Try Out the Updated Version of My QBTG Method

[Oldfan]

SKINNY: ...It's one of the reason I never bought into the talk about players like Manning (pre super bowl win) and McNabb not being able to 'win the big games'...

 

Agreed. That nonsense is just another example of QBs getting too much blame for losses. The opposite side of that coin is that they get too much credit for wins.

[Burgold]

Yes, certainly, over the course of time we can see/intuit patterns such as you suggest. But who are you trying to grade, the QB or the coach? In most cases you will be grading the coach's scheme.

Some coaches won't allow the QB to call an audible. They play the percentages. They have a large playbook; they scout their opponent's defense to determine what defenses they are likely to use in a given situation; and they pick plays that are likely to succeed. Other coaches create a small playbook and rely on having more practice time on each play in order to maximize precision. Then they allow the QB to audible at the LOS depending on how they read the safeties.

Some coaches, like Joe Gibbs, are paranoid about turnovers. They choose game managers like Brunell. Others, can live with talented gunslingers. If this forum is a reliable gauge, I'd guess that most fans would grade in a way that favored the game manager because he would throw fewer interceptions.

How many fans do you suppose understand that you can't discuss INTs unless you discuss TDs in the next breath? The gunslinger will put up more of both. TDs are usually worth seven points. The average INT is a negative four. So, if the gunslinger puts up an extra TD for every INT, he's +3 on the board for each.

The QB's support system, coaching, offense, defense and special teams, will also have an effect on his risk-taking. If he's playing with a poor support system, he will be playing the come-from-behind game more often than his counterpart with a good support system. That means more risk taking and , consequently, more "mistakes."

It's also why, when looking at stat lines for runningbacks for fantasy football, I throw out the longest and shortest runs to get a slightly more accurate snapshot of their game.

On the other hand, it feels like more than a coincidence if they always fail at the big game and that goes for coaches as well as players.  Was there something in Marty Schottenheimer's make-up that he had these teams that were great in the regular season and always folded (under multiple teams) in the playoffs?  Is there something missing in a QB like Romo sits to pee or McNabb that when the pressure is dialed up one more notch tend to throw more picks? 

 

I won't argue that there aren't other factors involved, but if you take a person who exhibits a very consistant pattern depending on the circumstance, then the player must be part of the equation.  I also would say that the pressure of different games is variable and that because we are human and not machines, emotional factors do impact us physiologically.  We all heard how McNabb was throwing up throughout his solo Superbowl.  That's not great on the body.  Those kinds of nerves must impact performance.

[Oldfan]

Burgold: On the other hand, it feels like more than a coincidence if they always fail at the big game and that goes for coaches as well as players.  Was there something in Marty Schottenheimer's make-up that he had these teams that were great in the regular season and always folded (under multiple teams) in the playoffs? 

 

If championships are the goal, Marty's plan was a poor one. If job security is the goal, Marty's plan was excellent. His scheme was very consistent in beating the kind of team that beats themselves given half a chance. You meet those teams in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

 

Putting together a highly effective passing game is the toughest task in coaching. Marty didn't want one. He played a conservative offense that rarely turned the ball over and he coached a stout defense. He lost in the playoffs to teams with better balance. George Allen had a similar plan.

 

Is there something missing in a QB like Romo sits to pee or McNabb that when the pressure is dialed up one more notch tend to throw more picks?

That's possible, but that's not an explanation that you would prefer based on such scant evidence unless you hold a bias against the QB.

 

 We all heard how McNabb was throwing up throughout his solo Superbowl.  That's not great on the body.  Those kinds of nerves must impact performance.

 

I think of vomiting on the football field as more often an unknown stomach condition exacerbated by violent physical contact. And sure, that could hurt a player's performance.

[Burgold]

 

I think of vomiting on the football field as more often an unknown stomach condition exacerbated by violent physical contact. And sure, that could hurt a player's performance.

 

 

 

Vomitting before the game is a sign of physical contact? 

 

I think where we will probably always disagree if I understand your theory is that I think that the mental side must play a huge role.  Afterall, look how many workout warriors and preseason crushes never make the team or flame out in a year or two.  Maybe it's difficult to quantify precisely, but it's sort of like obsenity... I know it when I see it.

[Oldfan]

 

 

I think of vomiting on the football field as more often an unknown stomach condition exacerbated by violent physical contact. And sure, that could hurt a player's performance.

 

 

 

Vomitting before the game is a sign of physical contact? 

 

I think where we will probably always disagree if I understand your theory is that I think that the mental side must play a huge role.  Afterall, look how many workout warriors and preseason crushes never make the team or flame out in a year or two.  Maybe it's difficult to quantify precisely, but it's sort of like obsenity... I know it when I see it.

As I recall it, McNabb denied puking in the huddle and Westbrook and other mates supported him.

 

If you think I am downgrading the mental side, you're wrong. I don't care how important it is if you can't grade it.

 

You are deceiving yourself when you write "I know it when I see it." What you are seeing is a QB's performance that is only as good as his support system allows it to be. Because of the quality of their support, some QB performances are at 90% of their potential and some at 70%. How could you possibly compare the two based on performance?

[Burgold]

I disagree.  I don't think it's binary.  What we're seeing is a combination of system and player.  Afterall, Kyle's system sure looks different with Beck running it than when Grossman is running it or Cousins or RGIII.  We can therefore see different aspects... strengths and weaknesses in the player.

 

The advantage we as Redskins fans have is we've seen umpteen billion qbs trying to fit into a system and how different ones fair.  Whether It's Joe T, Brad Johnson, Jeff George, the Spurrier triplets, Ramsey, Brunnell, Campbell... we've seen these guys play with the same support system and so we have a better ability to judge Schoeder versus Williams versus Rypien... QBs who seemed to share a lot of the same physical traits.    And so, while what your saying has value it's not completely true.

 

Now, it's tougher to judge Joe Montana versus Chad Pennington because perhaps some of the differences were due to support systems and schemes,  but it's not as clean cut as you pretend.  You can collect data even though there are confounding variables.  You just have to be honest about them in the discussion section.

[Oldfan]

I disagree.  I don't think it's binary.  What we're seeing is a combination of system and player.  Afterall, Kyle's system sure looks different with Beck running it than when Grossman is running it or Cousins or RGIII.  We can therefore see different aspects... strengths and weaknesses in the player.

 

The advantage we as Redskins fans have is we've seen umpteen billion qbs trying to fit into a system and how different ones fair.  Whether It's Joe T, Brad Johnson, Jeff George, the Spurrier triplets, Ramsey, Brunnell, Campbell... we've seen these guys play with the same support system and so we have a better ability to judge Schoeder versus Williams versus Rypien... QBs who seemed to share a lot of the same physical traits.    And so, while what your saying has value it's not completely true.

 

Now, it's tougher to judge Joe Montana versus Chad Pennington because perhaps some of the differences were due to support systems and schemes,  but it's not as clean cut as you pretend.  You can collect data even though there are confounding variables.  You just have to be honest about them in the discussion section.

 

You shifted to a different argument to find fault with mine. My OP discussed grading and comparing starting QBs from different teams.

 

Obviously, comparing the performances of QBs on the same team, using the same or similar support systems, makes more sense.

 

My argument is just "as clean cut as I pretend" if you stick to the argument I made.

[Burgold]

I disagree.  I don't think it's binary.  What we're seeing is a combination of system and player.  Afterall, Kyle's system sure looks different with Beck running it than when Grossman is running it or Cousins or RGIII.  We can therefore see different aspects... strengths and weaknesses in the player.

 

The advantage we as Redskins fans have is we've seen umpteen billion qbs trying to fit into a system and how different ones fair.  Whether It's Joe T, Brad Johnson, Jeff George, the Spurrier triplets, Ramsey, Brunnell, Campbell... we've seen these guys play with the same support system and so we have a better ability to judge Schoeder versus Williams versus Rypien... QBs who seemed to share a lot of the same physical traits.    And so, while what your saying has value it's not completely true.

 

Now, it's tougher to judge Joe Montana versus Chad Pennington because perhaps some of the differences were due to support systems and schemes,  but it's not as clean cut as you pretend.  You can collect data even though there are confounding variables.  You just have to be honest about them in the discussion section.

 

You shifted to a different argument to find fault with mine. My OP discussed grading and comparing starting QBs from different teams.

 

Obviously, comparing the performances of QBs on the same team, using the same or similar support systems, makes more sense.

 

My argument is just "as clean cut as I pretend" if you stick to the argument I made.

Sorry about that, chief.  Forgot about that part of your thesis.  Still don't think it's particularly clean although I do agree that grading a qb playing with a different scheme and personell takes some more advanced metrics.  For example, as I said before you can look at successful audibles, but you can also look at the time it takes to make a throw.  The latter may be imprecise sometimes, but if a qb looks over the defense, understands it and lets it rip pretty quickly (and successfully) before the D can react to the play... then that tells you something about the qbs ability to pre-read.

 

Likewise, if a qb is always hesitating and takes forever to throw the ball (think about a Jason Cambell... that tells you something about him as well.  It may speak to his confidence, comfort, or difficulty in diagnosing what's going on.  Regardless, that time... how long a ball should stay in a qbs hand on a three or five step drop should be quantifiable.  There will be qualifying factors, but over the course of a season or a career they should become less pronounced.

[ArmchairRedskin]

I can't take any QB evaluations serious from a guy that said John Beck had great potential should start over Rex Grossman. 

[Oldfan]

Burgold,

 

I don't have a single problem with those QB positive and negatives you list except that you seem to imply that these things can be seen and graded with a little effort. That's just not so. There would be a huge demand for time in film study and expertise in various schemes and supporting talent in order to get anything useful. If someone did that, I'd use it. 

 

Phil Simms once said that when people start talking about a QB's intangibles he tunes them out. I do the same. I include NFL scouts in that category. Scouts pretty much agreed that Jason Campbell was a natural leader at Auburn. It was the most glowing thing they had to say about him. Others, based on his history since high school, said "He's a winner."

[Oldfan]

I can't take any QB evaluations serious from a guy that said John Beck had great potential should start over Rex Grossman. 

I agreed with Mike and Kyle Shanahan. I saw the same potential they did. Do you not take them seriously on QB evaluations?

 

I did predict that he would start over Grossman and I was wrong. So were Kyle and Mike. As Mike has said many times, there are some things that you just can't see until the QB steps onto the big stage.

[Burgold]

Ultimately though, I suspect part of the friction comes from why I like the game.  I do like the chess match, the mental aspects, but I also like the "heroics" and the "story"  To me, that's an essential part of the game.  If you remove the grit of a player who makes that game breaking one handed catch on a broken leg or the steam angrily rising from a qb as he wills his team forward in the 2 minute drill for the amazing comeback... the game loses some of its luster, poetry, and excitement.  That element of fight, grit, leadership, hustle, passion is a crucial part of any human endeavor and for me it is part of the game.

 

It's why you can root for the underdog who's weaker, slower, smaller... and sometimes, that underdog triumphs!  Can you quantify heart?  But it is a part of the game.  After all, I've seen teams quit.  I've seen Champ Baily jog after a receiver instead of sprint trying to stop a score.  I saw Neil Olkiewisz chase down and catch Bo Jackson despite the fact that Neil was a slow poke and Jackson had world class speed.

 

So I say to you that those things you say don't matter do if only because I want them to!

[ArmchairRedskin]

I can't take any QB evaluations serious from a guy that said John Beck had great potential should start over Rex Grossman. 

I agreed with Mike and Kyle Shanahan. I saw the same potential they did. Do you not take them seriously on QB evaluations?

 

I did predict that he would start over Grossman and I was wrong. So were Kyle and Mike. As Mike has said many times, there are some things that you just can't see until the QB steps onto the big stage.

Mike and Kyle were blowing smoke up your ass. 

[Oldfan]

ArmchairRedskin: Mike and Kyle were blowing smoke up your ass. 

 

 

They made themselves look bad to blow smoke up my ass? Why on earth would they do that? Would you develop that theory, please. Is this like some kind of Shanahan conspiracy against the fanbase or just against me personally?

[Oldfan]

Ultimately though, I suspect part of the friction comes from why I like the game.  I do like the chess match, the mental aspects, but I also like the "heroics" and the "story"  To me, that's an essential part of the game.  If you remove the grit of a player who makes that game breaking one handed catch on a broken leg or the steam angrily rising from a qb as he wills his team forward in the 2 minute drill for the amazing comeback... the game loses some of its luster, poetry, and excitement.  That element of fight, grit, leadership, hustle, passion is a crucial part of any human endeavor and for me it is part of the game.

 

It's why you can root for the underdog who's weaker, slower, smaller... and sometimes, that underdog triumphs!  Can you quantify heart?  But it is a part of the game.  After all, I've seen teams quit.  I've seen Champ Baily jog after a receiver instead of sprint trying to stop a score.  I saw Neil Olkiewisz chase down and catch Bo Jackson despite the fact that Neil was a slow poke and Jackson had world class speed.

 

So I say to you that those things you say don't matter do if only because I want them to!

 

I understand. I think it's fine that you want to see the game that way. It sounds like fun.

 

When I watch the NFL, the chess match intrigues me. Analytical reasoning dominates my mind. But if I were writing a Football movie for Hollywood, I would not let an inconsequential matter like the truth stand between me and a good story. 

 

The only way Olky chases down Bo Jackson is if Jackson was injured; his momentum wasn't fully underway, or both. But your version makes for a better story.