Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do you judge a QBs "Greatness"?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How do you judge a QBs "Greatness"?

    I found myself going back and forth on this topic while typing up this post over in another thread...

    Originally posted by GridironChamp
    Well you do gotta be a bit careful on this subject...

    As much as I hate Vince Young and wish him to fail TREMENDOUSLY, he has led a decent team to the playoffs. He is like Michael Vick, just not near the baggage or near the talent. As bad as his stats might seem, as bad as he might look, as ugly as the game might be... He makes sure his team wins the game.

    I think Cutler is a more talented QB, I think he is heads and tails better than Young... But it depends on how you judge a QB's effectiveness. If winning makes a QB good, which i can see how you come up with that, VY is tops right now. I also see how can say VY is not comparable to Cutler because the fact that Young goes 3 for 14 for 43 yards in preseason game.

    The QB's skills goes Cutler, Leinert, Young.
    The "greatness" or effectiveness has to go Young, Cutler, Leinert. (BTW what is Cutlers total W/L record cuz Leinerts is 7 - 9.

    Its all about what you consider more important. Some QBs, like a Garrard, play the game to simply win. Others go out and win the game.


    * But I'll say this on subject... Russell will be a Pro-Bowl caliber QB at some point in his career.
    Now, I dont want a Russell or a Cutler vs Young thread, but I use them as examples because I think it provides great examples.

    Are you one that looks at a quarterbacks play to determine how well he has played? If doing this do you look at each individual pass or the outcome of the game? Do you care if the QB manages the game well by calling the right plays at the right time, or makes the correct read on a 3 yard pass instead of an interception... Or do those things mean little to nothing to you if he goes 9 for 21 with 1 TD and 160 yards? *WHILE GETTING A WIN.

    Maybe your one that pays no attention to the team's effort and focuses soley on the QB's personal performance? Does 18 for 27 2 TDs and 250 yards with a loss have a longer lasting effect than the latter when only focusing on the QB?

    I can go both ways with it because some QBs are out to win the game and others are out to TRY to win the game. Is it really a QBs fault that he is on a good team and just has to manage the game rather than go win it? What is the actuall difference between managing a winning effort compared to a great performence in a loss?

    I know using Cutler vs Young is a bad idea seeming it's a Broncos board. I'll go a different way. David Garrard led the Jags into the playoffs and Carson Palmer couldnt get the Bengals into the playoffs. We all know who the better QB is in the skill catagory, but does that mean Palmer is more effected, or better, than Garrard? Garrard made few mistakes, and even fewer costly mistakes. He managed a team that was close to one dimensional yet kept them very effective at doing just that. Palmer on the other had a less talented team, at least on defense, and put up great numbers that had ppl drooling.

    So who was actually better? The QB showing his skill set or the QB showing his effectiveness? Since Palmer's stats, look, and ability are so much higher is he a better QB? Or is Garrard better for being able to lmit his mistakes, making sure he wins, and leading a team make him better?

    This post is kinda bouncing back and forth because Im just writing it on the fly, so I apologize for that. I, for whatever reason, have a feeling which way most of this board will sway due to their current QB situation. Maybe you have something really good that will persuade me to your side... Im not really against either side, Im just not on either side. Up until last year Brady had been a QB that was the winner. He only worried about managing the game for the win... Ugly or pretty. He won 3 SBs that way. Last year he had a better year in both look and stats, but didnt get the win.

    The final thought would be... Is a QB that looks more skilled actually the BETTER QB than the QB that just goes out and wins the game? Which ever way you answer, what would be the comprimising ground that would make the opposing side equal? Like, does the better looking QB just have to make the playoffs. Maybe the QB that just wins has to have a Garrard type season?

    Im just curious on which you all think.
    Club Leader: Robert Griffin III > Andrew Luck

    ^^^Get used to it.^^^

  • #2
    If he plays close to the lvl of Jay Cutler, he is close to achieving greatness.
    Hehe I'm just warming up for the regular season.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      if you watch football enough for as many years as i have you get to see some great qbs.....young elway may be before your time, but despite average stats people knew he was great for what he did on below average teams, in a perspective you may remember,,think the montana chief and gannon chief....there was just something besides his 49 years that showed he was a great one while gannon just seemed average at best

      its hard to explain...its just it..some have it, some dont

      but as far as stats the biggest misconception is wins....common thought is more wins means a great qb.. and iits not always entirely right... although in somes cases like elways they earned them, elway carried teams, and in others like grossmen or dilfer they just go along for the ride

      you look at the dolt fans ..to a tee they believe rivers is a great qb because of the wins....do you, with biased opinions thrown out, see a great qb? i dont i see a decent qb on a great team..with all his weapons he ought to be the best qb in the game...but he isnt even close...put him on a miami or az team and hes a backup to warner and pennigton

      look at the year 06..brady had who to throw to? no one...yet he was one of the top qbs and got deep into the playoffs..give him a couple weapons and whats he do


      you also got to be rational...just because a team is overall worse..it doesnt mean the qb is..and vise versa...look at what he does..did he have great wrs..a solid run game...defense is important to a offense..could they stop teams....was he instumental in wins with his play or was he just a cog in the wheel...how was his pass protection...did he have time or was he typicaly running for his life yet still managed good numbers...factor in those in your judgemnt

      when manning came to the colts he wasnt instant success...but you could see it..he had it...

      as for young...hes not anything special...he is carried by a great defense..all he has to do is manage the offese and hopefully score a few points and let the defesne stop teams....a less talented vick....but did vick do anything? no....as soon as teams stop his scramblin, like vick..hes toast

      leinart..he had all the success in college....mega star, instant nfl gold.....but he played on teams that were typically butt loads more talented then his competition...he came to a sub average team in az...and cannot even keep his job from a over the hill warner..he'll be a journey man back up in a couple years

      as for croyal...i just havent seen enough of him to judge.....but when he as a 3rd or 4rth year guy is haveing trouble beating out a old lifetime backup in huard...its got to mean something
      sigpic
      when do native Americans become human and not mascots

      Comment


      • #4
        ummm didnt garrard have like the 4th highest passer rating with under 5 ints in the season? Pretty sure his stats were better than Carson Palmer so im not sure if thats a great comparison, ill look it up.

        Edit:G GS Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost

        Garrard
        2007 Jacksonville Jaguars 12 12 208 325 64.0 2,509 7.7 18 3 21 99 102.2 49 185 3.8 1 3 2

        Palmer
        2007 Cincinnati Bengals 16 16 373 575 64.9 4,131 7.2 26 20 17 119 86.7 24 10 0.4 0 5 1

        So yeah its safe to say he had a better year.
        Last edited by Starbroncs; 08-26-2008, 09:19 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Purely by QB rating

          just joking, I love how the mere mention of QB rating will just piss some people off.

          Mark Brunnel is an interesting one to look at QB rating for, I think he was just a hair under 90 when he lost his starting job to Campbell. QB rating wise he was in the upper third, had a couple 100 qb rating plus games earlier, and sat an NFL record for consecutive completions that year. However, there were various reaons why his rating was probably higher than he deserved,... and he made a good scapegoat.
          I think more than anything the team decided he wasn't the guy who was going to win them games. If you're team is in the dumps, sometimes you need more of a gamble than a decent sturdy guy, but thats off the subject of QB greatness.

          http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ has some interesting technical ratings for anybody who hasn't seen then. One named Kubiak.

          Of course the only real way is by observence.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Starbroncs View Post
            ummm didnt garrard have like the 4th highest passer rating with under 5 ints in the season? Pretty sure his stats were better than Carson Palmer so im not sure if thats a great comparison, ill look it up.

            Edit:G GS Comp Att Pct Yds Avg TD Int Sck SckY Rate Att Yds Avg TD FUM Lost

            Garrard
            2007 Jacksonville Jaguars 12 12 208 325 64.0 2,509 7.7 18 3 21 99 102.2 49 185 3.8 1 3 2

            Palmer
            2007 Cincinnati Bengals 16 16 373 575 64.9 4,131 7.2 26 20 17 119 86.7 24 10 0.4 0 5 1

            So yeah its safe to say he had a better year.
            From the stats I see Palmer had a better completion %, more TDs, and more yards. Garrard had more TDs than I thought, so it makes the comparison not as good... Maybe Drew Brees then? A bit better than Palmer last year, but Garrard's 18 TDs really threw me off... I thought he was in the low teens.

            Still stat wise, that is a close call.
            Club Leader: Robert Griffin III > Andrew Luck

            ^^^Get used to it.^^^

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by GridironChamp View Post
              From the stats I see Palmer had a better completion %, more TDs, and more yards. Garrard had more TDs than I thought, so it makes the comparison not as good... Maybe Drew Brees then? A bit better than Palmer last year, but Garrard's 18 TDs really threw me off... I thought he was in the low teens.

              Still stat wise, that is a close call.
              I dont know if you noticed it but he only played in 12 games. I think you have to take winning into account from a certain point, plus stats. You make it sound as though if a qb has crazy awesome stats then his team will lose. Garrard had a VERY productive year and his team won, he was a part of that and made very little mistakes. Still, it was the running game and defense that did most the work so I wouldnt call him elite.

              Having a good qb doesnt always = wins. Palmer did have a productive year (still made quite a few mistakes) but he wasnt the reason they lost. He is still a great qb even though his team lost a lot. They didnt really have a running game and their defense was terrible. You need all the pieces to be able to win. I think its too early to name which qb is better, Garrard hasnt really played much.

              Comment


              • #8
                In no particular order...
                • Is he prolific? Does he scare defenses?
                • Does he make people around him better?
                • Does he win games?
                • Does he win championships?
                • How does he perform in clutch situations? (third down, fourth quarter, the playoffs, MNF)
                • Is he not named Phillip Rivers?


                I think all of these speak to whether someone is great or not.
                KHAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Kaylore View Post
                  In no particular order...
                  • Is he prolific? Does he scare defenses?
                  • Does he make people around him better?
                  • Does he win games?
                  • Does he win championships?
                  • How does he perform in clutch situations? (third down, fourth quarter, the playoffs, MNF)
                  • Is he not named Phillip Rivers?


                  I think all of these speak to whether someone is great or not.
                  I've never seen a fanbase more obsessed with an opposing player who "supposedly" sucks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Chargerfreak View Post
                    I've never seen a fanbase more obsessed with an opposing player who "supposedly" sucks.
                    I have never seen a fanbase who can't see their QB sucks.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by cutler7624 View Post
                      I have never seen a fanbase who can't see their QB sucks.
                      I don't understand all the hate on Rivers. People want to argue he "sucks", and San Diego just has good talent, it's a true testament to just how much Shanahan has apparently let the talent pool in Denver slide over so many years.

                      I happen to think Cutler is a very good young QB, and he doesn't even have a winning record.

                      Maybe the Denver Broncos as a team just aren't very good, and the talent just isn't there. If the talent is there, then it's the coaching.

                      Which one is it people?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by silkamilkamonic View Post
                        I don't understand all the hate on Rivers. People want to argue he "sucks", and San Diego just has good talent, it's a true testament to just how much Shanahan has apparently let the talent pool in Denver slide over so many years.

                        I happen to think Cutler is a very good young QB, and he doesn't even have a winning record.

                        Maybe the Denver Broncos as a team just aren't very good, and the talent just isn't there. If the talent is there, then it's the coaching.

                        Which one is it people?
                        The talent was there on defense until Al Wilson got hurt. Injuries are what have held us back the most.
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cutler7624 View Post
                          The talent was there on defense until Al Wilson got hurt. Injuries are what have held us back the most.
                          Al Wilson was under Plummer wasn't he?

                          I don't by the injureis argument. Every team in the NFL has injuries. If people want to use injuries year after year, then someone isn't doing there job in evaluating young talent to come in and play the system.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How do I judge a QBs greatness? The level to which he improves the team. If a back-up can be brought in and the team does no worse-the QB is no greater then the back-up(Bledso and Brady/Romo are all over rated). Even with a loseing team, if the QB gives them a chance to win he is great(Carr and Leftwich come to mind). Incredible stats, offensive performance and Superbowl Wins leads most people to name a QB great, but not me.

                            For the level of improvment they bring(or brought) to the team, my runner up is Peyton Manning, my winner is Michael Vick. No one brought more to the team and improved the winning percentage as much as him.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I believe that if Rivers didn't act like such a jerk on the field, Bronco fans (as well as many other team's fans) would tolerate him more. He may be a perfectly decent guy off the field, I don't know. But I find it hard to believe that someone could act like a big mouthed punk on the field, and be that much different off of it. Even Fox Sports stated today that Rivers basically needs to learn how to shut his trap and just play ball if SD wants to be a winning team.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X