Try Out the Updated Version of My QBTG Method

[Oldfan]

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,

My guess is that a quick reaction to the reads is far more rare and more difficult than making the reads.

[skinny21]

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?

I wonder if scouts (though it would be a ton of work), could compare similar situations and the decisions made in those situations, to weigh 'football intelligence'?

QB A, with a blitzing defender in his face, makes the appropriate hot read 75% of the the time. QB B makes the right read (same circumstances) 50 % of the time.

I wonder if you (a scout) could look at things like forcing the ball into double coverage, throwing the ball away, hitting the outlet receiver etc (again, in similar circumstances) to compare qbs?

[Oldfan]

Hitman: 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?

 

It's not a five-point scale. It's a scale of five: 5 = outstanding, 4 = above average, 3 = average, 2 = below average, 1 = sucks.

 

I grade QBs as a college scout might, except that I'm grading NFL starters.

 

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?

 

 

I've just answered this question for others. Let me know if you have a follow-up.

 

How would you rank those three pocket passers on a scale of five?

[Oldfan]

skinny: I wonder if scouts (though it would be a ton of work), could compare similar situations and the decisions made in those situations, to weigh 'football intelligence'?

 

QB A, with a blitzing defender in his face, makes the appropriate hot read 75% of the the time. QB B makes the right read (same circumstances) 50 % of the time. 

 

I wonder if you (a scout) could look at things like forcing the ball into double coverage, throwing the ball away, hitting the outlet receiver etc (again, in similar circumstances) to compare qbs? 

 

 

As you said, it would take a ton of work. It would also take a ton of expertise. The scout would have to know what each OC wanted to do on the designed play. 

[Jumbo]

I wanted to pin this thread, but knowing that sometimes kills a good conversation  , I didn't.

 

I agree with Oldfan. Many "formulas" or frameworks for analyzing QBs are particularly full of subjectivity, spinning, confirmation bias, selective perception, and all the typical impediments to seriously objective analysis, magnified, given the emotion-driven enterprise "sports fandom" is for most people. Like with so many other things, your cerebral cortex ends up in service to "supporting" your amygdala (and habits), as opposed to helping "transcend" emotional or reactionary (habitual pattern; ingrained) thinking. But I digress (at work, multi-tasking  ).

 

I think it's logical enough, well laid out, openly makes some major subjective concessions in design (how could it not?), and most importantly, is offered with an invite to build and refine---not as an "all done" methodology. 

 

This stands out to me: 3. Grade talent as a scout might. Many knowledgeable football fans I have known can regularly make seemingly accurate player assessments, without necessarily articulating all the "big picture" or "multi-aspect" dynamics of their process to other folks' satisfaction. Like a "talent scout", they watch a lot of football, take it in, live it, and see what they see (and then interpret) and develop assessments of performance competencies. Humans are able to develop very sophisticated understandings without necessarily being able to effectively communicate "how they get there" in words. But don't take that too far. If one can't support a claim effectively, or actually sounds like an idiot to more than a few otherwise reasonable folks, then that process will follow its course.

 

When I saw RG3 at his uninjured best in a rookie NFL season, it was much more my "talent scout side" than my "analytical well-defined data storage side" that went "wow...right now, already, this guy is the best threat at QB I have ever seen."  While I accept that I put a number of qualifiers about how RG3 may end up, I really had that "evaluation" (first time ever), and stood by it, when I saw him play as he did. And I am not known for what most call "homerism."

 

One of my favorite things about OF as a poster (and yes, he and I have mildly head-butted a few times) isn't just his consistently presenting a top-tier level of football knowledge, but that he's also well-versed in classical logic, rational argument, and formal debate. That's of course even more rare in this venue (and can generate both annoyed and admiring responses).

 

So when he goes to develop such a tool, flawed or impressive to whatever degree it's eventually declared, I know what is going to emerge comes from serious effort and a mind that's more up to the task than the average bear. Of course, he keeps it human by sometimes being stubborn to a fault, sometimes cantankerous (usually only after provoked), and sometimes he's just wrong <inset old devil smiley>. He and I would have more in common if he were stubborn, cantankerous, and wrong more often.

 

I apologize for wandering in this post (doing a bit of "debriefing" via ES ) and not addressing the formula more specifically---time and train of thought.

 

Just want to note again that so many of you guys are doing such a great job keeping heady and interesting football conversations going in what many of us feel is the deadest off-season in a long time.

[Oldfan]

Jumbo, when I joined ES, I couldn't get up a discussion about Jason Campbell's sloppy mechanics. Aside from the "who-do-you think-you-are-Joe-knows-quarterbacks" argument, I was pretty much ignored. The 2013 ES members are more knowledgeable. It's more fun to engage them in discussion and debate.

 

Today, anyone interested in learning more about conventional QB mechanics can browse You Tube videos and get caught up pretty quick. As with anything else, there's a lot more to the topic than the conventional, but that's the place to start.

 

I don't need the QBTG as I've presented it. I don't need to quantify my opinions for personal use, but it's a good device to force other minds to consider the problems associated with grading QBs and it helps me convey concepts about the grading process I use.

[skinny21]

skinny: I wonder if scouts (though it would be a ton of work), could compare similar situations and the decisions made in those situations, to weigh 'football intelligence'?

QB A, with a blitzing defender in his face, makes the appropriate hot read 75% of the the time. QB B makes the right read (same circumstances) 50 % of the time.

I wonder if you (a scout) could look at things like forcing the ball into double coverage, throwing the ball away, hitting the outlet receiver etc (again, in similar circumstances) to compare qbs?

As you said, it would take a ton of work. It would also take a ton of expertise. The scout would have to know what each OC wanted to do on the designed play.

I hear ya', and of course there are inherent flaws with the idea, but...

If a team like the Colts last year were trying to choose between 2 QB, it's reasonable to assume they are going to look at every snap anyway, so why not note the number of times he throws a jump ball under pressure? Wouldn't be too hard (at that point) to figure the percentage of jump balls thrown while under duress.

Essentially, I think it's a matter of advanced statistics.

As for knowing what the OC wants to achieve on the play, I would think you could remove (some of) that by focusing on certain situations. If a QB has time in the pocket but throws into double coverage when other players are not doubled, it doesn't really matter what the coach was trying to achieve. Let me rephrase that... I can't think of a time when a coach will ask the QB to throw to a particular player regardless of the coverage.

For the record, I feel like this type of analysis might work, but I'm putting out there more to get different perspectives.

[Oldfan]

SKINNY: Essentially, I think it's a matter of advanced statistics.

 

 

Statistics involve objective data. I'm not sure what to call the product when you introduce subjective judgments.

 

Using your example of jump passes, I would have a problem with you marking down Jay Cutler on a jump pass because for him it's a positive. For other QBs, it would be a negative.

 

There are some online attempts to do as you suggest to grade O-lines and other units. I don't know of any grading QBs. I'm not sure how they grade power blocking linemen and zone blockers using the same method.

[Hitman21ST]

It's not a five-point scale. It's a scale of five: 5 = outstanding, 4 = above average, 3 = average, 2 = below average, 1 = sucks.

 

I grade QBs as a college scout might, except that I'm grading NFL starters.

 

 

Fair enough, I'm a little confused as to your terminology (when you started using decimals that threw me), but I'll roll with it.

 

I've just answered this question for others. Let me know if you have a follow-up.

 

How would you rank those three pocket passers on a scale of five?

 

I did read your answer to others, and understand. I asked before you had a chance to answer it the first time, but once I read the answer it made sense.

 

Manning, Brady, and Bradford:

 

With the strict scale of 5 (no decimals), I would give Brady a 5 and Bradford and Manning a 4. I took note of what you said about Brady throwing off his back foot, but Bradford doesn't look completely comfortable with pressure and there are times that his mechanics break down, moreso than Brady. I completely agree with your take on Manning. The ducks he throws are inexcusable.

 

If I'm breaking it down to decimals, the rankings would probably be around Brady getting a 4.8, Bradford a 4.4, and Manning a 4.0.

[Oldfan]

Hitman: If I'm breaking it down to decimals, the rankings would probably be around Brady getting a 4.8, Bradford a 4.4, and Manning a 4.0.

 

 

I haven't seen those Bradford breakdowns, but that could be because I wasn't watching the games when they happened. But, since you grade Peyton as I do, we can't be too far off on the way we grade talent.

[RiggosMohawk]

To me the ultimate combo is the mashing together of Oldfan's impartial "ability" grading along with quantifiable items alluded to by skinny21 in post 27.

 

And to go back to one of Oldfan's favs, I'll bring up Jay Cutler. He just makes throwing the ball look so easy and effortless. He can make all the throws with a quick release, on the run, backfoot, etc...  but too often his team is on the wrong end of a multi-turnover multi-sack debacle. These debates are trying to remove the "the Bears OL is terrible" from that analysis, which I really think skinny21 is trying to get at with #27. Don't you think scouts analyze all QBs, how they fair with a free blitzer either in their face or the blindside to try to find these "intangibles"? Some QBs just gotta be born with that sense of impending danger and react in a non-negative way... that tendancy should be visible through enough game film. To me Cutler has been on the wrong end of that story too many times to not think he doesn't have something to do with it. Just like I've seen Brady shred too many pass D's apart to think it's mostly due to the NE staff.

 

I agree that Bradford has higher potential in terms of skill set, but he doesn't show it enough. I'm not talking about gawdy numbers, I'm talking about a playcall change that kills the post-snap coverage, a subtle shift to avoid a blitzer, an in-game throw (even an incompletion) that makes you go *wow*. Brady's ceiling is lower but he regularly hits it. Manning's ceiling is even lower, but during he regular season he's maxed out against it and that beats teams... he runs into trouble when that skill set is not sufficient to beat the caliber of D he's facing, which happens come January.

[skinny21]

SKINNY: Essentially, I think it's a matter of advanced statistics.

Statistics involve objective data. I'm not sure what to call the product when you introduce subjective judgments.

Using your example of jump passes, I would have a problem with you marking down Jay Cutler on a jump pass because for him it's a positive. For other QBs, it would be a negative.

There are some online attempts to do as you suggest to grade O-lines and other units. I don't know of any grading QBs. I'm not sure how they grade power blocking linemen and zone blockers using the same method.

It would certainly be subjective to a degree, no getting around that. However, I think you could possibly parse it to enough of a degree that you'd feel comfortable grading them.

Regarding your point about Cutler - again, regardless of the talent of the WR, or what the coach is trying to do with a certain play, I'll take the QB that throws a ball into double coverage 5% of the time over the one that throws it 15% of the time. And again, this is assuming they're choosing to throw to the double covered receiver as opposed to the open or single covered player. I wouldn't count hail mary's and such for example. In essence, it's an attempt to make apples to apples comparisons to grade the 'football intelligence' of a player since grading solely on physical traits is flawed at best, and misleadingly wrong at worst.

How about as simple a thing as a quarterback sliding? Most agree that Russell Wilson is better at getting down then Griffin. If we wanted to, we could find the plays pertinent to that conclusion/theory. What I'm suggesting would be (in this instance) to throw out the plays where either player didn't see the tackler, and plays where the game was on the line. So you compare similar instances, apply a percentage and thereby quantify which QB is better at 'getting down'.

The real problem could be in weighing all these different things attributed to football intelligence (sliding, correctly throwing the ball away, throwing jump balls etc), because assigning a weight is inherently subjective.

[Oldfan]

To me the ultimate combo is the mashing together of Oldfan's impartial "ability" grading along with quantifiable items alluded to by skinny21 in post 27.

 

And to go back to one of Oldfan's favs, I'll bring up Jay Cutler. He just makes throwing the ball look so easy and effortless. He can make all the throws with a quick release, on the run, backfoot, etc...  but too often his team is on the wrong end of a multi-turnover multi-sack debacle. These debates are trying to remove the "the Bears OL is terrible" from that analysis, which I really think skinny21 is trying to get at with #27. Don't you think scouts analyze all QBs, how they fair with a free blitzer either in their face or the blindside to try to find these "intangibles"? Some QBs just gotta be born with that sense of impending danger and react in a non-negative way... that tendancy should be visible through enough game film. To me Cutler has been on the wrong end of that story too many times to not think he doesn't have something to do with it. Just like I've seen Brady shred too many pass D's apart to think it's mostly due to the NE staff.

 

I agree that Bradford has higher potential in terms of skill set, but he doesn't show it enough. I'm not talking about gawdy numbers, I'm talking about a playcall change that kills the post-snap coverage, a subtle shift to avoid a blitzer, an in-game throw (even an incompletion) that makes you go *wow*. Brady's ceiling is lower but he regularly hits it. Manning's ceiling is even lower, but during he regular season he's maxed out against it and that beats teams... he runs into trouble when that skill set is not sufficient to beat the caliber of D he's facing, which happens come January.

To most fans, Joe Montana excelled in game-winning final drives. He is credited with being a clutch performer. But, has anyone ever charted the drive success of the 49ers? I'd be willing to bet that the Niners had outstanding success on all their drives. I'd even bet that the final drive was not their most successful on a points-per-drive basis.

 

I use this as an example of the way QBs get more credit for their team's success than they deserve and more blame than they deserve for its failures. Fans just overrate the value of the QB position and, consequently, underrate the value of the support system.

 

I think this is what you are doing with Cutler and Bradford.

 

Jay Cutler is a mobile QB. He has an uncanny ability to avoid sacks when given some help. He got that help from Mike Shanahan in 2008. That year, the Broncos led the NFL with the fewest sacks allowed -- eleven. Bear in mind that the lighter ZBS lines are not known as great pass blockers. Rookie Tackle Ryan Clady allowed only one sack blocking for Cutler. The following year (2009), he had nine sacks charged against him blocking for Kyle Orton. That's just two less than the entire 2008 offense.

 

The Bears OCs were never able to use Cutler's mobility to avoid sacks; and that is just one of their many failures.

[Oldfan]

SKINNY: It would certainly be subjective to a degree, no getting around that. However, I think you could possibly parse it to enough of a degree that you'd feel comfortable grading them. 

 

 

I'd be all in favor of your idea if the subjective analysis makes sense. I'm just doubtful that all the variables could be accounted for in a way that would earn the trust of those using your numbers.

 

If you could eliminate all the times it makes sense to throw into double coverage, and your process stuck to your rules, you could make it work. But, all too often, those people charged with making the decision would make it based on hindsight.

 

RG3 threw to a double-covered receiver last season. His man had a half-step on two defenders. The pass was overthrown. Had it been a tad short, it would likely have been intercepted. To be valid, your analysis would have to be the same whether that pass was complete, incomplete, or intercepted.

 

TDs are usually worth seven points. The average INT is a negative four. If your method punishes the gunslinger QB for his INTs but does not give him credit for the extra TDs he puts on the board, then you have a method that favors the game manager QBs.

 

How about as simple a thing as a quarterback sliding? 

 

 

That's a good thing to do for self-protection, but what does that have to do with production?

[Hitman21ST]

Oldfan, just a question on a QB - how would you grade Rivers? He would be close on to a 3.0 for me - his throwing motion is atrocious, but when he throws it's actually not that bad of a pass. Overall though, he's about average.

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, just a question on a QB - how would you grade Rivers? He would be close on to a 3.0 for me - his throwing motion is atrocious, but when he throws it's actually not that bad of a pass. Overall though, he's about average.

 

After a QB shows you he can make all the throws consistently as Rivers has, then you just forget the funky mechanics. I had him rated highly when he was going well and I haven't changed my mind about him. His stock fell with the media and the fans but not with me. His support went South and his production followed, but his talent remains.

 

I might emphasize that point. Once I think I have the QB graded right. My talent grade doesn't change much except for advanced age or a significant injury.

 

Now, those funky mechanics might mean that Rivers will have a shorter career because it is his superb athleticism that allows him to compensate for poor mechanics and that superb athleticism doesn't last forever. I just checked his age. He's 31 now, so I'll have to watch him for a downward trend.

[skinny21]

To me the ultimate combo is the mashing together of Oldfan's impartial "ability" grading along with quantifiable items alluded to by skinny21 in post 27.

And to go back to one of Oldfan's favs, I'll bring up Jay Cutler. He just makes throwing the ball look so easy and effortless. He can make all the throws with a quick release, on the run, backfoot, etc... but too often his team is on the wrong end of a multi-turnover multi-sack debacle. These debates are trying to remove the "the Bears OL is terrible" from that analysis, which I really think skinny21 is trying to get at with #27. Don't you think scouts analyze all QBs, how they fair with a free blitzer either in their face or the blindside to try to find these "intangibles"? Some QBs just gotta be born with that sense of impending danger and react in a non-negative way... that tendancy should be visible through enough game film. To me Cutler has been on the wrong end of that story too many times to not think he doesn't have something to do with it. Just like I've seen Brady shred too many pass D's apart to think it's mostly due to the NE staff.

I agree that Bradford has higher potential in terms of skill set, but he doesn't show it enough. I'm not talking about gawdy numbers, I'm talking about a playcall change that kills the post-snap coverage, a subtle shift to avoid a blitzer, an in-game throw (even an incompletion) that makes you go *wow*. Brady's ceiling is lower but he regularly hits it. Manning's ceiling is even lower, but during he regular season he's maxed out against it and that beats teams... he runs into trouble when that skill set is not sufficient to beat the caliber of D he's facing, which happens come January.

To most fans, Joe Montana excelled in game-winning final drives. He is credited with being a clutch performer. But, has anyone ever charted the drive success of the 49ers? I'd be willing to bet that the Niners had outstanding success on all their drives. I'd even bet that the final drive was not their most successful on a points-per-drive basis.

I use this as an example of the way QBs get more credit for their team's success than they deserve and more blame than they deserve for its failures. Fans just overrate the value of the QB position and, consequently, underrate the value of the support system.

I think this is what you are doing with Cutler and Bradford.

Jay Cutler is a mobile QB. He has an uncanny ability to avoid sacks when given some help. He got that help from Mike Shanahan in 2008. That year, the Broncos led the NFL with the fewest sacks allowed -- eleven. Bear in mind that the lighter ZBS lines are not known as great pass blockers. Rookie Tackle Ryan Clady allowed only one sack blocking for Cutler. The following year (2009), he had nine sacks charged against him blocking for Kyle Orton. That's just two less than the entire 2008 offense.

The Bears OCs were never able to use Cutler's mobility to avoid sacks; and that is just one of their many failures.

"Statistics involve objective data. I'm not sure what to call the product when you introduce subjective judgments." - OldFan

It seems to me that you could argue that rating a qbs mechanics etc uses a certain amount of subjectivity as well.

Riggo talked a bit about the eye test, which is subjective as you point out. The water is too muddied due to differing support casts to use the eye test, which is why I proposed the type of statistical analysis as an attempt to separate qbs from their supporting casts. Don't judge a QB by if his WR caught the ball in double coverage (or whether it was intercepted etc), but rather on his decision to throw it into double coverage. **

Do you feel/agree that it's possible to find similar situations for different qbs and rate their decision making in those instances? Perhaps with enough such instances we can come with a fair rating of football intellect.

** posted this before seeing your response. As you mention, I wouldn't punish the QB for an int and wouldn't give points for a td (as they are subject to defensive play and the wrs play as you inferred), instead I'd rate the decision.

As for the sliding, yes it's protection vs production (and just a random example that I used because it has been discussed thoroughly this offseason and is pertinent to our team). It was simply an example of parsing down the game tape to find similar situations we could then use as statistics in order to weigh football intelligence.

Sorry for the cumbersome writing, you bring out my 'trying to sound smarter than I am' mode.

[Mahons21]

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 was not suggesting that you use it in your evaluation. You made the argument that since Ryan Fitzpatrick scored well on his SATs and attended and ivy league school, that he would be good at reading defenses.

I don't agree with that at all, and am challenging the position.

What evidence do you have of QBs that do well in school, are also good at reading defenses?

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?

It would take some serious experimentation to prove the point, thus we must use deductive reasoning.

First do we agree that Peyton is better than Ryan Fitzpatrick? I'll assume yes.

What makes Peyton better than Fitzpatrick though?

It's certainly not his footspeed, and probably not his arm talent, though his mechanics are strong as is his pocket presence.

But are good mechanics, and pocket presence what separates a Peyton Manning (arguably the greatest QB of all time) and Fitz (your average Joe)?

Obviously not.

You've suggested in this thread that it's the scheme. As others have already pointed out of there was a scheme that allowed someone with minimal athletic talent to dominate defense. It would have been replicated by this point, and more than just increased use of shotgun.

I believe is his ability to rapidly process information under duress. But I don't expect you to just take my word for it,

[Airyx]

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?

Tom Moore's scheme is the Air Coryell offense with a focus on two TEs...it is almost identical to the offense Gibbs ran.

 

Clearly, Jason Campbell did not succeed in the same way Manning did, while running almost the exact same offense.

[Hitman21ST]

 

 

 

After a QB shows you he can make all the throws consistently as Rivers has, then you just forget the funky mechanics. I had him rated highly when he was going well and I haven't changed my mind about him. His stock fell with the media and the fans but not with me. His support went South and his production followed, but his talent remains.

 

I might emphasize that point. Once I think I have the QB graded right. My talent grade doesn't change much except for advanced age or a significant injury.

 

Now, those funky mechanics might mean that Rivers will have a shorter career because it is his superb athleticism that allows him to compensate for poor mechanics and that superb athleticism doesn't last forever. I just checked his age. He's 31 now, so I'll have to watch him for a downward trend.

 

Fair enough. Can't really argue with that. Honestly, he's an enigma to me because he shouldn't be able to make those throws, but you're right, he just does. I might have to re-evaluate him, but it's hard for me to look past that motion.

[Oldfan]

"Statistics involve objective data. I'm not sure what to call the product when you introduce subjective judgments." - OldFan

 

SKINNY: It seems to me that you could argue that rating a qbs mechanics etc uses a certain amount of subjectivity as well. 

 

Absolutely. I made my point about your method only because you called the product  "advanced statistics." Both methods, yours and mine, are subjective. On the other hand, I don't think an objective, statistical method is possible.

 

Do you feel/agree that it's possible to find similar situations for different qbs and rate their decision making in those instances? Perhaps with enough such instances we can come with a fair rating of football intellect.

 

 

I really don't know. You made me think of Patrick Ramsey at QB for Spurrier who wanted the ball put in the air deep to covered receivers even though his receivers didn't have the ball skills to outfight DBs as he wanted them to. If you were counting those throws against him, Ramsey would be unfairly punished. If you didn't count them at all, it would seem like Ramsey never made a mistake throwing deep.

 

Spurrier didn't protect his QBs well either. QBs under pressure are going to make more mistakes than well-protected QBs. Even if you forgive some of Ramsey's mistakes he's going to look worse than the well-protected QB because you are going to apply your standard evenly and forgive some of the well-protected QB's mistakes as well.  

[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?

Tom Moore's scheme is the Air Coryell offense with a focus on two TEs...it is almost identical to the offense Gibbs ran.

 

Clearly, Jason Campbell did not succeed in the same way Manning did, while running almost the exact same offense.

Tom Moores scheme and Joe Gibbs scheme may have the same roots in Don Coryell but the way Moore and Gibbs developed the schemes and the play calling is very different. Just at a simple level for example I can't remember Joe ever having his QB in the shotgun and Joe was much more about running the ball and using play action to get chunk balls where Moore is much closer to the original Coryell model of being pass heavy.

Joe Gibbs even changed the timing on the pass patterns and route progressions early in his first stint here to accommodate the different talents and throwing styles of Joe Thiesmann versus Dan Fouts. He changed them again when Jay Schroeder took over from Thiesmann.

[Oldfan]

Mahons: I believe is his ability to rapidly process information under duress. But I don't expect you to just take my word for it,

 

If Peyton's mechanics are strong why does he throw so many ducks?  I haven't seen Fitzpatrick as often as I've seen Peyton, but Peyton has a nice fade and I can't recall seeing Fitz ever throw one. I'd give Peyton an edge as a passer.

 

Which explanation should one prefer? One that may or may not exist, or one which obviously exists and offers a cause that explains the effect? I opt for the latter. The big gap between Peyton and Ryan is that Peyton played in the same excellent scheme for 14 years and Ryan was never given that opportunity. If he had, the gap would have narrowed considerably.

[Oldfan]

Airyx: Clearly, Jason Campbell did not succeed in the same way Manning did, while running almost the exact same offense.

 

Moore's scheme has a few Coryell elements, but the two schemes are dissimilar in many ways.

 

Also, Indy gave Peyton a better supporting cast than Jason had.

 

Finally, Peyton is a better QB. Jason needed a complete makeover of his mechanics to become decent. Al Saunders spent an entire off-season on the project. Jim Zorn finished it.

 

However, if Jason Campbell had been allowed to throw from the shotgun 65-70% of the time as Peyton did, he might still be our QB. He was very good in the Gun.

[Burgold]

It's interesting enough, but the flaw in it for me is when is someone supposed to obtain the data to make the scoring.  If we can't use performance/games because of all of the variables introduced, when do we collect data?

 

Footwork in a game is bound to be impacted by pressure.  If not in a one game isolation certainly over a season.  You can see the footwork of a player change over time.  Take David Carr or Pat Ramsey for example.  How do you grade accuracy?  A beautifully thrown spiral that misses its target could be due to a receiver running a route at incorrect depth, a bad throw, pressure, etc.  Jason Campbell could toss the ball a mile, but rarely could toss it to where the receiver could catch it.  Is that a good arm or a bad arm?

 

Seems to me that your method is best for judging qbs in a combine situation, but I'm not really convinced how it could help anyone without access to practice tape how good a qb is based on the info available to most fans.

 

Aside from that, Liekert scales can be problematic.  Even with very, very precise operational definitions of what Excellent means or Poor means, you are going to get an incredible degree of variability.