Distributors and Managers

It’s simply amazing how the majority of college football doesn’t get quarterbacks. The concept of a pocket passer is simply too great to break for the traditionalists who enjoy the game for it's bypassed purity. All year long we hear about how great someone is at “distributing the ball” and “managing the game” and yet, for the life of me, I’ve never seen a quarterback do both of those things simultaneously. The general consensus says, if you get the ball to your playmakers (a distributor) you're great, and if you manage the game (a manager) you aren't losing the game, which, although kind, is less than great. It's easy to get the simplicity of the argument, but I disagree wholeheartedly with it. I think managers are great, and I think distributors are posers.

Distributors are wonderful to have on a team, but by no means are they necessary for a teams’ success. Case one is Kellen Moore of Boise State. He’s a fine distributor, but against quality defenses, namely TCU and Oregon, he’s thrown seven interceptions. He’s simply put, more a decent quarterback with nice fundamentals than he is a gamebreaker. Colt McCoy, case two, conversely, has won two games decided by three points or less, but in games decided in the waning seconds of regulation, he’s thrown an interception in a loss (Texas Tech) and mismanaged the clock (against Nebraska) on route to a fortuitous victory. He gets ahead of himself when it matters, and it’s why he lost the Heisman. Sam Bradford, case three, has lost every game decided by three points or less. And he won the Heisma

n.

Managers, however, get the job done. And they do it well. People have asked me what I mean by this and I say it’s obvious when you see it. Andrew Luck is a manager. Greg McElroy is a manager. Tim Tebow is a manager. And Jeremiah Masoli is a manager. They get the crucial wins, and are pivotal to how a team performs. They have “it.” Stanford will be without Luck for their match-up with Oklahoma in the Sun Bowl. Chalk that up as a loss for the Cardinal. Tim Tebow has never lost a game decided by three points or less. He always is in the know, and is widely considered a coach on the field. So is Greg McElroy who hasn’t ever lost a game in his life. That’s simply outstanding. Chalk them up for wins. And Masoli is, simply put, a winner as well. He too has never lost a game decided by three points or less. He just gets it done, particularly when it matters most (during the Civil War, at the end of the Oregon-Arizona game). If it's a closer game in the Rose Bowl than people imagine it will be (which undoubtedly, given Oregon fans' enthusiasm, it will be), Masoli provides the difference, typically, ensuring the win.

Have you ever seen Moore, McCoy or Bradford will their team to wins like Masoli has? No. Nor have I.

The common misconception, of course, is that fundamentals win games. People love to ascribe to this myth, particularly in the Midwest, and so players like Kellen Moore, Colt McCoy and Sam Bradford are fun to watch. But what happens when the play is broken for Texas? Where does McCoy scramble to? He doesn’t. He gets sacked by Ndamukong Suh. What about Boise State? Where does Moore go? He goes belly up against TCU’s Stephen Hodge or Jerry Hughes. None of these players get it done against quality defenses. Bradford gets hurt, twice in a year, proving he’s got more carbon filament in his body than a rusty, bent rod of wrought iron steel.

And it simply amazes me that those three names are always in the Heisman discussion. They're not needed in the argument; the players are empty space taking up seats others are more deserving of. How often has a Heisman-winning quarterback won the championship game? Never? How often is "efficiency" the best barometer for greatness? Rarely? Thus, my argument in two questions answered is thus: distributors? They can take home the trophies. Managers? They win the fucking game.

Long live McElroy, Tebow, Masoli and Luck. To the victors, go the spoils.