Warpath11 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 We will have to disagree on this point. Brady is far better at extending plays from the pocket and his passing accuracy is far superior to Cutlers. Cutler is talented but not in the same class as Brady. Cutler is prone to making the dumb mistake. His pocket awareness is poor as well. Brady just doesnt make mistakes. I would also argue that Brady has performed better with less talent at WR. Bottom line, professional coaches, scouts and GMs viewed Tom Brady a 6th round pick coming out of college. That value is primarily based on his physical skill sets because while at Michigan Tom Brady was only a starter for his senior season (prior to that he split time with Drew Henson quite a bit). Tom, since being drafted, has developed very nicely in a perfect situation for a QB to be in, IMO. As it turns out Brady was more talented in the things scouts/GMs/coaches can not grade, however in the things they can grade, that Oldfan, point out in the OP he did not grade out well at all thus ended up being a 6th round pick stuck on the practice squad his first year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Again, what is this being used for other than a circle jerk where we learn that RG3 is the greatest QB of all time? What does any of this matter? ...It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clskinsfan Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 There is a difference between talent and production.This thread deals with talent or physical skillset. Great post. But I do believe you must have talent to be productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyskins Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way. Meh. I would say it's a way to judge a limited number of subjective criteria that doesn't paint the full picture of the criteria needed for a complete QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 You haven't watched much Patriots football have you? They run a no huddle offense a lot and that requires the QB to call a lot of the plays, analyze the defense, adjust the play at the line (if needed), and execute. He uses his vision to locate open receivers (and he does not miss finding the open one often) and has the talent to make any throw. Im not making this up. Brady isn't being asked to do anything that 30 QBs in the NFL couldn't do. The reason you think that he's something special is that his team gets better results doing it. And you're giving him the credit that rightfully belongs to the team with Brady included.Steve Spurrier had rookie Patrick Ramsey reading defenses and calling plays at the LOS. Nobody thought Ramsey was wonderful because Spurrier's teams didn't win much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyskins Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Brady isn't being asked to do anything that 30 QBs in the NFL couldn't do. The reason you think that he's something special is that his team gets better results doing it. And you're giving him the credit that rightfully belongs to the team with Brady included.Steve Spurrier had rookie Patrick Ramsey reading defenses and calling plays at the LOS. Nobody thought Ramsey was wonderful because Spurrier's teams didn't win much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Meh. I would say it's a way to judge a limited number of subjective criteria that doesn't paint the full picture of the criteria needed for a complete QB.Work on it. Come up with something better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KCClybun Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 You know, based on these metrics, Blaine Gabbert would be a better quarterback than Tom Brady. Pretty much tells you everything you need to know about a "rating" that's been crafted around a long held belief even before the OP knew anything about Robert Griffin III. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Great post. But I do believe you must have talent to be productive.Of course. My post was a response to the confusion over the purpose or intent of the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsinparadise Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I was surprised how good an athlete Luck is. It wasn't part of the pre-draft hype on him. Actually it was part of Luck's hype. RG 3 drowned it out some especially on this board because he is an insanely good athlete but Luck's combine numbers -- speed, etc were similar to Cam Newton's and there was plenty of talk about that by the draft geeks/draft shows. Mel Kiper starting a year back before the draft loved to characterize Luck as Peyton Manning but with mobility. Bill Polian who was on Sirius Radio a lot predraft talking about both Rg 3 and Luck from the vantage point of spending hours scouting both players while with the Colts -- actually emphasized 2 things in particular about Rg 3. 1. His release -- said he has the quickest release since Marino. 2. Arm strength -- said from day 1 he is in the top 5 in league in terms of arm strength. Watching Rg 3 some in Baylor, the biggest thing that perhaps we started to see this week but have yet to see it in force is his accuracy with the deep ball -- he and K. Wright and T. Williams (who I'd love to see them draft next year if we are lucky) were electric in games Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyskins Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Brady isn't being asked to do anything that 30 QBs in the NFL couldn't do. The reason you think that he's something special is that his team gets better results doing it. And you're giving him the credit that rightfully belongs to the team with Brady included.Steve Spurrier had rookie Patrick Ramsey reading defenses and calling plays at the LOS. Nobody thought Ramsey was wonderful because Spurrier's teams didn't win much. Are you kidding me? Brady is running one of the most efficient offenses in the NFL and you think any other QB could do it. He is an rare QB that executes as well as any QB ever has. Bringing Ramsey into this only helps my argument because he was terrible at doing what Brady excels at. I agree that Ramsey had a worse situation in Washington than Brady has in NE but to discredit the talent that Brady has is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 ...Watching Rg 3 some in Baylor, the biggest thing that perhaps we started to see this week but have yet to see it in force is his accuracy with the deep ball -- he and K. Wright and T. Williams (who I'd love to see them draft next year if we are lucky) were electric in gamesWe were discussing this earlier. A knowledgeable poster thought my four was too low. I explained that I don't try to grade college play because the NFL is an entirely different game. Good college WRs get more separation and can then adjust to make the throw appear right on target. So, I'm working on a small NFL sample size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 We were discussing this earlier. A knowledgeable poster thought my four was too low. I explained that I don't try to grade college play because the NFL is an entirely different game. Good college WRs get more separation and can then adjust to make the throw appear right on target. So, I'm working on a small NFL sample size. Maybe the fact that NCAA uses a different ball might another reason why it's not always an easy translation. While decision making and intangibles can remain constant, some QBs struggle with throws they seemed to be normal with in college. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Are you kidding me? Brady is running one of the most efficient offenses in the NFL and you think any other QB could do it. He is an rare QB that executes as well as any QB ever has. Bringing Ramsey into this only helps my argument because he was terrible at doing what Brady excels at. I agree that Ramsey had a worse situation in Washington than Brady has in NE but to discredit the talent that Brady has is ridiculous.Come on, Brother. You have no idea how well Ramsey called plays and you have insufficient knowledge or evidence to grade Brady. Your opinions are based on team performances that you are straining to apply to individual quarterback play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Brady isn't being asked to do anything that 30 QBs in the NFL couldn't do. The reason you think that he's something special is that his team gets better results doing it. And you're giving him the credit that rightfully belongs to the team with Brady included.Steve Spurrier had rookie Patrick Ramsey reading defenses and calling plays at the LOS. Nobody thought Ramsey was wonderful because Spurrier's teams didn't win much. Are you suggesting Tom Brady is a system QB and many others could do what he does in that offense? I disagree with that and I'm sure 99% of America does, too... I'd say Belicheck should count his lucky stars they found Tom Brady in the draft because he wouldn't have won any SBs without him. ---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 12:28 PM ---------- Come on, Brother. You have no idea how well Ramsey called plays and you have insufficient knowledge or evidence to grade Brady. Your opinions are based on team performances that you are straining to apply to individual quarterback play. As you do... and as your own assessment is... you're connecting dots that might be subjectively there... it's nice you've got a lot of time on your hands to create a perception of film study and a complex ratings systems, but you've made some laughable assumptions.. suggesting Tom Brady is in a Plug-and-Play offense? That's funny. Not sure this is worth commenting on anymore... good day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Are you suggesting Tom Brady is a system QB and many others could do what he does in that offense?...Since football relies heavily on strategy, all players, from the youth leagues to the NFL are system players. As the most important player on the field, all QBs are system players.I didn't claim that many others could run the system as well as he does. I graded him highly. My claim was that 30 QBs in the NFL could run the no huddle and we have no intelligent way to grade them individually on that task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mahons21 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I understand the logic behind removing performance statistics from the equation, but by doing so aren't we judging the potential of said player? Not necessarily their talent. For example how does Sanchez grade out? or joe flaccos grade out in your equation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cphil006 Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 Since football relies heavily on strategy, all players, from the youth leagues to the NFL are system players. As the most important player on the field, all QBs are system players.I didn't claim that many others could run the system as well as he does. I graded him highly. My claim was that 30 QBs in the NFL could run the no huddle and we have no intelligent way to grade them individually on that task. 30 QBs can run the no-huddle? Sure they can. Do you mean 30 QBs can run the no-huddle as well as Tom Brady? No they can't... If we have no intelligent way to grade them individually on that task, why do you make the claim that all 30 can run it (I assume you mean run it well)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 I understand the logic behind removing performance statistics from the equation, but by doing so aren't we judging the potential of said player? Not necessarily their talent.I think their potential arises from their talent.I'll add to my hypothetical to clarify: Tom and Dave have identical talent, thus identical potential. But Tom's outstanding support allowed him to play at 90% of his potential in his career while Dave's poor support restricted him to playing at 70%. For example how does Sanchez grade out? or joe flaccos grade out in your equation? I just created the QBTG in order to explain my grading approach. So, I don't have numbers on them, but I think both Sanchez and Flacco have been underrated because of their support systems. Flacco has been very underrated, IMO. I grade him highly as a passer and he has average mobility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 I understand the logic behind removing performance statistics from the equation, but by doing so aren't we judging the potential of said player? Not necessarily their talent.For example how does Sanchez grade out? or joe flaccos grade out in your equation? I think, correct me if I'm wrong OF, but his method is fairly similar to the one we used 2 years ago that evaluated the college QBs. Except he does the evaluation in the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 30 QBs can run the no-huddle? Sure they can. Do you mean 30 QBs can run the no-huddle as well as Tom Brady? No they can't... If we have no intelligent way to grade them individually on that task, why do you make the claim that all 30 can run it (I assume you mean run it well)? I mean 30 can run it at least at a minimum level of NFL competence and we have no way of intelligently comparing and ranking any of them to Brady.In my hypothetical, Tom and Dave would run the no huddle equally well, but the bandwagon opinion would be that Tom runs it better because Tom has outstanding support and Dave doesn't. ---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 01:24 PM ---------- I think, correct me if I'm wrong OF, but his method is fairly similar to the one we used 2 years ago that evaluated the college QBs. Except he does the evaluation in the NFL.If you are referring to the method you linked us to. Yes.I didn't plagiarize your method. I'd never seen it before today. I use the scale of five often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way. Okay, so you want a different way to judge a quarterback. If your system is dependent upon your own opinions based off what you see that makes it nothing more than conjecture. Again, what is the purpose- or should I say, the application of this? How are we going to take your system and use it to better understand the world of football? Or are we just going to use it to point out that RG3 is as awesome as we already know he is? We already know this number is not an indicator for how well a QB will do, it isn't even a good measure of potential since JaMarcus Russel would probably rate higher than a lot of quarterbacks (and we know now that the fact that he was a lazy idiot doomed him before he even got started). This isn't an indicator of anything. It doesn't show anything or explain anything. If your point was that great quarterbacks are the product of great teams then sure, I agree to a certain extent without even getting into the whole chicken and the egg argument. It's just that we don't need some rating system to highlight that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Okay, so you want a different way to judge a quarterback. If your system is dependent upon your own opinions based off what you see that makes it nothing more than conjecture. Again, what is the purpose- or should I say, the application of this? How are we going to take your system and use it to better understand the world of football? Or are we just going to use it to point out that RG3 is as awesome as we already know he is? We already know this number is not an indicator for how well a QB will do, it isn't even a good measure of potential since JaMarcus Russel would probably rate higher than a lot of quarterbacks (and we know now that the fact that he was a lazy idiot doomed him before he even got started). This isn't an indicator of anything. It doesn't show anything or explain anything. If your point was that great quarterbacks are the product of great teams then sure, I agree to a certain extent without even getting into the whole chicken and the egg argument. It's just that we don't need some rating system to highlight that fact.Most of the football world is using performance stats to compare quarterbacks. I made a concise argument here that most of the football world is silly for doing so. I thought that was worthy of a post on its own.My approach is subjective, but I'm grading things we can all see and debate. I had three posters tell me that my four should be made a five on the deep passing grade. So, while subjective, my grades can't be unrealistic without producing protest from the posters who accept the method. If the posters don't accept the method, who cares how their grades would differ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrelgreenie Posted November 19, 2012 Share Posted November 19, 2012 If you are referring to the method you linked us to. Yes.I didn't plagiarize your method. I'd never seen it before today. I use the scale of five often. Not even suggesting that at all. I was giving Mahon's an example that might convey your intent from the OP that directly related to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted November 19, 2012 Author Share Posted November 19, 2012 Not even suggesting that at all. I was giving Mahon's an example that might convey your intent from the OP that directly related to him. I didn't mean to imply that you were thinking I plagiarized the idea. I was just clarifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.