What does “game manager” truly mean?

[Gapanthersfan]

I’m tired of hearing it in the media. It’s the sanitation engineer nomenclature (my Big Lebowski reference of the day) way of saying garbage man. 

Seriously, all QBs are tasked with managing games. To not be the reason for a loss. It’s really just another way to say dude is decent, but doesn’t make big plays or elevate his teammates level of play consistently so… you’re essentially calling him a JAG in a nice way.  You’re saying that he doesn’t make big time throws in big time situations. His job is to let playmakers make it work, and don’t be the reason why the team loses… so a JAG. 

So what do we call the next level of play? Gamer seems fitting? 

[Jon Snow]

Andy Dalton would qualify as a game manager. 

[rayzor]

they keep the ball moving forward. not typically known as a big play guy. definitely not a gun slinger. 

i don't think of it as a bad thing. could also consider it a field general. nothing flashy, they just get the job done. 

[KSpan]

Game manager is a term that implies doing only the baseline QB functions without having ability to create plays/dynamically impact the game/elevate the team on their own. Generally considered a negative since the QB is the most important position on he field. 

[Gapanthersfan]

I’m not speaking of Andy, or any specific one in the league, at all. I’m just waxing philosophical this morning over something completely pointless, and this came to mind. So far, although the sample size is small, it’s going as I suspected. Everyone has their own definition, mostly. For some it’s subjective, others it’s more objective. Perhaps why this is frequently a contested tooic?

Criteria for what we consider of a JAG falls right  in line with what we also call a game manager. Do your job, don’t lose the game with screw ups, let your better skilled teammates make the plays that win the game. It’s the same thing, but rarely a title used with QBs. Is it out of some sort of respect, or just tradition, or is there something I’m missing. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Gapanthersfan

[KSpan]

2 minutes ago, Gapanthersfan said:

I’m not speaking of Andy, or any specific one in the league, at all. I’m just waxing philosophical this morning over something completely pointless, and this came to mind. So far, although the sample size is small, it’s going as I suspected. Everyone has their own definition, mostly. For some it’s subjective, others it’s more objective. Perhaps why this is frequently a contested tooic?

Criteria for what we consider of a JAG falls right  in line with what we also call a game manager. Do your job, don’t lose the game with screw ups, let your better skilled teammates make the plays that win the game. It’s the same thing, but rarely a title used with QBs. Is it out of some sort of respect, or just tradition, or is there something I’m missing. 

IMO, JAG and game manager are two separate things. JAG implies 100% replaceable talent/performance level while game manager describes how they play the game and the limitations thereof. There are few true games managers in the league at the moment, with guys like Teddy, Tyrod, Alex Smith, and perhaps Purdue falling into that category; that lack of dynamism is generally not accepted at the QB position. 

There are also plenty of guys that aren't very good but can still push the ball and make plays at times, just not consistently enough to differentiate from the next crop. Those are the JAGs.

[PantherChris]

42 minutes ago, Jon Snow said:

Andy Dalton would qualify as a game manager. 

I disagree Dalton has always had a bit of gunslinger in him

[kungfoodude]

43 minutes ago, Gapanthersfan said:

I’m tired of hearing it in the media. It’s the sanitation engineer nomenclature (my Big Lebowski reference of the day) way of saying garbage man. 

Seriously, all QBs are tasked with managing games. To not be the reason for a loss. It’s really just another way to say dude is decent, but doesn’t make big plays or elevate his teammates level of play consistently so… you’re essentially calling him a JAG in a nice way.  You’re saying that he doesn’t make big time throws in big time situations. His job is to let playmakers make it work, and don’t be the reason why the team loses… so a JAG. 

So what do we call the next level of play? Gamer seems fitting? 

Basically a guy that is typically charged with limiting turnovers and making plays inside the scheme of the offense. Also not typically a guy that is capable of elevating the players around him but rather vice versa. It's often thrown a lot at less physically gifted QB's but I think that is generally inaccurate. It's not what your ceiling is physically, it's how you generally perform on the field.

In short, a guy that isn't going to be the sole reason you win games very often but shouldn't be the sole reason you lose games either.

 

[kungfoodude]

6 minutes ago, KSpan said:

IMO, JAG and game manager are two separate things. JAG implies 100% replaceable talent/performance level while game manager describes how they play the game and the limitations thereof. There are few true games managers in the league at the moment, with guys like Teddy, Tyrod, Alex Smith, and perhaps Purdue falling into that category; that lack of dynamism is generally not accepted at the QB position. 

There are also plenty of guys that aren't very good but can still push the ball and make plays at times, just not consistently enough to differentiate from the next crop. Those are the JAGs.

A good current example would be a guy like Brissett. He is a very classic game manager type.

[Navy_football]

There are levels of game manager. But yes, a game manager gets the ball to his playmakers (point guard). I don't think it's a negative at all. That's what the position calls for. Some can do it at a high level - Brady, Brees, Marino, etc.

Then you have playmakers that extend plays or even run to create something out of nothing. We had one of the best ever, and decided to surround him with JAGs at receiver and a bad oline because he was so dynamic. I guess it's a blessing and a curse. 

[kungfoodude]

5 minutes ago, PantherChris said:

I disagree Dalton has always had a bit of gunslinger in him

Dalton is not a game manager. He was a multi-Pro Bowl player with the ability to elevate play around him but not consistently. He is very much in the Baker Mayfield-ish gunslinged mold(or rather Baker is in the Dalton mold, really).

Both of them are on the lower end of the TO prone spectrum for a true gunslinger. The Favre-esque guys like Winston/Howell are on the high TO side of that, as an example.

[kungfoodude]

3 minutes ago, Navy_football said:

There are levels of game manager. But yes, a game manager gets the ball to his playmakers (point guard). I don't think it's a negative at all. That's what the position calls for. Some can do it at a high level - Brady, Brees, Marino, etc.

Then you have playmakers that extend plays or even run to create something out of nothing. We had one of the best ever, and decided to surround him with JAGs at receiver and a bad oline because he was so dynamic. I guess it's a blessing and a curse. 

I would disagree on Brady/Brees/Marino. Those are elite guys because they were capable of elevating play around them on a consistent basis. That puts them out of the game manager category for me.

[Jon Snow]

22 minutes ago, PantherChris said:

I disagree Dalton has always had a bit of gunslinger in him

Not at this stage in his career.

[PantherChris]

Just now, Jon Snow said:

Not at this stage in his career.

Still disagree as most will.