Because of all the interest in this thread, I've place all of the video content of Patrick Mahomes II's college career, and draft day goodness into a single post that can be found here. Enjoy! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chris Meck:
Well, I mean, Montana was a system QB.
It's just different is all. There are the guys who are amazing within the offense, like Montana, or Brady. Then there are guys who are also freak athletes, like Favre, Young, Rodgers, and Mahomes.
It's just different. Some guys, especially coaches, might prefer the 'system' guy, because they want repeatable, explainable results. This is why a Jimmy Johnson would rather have a Herbert than a Mahomes.
Yeah, I agree, that's re-runned.
To me, calling a QB a "system QB" is basically saying that they can't elevate their game, or the team, beyond the playbook. Montana wasn't a system QB because he could literally take the team on his back and will them to a win.
We've never seen Burrow do that, at least not yet. Which is why calling him a "system QB" is much more denigrating than flattering. [Reply]
Montana was bad ass. He was by far the best ever when he came on the scene. He ran, threw and got it done with not much help. Rice showed up for ring 3 not 1. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Best22:
Well to some people, he looks like he processes better, if you know what I mean…
Pat’s football intelligence has often been underrated. Hilarious considering he’s the top passer in the NFL since 2018, and the leagues best and most successful player since then. Only Brady ties him in ring count, yet Brady doesn’t have the MVPs to go with it. Rodgers ties him in MVPs, but doesn’t even have a SB appearance
I’ve never in my life seen a clear #1 QB over the whole NFL like this. Maybe Brady in 2017, but that was short lived because of the emergence of Mahomes in 2018
Ever heard of Nichols Law of Catcher's Defense?
It says that a catcher's defensive reputation is inversely proportional to his offensive ability.
Royals fans might vaguely remember this name - Tony Cruz. Tony Cruz was a TERRIBLE baseball player. I mean just absolute shit. He sucked at everything. Didn't present a target, couldn't block balls, had a lousy throwing arm. And god help him at the plate - he was hopeless there. He fucking sucked. But he was Yadier Molina's buddy so he was on the roster.
Every single announcer who ever spoke about Tony Cruz called him something like "a strong catch and throw guy" as a backup. They just presumed he could play plus defense because he fuck sure couldn't hit. The problem was that he was a wretched fielder; just trash. Every technical thing you could do, he did poorly. And it happens ALL the time. There are really solid offensive catchers who people presume are weak defenders BECAUSE they can hit (Realmuto dealt with this for several years).
Well folks see Burrow out there not really moving around much, not really making these insane rocket-powered throws into tight windows, not making crazy off-platform plays and they just assume "well hey - he's not spectacular so he MUST be a better processer than Mahomes..."
It's the ugly cousin of Nichols Law of Catchers Defense.
We're gonna call it Nuts Law of Quarterback Processing: A quarterbacks ability to read a defense is inversely proportional to his spectacular play potential. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Well folks see Burrow out there not really moving around much, not really making these insane rocket-powered throws into tight windows, not making crazy off-platform plays and they just assume "well hey - he's not spectacular so he MUST be a better processer than Mahomes..."
The other side of that coin is that, when people see Mahomes jitterbugging all over the field, they just assume that he CAN'T process and that's why he's improvising. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The other side of that coin is that, when people see Mahomes jitterbugging all over the field, they just assume that he CAN'T process and that's why he's improvising.
Exactly - it's not the 'other side of the coin'; it's included in the analysis. If he CAN make spectacular plays, then his ability to read defenses must be bad.
Nuts Law of Quarterback Processing wins again! [Reply]
Originally Posted by Red Dawg:
Montana was bad ass. He was by far the best ever when he came on the scene. He ran, threw and got it done with not much help. Rice showed up for ring 3 not 1.
Yup, Montana won his first two super bowls without Rice. In fact his receivers in 1981 and 1984 were scrubs for the most part. If you talk to the average NFL fan they'll say Montana's teams were "stacked." [Reply]
Originally Posted by SHOWTIME:
Yup, Montana won his first two super bowls without Rice. In fact his receivers in 1981 and 1984 were scrubs for the most part. If you talk to the average NFL fan they'll say Montana's teams were "stacked."
I mean, they did have some hellacious defenses though. He won them much more brady-like than most realize earlier in his career [Reply]
Originally Posted by Red Dawg:
Montana was bad ass. He was by far the best ever when he came on the scene. He ran, threw and got it done with not much help. Rice showed up for ring 3 not 1.
That’s interesting. I never put much thought in it to research but I just kinda defaulted into assuming he had Rice for all of his rings. [Reply]