Try Out the Updated Version of My QBTG Method

[Oldfan]

QBTG 1.1

 

The Quarterback Talent Grade (QBTG)  is a more intelligent way to grade quarterbacks. The alternative is to grade them on performance which is impossible since their performances are greatly affected by their support systems.

 

To fully understand the problem, consider the identical twins Chucky and Lucky who were born to be Grade A talented NFL quarterbacks, equal in every way. However, Chucky was drafted by a team which will give him the worst supporting system in the NFL over the course of his career while Lucky will get the best supporting cast.

 

Lucky's team will win Super Bowls; he will be first team all-pro every season; he will win MVP awards; he will be inducted into the Hall of Fame; he will make millions in salary and endorsements; every stat measuring performances will be much better than Chucky's.

 

In comparing the two twins, media-led fans will say that Chucky just doesn't have the "it" factor; he lacks pocket presence; he has happy feet; he just can't read defenses like his brother; he's not a leader; he lacks his brother's work ethic; or he's not a clutch performer in the big games. But, we know, you and I, that the only difference between the two is the supporting cast. We know the rest of that stuff is all bull because I told you that their talent is identical.

 

We can only grade QBs intelligently on talent not performance. The thing we want to measure is: Using their arm and their legs, how much threat do they represent to defenses? The greater the threat, the higher we must grade them.

 

As a general rule, mobile QBs grade higher than pocket passers and dual-threat QBs grade highest of all.

 

This doesn't mean that a coach should design his scheme for dual-threat QBs. He might well choose to design for a pocket passer since: It would be easier to find two good ones thus his scheme would be run almost as well with a backup in the game; the pocket passer could be expected to be able to do his job for 15 years; and, with equal mechanics, a QB who doesn't have to move his feet much can be expected to be more accurate than those who do have to. 

 

The quarterback is always the most important player on the field, but the head coach can determine the position's value. The position carries more weight when designed for a dual-threat QB than it would for a pocket passer. Here are the weights I have assigned the three types of QBs:

 

dual-threat QB = 12

mobile QB = 10

pocket passer = 8

 

That's the position value. Now, we have to grade the QBs on talent. For that purpose, we will use a scale of five. So, an average grade would be a three. Then we multiply the position value times the QB's grade. The scores of three average QBs of each type would look like this.

 

dual-threat: 12 X 3 = 36

mobile: 10 X 3 = 30

pocket passer: 8 X 3 = 24

 

When comparing QBs, I recommend comparing pocket passer to pocket passer and so on. Now, here comes the tough part: ignoring performance stats and grading QBs on talent. You need to look at a QB like a scout might: footwork, throwing motion, the flight of the ball, and so on. To my eyes, Sam Bradford is a better pocket passer than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. So, he would get a higher score from me. I have it like this:

 

Bradford 8 X 4.7 = 37.6

Brady 8 X 4.5 = 36

Manning 8 X 4.0 = 32

 

In other words, if all three were given the same brand new scheme and an equal supporting cast. Bradford's performance would be the best of the three.

 

I see Luck, Rodgers, Cutler and Brees grouped in the mobile QB category. Their legs are useful not so much to add to the running game as they are for buying time and making them easier to protect.

 

Griffin, Kaepernick and Wilson are dual-threats. Now, let's say that the Shanahans decide not to use Robert so much in the running game, then his position value drops.

 

Give the QBTG a try. You are trying to eliminate the scheme and supporting cast as a factor when grading QBs.

 

1. Put your QBs in a category.

 

2. Ignore performance stats.

 

3. Grade talent as a scout might.

 

4. Use a scale of five to quantify your grade.

 

5. Multiply the category weight times your QB grade for a final score.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I didn't read the whole thing but I agree, Seattle is overrated.

[Mahons21]

How would you rate Blaine Gabbert?  IMO this line of thinking is what got 99% of ES caught up on an awful QB, there were very few on here that thought he would drop come draft day. 

[Springfield]

This all seems very subjective to me. What if my eyes says that Brady has better footwork than Bradford?

What makes a dual thread QB more valuable than a pocket passer

[HeluCopter29]

But don't you have to rate arms at a higher value than legs?  I like how this is played out but I think it's worth pointing out that an arm just has to be given more value than the legs no matter if it's a dual threat or a pocket passer.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I lie this concept a lot. But all of those subjective items (leadership, command of the huddle, etc.) do matter to some degree. How do you account for that?

For example, you could be completely correct that Bradford is more talented than Manning. Does that mean that you believe Manning would have fared worse in St. Louis and Bradford better in Denver last season?

I think Manning's ability to read the D, change plays, etc. has some value despite understanding it's virtually impossible to measure.

[KCClybun]

This all seems very subjective to me. What if my eyes says that Brady has better footwork than Bradford?

What makes a dual thread QB more valuable than a pocket passer

 

OIdfan says so.

[Oldfan]

How would you rate Blaine Gabbert?  IMO this line of thinking is what got 99% of ES caught up on an awful QB, there were very few on here that thought he would drop come draft day. 

I watched video on Gabbert because some posters in this forum whose opinions I respect were high on him. I saw a QB with solid conventional mechanics, but he looked "mechanical" to me. Really talented passers make everything look easy. The ball comes out with zip that seems surprising. I didn't see that, so I wasn't impressed. I wrote that in a post on that mammoth thread on the 2012 draft. However, I hadn't seen enough of him before the draft to be confident in my opinion.

[Oldfan]

This all seems very subjective to me. What if my eyes says that Brady has better footwork than Bradford?

What makes a dual thread QB more valuable than a pocket passer

It certainly is subjective, but you don't have a choice if you want to grade QBs intelligently. An intelligent, objective way doesn't exist.

 

Generally, the QB who can pass and run is more of a threat than one who can pass.

[Oldfan]

But don't you have to rate arms at a higher value than legs?  I like how this is played out but I think it's worth pointing out that an arm just has to be given more value than the legs no matter if it's a dual threat or a pocket passer.

Those positional values give the arm more weight. The pocket passer gets an 8. The mobile QB 25% more (10) and the dual-threat QB 50% more (12)

[bowhunter]

Great mechanics and quick feet are of little value if the brain is not attached. No multiplier for intelligence to read defenses?

[Springfield]

This all seems very subjective to me. What if my eyes says that Brady has better footwork than Bradford?

What makes a dual thread QB more valuable than a pocket passer

It certainly is subjective, but you don't have a choice if you want to grade QBs intelligently. An intelligent, objective way doesn't exist.

Generally, the QB who can pass and run is more of a threat than one who can pass.

Fair enough. I can agree with that.

[Oldfan]

 

TDWR: I lie this concept a lot. But all of those subjective items (leadership, command of the huddle, etc.) do matter to some degree. How do you account for that?

 

 

The intangibles certainly matter, but they can't be seen and graded. Consequently, there's a ton of bull dispensed about them. 

 

For example, you could be completely correct that Bradford is more talented than Manning. Does that mean that you believe Manning would have fared worse in St. Louis and Bradford better in Denver last season? 

 

 

I doubt that any team would have signed Peyton and not used the scheme he used for so long in Indianapolis. All QB performances are scheme-dependent, but none moreso than Peyton's. 

 

Tom Moore installed a very small playbook which can be practiced to near perfection. He made it adaptable at the LOS. They ran the same scheme every Sunday and dared defenses to stop it.

 

Jim Sorgi: "...That’s what they do. That’s what they’re all about. And not many teams have been able to stop them yet.”"

 

http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense#sthash.MYsgNgNe.dpuf

[Oldfan]

Great mechanics and quick feet are of little value if the brain is not attached. No multiplier for intelligence to read defenses?

If you can give me a way to fairly grade it, I'd be glad to add it to my method. 

 

I don't believe that reading defenses is that difficult but Peyton's ability to do it is hyped in order to explain how a QB with such limited talent can produce such outstanding performances. I find it hard to believe that Harvard grad Ryan Fitzpatrick, who scored a 1580 on his SAT and 48 on his Wonderlic can't read defenses as well as Peyton. I think SCHEME is a better explanation. I think the scheme OC Tom Moore gave Peyton is brilliant.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

 

 

TDWR: I lie this concept a lot. But all of those subjective items (leadership, command of the huddle, etc.) do matter to some degree. How do you account for that?

 

 

The intangibles certainly matter, but they can't be seen and graded. Consequently, there's a ton of bull dispensed about them. 

 

> 

For example, you could be completely correct that Bradford is more talented than Manning. Does that mean that you believe Manning would have fared worse in St. Louis and Bradford better in Denver last season? 

 

 

I doubt that any team would have signed Peyton and not used the scheme he used for so long in Indianapolis. All QB performances are scheme-dependent, but none moreso than Peyton's. 

 

Tom Moore installed a very small playbook which can be practiced to near perfection. He made it adaptable at the LOS. They ran the same scheme every Sunday and dared defenses to stop it.

 

Jim Sorgi: "...That’s what they do. That’s what they’re all about. And not many teams have been able to stop them yet.”"

 

http://smartfootball.com/offense/peyton-manning-and-tom-moores-indianapolis-colts-offense#sthash.MYsgNgNe.dpuf

 

 

But Manning MUST be better at it than Bradford or most teams would attempt to implement it and put up the numbers that Indy/Denver did under Manning.

 

You might agree, I'm just clarifying.

[MartinC]

I don't believe that reading defenses is that difficult but Peyton's ability to do it is hyped in order to explain how a QB with such limited talent can produce such outstanding performances. I find it hard to believe that Harvard grad Ryan Fitzpatrick, who scored a 1580 on his SAT and 48 on his Wonderlic can't read defenses as well as Peyton. I think SCHEME is a better explanation. I think the scheme OC Tom Moore gave Peyton is brilliant.

 

The comment above about how Peytons success is scheme driven (and its certainly true that scheme plays a part in any QB's success of lack thereof) begs the question why teams have not have copied Tom Moore's scheme? 

 

I think your idea in the OP is interesting and I certainly agree that conventional QB ratings, whether the NFL rating formula or the ESPN QBR, simply rate a teams pass offense not the QB. I think these ratings are for fans and I would surprised if an NFL coach or GM held much stock in them. Your rating scheme is more how a scout might look at it in grading a player.

 

I think though that whatever rating scheme you use to grade QBs prior to them playing in the NFL or projecting them in a different scheme as a free agent its a crap shoot to an extent as the intangibles which you can not rate play such a big part.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Great mechanics and quick feet are of little value if the brain is not attached. No multiplier for intelligence to read defenses?

If you can give me a way to fairly grade it, I'd be glad to add it to my method. 

 

I don't believe that reading defenses is that difficult but Peyton's ability to do it is hyped in order to explain how a QB with such limited talent can produce such outstanding performances. I find it hard to believe that Harvard grad Ryan Fitzpatrick, who scored a 1580 on his SAT and 48 on his Wonderlic can't read defenses as well as Peyton. I think SCHEME is a better explanation. I think the scheme OC Tom Moore gave Peyton is brilliant.

 

I should have kept reading...I understand where you stand on this now. It's absolutely possible that Manning owes much of his success to coaching. So, just to put a bow on this, you belive that if Moore took Bradford under his wing and they were together for a number of years running a similar scheme, Bradford would outperform Manning?

 

One other general question...any insight into how you came up with your 1-5 score? Bradford = 4.7, Brady = 4.5, Manning = 4.0...I'd be curious to know how you came to those scores since that's the heart of this method. People could slightly change how much weight they give the different types of QBs, but within each type, your rankings will order them.

[Warpath11]

One other general question...any insight into how you came up with your 1-5 score? Bradford = 4.7, Brady = 4.5, Manning = 4.0...I'd be curious to know how you came to those scores since that's the heart of this method. People could slightly change how much weight they give the different types of QBs, but within each type, your rankings will order them.

 

That is subjective, use your eyes to determine the 1-5 score, in your opinion you could change those scores, the above scores is how Oldfan sees their physical talent.  You or anyone else might decide to give Brady the 4.7 and Bradford a 4.5.  I for example would give Matthew Stafford at least a 4.7 based on his physical talents alone.

[Mahons21]

Great mechanics and quick feet are of little value if the brain is not attached. No multiplier for intelligence to read defenses?

If you can give me a way to fairly grade it, I'd be glad to add it to my method. 

 

I don't believe that reading defenses is that difficult but Peyton's ability to do it is hyped in order to explain how a QB with such limited talent can produce such outstanding performances. I find it hard to believe that Harvard grad Ryan Fitzpatrick, who scored a 1580 on his SAT and 48 on his Wonderlic can't read defenses as well as Peyton. I think SCHEME is a better explanation. I think the scheme OC Tom Moore gave Peyton is brilliant.

There are different types of intelligence, and as of recent there has been a push to quantify/define athletic intelligence. Which as I understand it, is ability to rapidly process information and put it to use in matter of seconds.

In my opinion, Peyton probably has a higher level of athletic intelligence then Ryan Fitzparick. So while Fitz can take a timed test and do well. Peyton can analyze a defense in a couple seconds, if not less, with a 280 LB DE closing in on him, and know who he's going to throw the ball to.

[Oldfan]

TDWR : But Manning MUST be better at it than Bradford or most teams would attempt to implement it and put up the numbers that Indy/Denver did under Manning.

 

You might agree, I'm just clarifying.

 

 

Peyton is better at running the Indy scheme than anybody. He's done it for like14 years. That's why I wrote that, to be fair, Peyton, Brady and Bradford would have to be tested running the same brand new scheme with equal personnel supporting them.

 

Why didn't more coaches copy the scheme? Coaches are copycats, but they all have biases. For example, most coaches had a bias against the shotgun except on third and long. But Belichik was the first coach to copy the Indy scheme's 65 - 75% use of the shotgun on pass plays which increased the scheme's efficiency. He gave Brady even more Gun than Peyton. Other teams caught up, but only gradually.

[Darth Tater]

Reading coverages is one thing but you have to have the ability to do what your read says you should do.  I guess you could also look at as if you have the ability, your coverage reads don't have to be as accurate,

[Hitman21ST]

Just trying to work out the particulars so I can try this out. In OP you mentioned three items that scouts would use (footwork, throwing motion, flight of the ball), yet you have a five point (really 50 point since you use decimals, but that's semantics) scale. What else do you use?

 

And just on a personal curiousity note, what do you rate Bradford higher than Brady and Peyton in. You said that you rate him higher than those two, and I'm not arguing whether he is or isn't, I'm just wondering in what way(s) do you think he is better?

[Oldfan]

MARTIN: The comment above about how Peytons success is scheme driven (and its certainly true that scheme plays a part in any QB's success of lack thereof) begs the question why teams have not have copied Tom Moore's scheme?

 

 

TDWR asked the same question so I won't repeat the same answer I gave him. However, to add to it. No coach copied Bill Walsh's scheme despite his success with it, but they did take elements from it.

 

I think it's safe to say that most coaches wouldn't agree with my opinion that Tom Moore's scheme is brilliant. I think most coaches favor the idea of deceiving the defense. Moore's scheme doesn't do that. It challenges the defense to defeat what they know is coming. I would prefer that approach which emphasizes that the pass plays are run so precisly that the D can't stop them even if you told them what was coming. 

 

I think your idea in the OP is interesting and I certainly agree that conventional QB ratings, whether the NFL rating formula or the ESPN QBR, simply rate a teams pass offense not the QB. I think these ratings are for fans and I would surprised if an NFL coach or GM held much stock in them. Your rating scheme is more how a scout might look at it in grading a player.

 

 

Agreed.

 

I think though that whatever rating scheme you use to grade QBs prior to them playing in the NFL or projecting them in a different scheme as a free agent its a crap shoot to an extent as the intangibles which you can not rate play such a big part.

 

 

Agreed.  

[Oldfan]

TDWR: I should have kept reading...I understand where you stand on this now. It's absolutely possible that Manning owes much of his success to coaching. So, just to put a bow on this, you belive that if Moore took Bradford under his wing and they were together for a number of years running a similar scheme, Bradford would outperform Manning?

The scheme has a limited number of plays which were practised to perfection, so I don't think there would be much difference in the two. I think Bradford could do slightly better. But my main point is that the supporting systems have deceived fans when comparing QBs. The Bradford-Manning comparison is just an example.

 

WARPATH: One other general question...any insight into how you came up with your 1-5 score? Bradford = 4.7, Brady = 4.5, Manning = 4.0...I'd be curious to know how you came to those scores since that's the heart of this method. People could slightly change how much weight they give the different types of QBs, but within each type, your rankings will order them.

Brady has had a career-long habit of throwing off his back foot when he feels pressure. Some QBs are talented enough to do that and still get off a strong accurate throw. Brady can't. His ball floats and often gets picked. I marked him down for that. Otherwise in arm strength and accuracy he and Bradford are close.

Peyton throws ducks on 30-40% of his throws. He cannot possibly be as accurate as Bradford who throws a beautiful ball consistently. It's a matter of Physics not Aesthetics. I've read that a wobbling football will miss the target by an average of five feet at 30 yards. That would be worse in the wind. Dan Fouts has said that he lost a playoff game in Cleveland in windy conditions because Ken Anderson could throw spirals and he couldn't.

 

 

WARPATH: That is subjective, use your eyes to determine the 1-5 score, in your opinion you could change those scores, the above scores is how Oldfan sees their physical talent.  You or anyone else might decide to give Brady the 4.7 and Bradford a 4.5.  I for example would give Matthew Stafford at least a 4.7 based on his physical talents alone.

Yes, that's right. It's the only way to intelligent way to grade QBs. There is no intelligent, objective method. Our grades could differ. I could see new evidence that could cause me to change my grades.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: There are different types of intelligence, and as of recent there has been a push to quantify/define athletic intelligence. Which as I understand it, is ability to rapidly process information and put it to use in matter of seconds.

 

 

When it has been defined, and we have a way to measure it, I'll use it.

 

I

n my opinion, Peyton probably has a higher level of athletic intelligence then Ryan Fitzparick. So while Fitz can take a timed test and do well. Peyton can analyze a defense in a couple seconds, if not less, with a 280 LB DE closing in on him, and know who he's going to throw the ball to. 

 

 

If you can give me solid evidence or an argument to support your theory, I'll change my mind. Why do you think your explanation is probably true?