NYT on Brees' height

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by Fencer, Nov 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fencer

    Fencer Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    #12 Jersey


    The biggest point -- pun inadvertent but not unwelcome -- is that Brees' throwing motion has a particularly high release point. That lets him reduce, even if not quite eliminate, the problem of having passes batted down at the line of scrimmage.

    For the other classic "short" QB problem, field vision, Brees has to rely on moving side to side, just like -- e.g. -- Flutie.
  2. PatsWickedPissah

    PatsWickedPissah PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Disable Jersey

    Bledsoe was just shy of 6' 6" and had lots of passes blocked. No sense of finding the throwing lanes.
  3. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joe Montana was only 6'2, and Vince Young was taken top 5 with an extremely weird and very low throwing release point. The height thing for QB's isn't consistent and isn't a predictor for success.

    Brees' height has never bothered him at any level, if it were an issue you would have seen it in college but instead he was one of the most prolific passers ever.
  4. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    A few issues from reading the article:

    1. It's ironic the beginning of the article describes Brady as the ideal physical embodiment, when Brady himself was shafted until the 6th round.

    2. It's ridiculous if teams are really passing over QB's because of batted passes, which based on the stats given in the article are less than 3% of passes thrown in the NFL.

    3. Steve Young is another example, only 6'1. Kurt Warner is only 6'2. The height thing is ridiculous, it's similar to drafting wide receivers based only on 40-times or a D-lineman based on how much he can bench press.
  5. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    There is something to be said for height, but it has to be taken into account with release point, because the release point is what really matters. As long as a QB releases the ball high enough, whether because he's tall or his release point is high for his height, he's fine.
  6. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    There are a lot of reasons why you don't see a lot of batted-down passes, but one of them is almost certainly that most QBs are 6-3 or taller. The few exceptions tend to be unusually talented players. That could mean either a) that there's an irrational bias against short QBs, or b) that height is an important factor, but it does not preclude success. Nothing here strongly suggests one or the other
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2009
  7. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    The emphasis on avoiding batted balls is misguided. The article says that Brees almost leads the league in batted balls, which is still about 2.5% of all his passes (not a big deal).

    The league is now full of mostly tall QB's who can throw hard but have cement-heads and mediocre accuracy, a product of how the position is scouted.
  8. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    So in a league where QBs are scouted specifically to avoid batted-down balls, balls aren't frequently batted down. What a surprise...

    Brees is the latest in a long line of QBs who show that it's possible to succeed despite a lack of hieght. To say that that means that height doesn't matter, though, is pretty ridiculous. Just like with Brees, there are examples of slow, small, and dumb players succeeding in the NFL; doesn't mean that speed, size, and intelligence are meaningless.
  9. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    1. As said before, batted balls aren't even a big deal relative to how many balls are thrown, so it shouldn't even be a factor. Brees and Warner (who has a low release) lead the league in batted balls, but that % isn't even significant. Height shouldn't be a factor for drafting a QB; if batted balls are an issue, it would show up during that player's college production.

    2. The entire field of picking guys simply based on his height, 40-time, or vertical is not only lazy but also completely flawed. You don't even have to look at Jerry Rice, look at Greg Jennings or other receivers in the game today who can play football but can't run a 40 in shorts the fastest (who cares).

    This article makes it sound like Brees is simply the exception to the rule, which I strongly object to. The height rule/guide is ridiculous in the first place. There are tons of players who don't fit the guides, and they aren't the exception, the rules in the first place aren't even related to success.

    Bill Walsh, one of the best drafters in history, didn't give a crap about measurables. He would bring in a player and actually see how they performed in his drills and plays.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
  10. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    Derek Anderson had 6% of his passed batted down. Brees had 3%. Of course that's significant. And the thing is, Brees has adopted a bunch of aspects into his game to lower his batted-down rate, and he's still near the top of the league. a 6 foot guy with replacement-level NFL talent would likely get a ton of passes batted down.

    defensive linemen and linebackers are MUCH taller, faster, and more athletic in the NFL than in college.

    And Warner is 6'2. He's halfway between Brees and Brady, and the conventional wisdom says that 6'1 is the cutoff point. I'm certainly open to the idea that the conventional wisdom is wrong (as it often is), but you're taking it much, much further than that...

    Nobody's arguing otherwise. height, speed, and jumping ability don't guarantee success or failure. Plenty of blue-chip athletes fail, and plenty of subpar athletes succeed. Does that mean that speed, height, and athleticism don't matter? Of course it doesn't- it just means that they're several of many very important factors in determining success.

    Excellent players can succeed in spite of their physical shortcomings, but that doesn't make them irrelevant. So because Vince Young succeeds despite having the IQ of a brick, intelligence doesn't matter. Because Chad Pennington succeeds despite having a weak arm, arm strength doesn't matter. Because Brett Favre succeeds despite throwing a bunch of INTs, decisionmaking doesn't matter. Because Brady succeeds despite being immobile, mobility doesn't matter. Because Ben Roethlisberger succeeds despite poor pocket presence, pocket presence doesn't matter. Therefore, we must conclude that none of these things matter in terms of determining what makes a good QB.

    ...do you see how flawed this is?

    They're not? Because sure, you can name a couple excellent QBs who are under 6'2. But I can name a ton of great QBs who are over 6'2.

    He cared more about a player's intelligence, work ethic, talent and feel for the game than athleticism. That's hardly earth-shattering. Once again, nobody's claiming that athleticism determines success. Just that it's one of several important factors to consider, alongside intelligence, work ethic, and talent.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2009
  11. Phlash

    Phlash On the Game Day Roster

    3% of passes is the difference between a 59% completion percent and a 62% completion percentage. 59% is not very good, 62% is quite nice.
  12. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #61 Jersey

    Bledsoe had a three-quarter sidearm delivery.
  13. xmarkd400x

    xmarkd400x 2nd Team Getting Their First Start


    I take this to mean the Pats will be trying to collapse the pocket all together, so that Brees cannot slide and get a good throwing lane.
  14. BradyFTW!

    BradyFTW! PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    #12 Jersey

    Not quite- assume that 60% of those passes would have been complete, and 3% of passes getting knocked down is the difference between 59% and 60.8%. I agree with what you're saying, though: anyone who thinks that 3% of passes being batted down is "no big deal" is pretty clueless as to how closely contested most NFL games are.
  15. Fencer

    Fencer Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    #12 Jersey

    I imagine linemen were a little shorter in Joe Montana's day too.
  16. Fencer

    Fencer Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    #12 Jersey

    By the way, wasn't Brady the TALLEST QB ever to win a Super Bowl up until that point?
  17. robertweathers

    robertweathers Pro Bowl Player

    Had to look....:p

    2000- Trent Dilfer- 6'4"
    1992- Aikman- 6'4"
    1991- Mark Rypien- 6'4"
    1987- Doug Williams -6'4"

    All others are less than 6'4"

    TB is listed as 6'4' but by all accounts he is closer to 6'5"...
  18. Fencer

    Fencer Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    #12 Jersey

    Further complication -- modern measurements may be larger. Bill Russell was listed as 2 inches shorter than Kevin McHale, who was listed 2 inches shorter than Kevin Garnett -- but supposedly they're all really the same height.
  19. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Great post. This right here should put the whole height guideline to the garbage can.

    Height in no way is correlated with better QB play.

    Instead of automatically assuming that a short QB won't have a high completion %, why not just look at his actual college production and performance against tough defenses?

    This QB height rule is as stupid as thinking that a receiver with a fast 40-time has a better chance of getting open, when it doesn't.
  20. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    You're automatically assuming that the shorter QB will have the lower completion %, when this is false. 2.5% of Brees' balls are batted down but he still has one of the best percentages of any QB.

    Brees and Warner are short compared to other QB's, have the most batted balls, yet still have the highest completion %'s in the league. How do you explain this? You can't keep using the 'he's an exception' excuse. The height rule itself isn't even proven to be true.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page