QUARTERBACKS

WhoDat · 01-21-2005, 07:46 PM

A certain member of this board said recently:

Vick, McNabb, Culpepper ... All 3 made it deep in the playofss and 2 will battle it out this weekend for a Super Bowl trip.

What do they have in common? They're all black and they all can RUN!!

There aren't but a handfull of black QBs in the NFL. Yet, they seem to be enjoying a lot of success percentage wise when compared to their white counterparts.

This is an old argument, but let's address it. It goes to a fundamental difference between two philosophies about QBs in the NFL. The athlete vs. the football player. Talent vs. smarts. Play-making vs. role playing...

Our misguided friend is right about one thing - an athletic QB will do something that none has done in a long time this season - make it to a Super Bowl. Vick or McNabb will go, and that's huge. Neither will win, but it's a shift.

See, whatever you feel, it's hard to argue with results. Many people believe that the QB position is evolving. I doubt it highly. The basic tenants of good QBing remain the same. And those who play the game smart, who know their role, and who are efficient remain more successful, in general, than the athletes. Vick is the only exception of an inefficient QB that can still win - and he's basically a freak of nature. Look at what McNabb and Culpepper did this year and you'll see their comp %, QB rating, TD:INT, etc. were better than ever.

But some will argue, so I demonstrate with results you simply can't ignore. Let's find the last "athletic" QB that played in a Super Bowl, shall we?

2003 - Brady v. Delhomme
2002 - Johnson v. Gannon
2001 - Brady v. Warner
2000 - Dilfer v. Collins
1999 - Elway v. Chandler
1998 - Elway v. Favre
1997 - Favre v. Bledsoe
1996 - Aikman v. O'Donnell
1995 - Humphries v. Young

Steve Young was the last guy who could be classified as athletic, IMO, who played in a Super Bowl. Nevermind the fact that he set a record for QB RATING also...

The bottom line is that raw athletic talent will VERY RARELY outperform efficiency at the QB position.

The QB position isn't evolving. Just like Young and Elway, McNabb and Culpepper are learning the position as they get older. They rely less heavily on their ability to outrun opponents, and more on their ability to out think them. To take what a defense gives them. To move the ball efficiently down the field.

Look at the top picks in last years QB class. This year's... The top performers and top picks are prototypical.

If you need more proof, try this: compare the top athletic QBs to the top efficient QBs this year.

Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, Brees, Pennington, Favre

vs.

McNabb, Vick, Culpepper, Brooks, Leftwich, Garcia

Compare those guys by numbers, W/L... anything you want. I take ANY guy in the top list before any one in the bottom to play for me right now.

[Edited on 22/1/2005 by WhoDat]

01-21-2005, 07:46 PM	#1
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631	QUARTERBACKS A certain member of this board said recently: Vick, McNabb, Culpepper ... All 3 made it deep in the playofss and 2 will battle it out this weekend for a Super Bowl trip. What do they have in common? They're all black and they all can RUN!! There aren't but a handfull of black QBs in the NFL. Yet, they seem to be enjoying a lot of success percentage wise when compared to their white counterparts. This is an old argument, but let's address it. It goes to a fundamental difference between two philosophies about QBs in the NFL. The athlete vs. the football player. Talent vs. smarts. Play-making vs. role playing... Our misguided friend is right about one thing - an athletic QB will do something that none has done in a long time this season - make it to a Super Bowl. Vick or McNabb will go, and that's huge. Neither will win, but it's a shift. See, whatever you feel, it's hard to argue with results. Many people believe that the QB position is evolving. I doubt it highly. The basic tenants of good QBing remain the same. And those who play the game smart, who know their role, and who are efficient remain more successful, in general, than the athletes. Vick is the only exception of an inefficient QB that can still win - and he's basically a freak of nature. Look at what McNabb and Culpepper did this year and you'll see their comp %, QB rating, TD:INT, etc. were better than ever. But some will argue, so I demonstrate with results you simply can't ignore. Let's find the last "athletic" QB that played in a Super Bowl, shall we? 2003 - Brady v. Delhomme 2002 - Johnson v. Gannon 2001 - Brady v. Warner 2000 - Dilfer v. Collins 1999 - Elway v. Chandler 1998 - Elway v. Favre 1997 - Favre v. Bledsoe 1996 - Aikman v. O'Donnell 1995 - Humphries v. Young Steve Young was the last guy who could be classified as athletic, IMO, who played in a Super Bowl. Nevermind the fact that he set a record for QB RATING also... The bottom line is that raw athletic talent will VERY RARELY outperform efficiency at the QB position. The QB position isn't evolving. Just like Young and Elway, McNabb and Culpepper are learning the position as they get older. They rely less heavily on their ability to outrun opponents, and more on their ability to out think them. To take what a defense gives them. To move the ball efficiently down the field. Look at the top picks in last years QB class. This year's... The top performers and top picks are prototypical. If you need more proof, try this: compare the top athletic QBs to the top efficient QBs this year. Roethlisberger, Brady, Manning, Brees, Pennington, Favre vs. McNabb, Vick, Culpepper, Brooks, Leftwich, Garcia Compare those guys by numbers, W/L... anything you want. I take ANY guy in the top list before any one in the bottom to play for me right now. [Edited on 22/1/2005 by WhoDat]
WhoDat 5000 POSTS! + Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,631