Is your view of Ballard changing?

[DougDew]

23 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I think you're pretty isolated in your thinking that game manager = physically limited QB. There can be some overlap between those two things, but the difference between being a game manager and being a franchise QB is not solely about physical limitations. 

 

And maybe the reason some people are not referring to Brock Purdy as a game manager in present time is because they think that way a QB plays and produces is the primary factor to consider, and they believe that Purdy's recent play is proving that he's more than a game manager. 

I recall the characterization of Matt Hasselbeck in his later years by this forum and by talking heads on ESPN that he was relegated to being a game manager precisely because of his diminished physical skills....notably the inability to make all NFL throws consistently.    So physical limitations (or what is perceive via stereotype) is a huge component for when they also whip out the term game manager.  

 

Sure, others may attribute mental types of things as being part of it too, but the college guys that get the GM label usually make plays based upon "moxy" and such things but lack the physical traits that are attributed to NFL franchise QBs.

 

I think it fair for some to call Hurts a franchise QB because of the success he has had, but in the area of physical QB traits, he's in the GM bucket...as defined by me and how the pundits have used it over the years.  

[NewColtsFan]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I recall the characterization of Matt Hasselbeck in his later years by this forum and by talking heads on ESPN that he was relegated to being a game manager precisely because of his diminished physical skills....notably the inability to make all NFL throws consistently.    So physical limitations (or what is perceive via stereotype) is a huge component for when they also whip out the term game manager.  

 

Sure, others may attribute mental types of things as being part of it too, but the college guys that get the GM label usually make plays based upon "moxy" and such things but lack the physical traits that are attributed to NFL franchise QBs.

 

I think it fair for some to call Hurts a franchise QB because of the success he has had, but in the area of physical QB traits, he's in the GM bucket...as defined by me and how the pundits have used it over the years.  They are just stopping short now...and I think NCF is arguing because he can't come to grips with it either.  

If you’re saying I can’t come to grips with your arguments, then I’d agree with that 1000 percent. 
 

But why you think pointing to Matt Hasselback at the end of his career as a game manager is proof of anything is a mystery known only to you.   Of course he was a game manager at the end of his career.   Many aging quarterbacks become game managers at the end of their career.   It comes with aging and deteriorating skill.  
 

And for the record, to a comment you made about a month ago when you noted how unusual it is that I remember so many of your posts, often in detail, I’d point to this series of posts you’ve made today.  They’re very unique.  They stand out and jump off the page.  They’re not hard to remember.  

[ColtStrong2013]

2 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

And for the record, to a comment you made about a month ago when you noted how unusual it is that I remember so many of your posts, often in detail, I’d point to this series of posts you’ve made today.  They’re very unique.  They stand out and jump off the page.  They’re not hard to remember.  

at least give me credit for staying on topic… 

[Superman]

11 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I recall the characterization of Matt Hasselbeck in his later years by this forum and by talking heads on ESPN that he was relegated to being a game manager precisely because of his diminished physical skills....notably the inability to make all NFL throws consistently.    So physical limitations (or what is perceive via stereotype) is a huge component for when they also whip out the term game manager.  

 

Sure, others may attribute mental types of things as being part of it too, but the college guys that get the GM label usually make plays based upon "moxy" and such things but lack the physical traits that are attributed to NFL franchise QBs.

 

I think it fair for some to call Hurts a franchise QB because of the success he has had, but in the area of physical QB traits, he's in the GM bucket...as defined by me and how the pundits have used it over the years.  They are just stopping short now...and I think NCF is arguing because he can't come to grips with it either.  

 

All birds have wings. Butterflies have wings.

 

Doug, are butterflies birds?

[DougDew]

1 minute ago, NewColtsFan said:

It comes with aging and deteriorating skill.  
 

And for the record, to a comment you made about a month ago when you noted how unusual it is that I remember so many of your posts, often in detail, I’d point to this series of posts you’ve made today.  They’re very unique.  They stand out and jump off the page.  They’re not hard to remember.

They must stand out because they seem correct to you then.  

 

Because saying that MH was considered a GM QB because of his (what was) present level of physical skill is precisely my assertion of why all GM QBs are labeled such by me and 98% of the pundits.  Except the pundits use it as a pejorative, so they can't use it to describe a QB who actually has had more success than what they project GM QBs to have.

[DougDew]

3 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

All birds have wings. Butterflies have wings.

 

Doug, are butterflies birds?

Was MH called a game manager...by everybody.... because of his diminished physical skills...despite his mental acumen and moxy?

 

The issue at it root is that the people (other than me) who use the term use it negatively, so they can't attribute the term to a QB with the same skills but a better level of success than what they assume the GM QB can achieve.

 

They just can't bear to call Hurts a GM because of the success he has had...so he must be something other than a GM.

[jvan1973]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

They must stand out because they seem correct to you then.  

 

Because saying that MH was considered a GM QB because of his (what was) present level of physical skill is precisely my assertion of why all GM QBs are labeled such by me and 98% of the pundits.  Except the pundits use it as a pejorative, so they can't use it to describe a QB who actually has had more success than what they project GM QBs to have.

Hasselbeck wasn't considered a game manager when he was here.   He was considered a back up.   Obviously not as good as Andrew.  He played his role very well.   You lock onto things like a puppy with an old shoe.   You keep saying pundits use GM as a pejorative.   You've used the word pejorative more in this thread than it has been used in 10 years.   Pundits have to talk about things.   It's what they do.   Do you think Sirrani or Shanahan care what talking heads think about their qbs?

[Superman]

1 minute ago, DougDew said:

Was MH called a game manager...by everybody.... because of his diminished physical skills...despite his mental acumen and moxy?

 

The issue at it root is that the people (other than me) who use the term use it negatively, so they can't attribute the term to a QB with the same skills but a better level of success than what they assume the GM QB can achieve.

 

They just can't bear to call Hurts a GM because of the success he has had...so he must be something other than a GM.

 

I'm trying to help you see that this is a flawed analysis on your part.

 

All game managers have physical limitations. (Let's accept this as fact for now.)

Jalen Hurts has physical limitations. (Again, accepting as fact.)

 

Does this make Jalen Hurts a game manager?

 

Can you see that for other people, the game manager designation is not entirely based on a QB's perceived physical limitations?

[jvan1973]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Was MH called a game manager...by everybody.... because of his diminished physical skills...despite his mental acumen and moxy?

 

The issue at it root is that the people (other than me) who use the term use it negatively, so they can't attribute the term to a QB with the same skills but a better level of success than what they assume the GM QB can achieve.

 

They just can't bear to call Hurts a GM because of the success he has had...so he must be something other than a GM.

Hurts is far from a game manager.   Have you watched any eagles games?  AJ Brown would certainly disagree with you

[NewColtsFan]

28 minutes ago, ColtStrong2013 said:

at least give me credit for staying on topic… 

Huh?    You're responding to my post to Doug, not my post to you. 

[DougDew]

18 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

I'm trying to help you see that this is a flawed analysis on your part.

 

All game managers have physical limitations. (Let's accept this as fact for now.)

Jalen Hurts has physical limitations. (Again, accepting as fact.)

 

Does this make Jalen Hurts a game manager?

 

Can you see that for other people, the game manager designation is not entirely based on a QB's perceived physical limitations?

Yes, but we're not debating theory.  Yes I can see how somebody could see that.  I'm saying that the people who use the term don't see other things and are blinded by the lack of physical NFL attributes. 

 

You know very well that a strategy for roster building is to take a GM QB and build superior talent around him, or, take a franchise QB and have him strap the team on his back on his way to the SB.  (obvious extreme examples to make a point) 

 

 What did they say about Hurts coming out of college...or his rookie year?  That he was limited QB who needed a team built around him, or an offense designed around his skills.   Does that sound like how they describe the typical franchise QB...is that how they describe Trevor Lawrence?  What was the difference...mental make up or physical attributes?

 

What has changed about Hurts....physically?  Why can't anybody admit he's the almost perfect example of a GM QB who went to the SB precisely because Roseman executed the team building around a GM QB very well.  Purdy, SF, and Lynch right their too.

 

 

[ColtStrong2013]

3 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

Huh?    You're responding to my post to Doug, not my post to you. 

yes, I am aware. I was joking with you to at least give me credit in this thread for staying on topic versus Doug who somehow has the conversation on Matt hasselback and qb traits. 

[NewColtsFan]

30 minutes ago, DougDew said:

They must stand out because they seem correct to you then.  

 

Because saying that MH was considered a GM QB because of his (what was) present level of physical skill is precisely my assertion of why all GM QBs are labeled such by me and 98% of the pundits.  Except the pundits use it as a pejorative, so they can't use it to describe a QB who actually has had more success than what they project GM QBs to have.

“They must stand out because I think they’re correct”.  ?!?!?   
 

I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion?   They stand out to me because they’re unique.   They are singularly yours. 
 

Once upon a time I used to tease you about living in Dew-ville:  population 1.

I’ve stopped doing that, but that used to be my playful tease, do you not remember?    Your views aren’t necessarily wrong, but they’re extremely unique.   And I find that’s the case no matter the subject: Colts, Football in general, or even societal views. 
 

Im sorry we’re not finding any common ground today.   Not trying to be difficult.  Just wanted to be clear about my views, and our differences,  such as they are. 

[Superman]

13 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes

 

Okay, that's my point. Even if that's your main criteria, everyone else doesn't have to agree that game manager = physically limited QB. And if a person values different criteria than you, that doesn't make them a hypocrite or mean that they're stereotyping.

 

And while I can see how a person could simplify the game manager designation down to strictly physical ability, I do not think that's ever been considered a serious definition for what makes a QB a game manager. It happens to be your preferred criteria.

 

Quote

What did they say about Hurts coming out of college...or his rookie year? 

 

Why does whatever people said about Hurts coming out of college hold priority over what people think of him now? What if he's simply outplaying their expectations of him, and in recognition of that, they acknowledge him as something more than a game manager? 

 

And why can't the same be true of Purdy?

[DougDew]

36 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

Okay, that's my point. Even if that's your main criteria, everyone else doesn't have to agree that game manager = physically limited QB. And if a person values different criteria than you, that doesn't make them a hypocrite or mean that they're stereotyping.

 

And while I can see how a person could simplify the game manager designation down to strictly physical ability, I do not think that's ever been considered a serious definition for what makes a QB a game manager. It happens to be your preferred criteria.

 

 

Why does whatever people said about Hurts coming out of college hold priority over what people think of him now? What if he's simply outplaying their expectations of him, and in recognition of that, they acknowledge him as something more than a game manager? 

 

And why can't the same be true of Purdy?

I think "they" are capable of not stereotyping, in theory.  I think they do practicing it in reality.  I think they stereotype Qbs as not being physically gifted enough to be a SB winning QB, and they typically make that stereotype when the QB is in college.  I think they stereotyped Hurts that way, and Purdy too, but did not with Young.  Maybe the success of Hurts and Purdy prompted an immediately different way to think about Young and he was thought of as the franchise type.  Their mistake..

 

I assume they think of Hurts as a franchise QB now because of his success...his W/L record.

 

If so, why wasn't he thought of as a franchise guy in college?  He won.

 

If so, should we think of Sam E as an undiscovered franchise QB?  He won a ton in college.  What held Sam back?  Being a running QB and a lack of arm talent....the absence of franchise NFL traits I assume.

 

I think they are all game managers based upon a consistent application of the factors that have historically been applied.  Some have and will have different levels of success within that same bucket.  "They" seem to apply the factors all over the place in a way that defies explanation, for the most part.

 

Trey Lance or Mac Jones?  Which one was thought of as the franchise guy and which one had the game manger ceiling?  It wasn't the mental part.  It was the physical part, IMO.

[Superman]

15 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I assume they think of Hurts as a franchise QB now because of his success...his W/L record.

 

If so, why wasn't he thought of as a franchise guy in college?  He won.

 

The questions about Hurts were about his ability to consistently make on time, accurate throws, within the rhythm of a pro style offense. Accuracy, footwork, throwing motion, etc. Not physical limitations. Hurts has improved significantly in all of these areas since he was drafted, but it's his ability to function in the passing game + his impact in the running game that has changed opinions.

 

The guy who replaced Hurts in Alabama -- Tua -- was considered a potential franchise QB prospect when he was drafted, and he's more physically limited than Hurts in virtually every way. Those viewpoints have pretty much flip flopped. Neither player has changed physically.

 

Quote

If so, should we think of Sam E as an undiscovered franchise QB?  He won a ton in college.  What held Sam back?  Being a running QB and a lack of arm talent....the absence of franchise NFL traits I assume.

 

Have you seen anything from Ehlinger that makes him look like a capable NFL QB period? Game manager, franchise QB... even serviceable backup? In college or in the NFL? The evaluation of Ehlinger is based on the way he plays, not just his physical abilities.

[OLD FAN MAN]

4 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

How do we know Josh backed out over worries about Luck?    The views back then were that (A) Kraft convinced him Irsay was crazy, and (B) Kraft gave him a new huge deal to return as the OC.  

whose views? sources? verified facts? you seem to want them when others post but can you give them for what you post?

[RollerColt]

57 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I think "they" are capable of not stereotyping, in theory.  I think they do practicing it in reality.  I think they stereotype Qbs as not being physically gifted enough to be a SB winning QB, and they typically make that stereotype when the QB is in college.  I think they stereotyped Hurts that way, and Purdy too, but did not with Young.  Maybe the success of Hurts and Purdy prompted an immediately different way to think about Young and he was thought of as the franchise type.  Their mistake..

 

I assume they think of Hurts as a franchise QB now because of his success...his W/L record.

 

If so, why wasn't he thought of as a franchise guy in college?  He won.

 

If so, should we think of Sam E as an undiscovered franchise QB?  He won a ton in college.  What held Sam back?  Being a running QB and a lack of arm talent....the absence of franchise NFL traits I assume.

 

I think they are all game managers based upon a consistent application of the factors that have historically been applied.  Some have and will have different levels of success within that same bucket.  "They" seem to apply the factors all over the place in a way that defies explanation, for the most part.

 

Trey Lance or Mac Jones?  Which one was thought of as the franchise guy and which one had the game manger ceiling?  It wasn't the mental part.  It was the physical part, IMO.

Okay. You think they’re game managers. But you aren’t with the majority on what a game manager means or classifies a QB as. 

[jvan1973]

10 minutes ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

whose views? sources? verified facts? you seem to want them when others post but can you give them for what you post?

The actual reporting and not speculation or opinion

[OLD FAN MAN]

4 minutes ago, jvan1973 said:

The actual reporting and not speculation or opinion

that should pertain also to the poster who asks for sources who also makes posts without sources

[NewColtsFan]

1 hour ago, OLD FAN MAN said:

whose views? sources? verified facts? you seem to want them when others post but can you give them for what you post?

I’m going by the views that were being talked about here on the website.