objectively quantify them or get much more specific than, "wow, he's really good," or "man, he just doesn't have it." But you can sense when someone is special, especially over long periods of observation.

You can also review the little things which speak to an intangible makeup if you watch specifically for them. Like mechanics and discipline for instance. One of the things that makes Peyton and Montana and Brady special is how staggeringly consistent their mechanics are. That speaks to having rare discipline to me. Peyton and Montana have such good footwork as drop back pocket passers. Montana threw his WCO route trees as well as you can because he had such great footwork and was so perfect with his head movement and timing. I think a player has to be intangibly superior to be that skillful and consistent.

I think you can also get a sense of the level of anticipation a player plays with from viewing them over a long period of time. Eventually it just sort of becomes clear the player is elite at reading coverages pre-snap when he consistently finds the right man quick seemingly on his first read and gets the ball out on time and makes the play over and over again. More evidence is in the huge frequency of big passing plays that you see with Brady and Manning despite the fact they don't have superior physical talent. Manning will throw wobbly 30 yard TD passes that end up beating the coverage anyway with perfect placement and timing because he just anticipates how the events on the field will shake down at such a superior level.

It's my subjective opinion based on watching Tom Brady for so many years that he anticipates the game better than any QB I've ever seen. Can't back it up objectively, but I believe it's true and I'm not really out to spin it for one QB or another. I'm trying to be football honest and would change my opinion if I saw another QB that seemed to do it better.

Spontaneous genius is another important intangible quality you can pick up from viewing but can't really quantify. The ability to consistently go off the script when things break down and turn a negative into a positive. Joe Montana was one of the best ever at this IMO. RGIII is an absolutely breath taking spontaneous genius, and every skins fan watching him this year has noticed it. It's what the people arguing for Luck for ROTY over him who haven't watched RGIII play are missing. I think it's his most special quality. You can't really quantify it to people who aren't viewing it first hand because to them it seems like that brilliant spontaneous play would seem like just another 8 yard completion, etc. But you can see it hidden a bit in his numbers if the guy is incredibly efficient, moves the offense down field despite not having that great of surrounding talent/frequently beats superior teams on paper, has a lot of dramatic come back wins and fourth qtr moments, etc. Things go wrong for everybody. Being consistent and efficient often means you were able to cope with them at a special level.

But the rub is you can only really sense most of these kinds of things in seeing them done first hand over a large sample size.

[Burgold]

Yup, there's that, Steve. There's also how often they sucessfully change the play and how well they manipulate the defense. That's fairly easily seen. It may even be quantifiable. You can measure how safeties and linebackers respond to pump fakes or play action for instance. You can see when a qb audibles into a successful play.

These things count. You can look not just at the throw, but at the ball placement of the throw.

[Oldfan]

OF I think you can get a sense of intangibles from watching QBs play. I doubt you could objectively quantify them or get much more specific than, "wow, he's really good," or "man, he just doesn't have it." But you can sense when someone is special, especially over long periods of observation.

You and I could intelligently discuss or debate QB mechanics, but it's doubtful that either of us would have been able to say, "Wow, he's really good" about Steve Young when he played for Tampa Bay because we would be watching inferior performances caused by a lack of support. Even his Tampa Bay coaches couldn't do it. We know that because he was traded away for a couple of mid-round picks. Now, try to imagine the chances of typical football fans, who know far less than you do, being able to do it.

You can also review the little things which speak to an intangible makeup if you watch specifically for them. Like mechanics and discipline for instance. One of the things that makes Peyton and Montana and Brady special is how staggeringly consistent their mechanics are. That speaks to having rare discipline to me. Peyton and Montana have such good footwork as drop back pocket passers. Montana threw his WCO route trees as well as you can because he had such great footwork and was so perfect with his head movement and timing. I think a player has to be intangibly superior to be that skillful and consistent.

Let's use Brady as an example. His mechanics are tangible. They can be seen. He has excellent mechanics for a pocket passer who isn't asked to move much. But, he has always been inconsistent with stepping into his throws. Jay Cutler can get away with not stepping into his throws under pressure, but Brady can't. His ball floats high. Brady's mechanics appear to be more consistent because his scheme has him throwing more passes from the shotgun and because he gets good protection. Now, how are you going to fairly judge his consistency when comparing him to QBs who are asked to throw on the move and aren't protected as well?

I think you can also get a sense of the level of anticipation a player plays with from viewing them over a long period of time. Eventually it just sort of becomes clear the player is elite at reading coverages pre-snap when he consistently finds the right man quick seemingly on his first read and gets the ball out on time and makes the play over and over again. More evidence is in the huge frequency of big passing plays that you see with Brady and Manning despite the fact they don't have superior physical talent. Manning will throw wobbly 30 yard TD passes that end up beating the coverage anyway with perfect placement and timing because he just anticipates how the events on the field will shake down at such a superior level.

You can mask any QB's inaccuracy if you have him spend X time practicing 20 plays while his competitors are spending X time on 100.

ANY pocket passer would look better if they ran this scheme for 15 years:

http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense

It's my subjective opinion based on watching Tom Brady for so many years that he anticipates the game better than any QB I've ever seen. Can't back it up objectively, but I believe it's true and I'm not really out to spin it for one QB or another. I'm trying to be football honest and would change my opinion if I saw another QB that seemed to do it better.

Can you say with conviction that, say, Marc Bulger, who was taken in the same sixth round draft in 2000 as Brady, couldn't have done it as well in the Patriot's scheme?

Spontaneous genius is another important intangible quality you can pick up from viewing but can't really quantify. The ability to consistently go off the script when things break down and turn a negative into a positive. Joe Montana was one of the best ever at this IMO.

How is it possible that Montana was so good at going off script when he had only average mobility to extend plays? Steve Young was better than he was.

Brady and Manning are especially limited in that ability because neither runs well and neither throws on the move well.

RGIII is an absolutely breath taking spontaneous genius, and every skins fan watching him this year has noticed it. It's what the people arguing for Luck for ROTY over him who haven't watched RGIII play are missing. I think it's his most special quality. You can't really quantify it to people who aren't viewing it first hand because to them it seems like that brilliant spontaneous play would seem like just another 8 yard completion, etc. But you can see it hidden a bit in his numbers if the guy is incredibly efficient, moves the offense down field despite not having that great of surrounding talent/frequently beats superior teams on paper, has a lot of dramatic come back wins and fourth qtr moments, etc. Things go wrong for everybody. Being consistent and efficient often means you were able to cope with them at a special level. But the rub is you can only really sense most of these kinds of things in seeing them done first hand over a large sample size.

I think in the foregoing paragraph you are helping me make my argument that the athlete-QBs are generally greater threats than the pocket passers. They have more ability to extend plays, to throw on the move, and to make something good happen after the called play breaks down.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 11:01 AM ----------

Yup, there's that, Steve. There's also how often they sucessfully change the play and how well they manipulate the defense. That's fairly easily seen. It may even be quantifiable. You can measure how safeties and linebackers respond to pump fakes or play action for instance. You can see when a qb audibles into a successful play.

These things count. You can look not just at the throw, but at the ball placement of the throw.

If it's that easy to see these things and to quantify them, where are the stats?

It would take a lot of super-knowledgeable football minds, working full-time on all 32 teams, to do what you claim is easy. However, if someday we have that information, then we could intelligently add it to my method.

[Burgold]

They do have stats on those things, of. They're called wins

But seriously, we can see which qbs are better at recognition or changing the play. There's a reason why we recognize these guys as being special. And yes, there are factors involved. The receivers need to be on the same page. However, our eyes aren't necessarily lying to us when we see anticipation, audibles etc

[darrelgreenie]

Intangibles are obviously important. But from our vantage point they are also unknowable.

We would be forced to rely on second, third hand opinions and hersey. The same type of 'information' lead to the pre-draft perceptions about Cam Newton that were proven to be false.

There are some factors like intangibles, while important, that are beyond our scope to assess.

[Oldfan]

They do have stats on those things, of. They're called wins

But seriously, we can see which qbs are better at recognition or changing the play. There's a reason why we recognize these guys as being special. And yes, there are factors involved. The receivers need to be on the same page. However, our eyes aren't necessarily lying to us when we see anticipation, audibles etc

So, am I right in this? You are claiming that you can recognize QBs as being special regardless of their supporting cast.

If so, then you would have been able to recognize that Steve Young was special when he registered QB ratings of 65.5 and 56.9 in his two years at Tampa Bay.

If your claim isn't BS, you should be hired by an NFL team right now.

---------- Post added December-24th-2012 at 11:35 AM ----------

Intangibles are obviously important. But from our vantage point they are also unknowable.

We would be forced to rely on second, third hand opinions and hersey. The same type of 'information' lead to the pre-draft perceptions about Cam Newton that were proven to be false.

There are some factors like intangibles, while important, that are beyond our scope to assess.

Exactly. I read several scouting reports on JC after Gibbs traded up to pick him #1. None criticized his mechanics (scouting reports are better these days) but all said he was a natural leader and a winner. That's the kind of crap you get when the scouts grade intangibles. So, when I hear fans giving their thoughts on intangibles, I ignore them.

[darrelgreenie]

...Spontaneous genius is another important intangible quality you can pick up from viewing but can't really quantify. The ability to consistently go off the script when things break down and turn a negative into a positive.

I consider spontaneous genius a tangible by product of physical skillset and decision making. It happens when QBs that have the physical ability use their gifts and their decision making to turn a negative play into a positive play.

[ThomasRoane]

...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.

I figure if I keep repeating this then it will sink in. Yes, Robert isn't the same when he's a little dinged up as we saw yesterday. And Kyle has shown that he's been up to the task in tweaking the offense for Kirk and a gimpy RG III. But look at the plethora of QB Athletes that are playing in college now. Pocket passers are few and far between. But the QB Athlete is plentiful. So each year Mike and Kyle will be able to find some guy who can run the same Zone read series that RG III does. Granted, not with Olympic speed. But enough speed to make the defense respect the QB as another threat.

Kyle is already changing the way OC's think. The 49ers blatantly copied our Pistol series but couldn't execute it. But I think you're going to see a run on QB Athletes in the future because there are too many busts with Pocket passers. Mike will have the luxury of trading a Kirk Cousins to recoup some draft picks because each year you'll see plenty of QB Athletes to choose from. The future could really be bright for our Redskins!

[Oldfan]

I figure if I keep repeating this then it will sink in. Yes, Robert isn't the same when he's a little dinged up as we saw yesterday. And Kyle has shown that he's been up to the task in tweaking the offense for Kirk and a gimpy RG III. But look at the plethora of QB Athletes that are playing in college now. Pocket passers are few and far between. But the QB Athlete is plentiful. So each year Mike and Kyle will be able to find some guy who can run the same Zone read series that RG III does. Granted, not with Olympic speed. But enough speed to make the defense respect the QB as another threat.

The paragraph you quoted was in the context of some thoughts on a general planning approach for an offense. It's tricky topic because we don't have reliable data available. We would need to compare the demand of each QB-type to the supply. My seat of the pants guess is that QBs with Kirk Cousin's skill set will proliferate -- good but not great athleticism.

Kyle is already changing the way OC's think. The 49ers blatantly copied our Pistol series but couldn't execute it.

I suspect Harbaugh was thinking Pistol before he saw our scheme. Colin Kaepernick, drafted in 2011 by the Niners, ran Chris Ault's Nevada Pistol. Ault is the top gun in the Pistol.

[Burgold]

Thing to ask yourself is why Cousin was more successful than Grossman or last year with the Colts why was Painter so much less successful than Manning despite roughly having the same physical toolkit on the same team. Was Manning 10 games better based on physical attributes alone. Obviously, same coaches, same players, same defense

[Oldfan]

Thing to ask yourself is why Cousin was more successful than Grossman or last year with the Colts why was Painter so much less successful than Manning despite roughly having the same physical toolkit on the same team. Was Manning 10 games better based on physical attributes alone. Obviously, same coaches, same players, same defense

Cousins has a better skill set.

Painter isn't very good and he had less experience and a weaker supporting cast. Six of top seven Colts best linemen were lost to injury. A spate of injuries to receivers was also a factor. We saw evidence of the unravelling when injuries to his support group caused Peyton to throw 11 INTs in three games in 2010.

Peyton most likely saw it coming and opted for needed surgery. Then he got out of town.

[darrelgreenie]

Thing to ask yourself is why Cousin was more successful than Grossman or last year

On top of having better skillset then Grossman the team is also better.

why was Painter so much less successful than Manning despite roughly having the same physical toolkit on the same team. Was Manning 10 games better based on physical attributes alone.

I don't think Painter is anywhere near as good thrower as Manning. And Manning has years of experience in that offense to the point where Manning ran that offense more then the coaches did.

[Burgold]

On top of having better skillset then Grossman the team is also better.

I don't think Painter is anywhere near as good thrower as Manning. And Manning has years of experience in that offense to the point where Manning ran that offense more then the coaches did.

I don't know that Cousins has a bigger arm. He might be a bit quicker. Certainly, ESP if you add in Seatle then Rex has way more experience in this system. Seems you guys pick and choose which trait you find valuable and measure it when it is opportune only.

[Mahons21]

I don't know that Cousins has a bigger arm. He might be a bit quicker.

Who's skill set do you feel is more compatible with the offense Kyle runs?

Certainly, ESP if you add in Seatle then Rex has way more experience in this system. Seems you guys pick and choose which trait you find valuable and measure it when it is opportune only.

I think they just offered reasons why they thought a certain player had more success, and this is going to vary from player to player. Just my 2 cents though, knowing DG and OF, they could very well just be acting stubborn .

[Burgold]

I think so. After all, experience is an unquantifiable intangible variable. You can't predict how much it's impact will matter or how soon it's effect will happen or indeed if it will.

[Mahons21]

I think so. After all, experience is an unquantifiable intangible variable. You can't predict how much it's impact will matter or how soon it's effect will happen or indeed if it will.

You can logically deduce that with more practice/time in a system a player is likely to get better. How much better? No one knows, and I'm sure it varies between players.

[darrelgreenie]

I think they just offered reasons why they thought a certain player had more success, and this is going to vary from player to player. Just my 2 cents though, knowing DG and OF, they could very well just be acting stubborn .

I was just answering the question he asked. You gotta give me some credit, I'm stubborn as hell but its always sincere. :cool:

We gotta get a game in some time.

Happy Holidays

[Mahons21]

I was just answering the question he asked. You gotta give me some credit, I'm stubborn as hell but its always sincere. :cool:

I always appreciate your contributions to this board, no matter how stubborn they may be.

We gotta get a game in some time.

Happy Holidays

We certainly do, I've been getting games in Saturday AM, shoot me a PM or a message on PS3. Happy Holidays to you and the fam! Hopefully we get the one christmas gift we've all been waiting years and years for, and get the division title.

PS - Been thinking about putting together an OP about the stretch v the read-option, something you'd be interested in discussing?