My views on QBs are evolving

[MightyGiants]

A few years ago, I started talking about the 3 pillars of QB support-  Receivers, protection, coaching/scheme.  Now, I see pundits beginning to talk in those terms.

Lately, I have been seeing quarterbacks less as homogeneous players whose talent can be rated overall and more as a combination of good and bad that varies in ratio.   Let me try and clarify.  While there are a few extreme exceptions both good and bad, most QBs are a product of good and bad plays on the field.  How good (or bad) they are is more a ratio of how many good plays they make to how many bad plays.  That ratio can change (not frequently, but occasionally) during a player's career.  These ratios are also heavily impacted by the 3 support pillars I mentioned earlier.

This idea explains how so many quarterbacks can flash an NFL-caliber arm, talent, and even processing but still fail to succeed in the NFL. Perhaps the most important trait is the ability to consistently put together positive plays while minimizing the poor ones.

I think Geno Smith is a prime example.  He had a poor good-to-bad ratio early in his career, but he turned that ratio around and is now playing well with the Seahawks.  The same is true of Baker Mayfield.

It's also why I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel Jones ends up in the top ten.  I also wouldn't be shocked if his ratio keeps in 23rd ranking the NFL execs have him.  I think this way of looking at the QB position explains all the first-round QB busts.  Sure, you saw the QB make all the throws, but can he consistently produce more good plays than bad?

[Bob In PA]

A few years ago, I started talking about the 3 pillars of QB support-  Receivers, protection, coaching/scheme.  Now, I see pundits beginning to talk in those terms.

Lately, I have been seeing quarterbacks less as homogeneous players whose talent can be rated overall and more as a combination of good and bad that varies in ratio.   Let me try and clarify.  While there are a few extreme exceptions both good and bad, most QBs are a product of good and bad plays on the field.  How good (or bad) they are is more a ratio of how many good plays they make to how many bad plays.  That ratio can change (not frequently, but occasionally) during a player's career.  These ratios are also heavily impacted by the 3 support pillars I mentioned earlier.

This idea explains how so many quarterbacks can flash an NFL-caliber arm, talent, and even processing but still fail to succeed in the NFL. Perhaps the most important trait is the ability to consistently put together positive plays while minimizing the poor ones.

I think Geno Smith is a prime example.  He had a poor good-to-bad ratio early in his career, but he turned that ratio around and is now playing well with the Seahawks.  The same is true of Baker Mayfield.

It's also why I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel Jones ends up in the top ten.  I also wouldn't be shocked if his ratio keeps in 23rd ranking the NFL execs have him.  I think this way of looking at the QB position explains all the first-round QB busts.  Sure, you saw the QB make all the throws, but can he consistently produce more good plays than bad

Rich: I understand your main point & agree completely.

The topic is complicated, and presenting those thoughts must have been a challenge (difficult to explain).

Just sayin' that it took me a while to see the picture you were trying to paint.

Bob

[MightyGiants]

Rich: I understand your main point & agree completely.

The topic is complicated, and presenting those thoughts must have been a challenge (difficult to explain).

Just sayin' that it took me a while to see the picture you were trying to paint.

Bob

I will confess it makes more sense in my head.   Consider that DJ has had some really bad games and moments, but he also set a historic NFL record in the second half of the Cards game.  If you look at QBs through the ratio of good and bad plays, it's easy to explain the disparity.  If you just look at a QB as this homogeneous player one is at a loss to explain the existence of really good and really bad play.

[GloryDays]

I'd heard that joining this forum is thought provoking and mind stimulating, but this takes it a bit too far  🙄😝

[H-Town G-Fan]

No player is perfect. The best around will have negative performances, whether that be individual snaps, games, or even seasons (at least "down" seasons by their own measure). They are humans. Bad players aren't bad because they're incapable of playing well, they're bad because their bad play ultimately eclipses the good. Assuredly, everyone in the NFL is in the microscopic percentile of athletes in the world--they did not get there by being "bad" at any point prior to that. But the margin for error in the NFL is razor-thin and it cuts away, revealing weaknesses (whether physical or mental). Physical tools will get you to the NFL; mental tools will help you last in the NFL. I fear Jones lacks in the latter, which is why positive consistency is lacking.

[andrew_nyGiants]

A few years ago, I started talking about the 3 pillars of QB support-  Receivers, protection, coaching/scheme.  Now, I see pundits beginning to talk in those terms.

Lately, I have been seeing quarterbacks less as homogeneous players whose talent can be rated overall and more as a combination of good and bad that varies in ratio.   Let me try and clarify.  While there are a few extreme exceptions both good and bad, most QBs are a product of good and bad plays on the field.  How good (or bad) they are is more a ratio of how many good plays they make to how many bad plays.  That ratio can change (not frequently, but occasionally) during a player's career.  These ratios are also heavily impacted by the 3 support pillars I mentioned earlier.

This idea explains how so many quarterbacks can flash an NFL-caliber arm, talent, and even processing but still fail to succeed in the NFL. Perhaps the most important trait is the ability to consistently put together positive plays while minimizing the poor ones.

I think Geno Smith is a prime example.  He had a poor good-to-bad ratio early in his career, but he turned that ratio around and is now playing well with the Seahawks.  The same is true of Baker Mayfield.

It's also why I wouldn't be surprised if Daniel Jones ends up in the top ten.  I also wouldn't be shocked if his ratio keeps in 23rd ranking the NFL execs have him.  I think this way of looking at the QB position explains all the first-round QB busts.  Sure, you saw the QB make all the throws, but can he consistently produce more good plays than bad?

Rich,

While your perceptions may be right on...sadly this is more about the product (NFL football) devolving from a much more sophisticated game (chess) to a more forgiving one (checkers)....which offers everyone a lot less to think about but offers less opportunity to engage with what was once a much more pleasurable game to follow.

Dan Marino vs Daniel Jones

Oh my have we sacrificed great football for entertainment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MightyGiants]

Rich,

While your perceptions may be right on...sadly this is more about the product (NFL football) devolving from a much more sophisticated game (chess) to a more forgiving one (checkers)....which offers everyone a lot less to think about but offers less opportunity to engage with what was once a much more pleasurable game to follow.

Dan Marino vs Daniel Jones

Oh my have we sacrificed great football for entertainment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Andrew,

It's sort of funny that you mention Dan Marino.  I had heard (from a respectable source) that suggested the reason Dan Marino did so well was the advent of the QB radios.  Prior to that, QBs had to be much smarter as they didn't have direct communications with the coach.  Some scouts and GMs didn't think Marino had the brain power, which is why he was drafted as low as he was.

Personally, I think we have seen a bigger emphasis on faster thinking rather than higher level (reading sophisticated defenses and coming up with counter plays) thinking.

[andrew_nyGiants]

Andrew,

It's sort of funny that you mention Dan Marino.  I had heard (from a respectable source) that suggested the reason Dan Marino did so well was the advent of the QB radios.  Prior to that, QBs had to be much smarter as they didn't have direct communications with the coach.  Some scouts and GMs didn't think Marino had the brain power, which is why he was drafted as low as he was.

Personally, I think we have seen a bigger emphasis on faster thinking rather than higher level (reading sophisticated defenses and coming up with counter plays) thinking.

Interesting POV

BTW Whatever his rep was coming out of college (they said he was a pothead too)...I'm comfortable with lauding him as one of the fastest at processing reads and delivering the ball of his time if not all-time.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[MightyGiants]

I'd heard that joining this forum is thought provoking and mind stimulating, but this takes it a bit too far  🙄😝

I thought of an analogy.  Think about NBA free-throw shooters.  Every player can sink a free throw.  The percentage made separates the elite free-throw shooters from the poor ones.

[Bob In PA]

I'd heard that joining this forum is thought provoking and mind stimulating, but this takes it a bit too far  🙄😝

Glory: My post was partly intended to prod Rich to elaborate. It's tough to describe in such a short post. Bob

[Bob In PA]

No player is perfect. The best around will have negative performances, whether that be individual snaps, games, or even seasons (at least "down" seasons by their own measure). They are humans. Bad players aren't bad because they're incapable of playing well, they're bad because their bad play ultimately eclipses the good. Assuredly, everyone in the NFL is in the microscopic percentile of athletes in the world--they did not get there by being "bad" at any point prior to that. But the margin for error in the NFL is razor-thin and it cuts away, revealing weaknesses (whether physical or mental). Physical tools will get you to the NFL; mental tools will help you last in the NFL. I fear Jones lacks in the latter, which is why positive consistency is lacking.

H-T: To add the obvious to your observations, applying the type of analysis Rich is espousing is doubly complex when the subject is a QB (because the position is one of the most multi-faceted in all of pro sports). Bob

[Philosophers]

I find it interesting how analytics oriented fans mention how great Josh Allen is yet in an ESPN survey of 100 NFL players, Josh Allen was listed as the most overrated due to all his turnovers at key moments in a game.

[Painter]

In the NFL today, there is but one criterion for success whatever otherwise may be our sense of it. Whether or not Daniel Jones will ever achieve it must at a minimum involve his remaining the Giants starting QB beyond this year. No skiing lesson need.

Cheers!

[MightyGiants]

Glory: My post was partly intended to prod Rich to elaborate. It's tough to describe in such a short post. Bob

I think I can give an example.  The Packers waived the 7th-round quarterback pick, Michael Pratt.  I thought Pratt had put up some good tape, and Tulane could be a solid NFL backup QB.  Only the Packers traded for a backup QB and cut Pratt.

Consider Greg Cosell's breakdown on Pratt, in this case his weaknesses:


Weaknesses
Tendency to lift back foot off the ground a little early, resulting in locked front leg and velocity issues.
Good arm but not a strong or power arm. Tends to throw with too wide a base, forcing arm to catch up.
Must become more consistently precise with his ball placement. Too many missed throws to open receivers.
Needs more experience manipulating and moving third-level defenders. Head/eye manipulation is a critical trait.
Must improve his deep ball to take next step. His ball placement is a consistent issue with his missed opportunities.
Does he have a running mentality: A runner rather than a pocket mover who keeps a downfield focus to re-set?
2023 – Missed some throws with poor ball placement that he has to make. Ball location must become a strength.


Seems pretty clear his problem was consistency.  In other words, he put up too many bad snaps against his good snaps.  That is why he couldn't even make the Packer's roster.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/michael-pratt-nfl-draft-2024-combine-results-scouting-report-for-green-bay-packers-qb/

[Bob In PA]

I think I can give an example.  The Packers waived the 7th-round quarterback pick, Michael Pratt.  I thought Pratt had put up some good tape, and Tulane could be a solid NFL backup QB.  Only the Packers traded for a backup QB and cut Pratt.

Consider Greg Cosell's breakdown on Pratt, in this case his weaknesses:


Weaknesses
Tendency to lift back foot off the ground a little early, resulting in locked front leg and velocity issues.
Good arm but not a strong or power arm. Tends to throw with too wide a base, forcing arm to catch up.
Must become more consistently precise with his ball placement. Too many missed throws to open receivers.
Needs more experience manipulating and moving third-level defenders. Head/eye manipulation is a critical trait.
Must improve his deep ball to take next step. His ball placement is a consistent issue with his missed opportunities.
Does he have a running mentality: A runner rather than a pocket mover who keeps a downfield focus to re-set?
2023 – Missed some throws with poor ball placement that he has to make. Ball location must become a strength.


Seems pretty clear his problem was consistency.  In other words, he put up too many bad snaps against his good snaps.  That is why he couldn't even make the Packer's roster.

https://www.the33rdteam.com/michael-pratt-nfl-draft-2024-combine-results-scouting-report-for-green-bay-packers-qb/

Rich: Off topic, but I really like Pratt. 

Too bad we have the "cutlets project" underway; Pratt would have made a very interesting project.

If anyone hears anything about Pratt continuing his NFL (or other pro football) career, I'd appreciate hearing about it. Thanks.

Bob