Why is game manager such a dirty word for a QB?

[I-5]

Does it imply he has no arm, no talent? It seems like a backhanded compliment, but I seriously think that if Kaepernick had been a better game manager, perhaps the Niners might have been playing in the Superbowl, and not the Seahawks. I think Wilson being called a game manager by many, if not, most, should be taken differently. I view it as Wilson having not only the dual threat of an accurate, strong arm and elusive mobility, but just as importantly, the intelligence and maturity to do just exactly what is needed to win. Although he is seemingly everywhere we look these days, to me he doesn't get enough true credit for what he has done to make this team what it is. Part of that is because of having such a fantastic defense, and rightly so, but I just don't think we would be playing for a SB without Wilson playing QB.

[RiverDog]

To me, the term "Game Manager" implies a quarterback that doesn't or can't win games via a heavily passing offense, ie 400 yard, 4 TD games, but doesn't lose them, either, by maintaining high efficiency ratings and low turnovers. In other words, he doesn't win games, but he doesn't lose them, either. Russell Wilson fits that general description, and I would call his play of the past two years as that of a 'game manager'.

That's my description, and no, I obviously don't consider it a derogatory term. The problem is that the media is using it as a much broader definition, and lumps into it quarterbacks that simply happen to be the quarterback when his team wins. Case in point is Mark Sanchez in 2009 and 2010 when his teams made it to the AFC Championship game. The media called him a good "game manager", too, yet Sanchez had efficiency ratings that placed him relatively low amongst other starting quarterbacks. His teams won in spite of his play, not because of it. In Sanchez's case, he had a relatively low efficiency ratings and high turnover ratios (12/20 TD/INT and a 63.0 rating in 2009, 17/13 and a 75.3 rating in 2010). Compare those numbers to Russell's in 2012 (26 TD's, 10 INT's 100.0 rating in 2012, 26/9 101.2 in 2013).

The media has used such a broad definition of the term that it has turned into a 'dirty word', which is why some might take offense if you were to call Russell Wilson a "game manager." That's where the rub is.

[c_hawkbob]

A "game manager" is the first and most important thing you have to be to play QB in the NFL*. Everything else is a plus.

It's the only attribute that will keep you in the league minus all other attributes and it's the only one that you cannot survive without even given all other attributes.

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with the term if you're talking to a coach I assure you.

*this is assuming of course the basic ability to throw a 20 yard slant

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

I was having this conversation with our HR rep, who's name is, coincidentally, Russel Wilson. He called RW a game-manager and cited the drop-off in performance and the that the team carried him to a super bowl win. He's not he only hater/doubter I've run into. Most of them I talk to figure RW is going to have a sophmore, I mean, junior slump.

I agree with bob that a quarterback has to be a game manager first, then, if greatness is there, be great. I also don't think of RW as a game manager; it is more like he is asked to manage the game within the game plan set forth by the coaches. We all know RW can air it out and torch defenses passing, but he's not asked to until there's no other option. But heck, I've even had one of the haters/doubters say, "Anybody can pull a couple of games from a QB's career to prove a point", and I'm like Career?! Wilson has only played for two years you jackwagon!

Bottom line, it shouldn't be a derogatory term, but until a QB avgs 250+ yds/game and 2-3 TDs/game, he's going to be labled a game manager. Oh, and having a boss defense won't do him any favors with labels either. Whatever, though. I'm cool with Wilson managing us to Superbowl wins any time he wants to.

[NorthHawk]

I think Game Manager is a derogatory term because it implies he is along for the ride and not leading.
People who only look at fantasy stats and not the situation the QB is in will give that term to a QB they don't want to select near the top.
In my opinion, FF has been a negative in how people view the players in the NFL. It's been good for the NFL in general, but not good for the understanding of the game.

[monkey]

Does it imply he has no arm, no talent?

It's all semantics really. The term, which really shouldn't automatically have a negative connotation when you think about it, (every QB is a game manager, some are just better at it than others), usually is used to imply that there is something about the QB in question, that is lacking in his overall game, usually an inability to make all the throws; and to compensate, the coaching staff has to be extra conservative with their game plan.

That's how i take it to mean anyway.

Of course, the ultimate irony is that this year, there wasn't a better fit for the term "game manager" than Peyton Manning, who is NEVER thought of as a game manager!
Think about it, if there's any QB who cannot make all the throws, it's Peyton Manning. The guy throws wobbly ducks often, (as Sherman rightly pointed out) and no longer has even close to the arm strength to throw deep or into tight windows.
As a result, the game plan was to throw a lot of timing routes, a lot of crossing patterns, rub routes, etc... short stuff that the receivers would then be expected to get yards after catching on.
When you think about it, Peyton Manning is the perfect example of a game manager, of someone who is limited in ability and has to compensate by limiting the playbook....how ironic considering between the two Superbowl QB's NO ONE would call Manning the game manager, while Wilson is OFTEN called that, and yet is able to make ALL the throws, and in fact makes a LOT of deep throws, many into very tight windows. The coaching staff doesn't have to limit the playbook for Wilson AT ALL, because he can make any play you can draw up. Wilson is also able to escape pressure in a way that Manning cannot, and make throws on the run that Manning can only DREAM of making, and has never been able to make.

Sooo, who's the game manager???
Again, the problem is semantics, the term is used derisively, but also, it is often used incorrectly. I don't see why the term should be used derisively anyway considering the fact that the all time greats, were ALWAYS great at managing the game. You cannot be great as a QB without being great at managing the game. Just ask Joe Montana, one of the best ever at managing the game (or again, Peyton Manning).

[burrrton]

He called RW a game-manager and cited the drop-off in performance and the that the team carried him to a super bowl win.

LOL. Does the guy watch much football?

[Anthony]

To me, the term "Game Manager" implies a quarterback that doesn't or can't win games via a heavily passing offense, ie 400 yard, 4 TD games, but doesn't lose them, either, by maintaining high efficiency ratings and low turnovers. In other words, he doesn't win games, but he doesn't lose them, either. Russell Wilson fits that general description, and I would call his play of the past two years as that of a 'game manager'.

That's my description, and no, I obviously don't consider it a derogatory term. The problem is that the media is using it as a much broader definition, and lumps into it quarterbacks that simply happen to be the quarterback when his team wins. Case in point is Mark Sanchez in 2009 and 2010 when his teams made it to the AFC Championship game. The media called him a good "game manager", too, yet Sanchez had efficiency ratings that placed him relatively low amongst other starting quarterbacks. His teams won in spite of his play, not because of it. In Sanchez's case, he had a relatively low efficiency ratings and high turnover ratios (12/20 TD/INT and a 63.0 rating in 2009, 17/13 and a 75.3 rating in 2010). Compare those numbers to Russell's in 2012 (26 TD's, 10 INT's 100.0 rating in 2012, 26/9 101.2 in 2013).

The media has used such a broad definition of the term that it has turned into a 'dirty word', which is why some might take offense if you were to call Russell Wilson a "game manager." That's where the rub is.

You see from everything I read the term "game manager" means they rarely have to win the game for their team and in some cases cannot. Rw is not a game manager, RW is a playmaker. He can throw for 300+ yards and win the game, he can win the game with his feet, with his arm, and with his head. I do not think 400 yards and 4tds would be the mark as 400 yards does not happen often. I Mean amongst the top 5 QBs by yards they only went over 400 yards 10 times out of 80 games played. That is not a lot, and 3 of the top 5 only did it once, and all of them have several games well under 200 yards. So 400 yards is not the mark were if you are below it your a game manager. "Game Managers" are not amongst the leaders in comeback victories, they usually are not in the top 10 in tds, and td/int ratio, or YPA. So Rw is not a game manager by any stretch. Well at least not any more than any QB is, to an extent all QBS manage the game, it is their ability to improvise and make things happen when the game plan goes awry that decides who is and who is not a game manager, and Rw is amongst the best at improvising and more importantly wining.

[RiverDog]

You see from everything I read the term "game manager" means they rarely have to win the game for their team and in some cases cannot. Rw is not a game manager, RW is a playmaker. He can throw for 300+ yards and win the game, he can win the game with his feet, with his arm, and with his head. I do not think 400 yards and 4tds would be the mark as 400 yards does not happen often. I Mean amongst the top 5 QBs by yards they only went over 400 yards 10 times out of 80 games played. That is not a lot, and 3 of the top 5 only did it once, and all of them have several games well under 200 yards. So 400 yards is not the mark were if you are below it your a game manager. "Game Managers" are not amongst the leaders in comeback victories, they usually are not in the top 10 in tds, and td/int ratio, or YPA. So Rw is not a game manager by any stretch. Well at least not any more than any QB is, to an extent all QBS manage the game, it is their ability to improvise and make things happen when the game plan goes awry that decides who is and who is not a game manager, and Rw is amongst the best at improvising and more importantly wining.

I wasn't taking into consideration Russell's playmaking ability, ie scrambling, running the read, etc, when I was talking about him as a game manager. I was speaking of strictly his traditional, quantifiable quarterbacking skills. If you add into the equation his play making skills, then it adds a considerable premium to his resume.

It sounds like everyone is pretty much on the same page in our understanding of the term and any differences aren't worth arguing over. Besides, I really don't care how people refer to him. The point is that I wouldn't trade Russell for any other quarterback in the league, and I don't think anyone in here is going to disagree with me. Quite the contrary, it's probably the one point that is most likely to gain a consensus on, at least in our little corner of 12th Man Land.

[briwas101]

It's a dirty word because usually a lack of talent is what causes the team to go with a game manager at QB. It's usually the lack of talent at QB that limits the team, whereas with Wilson its the team that limits him. Teams with talented QBs rarely use them as a game mgr; they want to take full advantage of the QBs talents.

Hopefully Wilson gets to throw a bit more in the future, but "managing the game" 19 times and walking away with the lombardi is something he probably wouldn't mind doing a few more times.

[HumanCockroach]

Troy Aikmen made a HOF career doing the same things Wilson is currently, have little issue with 3 or 5 more Lombardi's with him throwing 25 times a game. Aikmen had Emmitt, Wilson has Lynch, works for me

[Zorn76]

Game managing QB's, IMO, generally lack the ability to put a team on their shoulders when others are struggling, and/or cannot improvise and make key plays (often going for big yardage, but not always) at crucial moments throughout the course of an NFL season, including the playoffs.

And none of those things describe Russell Wilson.

Period.

People can go on and on about how a QB manages a game by not being stupid and making wise choices, which is true for any good quarterback in the league. But RW is much more about being a PLAYMAKER, in addition to taking care of the ball.

Playmakers (like RW) are Clutch.

Game managers, among other things, hope to be the reason their team didn't lose.

Big difference.

[Eaglehawk]

It means you do not have enough of the OTHER skills to be an elite qb, but you won't lose the game for the team either.

You are "MEH".

[Zorn76]

It means you do not have enough of the OTHER skills to be an elite qb, but you won't lose the game for the team either.

You are "MEH".

Precisely:)

[NorthHawk]

I still think it's a term that has become popular because of people obsessed with stats and involved in Fantasy Football.
When you are drafting for those leagues, you want QBs with big numbers regardless of how well they lead or how successful they are.
Any QB not near the top is thought of as simply a Game Manager. It has no basis in the actual play of the QB.

[Anthony]

I still think it's a term that has become popular because of people obsessed with stats and involved in Fantasy Football.
When you are drafting for those leagues, you want QBs with big numbers regardless of how well they lead or how successful they are.
Any QB not near the top is thought of as simply a Game Manager. It has no basis in the actual play of the QB.

Well then that proves Rw is not a game manager because other than yards he is at the top in every other category

[HumanCockroach]

Just an FYI Wilson was a top ten fantasy QB last season ( usually good for 250/2 or 3/ and 1 int or less). His scoring wasn't on par with "game managers", not saying I started him over Peyton, but Wilson was consistently good. So really the only reason he fits that description at all, is because he hasn't had several games where he went 350 with 4 or 5 TDs in a row. People are only impressed with insane numbers any more. That conversation is going to change the more exposure Wilson gets, when people see him carry this team to comeback win after comeback win.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Russell Wilson can and does "manage" the game, or I should say Game Plan. The Game Plan in Russell's case is to keep the chains moving taking time off the clock and putting your team in scoring position and not forcing turn overs. So far in his 2 seasons the Seahawks have rarely been down by 2 or more scores so Wilson hasn't had to put the team on his shoulders very much to pull out a game. But, in those games where our Seahawks did get down by 2 or more scores Wilson was able to bring the team back, the game against the Texans this last season comes to mind and the play off game against the Falcons where when Wilson left the field he had orchestrated a huge come back and left the field with a lead.

R.W. does have almost as many "come back" wins as does Andrew Luck. That said, I am willing to bet Luck would rather have the defense Wilson gets to play with so that he too would have the luxury of not having to make a big "come back" every other game because his team's defense couldn't hold a lead.

So, all in all I have to agree with Monkey and Bob who say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Russell Wilson's game or even him being called a "game manager". I will take Wilson's game all day long as opposed to lets say Colin Kaepernick's game where he has to pull out all of those "Superman" moves because his team is down and mostly down because of his and his team mates mistakes and/or turn overs.

I mean, talking heads like Colin Cowturd have forever extolled how Tony Romo is such a great gunslinger QB but how many more games, especially play off games would the Cowboys have won if Romo would have learned a long time ago to play within himself??? Romo, last season said that he had finally learned that he didn't have to win games all by himself LOL Yeah, he said that and then still went out and self destructed and cost his team a play off berth that had appeared to be almost set in stone.

[I-5]

I think Eaglehawk nailed it....

'Game Manager = Meh'

When I think of a classic game manager who helped his team win, I think of Trent Dilfer. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, there's a HUGE difference between a Trent Dilfer and a Russell Wilson. All you have to do is think of plays like 4th and Long in the NFC championship game, or the comeback against the Falcons and Texans. Game managers don't do that. Playmakers do.

[RiverDog]

I like this thread. There's some good comments in it, like noting how Troy Aikman was a game manager, the effect fantasy football has on the infatuation with statistics people seem to have, etc.

I wouldn't have drafted, and won't draft, Russell Wilson onto my fantasy team. I'll take guys like Brees, Romo, and Stafford before I'd take Russell. They don't give you any points for winning.

[HumanCockroach]

As always with fantasy, each season is a product of itself. Wilson outscored Stafford last season, as well as Brees the season before. Points in fantasy for yardage is a bi product, rushing yardage and TD's are where points are scored, and Wilson consistently put up 20 or more points. Fantasy person could do worse. Investigate the scoring system before writing off Wilson is my advice. He scores a LOT more points than people think ( which IMHO is a BIG misperception that rolls from one to the other).

That said, perfectly content with a QB that wins, to one like Romo that puts up decent fantasy points, real life matters to me. Fantasy is a nice distraction, and has made me some decent money, but beyond that, meh.

[RiverDog]

As always with fantasy, each season is a product of itself. Wilson outscored Stafford last season, as well as Brees the season before. Points in fantasy for yardage is a bi product, rushing yardage and TD's are where points are scored, and Wilson consistently put up 20 or more points. Fantasy person could do worse. Investigate the scoring system before writing off Wilson is my advice. He scores a LOT more points than people think ( which IMHO is a BIG misperception that rolls from one to the other).

That said, perfectly content with a QB that wins, to one like Romo that puts up decent fantasy points, real life matters to me. Fantasy is a nice distraction, and has made me some decent money, but beyond that, meh.

My first ever forage into the world of fantasy football and I got my ass whooped by the guy that drafted Peyton Manning.

[I-5]

I learned the hard way not to draft Russell Wilson. He's not trying to rack up stats. He has the nerve to just win games! I got whupped by Romo too. Next year, I'm going for Brees, Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, and Tony.

[Zorn76]

Q: How many game managing QB's win Super Bowls?

A: Not many.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are the last ones to do so, in the truest sense of the word.

[RiverDog]

Q: How many game managing QB's win Super Bowls?

A: Not many.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are the last ones to do so, in the truest sense of the word.

There's also not many defense-orientated teams that win Super Bowls, either, and the Bucs and Ravens were the last two prior to the Hawks winning it this season.

HC pointed out that Troy Aikman could be considered a game manager QB, and I would tend to agree.

[Zorn76]

Q: How many game managing QB's win Super Bowls?

A: Not many.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are the last ones to do so, in the truest sense of the word.

There's also not many defense-orientated teams that win Super Bowls, either, and the Bucs and Ravens were the last two prior to the Hawks winning it this season.

HC pointed out that Troy Aikman could be considered a game manager QB, and I would tend to agree.

Well, it boils down to an individual's definition of "game manager."

I wouldn't categorize Aikman as a game manager, because he was too clutch for his career to be grouped that way. He made too many plays in big games. Again, game managing QB's, in my mind, are more about "not losing", and seldom are able to put their team on their shoulders and will them to victory, when necessary.

[RiverDog]

Q: How many game managing QB's win Super Bowls?

A: Not many.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer are the last ones to do so, in the truest sense of the word.

There's also not many defense-orientated teams that win Super Bowls, either, and the Bucs and Ravens were the last two prior to the Hawks winning it this season.

HC pointed out that Troy Aikman could be considered a game manager QB, and I would tend to agree.

Well, it boils down to an individual's definition of "game manager."

I wouldn't categorize Aikman as a game manager, because he was too clutch for his career to be grouped that way. He made too many plays in big games. Again, game managing QB's, in my mind, are more about "not losing", and seldom are able to put their team on their shoulders and will them to victory, when necessary.

Agreed.

Aikman set records for the most consecutive games w/o an interception, played with the benefit of a very good running game featuring one of the best OL's in the history of the game, and had the benefit of an excellent defense. He didn't often put up 400 yard games and played a lot like a game manager during those SB years. IMO there's a lot of similarities between Aikman and Russell in that he probably could have played the role of the 50 attempts a game, 400 yards and 4 TD quarterback if that's what was called for.

[HumanCockroach]

As always with fantasy, each season is a product of itself. Wilson outscored Stafford last season, as well as Brees the season before. Points in fantasy for yardage is a bi product, rushing yardage and TD's are where points are scored, and Wilson consistently put up 20 or more points. Fantasy person could do worse. Investigate the scoring system before writing off Wilson is my advice. He scores a LOT more points than people think ( which IMHO is a BIG misperception that rolls from one to the other).

That said, perfectly content with a QB that wins, to one like Romo that puts up decent fantasy points, real life matters to me. Fantasy is a nice distraction, and has made me some decent money, but beyond that, meh.

My first ever forage into the world of fantasy football and I got my ass whooped by the guy that drafted Peyton Manning.

Peytons season wasn't the norm, even for him. Drafted Stafford two seasons ago and couldn't even trade the guy for bench players. Every time you think you have a "sure thing" you get burned. Just the way fantasy works.which is why it is fantasy. Don't get to tied up in explosive numbers, you want a QB that you can consistently count on having good to great games week in and week out. Believe me, the guys that drafted Rodgers, would have LOVED to have Wilson, or Foles instead. There is more to it than just passing yards is all I am saying, and Wilson, while not throwing a ton, is effective regardless and not just in the real world.