What Makes A Great QB To You?
Options
themadlionsfan
Members Posts: 9,133 ✭✭✭✭✭
I have been wondering this for a while?....is it rings if so how many of you would take Terry Bradshaw over Fran Tarkenton?.....is it TD to interception ration?....winning percentage?....calm under pressure....completion percentage?...what makes a QB great to you....
Comments
-
If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.) -
greenwood1921 wrote: »If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.)
Well....Elway's career completion percentage is less than 60% and was seen as a player who couldn't win the big game and a lot of critics would say he didn't win anything until he got a running game.....and what If a player possesses all of the above criteria but doesn't win the Super Bowl?....is his status downgraded?...look at the flack Peyton Manning got?....I remember in his first six years....deadly accurate....great ball placement with a quick release and had the best play action fake in the game....athleticism left alot to desired but he got it.....and a lot of analyst called him overrated -
-
themadlionsfan wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.)
Well....Elway's career completion percentage is less than 60% and was seen as a player who couldn't win the big game and a lot of critics would say he didn't win anything until he got a running game.....and what If a player possesses all of the above criteria but doesn't win the Super Bowl?....is his status downgraded?...look at the flack Peyton Manning got?....I remember in his first six years....deadly accurate....great ball placement with a quick release and had the best play action fake in the game....athleticism left alot to desired but he got it.....and a lot of analyst called him overrated
Elway went to multiple super bowls before that "running game" and he never had an elite receiver.
And speaking of completion percentage -- he had his best percentages (60+) long before Denver had a running game.
Plus, Dan Marino's completion percentage is below 60 too. And Jim Kelly's was like 60.1.
They played before the West Coast system changed the game which implemented more check downs and high percentage, short passes that padded alot of post 1990s QB completion percentages.
And no, I don't subscribe to the Lebron/Skip bayless formula for judging players --- especially in football.
50+ players on the team, 22 starters. No expert would put Bradshaw in the top 5 of QBs despite his 4 rings, and as long as Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, etc are rocking rings, I ain't giving no crown to somebody over something that 50 other dudes (plus a coaching staff) helped him get.
If we're judging QBs -- I'm judging QBs. And they don't hand out "rings" for that. Teams is another story.
And I really don't see any "flak" that Peyton got beside the typical trolling. The people that matter in and around the NFL have had him on pedestal since Tennessee. Athleticism ain't about the read-option or the wild cat -- It means their ability to move in OR out of the pocket -- step up in the pocket, etc.
Jeff George is an example of an non athletic QB. He just stood flat footed and slung the ball. No pocket presence whatsoever. -
greenwood1921 wrote: »themadlionsfan wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.)
Well....Elway's career completion percentage is less than 60% and was seen as a player who couldn't win the big game and a lot of critics would say he didn't win anything until he got a running game.....and what If a player possesses all of the above criteria but doesn't win the Super Bowl?....is his status downgraded?...look at the flack Peyton Manning got?....I remember in his first six years....deadly accurate....great ball placement with a quick release and had the best play action fake in the game....athleticism left alot to desired but he got it.....and a lot of analyst called him overrated
Elway went to multiple super bowls before that "running game" and he never had an elite receiver.
And speaking of completion percentage -- he had his best percentages (60+) long before Denver had a running game.
Plus, Dan Marino's completion percentage is below 60 too. And Jim Kelly's was like 60.1.
They played before the West Coast system changed the game which implemented more check downs and high percentage, short passes that padded alot of post 1990s QB completion percentages.
And no, I don't subscribe to the Lebron/Skip bayless formula for judging players --- especially in football.
50+ players on the team, 22 starters. No expert would put Bradshaw in the top 5 of QBs despite his 4 rings, and as long as Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, etc are rocking rings, I ain't giving no crown to somebody over something that 50 other dudes (plus a coaching staff) helped him get.
If we're judging QBs -- I'm judging QBs. And they don't hand out "rings" for that. Teams is another story.
And I really don't see any "flak" that Peyton got beside the typical trolling. The people that matter in and around the NFL have had him on pedestal since Tennessee. Athleticism ain't about the read-option or the wild cat -- It means their ability to move in OR out of the pocket -- step up in the pocket, etc.
Jeff George is an example of an non athletic QB. He just stood flat footed and slung the ball. No pocket presence whatsoever.
I can with that.....and yeah before Peyton won his rings you had mad analysts saying he couldn't get it down....it was the whole he has a 1000 yard receiver and a 1000 yard rusher but hasnt won a playoff game ? .....I do wanna debate but ? ....you're already stating how I feel -
Accuracy, pocket presence, decision making and leadership.
Another important aspect is know when to check the ball down. I swear I hate QBs that always look for the big play. IE Stafford
^^^ that second sentence falls under decision making. Shurgs -
the ability to make an average receiver great while picking apart a defense and keeping his cool.
-
themadlionsfan wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »themadlionsfan wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.)
Well....Elway's career completion percentage is less than 60% and was seen as a player who couldn't win the big game and a lot of critics would say he didn't win anything until he got a running game.....and what If a player possesses all of the above criteria but doesn't win the Super Bowl?....is his status downgraded?...look at the flack Peyton Manning got?....I remember in his first six years....deadly accurate....great ball placement with a quick release and had the best play action fake in the game....athleticism left alot to desired but he got it.....and a lot of analyst called him overrated
Elway went to multiple super bowls before that "running game" and he never had an elite receiver.
And speaking of completion percentage -- he had his best percentages (60+) long before Denver had a running game.
Plus, Dan Marino's completion percentage is below 60 too. And Jim Kelly's was like 60.1.
They played before the West Coast system changed the game which implemented more check downs and high percentage, short passes that padded alot of post 1990s QB completion percentages.
And no, I don't subscribe to the Lebron/Skip bayless formula for judging players --- especially in football.
50+ players on the team, 22 starters. No expert would put Bradshaw in the top 5 of QBs despite his 4 rings, and as long as Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, etc are rocking rings, I ain't giving no crown to somebody over something that 50 other dudes (plus a coaching staff) helped him get.
If we're judging QBs -- I'm judging QBs. And they don't hand out "rings" for that. Teams is another story.
And I really don't see any "flak" that Peyton got beside the typical trolling. The people that matter in and around the NFL have had him on pedestal since Tennessee. Athleticism ain't about the read-option or the wild cat -- It means their ability to move in OR out of the pocket -- step up in the pocket, etc.
Jeff George is an example of an non athletic QB. He just stood flat footed and slung the ball. No pocket presence whatsoever.
I can with that.....and yeah before Peyton won his rings you had mad analysts saying he couldn't get it down....it was the whole he has a 1000 yard receiver and a 1000 yard rusher but hasnt won a playoff game ? .....I do wanna debate but ? ....you're already stating how I feel
Eli is the only Manning with "rings". Peyton ? the bed in the playoffs.
-
accuracy and great leadership.. everything else is just a bonus
-
Toughness
Consistency
Turnovers
With turnovers being the most important thing. You cant be the head of the team just giving the ball away.
-
ShiveDreadz wrote: »Toughness
Consistency
Turnovers
With turnovers being the most important thing. You cant be the head of the team just giving the ball away.
Brett Favre?
-
Yea that is why brett was a horrible qb on the ass end of his career.
Dude was just forcing it on behalf of his love for the game. -
To me if you can lead your team to the play offs consistently with a high winning percentage than you are a great QB. Stats are irrelevant if you have a losing record or you constantly choke in the play offs or barely make the play offs. Who cares if you throw for over 4, 000 yards but don't make the play offs? Your play was not good enough to have a chance at the Super Bowl. An example is Tony Romo, he had the chance to win the division, but he threw an interception which cost the team the play off birth so despite how many yards he threw his decision making was bad and he is a choker. other QBS like Flacco and Eli won the Super Bowl when they had the opportunity and played great in the play offs.
-
gtfoh talking about favre like that
-
greenwood1921 wrote: »themadlionsfan wrote: »greenwood1921 wrote: »If I'm a scout, I'm lookin' for completion percentage, calm under pressure, TD/INT Ratio, quick release athleticism and ball placement.
If I'm the GM, I'm also looking at how he fits the personnel and the system we already have in place or want to have in place.
IMO, only about half of the best QBs of all time could have been just as good or better on ANY team.
An obvious way to look for that is the condition of the team before he got there.
That's why I say Elway was the greatest of all time. He could've taken any team to the playoffs on a regular basis and eventually a couple super bowls. Because he possessed pretty much all the above.
But then you have situations like Tom Brady where they were a late round pick and just happened to fit the system well and beat out the starter (which is also good financially because you can pay them less for a few years, cut/trade the high paid starter and have leverage in negotiations because they flourished in a system.)
And before any Brady stans catch feels, realize that if you're a true TEAM fan... A great system >>>> A great player.
Player will only be around so long, a system lasts as long as you keep that system or that coach around. (Bill Walsh's system is still winning championships long after he died - i.e. Green bay/Aaron Rodgers.)
Well....Elway's career completion percentage is less than 60% and was seen as a player who couldn't win the big game and a lot of critics would say he didn't win anything until he got a running game.....and what If a player possesses all of the above criteria but doesn't win the Super Bowl?....is his status downgraded?...look at the flack Peyton Manning got?....I remember in his first six years....deadly accurate....great ball placement with a quick release and had the best play action fake in the game....athleticism left alot to desired but he got it.....and a lot of analyst called him overrated
Elway went to multiple super bowls before that "running game" and he never had an elite receiver.
And speaking of completion percentage -- he had his best percentages (60+) long before Denver had a running game.
Plus, Dan Marino's completion percentage is below 60 too. And Jim Kelly's was like 60.1.
They played before the West Coast system changed the game which implemented more check downs and high percentage, short passes that padded alot of post 1990s QB completion percentages.
And no, I don't subscribe to the Lebron/Skip bayless formula for judging players --- especially in football.
50+ players on the team, 22 starters. No expert would put Bradshaw in the top 5 of QBs despite his 4 rings, and as long as Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, etc are rocking rings, I ain't giving no crown to somebody over something that 50 other dudes (plus a coaching staff) helped him get.
If we're judging QBs -- I'm judging QBs. And they don't hand out "rings" for that. Teams is another story.
And I really don't see any "flak" that Peyton got beside the typical trolling. The people that matter in and around the NFL have had him on pedestal since Tennessee. Athleticism ain't about the read-option or the wild cat -- It means their ability to move in OR out of the pocket -- step up in the pocket, etc.
Jeff George is an example of an non athletic QB. He just stood flat footed and slung the ball. No pocket presence whatsoever.
Damn b i couldn't have said it better myself...
A lot of fans sit in their living room look at stats and think they can tell a whole story just from that; ? up thing is that doesn't always work especially not in football where, like you said, there is no "one man team" that concept is ? ridiculous...
Yet you always seem to have these so called know it all who make stupid ass statements like "Brady could go to any team and win" or "Eli Manning is better than Peyton Manning cause he won more superbowls" I mean really????
