Let's Kill the "All We Need is a Game Manger" Fallacy Right Now

[jarntt]

What I don't understand is why people think the term "game manager" is a negative. To me it's a guy that doesn't try to or have to do too much because of the makeup or style of his team or Offense but is obviously winning the games and creating a conversation. He still has to throw the ball to win and yeah, I don't want my QB throwing ints or risky passes if he doesn't have to. For Dak his "crutch" is his running game, scrambling ability and hitting the short passes because they are open and long enough to be first downs. For RW it was the defense, scrambling ability, Beastmode, etc. Call a QB whatever you want, but if he wins games, call him a winner. So we have gunslinger, game manager and what else? Why all the negative labels for guys who do what is asked of them very well?

RW won a SB and almost won another. Look at Dak...he has now thrown two late game sealing completions in a row where the conservative call would have been run the ball instead...and both throws ended the game. Doesn't sound like a guy that doesn't carry his weight.

 

[Manster7588]

What I don't understand is why people think the term "game manager" is a negative. To me it's a guy that doesn't try to or have to do too much because of the makeup or style of his team or Offense but is obviously winning the games and creating a conversation. He still has to throw the ball to win and yeah, I don't want my QB throwing ints or risky passes if he doesn't have to. For Dak his "crutch" is his running game, scrambling ability and hitting the short passes because they are open and long enough to be first downs. For RW it was the defense, scrambling ability, Beastmode, etc. Call a QB whatever you want, but if he wins games, call him a winner. So we have gunslinger, game manager and what else? Why all the negative labels for guys who do what is asked of them very well?

RW won a SB and almost won another. Look at Dak...he has now thrown two late game sealing completions in a row where the conservative call would have been run the ball instead...and both throws ended the game. Doesn't sound like a guy that doesn't carry his weight.

Agree 100%, but a lot of this is stemming because of one particular QB.

 

[chf]

What I don't understand is why people think the term "game manager" is a negative. To me it's a guy that doesn't try to or have to do too much because of the makeup or style of his team or Offense but is obviously winning the games and creating a conversation. He still has to throw the ball to win and yeah, I don't want my QB throwing ints or risky passes if he doesn't have to. For Dak his "crutch" is his running game, scrambling ability and hitting the short passes because they are open and long enough to be first downs. For RW it was the defense, scrambling ability, Beastmode, etc. Call a QB whatever you want, but if he wins games, call him a winner. So we have gunslinger, game manager and what else? Why all the negative labels for guys who do what is asked of them very well?

RW won a SB and almost won another. Look at Dak...he has now thrown two late game sealing completions in a row where the conservative call would have been run the ball instead...and both throws ended the game. Doesn't sound like a guy that doesn't carry his weight.

I know it rubs me the wrong way because when a LOT of people use it, it IS a pejorative. Luck > Wilson because of, you know, game manager.

Fact that Wilson's YPA Is large, that he throws a great deep ball, that he's shown he can be successful as a pocket thrower doesn't matter.

But yeah, 'game manager' is so subjective, that it doesn't have to be a negative. I was very impressed with what I saw of Prescott starting in the pre-season. That mental part of his game means he doesn't HAVE to be the gunslinger with the big arm to be a damn effective pivot.

To me, subjectively that automatically makes him more than a game manger. IMO, a 'gm' is a guy who is always going to check down to the backs, who isn't going to pull the string unless the WR is wide open. I don't see Prescott as that guy.

Having the luxury of the running game isn't a persuasive argument to me. Dak is confident, he'd most likely be confident if he had a pedestrian running game too. He'd just lose more.

 

[cdumler7]

I think what we are seeing in the NFL is that the top teams in the league are the ones that can beat you multiple ways by multiple players. Teams have shown in the past that you can take away one player pretty easily. You need those other options in order to win. Such as the Falcons this past weekend where they could win through the air yet also have 2 very capable RB's that keep defenses honest.

Now of course yes having a great QB usually means success. That still holds true in today's NFL. The top-10 QB's right now in QB Rating 7 of the 10 are on teams with winning records. As we see though in those other 3 the QB cannot do it alone. Philip Rivers has watched his team just give away wins at the end. Not his fault that his RB keeps fumbling at the worst possible moments or that the long snapper messes up on the game tying field goal. Stafford has looked pretty good at times but he also has a subpar running game and below average defense he is playing with. And well Hoyer is on just a down right terrible Bears team. So a good QB will help you win games for sure but if there is nothing else around them they can only do so much.

That is why to me the best teams are the ones that are balanced or at least have a great defense that keeps every game close. The Broncos last year had one of the worst offenses in the league and of course maybe the 2nd worst QB situation in all of football. Yet they still won lots of games. The big thing they had going for them is that the defense kept the games close and as bad as Manning was most of the year he did save some of his best plays for the end of games when the team absolutely needed one.

 

[Dude]

Is a game manger different than a run-of-the-mill, Jesus-birthing manger?

Hahaha, that's the first thing I thought about. Maybe Charlie Whitehurst would fit the role well?

 

[Southieinnc]

A one score game is not a dismantling.

 

[Dude]

There is no fallacy, game mangers are a safe place for system QBs to grow in.

 

[SonnyCID]

View attachment 149582

If a team has a chance to win at the end of a game, it's not a dismantling.

Dismantling is what SF did to STL week one.

 

[Hank Kingsley]

I think it amounts to the particular game you are managing.

If you are good enough when your rushing game is picking up 200 yards and eating up clock, you're perfect. Then.

If you are not good when the rushing game is off song, therefore a different sort of game needs managing and you don't cut it, you aren't perfect. Then.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I guess to me there are two types of game managers.

The Alex Smith so far/Chad Pennington types who can't make all the throws but look great when the D/run game is going.

Guys like Wilson or Ben or Aikman have proven multiple times that when those things struggle or they need to step up to win, they can air it out with the best of them.

Aikman had some monster playoff games vs. Young and Favre when he needed to sling it. Ben started out as a game manager and struggled early on when asked to throw heavy. But when they changed their offense to more of a pass heavy one and got the players/playbook for that he's had great success. Same with Wilson last year as Lynch fell off.


They perform in the game manager role when that's what the team needs, but when it needs them to push the defense with the passing game, are able to step up and do so consistently.

Nothing wrong with a "game manager" if he can also be a consistent "playmaker" when needed. It's the ones who fail more than the rest when put in that situation that I don't have much love for. And I am fine with questioning that until a QB proves he can be that playmaker as well with consistency or when talent changes.

 

[PDay8810]

just a label for folks in a world that requires labels

give me all the Russell Wilson's, Troy Aikman's and Bart Starr's and call um whatever you want

 

[cdumler7]

I guess to me there are two types of game managers.

The Alex Smith so far/Chad Pennington types who can't make all the throws but look great when the D/run game is going.

Guys like Wilson or Ben or Aikman have proven multiple times that when those things struggle or they need to step up to win, they can air it out with the best of them.

Aikman had some monster playoff games vs. Young and Favre when he needed to sling it. Ben started out as a game manager and struggled early on when asked to throw heavy. But when they changed their offense to more of a pass heavy one and got the players/playbook for that he's had great success. Same with Wilson last year as Lynch fell off.


They perform in the game manager role when that's what the team needs, but when it needs them to push the defense with the passing game, are able to step up and do so consistently.

Nothing wrong with a "game manager" if he can also be a consistent "playmaker" when needed. It's the ones who fail more than the rest when put in that situation that I don't have much love for. And I am fine with questioning that until a QB proves he can be that playmaker as well with consistency or when talent changes.

I like this. And honestly I don't mind Alex Smith as a QB. I think he is a bit underrated in what he actually brings to the game. But you are right when the team absolutely needs a play from him he is not the guy you want. He is the type that when everything is on schedule he does an incredible job. And so far the Chiefs have done a pretty good job of doing just that in his time there. A turnover in a game by him or a fumble by somebody else though and the team falls apart pretty quickly.

 

[Rockinkuwait]

I like this. And honestly I don't mind Alex Smith as a QB. I think he is a bit underrated in what he actually brings to the game. But you are right when the team absolutely needs a play from him he is not the guy you want. He is the type that when everything is on schedule he does an incredible job. And so far the Chiefs have done a pretty good job of doing just that in his time there. A turnover in a game by him or a fumble by somebody else though and the team falls apart pretty quickly.

I like him when things are going well. Put him in the 2 minute drill or trying to come back and more often than not he's well below average.

Smart guy, knows his limitations and tries not to press them. Could Dilfer a SB in the right situation. Kinda reminds me of Chad Pennington a bit. I remember years ago doing a breakdown of Chad and Favre. And while his comp% was better and his INT% was lower, they were the same as Favre's in the same situation. ie. Throwing behind the LOS, same, throwing 30+ yards same. Just Favre made more of the tougher throws (and was better in about every other area).



So with 2 minute drills. Avg QB rating when losing in 2 min drill is 73 since he came in the league. He's at 62. He's in the Gradkowski, Chris Simms, Ken Dorsey, Joey Harrington, Matt McGloin Colt McCoy peers. But he's right at average for his career in that rating (I know it isn't everything but don't have a better viable stat for it). He looks better than most in the easier situations and worse than most in the tougher ones.

 

[chf]

I like this. And honestly I don't mind Alex Smith as a QB. I think he is a bit underrated in what he actually brings to the game. But you are right when the team absolutely needs a play from him he is not the guy you want. He is the type that when everything is on schedule he does an incredible job. And so far the Chiefs have done a pretty good job of doing just that in his time there. A turnover in a game by him or a fumble by somebody else though and the team falls apart pretty quickly.

I wouldn't consider them equivalent, but I'm reminded of Matt Hasselbeck. Cerebral, excellent on the short and medium stuff, but couldn't throw deep to save his life. If he could have, he would have been one of the best QB's in football.

 

[cdumler7]

I wouldn't consider them equivalent, but I'm reminded of Matt Hasselbeck. Cerebral, excellent on the short and medium stuff, but couldn't throw deep to save his life. If he could have, he would have been one of the best QB's in football.

Good example. To me with Alex Smith I have watched him countless times have a guy wide open going deep but he just wouldn't trust his eyes. I'm not sure if the early part of his career ruined him from throwing deep with how many turnovers he had or what but I've watched him pull the ball down and either look for the check down or take off running. Or when he does pull the trigger on the deep ball throw it too long most of the time. HE doesn't like the 50/50 ball. I don't know if that is a trust issue with his WR's but there are times you just have to give your guy a chance and he just isn't willing to take that risk.

Now we have seen plenty of QB's have great success not hitting the deep ball on a consistent basis so Smith's issues definitely go deeper than that. I think @Rockinkuwait did a good job of providing a stat to show that when the game is on the line Alex Smith just isn't the guy you want behind Center. Good player but one that needs a great team around him and especially in the playoffs for things to stay on track in order to win a Super Bowl. Good enough that teams will keep paying him hoping they can squeeze just a bit more out of him but not that guy that you really want being your franchise QB for the long-term.