RG3 posts the highest QBTG ever.

[BobGriffin]

I think whats missing is that intangibles cannot be quantified. That's what separates top ten busts and all-pros. If you look at the majority of the top qb pics within the past decade they will all score highly.

[KCClybun]

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?

Thing about Oldfan is, he already thought Tom Brady was an overrated quarterback, and that you could slip a guy like Marc Bulger into his shoes and get the exact same production. He already thought Tom Brady was a system quarterback more bolstered by the head coach he feels is the best in the NFL than by any sort of talent. He already thought Jay Cutler was the best quarterback in the league from a raw physical standpoint and said we shouldn't settle for anyone but someone who matched his exact physical profile.

He thought all this BEFORE he even knew about Robert Griffin III. He was lukewarm on the whole idea of trading up, and I do believe he concerned him a run-first guy, and he barely watched any of him at Baylor.

Oh, but NOW Robert Griffin III matches all his specifications, and that makes RGIII the best quarterback in the league. As someone who was on the RGIII bangwagon far before Oldfan, Robert's the most gifted, athletic quarterback to be drafted in a long time, and his development is lightyears ahead of where any of us thought it'd be. And he's STILL not the best quarterback in the NFL. At least not yet.

Because if this was really a fact based analysis stripped of analysis on who the best quarterback in the NFL was, Aaron Rodgers----who fits ever physical talent characteristic Oldfan claims he values---would rank first. Not RGIII.

Aaron Rodgers---29

---------

5- Deep Passing

5- Mid-range passing

5- Short-range passing

5- Throwing on the run

5- Extending plays

4- Running threat

But don't expect Oldfan to actually respond to this. I guess that's what I get for asking him to ignore my post. But if you're looking for an example of why this is bull****, Aaron Rodgers is it.

He just felt the opportunity to slag on Tom Brady was good.

[Oldfan]

I think whats missing is that intangibles cannot be quantified. That's what separates top ten busts and all-pros. If you look at the majority of the top qb pics within the past decade they will all score highly.

The top picks don't all score highly. For example, a pocket passer like Tom Brady could not possiblly score as highly on his talent with both arm and legs as Robert Griffin. But if a team designs a scheme for a pocket passer, they will ignore mobility scores.

Intangibles are important, but there are no experts in what can't be seen, IMO.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 06:16 PM ----------

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?

Being able to extend the play in the pocket is my minimum requirement. I give it a one. If the QB is an absolute statue, I could give it a zero I suppose. But most QBs develop some ability to extend a play within the pocket.

Brady 's ability to do it gets hyped because his fans have to find some explanation for his outstanding performances. They can't claim that it's because he has a better skill set.

Pocket presence is a vague concept, and since it's vague, people can claim expertise they don't have to assess it.

I watch footwork in the pocket. Tom Brady has a bad habit of throwing off his back foot even when not forced to do it by pressure. I noticed it before hearing Belichik with a microphone on him castigating Brady for it when Brady didn't seem to want to hear it. "Step into your throws!" Belichik reminded him impatiently.

Some QBs can get away with throwing off the back foot. Brady can't. His ball floats.

[Hitman21ST]

Being able to extend the play in the pocket is my minimum requirement. I give it a one. If the QB is an absolute statue, I could give it a zero I suppose. But most QBs develop some ability to extend a play within the pocket.

There should be a difference though between "minimum level talent" and "minimum requirement" though. I agree that most QBs should be able to extend the play in the pocket. But look at John Skelton or Kevin Kolb - they don't have that ability. Their pocket awareness is nonexistent. That should be the "minimum level talent". Moving around in the pocket to extend the play (a la Brady or Manning) should be around a 3. Manning I might even give a 4 to, because his pocket awareness is outstanding. He steps up when need be, he does those subtle moves that help make a great QB.

Brady 's ability to do it gets hyped because his fans have to find some explanation for his outstanding performances. They can't claim that it's because he has a better skill set.

Pocket presence is a vague concept, and since it's vague, people can claim expertise they don't have to assess it.

It's not really that hard to assess. Does he climb the pocket when he should? Does he move left or right to avoid the pass rushers within the pocket? If so, then he gets a good grade. If not, then he doesn't.

I watch footwork in the pocket. Tom Brady has a bad habit of throwing off his back foot even when not forced to do it by pressure. I noticed it before hearing Belichik with a microphone on him castigating Brady for it when Brady didn't seem to want to hear it. "Step into your throws!" Belichik reminded him impatiently.

Some QBs can get away with throwing off the back foot. Brady can't. His ball floats.

And if I were arguing for footwork, then you would have a point. However, being able to extend the play inside the pocket has nothing to do with footwork in the setting you are talking about. Vick's ability to extend the play is great. His footwork is lousy. That doesn't lessen his ability to extend at all though. Same with Brady. However bad his footwork is, he can extend plays with his moving in the pocket.

[Mahons21]

Regarding what weight to give mobility v passing:

I'm not sure quite how to weight them universally. To accurately weight them, one would first need to know what scheme said QB would be running (as all scouts do).

As you've stated, the mobility of a QB in lets say the NE offense, is essentially meaningless. Side note I'm a big believer that Ryan Mallett is going to be stud one day in that offense, it suits him perfectly.

Regarding methods of how to evaluate QBs accurately, I've come up with an idea of my own, let me know what you guys think.

First we must understand that to evaluate QBs in the method I'm about to put forth, you either need an infinite amount of time or to be a football analyst.

I think you'd have to watch every snap a QB takes that isn't a designed RB rush. First you must grade the difficulty of the play, a curl v a cover-3 isn't going to get you a good grade here, but a corner route v cover-2 certainly will. RG3's scramble for a first on that 3rd down v Philly would get a high score of difficulty. I would grade this on a scale of 1-3.

I would then look at how successful said QBs were on these plays, but not the outcome of the play itself. If a QB delivers a perfect bucket throw that someone drops, said QB isn't going to be graded poorly for said play. On the other hand, if a QB has success on a play he shouldn't I would deduct points, ie RG3 throwing into double covergage going for a TD. I'd give this play a 3 for difficulty, but then deduct a pt for the poor decision, putting it in with the intermediate level 2 plays.

Once all these statistics are compiled I would look at the success rate of each QB on the three different levels.

Hypothetically:

Brady is successful on 85% of level 1 plays, 80% on level 2 plays, and 45% on level 3 plays.

I'd then compare these statistics between QBs and arrive at my own subjective ranking.

Now please feel free to tear it my method fellas , try and take it easy if you can.

[Oldfan]

In my opinion...

Tom Brady is a grade A pocket passer. Peyton Manning is a grade A pocket passers. As pocket passers go, I don't grade any higher. However, the defensive game plan against them is the same and it's simple: Get them to move their feet.

I'm grading QBs on their talent-ability to create problems for the defense. The Grade A atheltic QBs create more problems for the DC, so they get higher grades from me.

[AsiaticSkinsFan]

It's a subjective, but intelligent way to grades QBs -- as opposed to a commonly used objective, but unintelligent, way.

you gave Tom Brady a one for extending plays when he is probably the best at it in the NFL, and maybe ever (especially pre knee injury). Thats why this metric cant work, biases get in the way.

But I do agree with you that just using statistics do not work. The problem is football is a sport that is wholly dependent on others so you could make a case for and against any player.

[Oldfan]

There should be a difference though between "minimum level talent" and "minimum requirement" though. I agree that most QBs should be able to extend the play in the pocket. But look at John Skelton or Kevin Kolb - they don't have that ability. Their pocket awareness is nonexistent. That should be the "minimum level talent". Moving around in the pocket to extend the play (a la Brady or Manning) should be around a 3. Manning I might even give a 4 to, because his pocket awareness is outstanding. He steps up when need be, he does those subtle moves that help make a great QB.

'Minimum level talent" "minimum requirement" "Pocket presence" doesn't include throwing off the back foot under phantom pressure for you...I'm not going to debate semantics.

If you want to include pocket presence in your grading and grade extending plays in the pocket differently, go right ahead.

[Hitman21ST]

Hypothetically:

Brady is successful on 85% of level 1 plays, 80% on level 2 plays, and 45% on level 3 plays.

I'd then compare these statistics between QBs and arrive at my own subjective ranking.

Now please feel free to tear it my method fellas , try and take it easy if you can.

That doesn't seem too bad, Mahons, my only hangup is that good QBs would try to stay away from the "level 3" plays in your scenario. Meaning that a good QB would do something to avoid them (audible out of it, hot route, whatever) - if he presnap reads a cover 2, I would expect him to change the routes to find the hole.

Having a lower number of level three plays then would probably then mean a smaller success rate.

Just for numbers sake:

In a given game, his offense runs 40 pass plays.

20 of them would qualify as a "level 1" play. His success rate is 95%.

12 are "level 2" plays. His success rate is 75%.

8 are "level 3" plays, but he correctly reads the defense and audibles out of 4 of them to level 1. On the remaining 4, he has a success rate of 25%. However, that system wouldn't take into account the 4 plays which he audibled out of.

[KCClybun]

Seriously.

No one is going to bring up Aaron Rodgers.

Huh.

[Oldfan]

you gave Tom Brady a one for extending plays when he is probably the best at it in the NFL, and maybe ever (especially pre knee injury). Thats why this metric cant work, biases get in the way.

Brady was never mobile enough to extend plays by moving out of the pocket. The best he can do is reset his feet within the pocket to buy a little more time.

But I do agree with you that just using statistics do not work. The problem is football is a sport that is wholly dependent on others so you could make a case for and against any player.

Exactly.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I thnk you give too many QBs the benefit of the doubt in your Extending Plays category. I don't think Brady can be a 1 when there are guys like Grossman and Campbell in the league. By assuming most QBs can step up, side step, etc. in the pocket you are actually indirectly weighing mobility too much.

I think the movement we see from Manning and Brady within the pocket would warrant a 3. That way you aren't essentially rating Mobility twice and double counting it. To me, someone like Campbell (pat, pat, pat....sack) would get a 1, someone like Brady would get a 3, and someone like Griffin would get a 5.

[Mahons21]

That doesn't seem too bad, Mahons, my only hangup is that good QBs would try to stay away from the "level 3" plays in your scenario. Meaning that a good QB would do something to avoid them (audible out of it, hot route, whatever) - if he presnap reads a cover 2, I would expect him to change the routes to find the hole.

Having a lower number of level three plays then would probably then mean a smaller success rate.

Just for numbers sake:

In a given game, his offense runs 40 pass plays.

20 of them would qualify as a "level 1" play. His success rate is 95%.

12 are "level 2" plays. His success rate is 75%.

8 are "level 3" plays, but he correctly reads the defense and audibles out of 4 of them to level 1. On the remaining 4, he has a success rate of 25%. However, that system wouldn't take into account the 4 plays which he audibled out of.

It's a valid point, but one that I hope would be minimized by a larger sample size (course of a season).

Furthermore, a successful level 2 play is going to look better than an unsuccessful level 3 play on the final stats, and I would imagine that many of these plays that QBs audible out of would be unsuccessful. I've also pointed out if a level 3 play is a bad decision as some are but still completed, the play would only count as a level 2 completion.

But your point makes me think the # of plays within each level should be taken into account.

Level 1 60/70, level 2 35/50, level 3 8/20, something of that nature to show a percentage and attempts.

[Oldfan]

...I'd then compare these statistics between QBs and arrive at my own subjective ranking.

Now please feel free to tear it my method fellas , try and take it easy if you can.

Are you only grading their passing?

[skinnyskins]

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

[/color] 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.

I rated Young as a 2, 3, and 2 respectively for your passer ratings; you make it sound like I gave him a ringing endorsement. You bring in mechanics for the first time in this thread and that is reflected in my low score.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 07:12 PM ----------

Seriously.

No one is going to bring up Aaron Rodgers.

Huh.

Im in total agreement with you.

[Hitman21ST]

'Minimum level talent" "minimum requirement" "Pocket presence" doesn't include throwing off the back foot under phantom pressure for you...I'm not going to debate semantics.

If you want to include pocket presence in your grading and grade extending plays in the pocket differently, go right ahead.

It just appears that you aren't giving Brady a fair grade - his ability to extend the play in the pocket is close to unparalleled. On the level with Peyton Manning. To give grade Brady and Manning the same grade as John Skelton or Kevin Kolb isn't exactly fair on the sole basis that they are pocket passers. Manning and Brady extend in the pocket a whole lot better than any other pocket passer, which is why giving them a 1 for extending plays isn't accurate. You can't honestly say that Skelton and Kolb (among others) would rank above a 1 in "extending plays", and by giving Brady a 1 in that category you're saying he's no better than either of those two.

His throwing mechanics need work, so you can knock him on that by all means. But Brady can extend the play. I would give Brady a three in that category, and RG3 would get a 5. Mobile passers would definitely rank higher, but that doesn't mean Brady is a 1.

[ArmchairRedskin]

I'm sure if this scale had been brought up before the 2011 season, Beck would have ranked very highly according to OF

[Hitman21ST]

Seriously.

No one is going to bring up Aaron Rodgers.

Huh.

I agree with you, NLC, I'm just arguing a different point

[Oldfan]

I thnk you give too many QBs the benefit of the doubt in your Extending Plays category. I don't think Brady can be a 1 when there are guys like Grossman and Campbell in the league. By assuming most QBs can step up, side step, etc. in the pocket you are actually indirectly weighing mobility too much.

I think the movement we see from Manning and Brady within the pocket would warrant a 3. That way you aren't essentially rating Mobility twice and double counting it. To me, someone like Campbell (pat, pat, pat....sack) would get a 1, someone like Brady would get a 3, and someone like Griffin would get a 5.

Why should movment within the pocket be a three when there is such a wide range of QBs in the league who can do so much more? Romo sits to pee is far more dangerous out of the pocket than he is within. That's why defenses game plan to keep him in. With Brady and Manning, the game plan calls for getting them to move their feet. They are not nearly as dangerous when you get them to move.

[Mahons21]

Are you only grading their passing?

No.

In my intial post I gave the example of RG3's run on 3rd down that got a first, said play would qualify as a successful 3.

I think I'd then quantify all zone-reads as a 1, if the QB reads it right then he would get a successful grade, if he reads it wrong unsuccessful, and if the play is simply blown up by the d-line dominating the o-line in more than one area I'd void it all together. Which means I would have to include some HB runs, but they aren't solely designed HB runs. In addition, if the QB is able to make a gain of say 15+ yards, I'd move the zone read into a successful level 2 play.

[Hitman21ST]

Brady was never mobile enough to extend plays by moving out of the pocket. The best he can do is reset his feet within the pocket to buy a little more time.

Which is all that is necessary most of the time, and the exact definition of "extending the play". A good number of times, all that is needed for a receiver to get open is a half second or so. Something that resetting feet provides.

"Extending plays" doesn't mean being able to run around for 30 seconds to wait for someone to get open. It means buying enough time to make a play successful.

[DogofWar1]

Seriously.

No one is going to bring up Aaron Rodgers.

Huh.

He's a monster, as was Steve Young, and as will be Griffin, and probably Luck too.

That's why I mentioned a bunch of pages back that things need to be weighed a bit differently. Mediocre mobile QBs (Vick) would be beating amazing Pocket passers (Manning, if we don't want to fight over Brady anymore). I probably would have also had some extra things in the passing sections (decision making, vision, touch, etc.) and rolled it into a single large score, but this is Oldfan's metric, I'm trying to critique within his own metric, as opposed to completely change it.

---------- Post added November-19th-2012 at 07:23 PM ----------

Which is all that is necessary most of the time, and the exact definition of "extending the play". A good number of times, all that is needed for a receiver to get open is a half second or so. Something that resetting feet provides.

"Extending plays" doesn't mean being able to run around for 30 seconds to wait for someone to get open. It means buying enough time to make a play successful.

I largely agree with this. I mean, a 3 is supposed to be average, and I think the average QB adds an extra half second to a second with the right moves in the pocket. A 1 would be a pure statue, IMO.

Regardless, Griffin's extending play ability isn't so much a 5/5 as it is a 17/5. Guy is on film dodging the entire Giants team, and did the same thing yesterday too. I doubt Rodgers, Young, or even Vick, all highly mobile QBs, could pull that off.

[darrelgreenie]

I think you'd have to watch every snap a QB takes that isn't a designed RB rush. First you must grade the difficulty of the play, a curl v a cover-3 isn't going to get you a good grade here, but a corner route v cover-2 certainly will. RG3's scramble for a first on that 3rd down v Philly would get a high score of difficulty. I would grade this on a scale of 1-3.

I would then look at how successful said QBs were on these plays, but not the outcome of the play itself. If a QB delivers a perfect bucket throw that someone drops, said QB isn't going to be graded poorly for said play. On the other hand, if a QB has success on a play he shouldn't I would deduct points, ie RG3 throwing into double covergage going for a TD. I'd give this play a 3 for difficulty, but then deduct a pt for the poor decision, putting it in with the intermediate level 2 plays.

Once all these statistics are compiled I would look at the success rate of each QB on the three different levels.

Hypothetically:

Brady is successful on 85% of level 1 plays, 80% on level 2 plays, and 45% on level 3 plays.

I'd then compare these statistics between QBs and arrive at my own subjective ranking.

Now please feel free to tear it my method fellas , try and take it easy if you can.

Your concept here isn't dissimiliar from the intent/method of Pro Football Focus/Football Outsiders/the ever popular QBR

[Oldfan]

I'm sure if this scale had been brought up before the 2011 season, Beck would have ranked very highly according to OF

Beck did grade highly by the scouting method. That's why Beck, as a prospect, ranked highly with Mike Shanahan. But, as Mike explained, you just never know until you put the guy on the big stage.

That's why I waited to grade RG3 on his NFL play. The grades in the OP were determined with real bullets flying.

[Hitman21ST]

They are not nearly as dangerous when you get them to move.

So grade them lower on "running threat" or "throwing on the run". Movement in the pocket should be a three because there is a wide range of QBs in the league who can't even do that. Skelton, Kolb, Campbell, Gabbert, Foles, etc. Those should be the guys who get a 1.

If you're going to say they get a lower grade for being weaker outside the pocket, then you need a grade for QBs who are weaker inside, because the gameplan for those QBs would be to keep them inside.

If you're gameplanning against RG3, you want to keep him in the pocket, keep him from using his mobility. So should he get a lower grade because of that?