Game manager. What is that exactly?

[Earthling]

During the course of the season the term 'game manager' has been used frequently to describe certain QB's in the league; usually in a negative sense. I was curious if there is a consensus on just what the heck that means to people here.

To me a game manager isn't a bad thing. I see it as someone who tries to keep moving the chains, and if that takes three plays of 4 yard gains, be it running or passing, that's ok as long as the chains keep moving.

Of course if the team is down by several scores, or time becomes an issue, then longer chunks of yardage would be necessary. To me a game manager would recognize that fact and try to manage the game accordingly at that point.

What do you all think? And is the opposite of a game manager a game mis-manager?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

I may be wrong, but I feel like "game manager" and "franchise quarterback" are terms that weren't used until maybe a couple years ago?

We had discussions like this on the old Star board 15 years ago.

A game manager is a guy that plays within the system, depends on having superior talent around him, and generally plays not to lose rather than plays to win.

Game managers often win a lot of games in the regular season but can't get it done in the playoffs when the risk/reward relationship goes up.

Think Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan.

The flip side are guys that seem to play their best when nothing is going right. They can seemingly take the entire team on their back and get it done even when the hole they're in might have been caused directly by them.

Think Andrew Luck vs. the Chiefs 3 weeks ago.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

We had discussions like this on the old Star board 15 years ago.

A game manager is a guy that plays within the system, depends on having superior talent around him, and generally plays not to lose rather than plays to win.

Game managers often win a lot of games in the regular season but can't get it done in the playoffs when the risk/reward relationship goes up.

Think Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan.

The flip side are guys that seem to play their best when nothing is going right. They can seemingly take the entire team on their back and get it done even when the hole they're in might have been caused directly by them.

Think Andrew Luck vs. the Chiefs 3 weeks ago.

This pretty closely matches my definition.

It's a QB that can rarely put a team on his shoulders, but will rarely be an anchor to the team when things are going right.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

We had discussions like this on the old Star board 15 years ago.

A game manager is a guy that plays within the system, depends on having superior talent around him, and generally plays not to lose rather than plays to win.

Game managers often win a lot of games in the regular season but can't get it done in the playoffs when the risk/reward relationship goes up.

Think Andy Dalton or Matt Ryan.

The flip side are guys that seem to play their best when nothing is going right. They can seemingly take the entire team on their back and get it done even when the hole they're in might have been caused directly by them.

Think Andrew Luck vs. the Chiefs 3 weeks ago.

Again, why is this a catch-all for bad QBs?

Why doesn't this also apply to Eli Manning and Joe Flacco. And as much as we may have ripped on him, Mark Sanchez his first two seasons won big games in New York many QBs wouldn't win. And for much of his career, Big Ben too.

There are lots of great examples of teams who have gotten really far with a game manager type philosophy. I don't get why just because they were successful, suddenly we're not allowed to call them game managers.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Again, why is this a catch-all for bad QBs?

Why doesn't this also apply to Eli Manning and Joe Flacco. And as much as we may have ripped on him, Mark Sanchez his first two seasons won big games in New York many QBs wouldn't win. And for much of his career, Big Ben too.

There are lots of great examples of teams who have gotten really far with a game manager type philosophy. I don't get why just because they were successful, suddenly we're not allowed to call them game managers.

Did I say that?

Joe Flacco and Ben Roethlisberger, to me, are game managers. Really good game managers but they're not guys that win games all by themselves. Ben might have been close at one time but time has taken it's toll.

The definition, for me, isn't directly tied to wins and losses. Wins and losses are a result, not a qualifier.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Did I say that?

Joe Flacco and Ben Roethlisberger, to me, are game managers. Really good game managers but they're not guys that win games all by themselves. Ben might have been close at one time but time has taken it's toll.

The definition, for me, isn't directly tied to wins and losses. Wins and losses are a result, not a qualifier.

Well, I disagreed on the part about game managers not winning when risk/reward go up. I still believe that a great model for a team is to build a complete team and have a game manager who can play in the 4th quarter.

That's the part you're missing out on. Game managers are awesome QBs to have, as long as they make plays when they count. And as long as your ownership isn't completely stupid. For example... people are getting on Eli's case for this season. I would still take Eli over most QBs in the league, but you have to be smart enough to know you HAVE to give him a running game.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Well, I disagreed on the part about game managers not winning when risk/reward go up.

I said it's a tendency, it's not a hard and fast rule. Guys aren't stratified into just great, good, bad, etc. It's more like Andy Dalton is an 81 out of 100 and Big Ben is an 88. Ben is going to win more of those games than Dalton but he's not going to win as many as Tom Brady, who is a 97.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

I still believe that a great model for a team is to build a complete team and have a game manager who can play in the 4th quarter.

For me, a guy that CONSISTENTLY performs in the clutch, is by definition not a game manager.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

I said it's a tendency, it's not a hard and fast rule. Guys aren't stratified into just great, good, bad, etc. It's more like Andy Dalton is an 81 out of 100 and Big Ben is an 88. Ben is going to win more of those games than Dalton but he's not going to win as many as Tom Brady, who is a 97.

I don't think Peyton or Brady belong in any conversation, because they are "elite QBs." They are once a generation QBs and you only get about 3 or 4 in any given generation. Of the rest of the field, who would you take? Would you agree that there are too many fans who are starting to turn game manager into a catch-all for QBs they don't want, and improperly using the word "franchise QB" to be a catch-all for QBs they do want? Eli Manning and Flacco win a Super Bowl and suddenly they're not game managers anymore. They have a tough season and suddenly they're game managers again.

The first step is we need to stop throwing garbage QBs into this game manager catch-all. 2010 Cassel was NOT a game manager. He was a terrible QB benefiting from his supporting cast. You don't consistently get three-and-outs and call yourself a game manager. Andy Dalton and Matt Ryan, to me, are NOT game managers. They are QBs who play very aggressive football and their lack of success is because they aren't good enough, not because they're trying to manage games.

For me, a guy that CONSISTENTLY performs in the clutch, is by definition not a game manager.

I would argue that game managers are more likely to be clutch. Joe Montana was the greatest game manager of all time. To me, a game manager is a QB who is extremely efficient on third downs, can extend drives, wins time of possessions, gets yards in manageable chunks, relies on a huddle offense (vs. no huddle), and can complement a great running game. This approach keeps the defense fresh and you see these defenses respond in the 4th quarter in ways you just don't see from the Packers or the Lions or the Saints.

In other systems, you see a fast paced offense, lots of no huddle, getting yards in huge chunks, and typically you have to either walk into the 4th quarter with a comfortable lead or win in a shootout. These are not game managers. And frankly, it's harder to be clutch. People assume Aaron Rodgers is clutch. He's not. He's actually been terrible in late 4th quarter situations where they need a score.

[Hammock Parties]

To me, a game manager is a QB who is extremely efficient on third downs

By that definition, not Alex.

[BlackHelicopters]

I prefer an elite game managEr.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Eli Manning and Flacco win a Super Bowl and suddenly they're not game managers anymore. They have a tough season and suddenly they're game managers again.

That's just the wishy-washy nature of fans, and society in general. My definition doesn't change from year to year.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

By that definition, not Alex.

I bagged on Alex Smith a bit early in the season. There were a few games early on where he did it great. There were too many games where he had way too many three-and-outs, but somehow managed to win games because their defense was disgustingly good in the 4th quarter.

Indy playoff game was, in my opinion, close to elite game management. 56% third down efficiency. The only thing missing was that late 4th quarter clutch moment, but I think it's hard to bag on him for that.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by theelusiveeightrop

I prefer an elite game managEr.

If you can't get an elite QB like Brady or Manning, and let's face it, you have to be really, really lucky to get one....

Then yes, I completely agree with you.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

Indy playoff game was, in my opinion, close to elite game management.

Yep.

Need more than 1 game out of 16...

Chiefs were terrible on third down much of the season, and Alex has been a bad third down QB throughout his career.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by Douche Baggins

Yep.

Need more than 1 game out of 16...

Chiefs were terrible on third down much of the season, and Alex has been a bad third down QB throughout his career.

He had a few but not enough great game managing games early in the season. I though the San Diego game was a big turnaround for him. The most encouraging thing to me is that he had a few games in that stretch where he carried the team in the 4th quarter. Denver - game 1 was a bad first half performance, but a superb 2nd half performance. Denver game 2 and San Diego game - excellent all game long, and terrific in the 4th. Those 3 games were one play away from being tremendous game manager QB wins. Next step is Alex has to learn how to close out those games.

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

That's just the wishy-washy nature of fans, and society in general. My definition doesn't change from year to year.

What do you think about my comment about separating guys like Cassel and even Dalton and Ryan from the game manager category? I appreciate the discussion, by the way.