RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[cphil006]

I think the problem between us is semantics. Right now, I have four passing categories I have two categories which rely on the QB's legs as weapons. I think a 2-1 arm/legs ratio is just fine. But, I appreciate your input.

Is the ability to read a defense and react quickly through progressions a measure of talent in your mind? I think it is and that's a huge reason why real scouts (not yourself) have a problem with missing talent. Why some high draft picks are busts (Akili Smith, Ryna Leaf, Heath Shuler) and some are steals later in the draft (Tom Brady). For some QBs, they shared playing time in college and didn't provide enough film, some were workout wonders (Jim Drunkenmiller), and some didn't have the smarts to run an NFL offense. Several of these measures of talent are not listed in your scoring system, which is why I (and others) find it flawed. You're going on short, medium, and deep passing, which are all closely related without really knowing the play call on offense or defense. Perhaps the defense gave them the short stuff ecause they respected his deep ball therefore not really seeing how good a deep ball he really has...

These all seem like physical attributes, but that alone isn't talent. Like I mentioned, the ability to read a defense and run an NFL offense go much deeper. In fact, the slow-footed pock-passer, might be better if one can read and react much faster as well as the WRs and talent around him.

[Hitman21ST]

I haven't seen much of him. He doesn't seem to have his coach's confidence. Throws a nice ball but doesn't seem to hit his targets. Backup talent probably.

Ok, I think I found the disconnect. When I read "minimum NFL talent" I read that as meaning something backups would possess, but if I'm understanding you, you mean it as minimum NFL starter talent. Am I right?

[Oldfan]

1) I know I'm knit-picking Well, the Norv-Shanny thing stuck in my mind because we've experience Norv and he's an awful head coach.

You aren't nit picking. You're making it up.

2) The Jim Zorn thing happened last week. Even though that offense ranked near-last in total offense and scoring, OF was insistant it was a top-10 offense going by his own subjective ranking system along with another site, which he insisted was smarter. but, couldn't really provide a strong arguement.

Never happened, my friend. But, you can always prove me wrong by finding the thread and quoting me.

3) He insists that an overrated Tom Brady has a great supporting cast resulting in his inflated production, yet I think most of the WRs are has-beens and the RBs are nothing great.

You're still wrong.

Those three just stick out the most because he can't back any of it up with facts, just more subjectivity supported by a skewed opinion...

If my arguments were weak, you and other should have been able to make me look like a fool. The fact that you are still irked about it is a sure sign that you couldn't get the job done and you damn well know it.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 01:06 PM ----------

Ok, I think I found the disconnect. When I read "minimum NFL talent" I read that as meaning something backups would possess, but if I'm understanding you, you mean it as minimum NFL starter talent. Am I right?

That's right. My fault if that wasn't clear. I don't bother grading backup QBs.

[DogofWar1]

The QBTG is for use by someone who feels capable of grading the things seen in a scouting report like arm strength and accuracy.

On what evidence would you grade reading defenses or other such intangibles that rely on scheme knowledge and play-by-play grading?

It's not an exact science, but over the course of the first 3 years of someone's career you can usually get a solid feel for how well they perform against defenses, how often they make basic mistakes, throw into bad situations, etc. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's when QBs make them over and over, over multi-year periods, that it becomes a major problem.

Of course, that makes it hard to grade Griffin and Luck and other young QBs, but the rating can shift as we gain more information, just the same way the rating can change as someone ages and maybe their arm strength and accuracy goes down. It's not perfect, but I feel like it also needs to be accounted for in some way.

Would you have graded Vick low on reading defenses in 2010 when he was healthy and hot? Would you have predetermined that your grading should have Manning and Brady graded higher in 2010? Vick was a much superior QB to Manning and Brady when healthy. He made a huge difference.

As I mentioned above, I'd like to view things over longer periods. In 2010 he'd have been higher, but after last year it would have dropped because we'd have realized it was something of a fluke. By week 6 of this year we'd have found out where he really was. Consistency has to play an important role. Brady and Manning are consistently great, Vick had one amazing year, then fell back to Earth hard. Cassell had a good year a few years back, but has since been pretty poor. The key is, three years in, I think a defense is going to know a QB's tricks. If he still does well after that, then he's clearly doing things right. There hasn't really been a bad stretch of 2+ years for Manning or Brady at any point in their careers, while Vick has had a couple down times.

If performance is going to influence your grading, why not just stick with the QB rating?

Well, like I said, I think over the long term, a good QB maintains a certain level of play. Performance, especially things like INTs, can and should factor into a grade. After all, if a guy starts out with a 3-1 TD/INT ratio one year, goes to 1.5-1 in year 2, and then .75-1 in year three, you have to take that into account. Specifically WHY that happens will vary from player to player (injury, gimmick offense, etc.) but it still shows a deficiency that should be weighed into the grade.

Rodgers is a dual threat? I just looked it up. He runs once for every eight pass attempts. RG3 has run once for every three. Rodgers averages 4.7 per, Griffin 6.6 per.

I would view Rodgers as dual threat. Not quite on the same level as Vick or Griffin, but the fact is, a defense that does not account for Rodger's scrambling ability is going to be a very sorry defense, 10 yard chunks at a time.

That's why there's a five point scale, and a yes or no. I think Griffin and Vick probably get 5s, while guys like Rodgers, Wilson, and Luck probably get 4s, Cassel and Fitzpatrick 3s, on down. For me, a 5 is a guy who, the moment you take your eyes off him, is 10 yards downfield and a threat to score. A 4 is a guy who won't bust a 70 yarder, but will consistently grab 10 yard chunks if you give them to him. A 3 is a guy who can scramble, and who will move the chains, but not all day. A 2 is a guy who only scrambles as a last resort, and even then only on short yardage, and a 1 pretty much never steps across the line of scrimmage.

That's my scale, I know others have different ones, but on there, I think a 4 or better qualifies as "dual threat" though I'd definitely split it into two tiers, one tier being home run threat, the other being more a chains moving danger. 3s on down you don't really actively account for as a defense.

[Oldfan]

Is the ability to read a defense and react quickly through progressions a measure of talent in your mind? I think it is and that's a huge reason why real scouts (not yourself) have a problem with missing talent.

Agreed. That's why I said in the OP:

It doesn't matter how important the mental factors are in football -- except for ordinary intelligence, the mental aspects can't be reliably graded.

Several of these measures of talent are not listed in your scoring system, which is why I (and others) find it flawed.

The way I grade QBs would require about a two-page explanation. I told you that I grade as a scout might but only on the things that can be seen. Doesn't that tell you enough?

[Hitman21ST]

That's right. My fault if that wasn't clear. I don't bother grading backup QBs.

We're on the same page then.

[cphil006]

Agreed. That's why I said in the OP:

It doesn't matter how important the mental factors are in football -- except for ordinary intelligence, the mental aspects can't be reliably graded.

The way I grade QBs would require about a two-page explanation. I told you that I grade as a scout might but only on the things that can be seen. Doesn't that tell you enough?

So your grading system only means one QB has better physical tools than another? ... That he's not necessarily a better QB.

How do you know how a scout might grade? Good scouts should be able to tell more than just arm strength and accuracy of short, medium, and deep balls, like progression and decision-making...

[cphil006]

You aren't nit picking. You're making it up.

Never happened, my friend. But, you can always prove me wrong by finding the thread and quoting me.

You're still wrong.

If my arguments were weak, you and other should have been able to make me look like a fool. The fact that you are still irked about it is a sure sign that you couldn't get the job done and you damn well know it.

.

We did. The fact that your strong comeback is, "You're wrong" proves it again. You make such a poor arguement with no concrete support it's very comical. Your rebuttal to someone's "yes" is a "no". Seems pretty weak.

1) Still think Norv is a better Head Coach than Shanny? We both know there's facts to support Shanny is better than Norv (two Super Bowls), but I don't think any exist for Norv being better than Shanny. Norv was handed a 14-2 team with youth and talent and all ready set. Shanny was handed a sinking ship... but that's just now, Shanny's body of work is much more impressive.

2) Zorn's 2008 offense was top-10 according to you here: I disagree because it ranked near-last in total offense and TDs. Not a big deal, just a head-scratcher (again)

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?373084-Realistically-how-is-Mike-doing-on-building-the-roster/page3&highlight=Zorn+2009+offense

Posted by Hitman21ST: Accurate, sure, but would you realistically say that the 2008 Jim Zorn offense was the 10th best in the NFL?

Oldfan: For the entire year's performance? I have no reason to doubt it. That offense was better than most fans realize -- even after the 6-2 start...

3) Then there's Tom Brady and his wonderful supporting cast that you mention is the reason he does so well... A bunch of has-been or never-was WRs, who's their RBs, yet he's won THREE Super Bowls and lost TWO, and you insist that he's overrated? I cannot fathom someone claiming he's "overrated" yet alone to even prove that...

Not a big deal, just kind of funny. I don't have time to go around in circles, but carry on...

[KDawg]

So your grading system only means one QB has better physical tools than another? ... That he's not necessarily a better QB.

This has been explained ad nauseum. Your hang up on arguing with OF blinded you on that, apparently...

[cphil006]

This has been explained ad nauseum. Your hang up on arguing with OF blinded you on that, apparently...

I get it. I just don't think it's necessarily talent, it's athleticism. He's rating the most-athletic QBs not talented or ability to perform, which is why Tom Brady is so low... I think he's more talented than his score indicates, so perhaps less weight on running with football and more on making tough throws. But, to each his own.

[Oldfan]

It's not an exact science, but over the course of the first 3 years of someone's career you can usually get a solid feel for how well they perform against defenses, how often they make basic mistakes, throw into bad situations, etc. Everyone makes mistakes, but it's when QBs make them over and over, over multi-year periods, that it becomes a major problem.

If we could get 32 OCs to publish their impartial QB grades, your concept would work well. Without that, what would happen is that QBs on winning teams would look better than they really are when compared to QBs on losing teams.

As I mentioned above, I'd like to view things over longer periods. In 2010 he'd [Vick] have been higher, but after last year it would have dropped because we'd have realized it was something of a fluke. By week 6 of this year we'd have found out where he really was. Consistency has to play an important role.

True

Brady and Manning are consistently great.

Because THEY are great, or because they have great support?

Cassell had a good year a few years back, but has since been pretty poor.

Cassell, off a good year, went to KC and flopped while Cutler, off a good year, went to Chicago and flopped. Evidence that the support system is a major factor in a QB's success.

I understand that my method doesn't help us get the full picture when trying to grade and compare QBs. I understand that you want a more complete picture. I just think you are unable to separate the QB from his support.

[Chew]

"Yo....Robert! Nice game, bro."

[Oldfan]

We did. The fact that your strong comeback is, "You're wrong" proves it again. You make such a poor arguement with no concrete support it's very comical. Your rebuttal to someone's "yes" is a "no". Seems pretty weak.

Here's how a debate goes:

You: "Tom Brady's a great QB." That's a claim, nothing more. If you want to debate the issue, then it's up to you to make an argument to support your position. The burden is yours to prove your claim.

If you simply claim: "Tom Brady's a great QB." and I say "You're wrong." I have no burden to disprove your claim.

[skinnyskins]

Here's how a debate goes:

You: "Tom Brady's a great QB." That's a claim, nothing more. If you want to debate the issue, then it's up to you to make an argument to support your position. The burden is yours to prove your claim.

If you simply claim: "Tom Brady's a great QB." and I say "You're wrong." I have no burden to disprove your claim.

I can't let this Tom Brady thing go. You have said throughout this thread that he had great talent around him. Well, here is his numbers and WRs, TEs, and RBs he was working with from 2001 - 2011.

A few things to point out; There is only one HOF skill player he had during this time (Randy Moss for 2 years) and he won his SBs without him. He won 3 superbowls with 1 pro-bowl WR in 2001 and 1 pro bowl RB in 2004 (the * indicates pro-bowl). You can also see the massive drop in offensive production during the Matt Cassell year while he was working with nearly the same WRs and RBs as the year before (4806yds, 50TD, 8INT, vs. 3693 yds, 21 TD, 11 INT).

Can you please point out the vast army of talent surrounding Brady that gave him such an advantage that he won 3 SBs, 2 AFC titles, and dominated the division for a decade? I don't see it. And don't tell me Belichick is responsible because he didn't strap on any pads and execute anything.

2001: Super Bowl Champions

2843 yds, 18 TD, 12 INT, 63.9%

WRs: Troy Brown*, David Patten, Terry Glen

RBs: Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk

2002: AFC East Division Champions

3764 yds, 28 TD, 14 INT, 62.1%

WRs: Troy Brown, David Patten, Deion Branch

RBs: Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk

2003: Super Bowl Champions

3620 yds, 23 TD, 12 INT, 60.2%

WRs: Deion Branch, David Givens, Troy Brown

RBs: Antowain Smith, Kevin Faulk

2004: Super Bowl Champions

3692 yds, 28 TD, 14 INT, 60.8%

WRs: David Givens, David Patten, Deion Branch

RBs: Corey Dillon*

2005: AFC East Division Champions

4110 yds, 26 TD, 14 INT, 63%

WRs: Deion Branch, David Givens, Troy Brown

RB: Corey Dillon

2006: AFC East Division Champions

3529 yds, 24 TD, 12 INT, 61.8%

WRs: Reche Caldwell, Ben Watson (TE), Troy Brown, Doug Gabriel

RBs: Corey Dillon, Lawrence Maroney

2007: AFC Champions

4806 yds, 50 TD, 8 INT, 68.9%

WRs: Randy Moss*, Wes Welker, Donte Stallworth

RBs: Laurence Maroney, Sammy Morris

MATT CASSELL YEAR 2008: AFC East Champions

3693 yds, 21 TD, 11 INT, 63.4%

WRs: Wes Welker*, Randy Moss, Jabar Gaffney

RBs: Sammy Morris, Kevin Faulk

2009: AFC East Division Champions

4398, 28 TD, 13 INT, 65.7%

WRs: Wes Welker*, Randy Moss, Julian Edleman

RBs: Laurence Maroney

2010: AFC East Division Champions

3900 yds, 36 TD, 4 INT, 65.9%

WRs: Wes Welker, Deion Branch, Aaron Hernandez (TE), Rob Gronkowski (TE)

RBs: Benjarvus Green-Ellis, Danny Woodhead

2011: AFC Champions

5235 yds, 39 TD, 12 INT, 65.6%

WRs: Wes Welker*, Rob Gronkowski *, Aaron Hernandez, Deion Branch

RBs: Benjarvus Green-Ellis, Stevan Ridley

[cphil006]

Here's how a debate goes:

You: "Tom Brady's a great QB." That's a claim, nothing more. If you want to debate the issue, then it's up to you to make an argument to support your position. The burden is yours to prove your claim.

If you simply claim: "Tom Brady's a great QB." and I say "You're wrong." I have no burden to disprove your claim.

Tom Brady's a great QB because.... I've already presented the facts that he won 5 AFC tites, 3 Super Bowls, multiple MVPs, threw for 50 TDs in their 16-0 season, with WRs like Jabar Gaffney and a tossed-aside Randy Moss. He's won without Welker and Moss, he's won with them. I'll add that he's done it without a great RB... several walk-on Offensive Linemen, one of which (Stephen Neal) never played college football. Multiple offensive coordinators yet he's looked awesome and been claimed the best by people who know football far more than you ever will...

Yet you insist he's not a great QB... now the burden is on you to prove he's not a great QB because you've yet to do so...

[cphil006]

I can't let this Tom Brady thing go. You have said throughout this thread that he had great talent around him. Well, here is his numbers and WRs, TEs, and RBs he was working with from 2001 - 2011.

A few things to point out; There is only one HOF skill player he had during this time (Randy Moss for 2 years) and he won his SBs without him. He won 3 superbowls with 1 pro-bowl WR in 2001 and 1 pro bowl RB in 2004 (the * indicates pro-bowl). You can also see the massive drop in offensive production during the Matt Cassell year while he was working with nearly the same WRs and RBs as the year before (4806yds, 50TD, 8INT, vs. 3693 yds, 21 TD, 11 INT).

Can you please point out the vast army of talent surrounding Brady that gave him such an advantage that he won 3 SBs, 2 AFC titles, and dominated the division for a decade? I don't see it. And don't tell me Belichick is responsible because he didn't strap on any pads and execute anything.

BRAVO. Glad someone else is seeing this head-scratcher of a claim.

[Oldfan]

I can't let this Tom Brady thing go. You have said throughout this thread that he had great talent around him.

I have said that Tom Brady is a Grade A pocket passer, overrated because he has benefited from outstanding support. Those are my opinions. Here's how I defined support for you: "quarterback support" includes receivers, protectors, coaches, scheme, defense and special teams.

You presented an argument with cherry-picked stats and facts. Now, I suppose I'm supposed to counter by cherry-picking mine. And all that effort will prove exactly -- nothing. You have already said you don't want to hear about Belichik's contribution to the team's success. All this effort is not going to change my mind, yours or the mind of any reader. It's pointless.

I'll pass. You can run a victory lap if you like.

[cphil006]

I have said that Tom Brady is a Grade A pocket passer, overrated because he has benefited from outstanding support. Here's how I defined support for you: "quarterback support" includes receivers, protectors, coaches, scheme, defense and special teams.

You presented an argument with cherry-picked stats and facts. Now, I suppose I'm supposed to counter by cherry-picking mine. And all that effort will prove exactly -- nothing. You have already said you don't want to hear about Belichik's contribution to the team's success. All this effort is not going to change my mind, yours or the mind of any reader. It's pointless.

I'll pass. You can run a victory lap if you like.

And again when someone presents "fact" to disprove your claim you don't have any to prove your claim...

[Oldfan]

[/color]

And again when someone presents "fact" to disprove your claim you don't have any to prove your claim...

Say what?

[cphil006]

[/color]Say what?

Do I really have to spell this out for you?

Myself and others presented actual "facts" to prove our claim that Brady is a great QB.

You haven't provided any "facts" to prove your claim that he is not a great QB.

Most people base and develop their opinion on "facts"; I'm not sure you've done that.

If you don't think Brady is a great QB, that's cool, but you just haven't provided any support. I've stated this over and over. I've provided my reasoning along with facts. Yours is just subjective opinion that he has great support, even though a majority of that "support" has changed over the past 11 years. I'm still looking for some facts about this support. You haven't given any... It's just funny how you keep saying Brady is so overrated. but, hey it's cool, I get it, don't worry about it. Good day.

[Oldfan]

Do I really have to spell this out for you?

Myself and others presented actual "facts" to prove our claim that Brady is a great QB.

You haven't provided any "facts" to prove your claim that he is not a great QB.

Most people base and develop their opinion on "facts"; I'm not sure you've done that.

If you don't think Brady is a great QB, that's cool, but you just haven't provided any support. I've stated this over and over. I've provided my reasoning along with facts. Yours is just subjective opinion that he has great support, even though a majority of that "support" has changed over the past 11 years. I'm still looking for some facts about this support. You haven't given any...

I'm worried about you. It sounds like you actually believe you proved something by cherry-picking a handful of facts.

Brady is overrated!

Brady is great!

Those are two opinions -- neither of which is provable. Therefore, it isn't a good topic for intelligent debate.

Cherry-picking facts on both sides is a waste of time.

[cphil006]

I'm worried about you. It sounds like you actually believe you proved something by cherry-picking a handful of facts.

Brady is overrated!

Brady is great!

Those are two opinions -- neither of which is provable. Therefore, it isn't a good topic for intelligent debate.

Cherry-picking facts on both sides is a waste of time.

When the handful of facts includes 5 AFC titles, 3 Super Bowl wins, a 16-0 regular season, a 50-TD season, multiple MVP awards... it says a lot. Can you blame me for cherry-picking those? Would you cherry-pick the INT he threw in week 2 of the 2005 season as the case for him being overrated. :hysterical:

just so we're clear, facts are true things, ok? I try to base my opinion by knowing facts.

Is it not obvious to you that the facts cause this arguement to lean towards Brady being great instead of Brady being overrated?

Whether or not you think the stats are cherry-picked, what makes you believe he's overrated? Actually I've asked you this and you've dodged it, so I don't expect you to now. so no worries. Continue to believe Brady is overrated and roll your eyes as he is elected into Canton.

[skinnyskins]

I have said that Tom Brady is a Grade A pocket passer, overrated because he has benefited from outstanding support. Those are my opinions. Here's how I defined support for you: "quarterback support" includes receivers, protectors, coaches, scheme, defense and special teams.

You presented an argument with cherry-picked stats and facts. Now, I suppose I'm supposed to counter by cherry-picking mine. And all that effort will prove exactly -- nothing. You have already said you don't want to hear about Belichik's contribution to the team's success. All this effort is not going to change my mind, yours or the mind of any reader. It's pointless.

I'll pass. You can run a victory lap if you like.

If you consider cherry-picking to be any fact that disagrees with your opinion then you will never be convinced of anything. Im not sure at this point if you really think your opinions hold more weight than facts, professional football scouts/managers/and coaches, and the vast majority of knowledgeable people about football, or if you are just trolling this board. Either way, Im done arguing with a wall.

[Oldfan]

When the handful of facts includes 5 AFC titles, 3 Super Bowl wins, a 16-0 regular season, a 50-TD season, multiple MVP awards... it says a lot. Can you blame me for cherry-picking those? Would you cherry-pick the INT he threw in week 2 of the 2005 season as the case for him being overrated. :hysterical:

just so we're clear, facts are true things, ok? I try to base my opinion by knowing facts.

Is it not obvious to you that the facts cause this arguement to lean towards Brady being great instead of Brady being overrated?

Whether or not you think the stats are cherry-picked, what makes you believe he's overrated? Actually I've asked you this and you've dodged it, so I don't expect you to now. so no worries. Continue to believe Brady is overrated and roll your eyes as he is elected into Canton.

I see that you actually do believe you made a good argument. Okay.

When the handful of facts includes 5 AFC titles, 3 Super Bowl wins...

It is not a fact that Tom Brady won anything without the help of an outstanding support system and you must prove those were HIS accomplishments in order to prove your claim.

You want to know why I think Tom Brady is overrated? Go back to the OP and read my hypothetical again. I make an argument there that others seem to understand without a problem.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 04:01 PM ----------

If you consider cherry-picking to be any fact that disagrees with your opinion then you will never be convinced of anything. Im not sure at this point if you really think your opinions hold more weight than facts, professional football scouts/managers/and coaches, and the vast majority of knowledgeable people about football, or if you are just trolling this board. Either way, Im done arguing with a wall.

There's an argument in the OP that begins with the hypothetical that explains why the bandwagon opinion on QBs is worthless. I'll bet you can't find a flaw in it.

[cphil006]

I see that you actually do believe you made a good argument. Okay.

It is not a fact that Tom Brady won anything without the help of an outstanding support system and you must prove those were HIS accomplishments in order to prove your claim.

You want to know why I think Tom Brady is overrated? Go back to the OP and read my hypothetical again. I make an argument there that others seem to understand without a problem.

---------- Post added November-20th-2012 at 04:01 PM ----------

There's an argument in the OP that begins with the hypothetical that explains why the bandwagon opinion on QBs is worthless. I'll bet you can't find a flaw in it.

What you've done is rate a QBs physical athletic ability, not necessarily QB talent or ability to play QB and win. Tom Brady is not the most athletic QB, but that's not necessarily an indication that he's overrated. He's had a rotation of RBs, WRs, OL, and Offensive Coordinators and played well for them all. So much for your support theory. Only 1-2 WRs were pro bowl talent. He's made some incredible throws and is clutch under pressure.

You keep putting a "burden" on me to prove my claim Brady is a great QB and you'll never provide factual or even a reasonable opinion of evidence he's overrated (as is your claim)