What does “game manager” truly mean?

[csx]

31 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

If you look at the game, he still leans gunslinger. It's just who he is. 

But he is a relatively low TO gunslinger. If you look at the QB school tape, you will remember those couple of dropped INT's from the Raiders game. It could have been a less stellar game if those guys make those plays. 

 There are always near interceptions for any qb

[rayzor]

1 hour ago, csx said:

Bill says the key to their success was Brady's ability to manage the game. You don't always have great plays but preventing bad plays is what defined him.

Fans and coaches have much different thoughts on what it means.

Game manager is more difficult and should be sought after than big play maker who makes as many bad plays too. A guy like Mahomes would not win if he wasn't first able to manage

i think my definition is more on par with bill's and i think  the same thing. it's not a bad thing. it's a great quality to have. it's what you need. anything extra is gravy, but they have to be able to do that first. 

gunslingers and big play makers are good, but that isn't the majority of what they actually do. 

if you can't be a game manager, you aren't likely to have a long life in the league. i think the great thing about being a manager is that you force the team to function as a team at a high level if you are going to win. doesn't require the team to be carried by just one person.

i mean it's great if you got a QB that can carry the team on their back, but they shouldn't have to. the team should pull it's own weight. counting on and expecting your QB to win games is just lazy team building and coaching. having a bog playmaking QB allows some who coach and GM to coast in their job. 

[kungfoodude]

23 minutes ago, X-Clown said:

Agree with all of this - and I'd also say that if you put a game manager as QB of a team's supporting cast that is below average their flaws get exposed. To me Jimmy Garoppolo is a the perfect example of a game manager. Put him on a team like the 49ers where he can do a lot of handing off and throwing short passes to guys like Deebo, Kittle, and CMC who get chunk plays because of YAC, and having a strong defense to take pressure off of him, and his win-loss record looks great. Then you put him on a team like the Raiders last year and it completely went off the rails for him.

And Jimmy ended up being a huge liability everywhere because he committed the unforgivable sin of a game manager all too often.....turn the ball over(TD:TO ratio close to 1:1) . And he usually did it at crippling times.

[kungfoodude]

26 minutes ago, csx said:

 There are always near interceptions for any qb

Gunslingers always tote higher INT's. They gamble big. Hence the name.

[mav1234]

I think people use game manager in a few different ways.  So I think it's always hard to have these conversations lol.

One is contrasted with gunslinger and refers to the style of play. The game manager isn't flashy but limits mistakes and is highly consistent. They are reliable, and that isn't to say they can't make plays to win games, but their general style tends towards taking what they can get rather than risking the big play when it might mean a critical turnover. In this context, it isn't really a comment on the quality of the player.

Another way is contrasted to a franchise QB, implying that the player may be good enough to win some things, but can still be upgraded. In this context, implies the player is worse than what an organization would ideally want if it were to consider the QB position settled. 

Another refers to a player that reads the game and plays according to what's necessary. This is often just said as managing the game rather than as a game manager. Brady is famous for managing games VERY well, but save for a few early seasons it's hard to fit him into other definitions of the term.

One final way is kinda a mix of the above and is used to refer to a QB that isn't going to win you a Superbowl. Definitely a comment on ability.  Often on play style, too, implying a degree of risk adverse play.

[CPF4LIFE]

The dalton we got Sunday was not a game manager. That was a pro bowl QB, now is that gonna continue? We will have to see. 

 

[Waldo]

Good enough to start, good enough to win with but not a difference maker when the team has to lean on them. Don't turn the ball over often and makes good decisions on the field. 

 

[PNW_PantherMan]

Brock Purdy is the best game manager playing right now.  He plays within the system and is completely dependent on his playmakers.

[Panthers Rhule]

6 hours 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? 

I've always thought what we now call a game manager is actually just a QB. That's the way QBs had always played. Gunslingers are in this category too imo. They are game managers who sometimes just let it fly better than the others. Big arms and not afraid. The Mobile QBs are in this group too. They also manage the game but out of the pocket mostly. Then the scrambling QBs as well. They manage the game focused on the ground. 

Basically, all QBs are game managers because that's what the QB is supposed to be. If a QB can't manage the game he shouldn't be playing QB. Us Panthers' fans all know this to be true.