RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[Skinsinparadise]

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.

I saw that post. Just saying if you were surprised by the level of Luck's athleticism, it was a staple of his play in college and talked about -- you will also likely see RG 3's cannon of an arm and great deep ball which was also a staple of his play in college and talked about.

[cphil006]

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.

The bandwagon opinion would not be Tom runs it better than Dave because he has better support. The bandwagon opinion would be Tom is a better QB. The expert opinion would be Tom is a better QB than Dave. Your "opinion" seems to be that Tom Brady is just another QB plugged into a system that works... tough to agree with that without you giving support and I believe there is no support so there's no arguement really, but confusion as to where you came up with that.

[Hitman21ST]

Out of curiousity (and you may have already answered this as I only loked on the first page), what do you define as "extending the play"?

I only ask because you gave Brady a 1, and I'd like to respectfully disagree, provided I have the same definition. I view extending the play as moving around to keep defenders from being able to sack you. I'd give Brady at least a 2 or maybe a 3 based on the movement in the pocket. He and Peyton are amazing at moving slightly in the pocket to extend the play long enough for a receiver to get open.

If you define it differently though, as being able to run, then I agree with you, and would suggest adding a "pocket presence" category, because that's also a critical aspect of being a QB.

As an example, let's compare Ben Roethlisberger, Tom Brady, and RG3. All three can "extend a play" IMO. Brady does it through moving around in the pocket. Ben does it mainly from being made of concrete and being unable to be tackled, and RG3 does it with his mobility. Based on your grading scale, I would give Brady a 3 in that, Ben a 4, and RG3 a 5. If there were a pocket presence category, RG3 would grade a little lower, probably a 3, Ben around a 3 and Brady a 5.

Input?

[Mahons21]

Let me pose another hypothetical.

Player a and b, have the same potential/scheme/support.

Player a is the first one in and last one to leave, player b hates practice and enjoys the women/glamour that come with the nfl.

How do you differentiate between these two? As it seems fairly obvious player a puts his team in a better position to win than player b.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Is it just me or does the purpose of this thread seem to be less about pumping up the awesomeness of Bob Griffin, and more about knocking down Tom Brady (for whatever reason). Maybe that wasn't the original intention--maybe--but that's definitely where it's at now.

I am curious though Old Fan, how does Romo sits to pee score out on your system?

[Mahons21]

The intent of this thread seems to be, how to accurately grade qbs.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Of course I don't have the ability to do that because Im not a professional football analyzer. But, I have enough sense to know that vision, reading defenses, and timing shouldn't be thrown out simply because they are hard to grade. What I can go on is watching Brady dominate for a decade and knowing that it takes more than deep ball, mid ball, short ball, and mobility to adequately judge talent.

Sure...but if you can't quantify something, what's the use in trying to use it to grade a QB? I don't think you throw vision, reading defenses, etc. out the window, but you just don't factor them into the quantitative measure described in the OP.

As for Brady specifically...if he had a great supporting cast (which is a strong possibility when you consider how Cassel did in that same offense during Brady's injured season), then he should look dominant. If every relatively easy slant pattern he throws to Welker becomes 15-20 yards and he gets nice protection from his OL and he has the opportunity (earlier in his career) to throw to a single-covered Randy Moss on deep passes...shouldn't that offense look dynamic? Are you really sure that lesser known QBs with similar skill sets couldn't have won those games under Belichick?

[darrelgreenie]

How do you differentiate between these two?

From our vantage point? Imo its impossible.

[Mahons21]

From our vantage point? Imo its impossible.

I agree which is why I think we must take performance into account, so long as its put in its proper context. Putting the performance in the proper context is the difficult part.

[skinnyskins]

Sure...but if you can't quantify something, what's the use in trying to use it to grade a QB? I don't think you throw vision, reading defenses, etc. out the window, but you just don't factor them into the quantitative measure described in the OP.

As for Brady specifically...if he had a great supporting cast (which is a strong possibility when you consider how Cassel did in that same offense during Brady's injured season), then he should look dominant. If every relatively easy slant pattern he throws to Welker becomes 15-20 yards and he gets nice protection from his OL and he has the opportunity (earlier in his career) to throw to a single-covered Randy Moss on deep passes...shouldn't that offense look dynamic? Are you really sure that lesser known QBs with similar skill sets couldn't have won those games under Belichick?

My problem with this is that it doesn't take into account many criteria that make a QB successful (I went into those in an earlier post). Using OP's system, Akili Smith, Vince Young, Colt McCoy, Eric Crouch, and Jamarcus Russel would all be rated highly and players like Montana, both Mannings, and Brady would be rated poorly. The results show that the system is not accurate; it's a good starting point, but it is not complete and doesn't work in the current form.

Specifically to the Patriots. They were/are a talented team but not a blow-you-away talent. Their RBs suck, WRs average/below average (Brady also won his 3 SBs without Moss), TEs good now but not in the past, and an average OL. Look at the players and coaches when they are no longer paired with Brady, they stink.

[darrelgreenie]

I agree which is why I think we must take performance into account, so long as its put in its proper context. Putting the performance in the proper context is the difficult part.

Okay, didn't know where you were going with that.

I think evaluating skillset is different form evaluating performance.

If performane is to be judged it must be derived from a grade not from traditional counting stats.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Specifically to the Patriots. They were/are a talented team but not a blow-you-away talent. Their RBs suck, WRs average/below average (Brady also won his 3 SBs without Moss), TEs good now but not in the past, and an average OL. Look at the players and coaches when they are no longer paired with Brady, they stink.

They might stink when the are overvalued and signed by weaker teams, but that doesn't mean that they aren't perfect for New England's scheme. If the offense works, there is probably more than one QB that can pull the trigger.

Now, I have a very high opinion of Brady as a QB, but you can tell just by looking at him that he isn't the generational type of QB (from a skill set point of view) that his accomplishments would have you believe. In short, it wouldn't surprise me if several above-average QBs from the past decade would have replicated his success in New England. Now, I can never prove that but it's my opinion.

[Oldfan]

The bandwagon opinion would not be Tom runs it better than Dave because he has better support. The bandwagon opinion would be Tom is a better QB. The expert opinion would be Tom is a better QB than Dave. Your "opinion" seems to be that Tom Brady is just another QB plugged into a system that works... tough to agree with that without you giving support and I believe there is no support so there's no arguement really, but confusion as to where you came up with that.

My fault. I've confused you. Let me reword that paragraph, so that it is clear.

In my hypothetical, the twins Tom and Dave would have the talent to run the no huddle equally well. However, since he is given better team support, Tom's performance would look better. And it is on the appearance of a better performance that the opinion of the bandwagon would be based.

[Botched]

Is it just me or does the purpose of this thread seem to be less about pumping up the awesomeness of Bob Griffin, and more about knocking down Tom Brady (for whatever reason). Maybe that wasn't the original intention--maybe--but that's definitely where it's at now.

I am curious though Old Fan, how does Romo sits to pee score out on your system?

I approve of any thread that takes Tom Brady down a peg.

My opinion of him has always been that he's a great QB, but he's also more dependent on his coach and team than any of the other great QBs in the league right now.

[Oldfan]

My problem with this is that it doesn't take into account many criteria that make a QB successful (I went into those in an earlier post). Using OP's system, Akili Smith, Vince Young, Colt McCoy, Eric Crouch, and Jamarcus Russel would all be rated highly and players like Montana, both Mannings, and Brady would be rated poorly. The results show that the system is not accurate; it's a good starting point, but it is not complete and doesn't work in the current form.

Why do you assume that all bust QBs would score highly on my grading? How did that conclusion come about? In fact, I can't see any on your list that I graded highly.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 04:29 PM ----------

Okay, didn't know where you were going with that.

I think evaluating skillset is different form evaluating performance.

If performane is to be judged it must be derived from a grade not from traditional counting stats.

Warpath11 found the only valid criticism of my grades. I was aware of it.

I probably have given the mobility factor too much weight. As it stands, I have it equal to the passing. If I give the passing greater weight, it will close the gap between the athletic QBs and the pocket passers.

What weight would you give them?

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 04:29 PM ----------

I agree which is why I think we must take performance into account, so long as its put in its proper context. Putting the performance in the proper context is the difficult part.

Same question posed for you...see the above addressed to DG.

[Mahons21]

Okay, didn't know where you were going with that.

I think evaluating skillset is different form evaluating performance.

If performane is to be judged it must be derived from a grade not from traditional counting stats.

I agree, but I don't think skill set is synonymous with level of talent (not trying to imply you do). Rather I think your skill set helps determine your potential, what you make of your potential though is on you, and is what I would consider to be an accurate measure of talent.

Sorry I'm doing a poor job communicating my point on my phone I'll post from home later.

[cphil006]

My fault. I've confused you. Let me reword that paragraph, so that it is clear.

In my hypothetical, the twins Tom and Dave would have the talent to run the no huddle equally well. However, since he is given better team support, Tom's performance would look better. And it is on the appearance of a better performance that the opinion of the bandwagon would be based.

I understand that. Now lets's get back to reality. For those that follow football, Tom Brady is one of the top three QBs in the league. Or do you think that's a biased opinion?

[greenspandan]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101)

this is why both "QBTG" and ESPN's "Total QBR" will never amount to anything more than someone's opinion.

[Oldfan]

Is it just me or does the purpose of this thread seem to be less about pumping up the awesomeness of Bob Griffin, and more about knocking down Tom Brady (for whatever reason). Maybe that wasn't the original intention--maybe--but that's definitely where it's at now.

I'm not knocking Brady, I'm knocking the unintelligent approach to grading QBs that overrates him and others like him because they play with superior support advantages.

I am curious though Old Fan, how does Romo sits to pee score out on your system?

I haven't put numbers on Romo sits to pee yet. I'll do that when I have the time.

I

[cphil006]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101)

this is why both "QBTG" and ESPN's "Total QBR" will never amount to anything more than someone's opinion.

I agree... that's why I'm shaking my head about this thread.... I think TS's going in circles with how complex and accurate he declares it is, yet it's entirely based on his own skewed, subjective and loose opinion.

[cphil006]

I'm not knocking Brady, I'm knocking the unintelligent approach to grading QBs that overrates him and others like him because they play with superior support advantages.

I

you make this too easy. How intelligent do you grade your own approach considering it's extremely subjective. Do you watch and then grade and how much film do you have access to? Do you take every deep ball into account that's he's thrown whether it's wide-open or in single or double coverage?

So you think that Tom Brady is overrated? I'm wondering what superior support he has?

[Oldfan]

LISTEN: expressing a subjective evaluation as a quantitative value does NOT make the result any less subjective. (stats 101).

Which is better an intelligent, subjective grading or a stupid, objective one?

My grades are subjective, but based on visible evidence. Differences in grades can be intelligently debated.

[skinnyskins]

Why do you assume that all bust QBs would score highly on my grading? How did that conclusion come about? In fact, I can't see any on your list that I graded highly.

Essentially, I recommend grading QBs as a scout would but only on his physical talent -- what he can do with his arm and his legs. We should try to answer the question -- How much of a threat does he pose to defenses when they game plan? Athletic QBs obviously have a distinct advantage in my grading system because they can be more valuable weapons for their offensive coordinator.

I will use a scale of five to keep things simple:

5 -- maximum level talent

4 -- above average

3 -- average

2 -- below average

1 -- minimum level talent

Since this is subjective, Ill go ahead and apply the rankings to some of those players listed to show the flaws in the system:

Jamarcus Russel - 20

4 - Deep Passing

3 - Mid Passing

3 - Short Passing

4 - Throwing on the run

3 - Extending Plays

3 - Run Threat

Vince Young - 19

2 - Deep Ball

3 - Mid Ball

2 - Short Ball

4 - Throw on the run

4 - Extending Plays

4 - Run Threat

Colt McCoy - 19

2 - Deep Ball

3 - Mid Ball

4 - Short Ball

4 - Throw on the Run

3 - Extending Play

3 - Run Threat

Eli Manning - 13

4 - Deep Ball

3 - Mid Ball

3 - Short Ball

1 - Throw on the run

2 - Extending Play

1 - Run Threat

Peyton Manning - 17

3 - Deep Ball

5 - Mid Ball

5 - Short Ball

1 - Throw on the run

2 - Extending play

1 - Run Threat

[greenspandan]

Which is better an intelligent, subjective grading or a stupid, objective one?

My grades are subjective, but based on visible evidence. Differences in grades can be intelligently debated.

all i'm saying is both your and espn's ratings boil down to plain old opinion (well supported or not). a statistic can certainly be misleading, but at least it is guaranteed to be objective by definition.

i object to ESPN's marketing of their opinion as an alternative to statistical measures such as the old fashioned QB rating. one is a number, the other is commentary.

[Oldfan]

you make this too easy. How intelligent do you grade your own approach considering it's extremely subjective. Do you watch and then grade and how much film do you have access to? Do you take every deep ball into account that's he's thrown whether it's wide-open or in single or double coverage?

So you think that Tom Brady is overrated? I'm wondering what superior support he has?

I grade like a scout. Scouts grade differently. Mine is based on visible evidence only. Other knowledgeable posters can debate with me if they disagree. Some already have. But, primarily we see pretty much the same things.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:06 PM ----------

all i'm saying is both your and espn's ratings boil down to plain old opinion (well supported or not). a statistic can certainly be misleading, but at least it is guaranteed to be objective by definition.

i object to ESPN's marketing of their opinion as an alternative to statistical measures such as the old fashioned QB rating. one is a number, the other is commentary.

It's not an objective method. If you can come up with an objective method that makes sense, you will get rich.

Football scouts give their subjective opinions based on their experience. I'm doing the same. Others on this board are very capable of checking my work. A few have shown up in this thread.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:27 PM ----------

Since this is subjective, Ill go ahead and apply the rankings to some of those players listed to show the flaws in the system:

You didn't show a flaw in my method. You showed you don't grade QBs very well. EXAMPLE: Besides a low Wonderlik grade, which would have disqualified him in my grading method, Vince Young has terrible mechanics, even worse than Jason Campbell's as a rookie.

Your grades would not withstand, critical judgment by knowledgeable posters.

My thread has already drawn four very knowledgeable posters who are perfectly capable of spotting serious flaws in my grading. A few thought my four should have been raised to a five on RG3's deep ball. Our difference of opinion was due to the fact that I based my judgment on NFL not college plays.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 05:39 PM ----------

I understand that. Now lets's get back to reality. For those that follow football, Tom Brady is one of the top three QBs in the league. Or do you think that's a biased opinion?

I think you only have that opinion because you are unable to grasp the idea that a QB's performance is powerfully affected by his team support.

I think you jumped on a bandwagon opinion without thought.