What is the definition of a Game Manager?

Limit turnovers, takes the check down throw rather than forcing something, gets the ball to people in space, reads defenses well, and audibles into (not out of) advantageous situations. Like the coach on the field comment as well. A GM needs to pick up and calm down a team when necessary.

 
A game manager is someone that doesn't have the best abilities, so they are pretty much forced to run a ball control offense, attempting to reduce turnovers, while chewing the clock and keeping your defense off the field. A game manager isn't a game breaker, he doesn't have the ability to chuck a 45 yard strike anytime he drops back. Basically, a game manager is asked not to lose his team the game. Prime example of a game manager is Zac Lee and the role we tried to put him in, in 09. He wasn't too good at it, but the point is that we weren't asking him to make plays to win us the game. We were simply running an offense that wouldn't put him in a position to make costly mistakes, while our defense dominated.

The common theme with game manager quarterbacks is that in order for it to be successful, you must have a stout defense.

 
knapplc said:
Enhance89 said:
I've always found the term game manager a bit superfluous. Peyton Manning is a great game manager. Drew Brees is a great game manager. Tom Brady is a great game manager. The only distinction people make between a "game manager" and quarterbacks like these three is that they can make almost any throw. It's a ridiculous term when all of these guys are great game managers, but characteristic apparently separates them entirely.
Click to expand...
It's one of those phrases that doesn't mean what it says, at least not as specifically as you're defining it. I agree that most times Brees and Manning are good game managers, but in the football lexicon, "game manager" means not just what those guys do, but a guy who does things safely, not aggressively, and whose primary job is to not lose.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make any sense, at least not to me, though. Every single descriptor given in this thread to define a "game manager" perfectly describes elite NFL quarterbacks. Even if said examples are more "aggressive", it's not like they're creating drastic amounts of turnovers in comparison to the "safe" quarterbacks.

I obviously can't deny it's use, because everybody uses it in the manner you're describing, but it's still a ridiculous and superfluous term. Or, it's a nice way of beating around the bush when characterizing a given player's abilities.

 
accountability said:
Game manager= "____________ sucks be we can't exactly say that on tv/radio, hence he's a great game manager"
Click to expand...
This is essentially my point concerning the "game manager" tag. It's a nicer way of saying you're good but not that good. Just come out and say it.

 
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but to me the quintessential "game manager" is Trent Dilfer circa 2000. He wasn't good, he just wasn't bad. He did enough to score a few points and then let the defense win the game.

 
knapplc said:
Maybe I'm the crazy one, but to me the quintessential "game manager" is Trent Dilfer circa 2000. He wasn't good, he just wasn't bad. He did enough to score a few points and then let the defense win the game.
Click to expand...
In this case, I agree with the theme of what you're saying just not the term used to describe it. Obviously, I'm in the minority in this instance, but it's one of those terms that when I hear it, I can't help but ask 'what the hell does that even mean?' There's levels of quarterback play, and some are clearly better than others.

The concept of the term is my problem. The fact that people have to put it in quotations degrades its use even further, imho. Similar to what accountability said, I think it's a passive-aggressive way of saying you're good but not that good.

 
I agree that it's a backhanded compliment. It's never given to someone as a way to describe their merits.

 
Game manager: The drunken Husker fan who has just witnessed a Nebraska loss and puts in the latest copy of NCAA Football into the Xbox or PS3 and then demolishes the team that Nebraska lost to in real life.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance89 said:
I've always found the term game manager a bit superfluous. Peyton Manning is a great game manager. Drew Brees is a great game manager. Tom Brady is a great game manager. The only distinction people make between a "game manager" and quarterbacks like these three is that they can make almost any throw. It's a ridiculous term when all of these guys are great game managers, but one characteristic apparently separates them entirely from the 'game manager' tag.
Click to expand...

nope, these guys aren't game managers, they are franchise players.

 
I got to admit. I got more good knowledgeable comments in this topic than I ever thought I would. My faith in Huskerboard is renewed! I even +1'd a guy. I agree precisely with what most all of you are saying, but it's funny because I also see the term misused in my opinion. It's funny how many different definitions everybody has of the term. I have heard people say it and I say, what the hell are they talking about? I do not think the term applies to guys like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or Drew Brees though. None of the elite in college or pro are game managers. To me, game managers do just enough to win. Those guys do it all. They are game winners.

 
I would agree with most of the prior posts. While I don't really have a good definition of the term to share, it is my belief that as I have seen the term "game manager" used, it is reserved for someone who doesn't hurt you but won't necessarily do anything spectacular to win the game either. He'll keep you in good down and distance situations for the most part and leave the key plays up to other players or the defense. That is primarily why I do not really like to see Martinez referred to as a game manager and also why I don't want him to be only a game manager. I would gladly trade a few turnovers or miscues for some of the brilliant running he exhibited early in his career. I would also trade a few picks for a thrower that could stretch the field and be a real dual threat but that is just wishful thinking. My example of a game manager is Kyle Orton when he was with the Broncos. He really didn't hurt them and wasn't their glaring problem but he sure wasn't going to win any games for them either. Unfortunately I think that is what Taylor became this season.

 
I think the distinction is:

* "Managing the Game" is part of a QB's skillset. It is part of being a QB.

* It isn't the only part of being a QB. There are a lot of other things that go into it. Mechanics, ability to make the throws,arm strength, speed, etc, etc, etc.

-> A "game manager" stands out in the first category, but does not stand out in the second category.

The best QBs will have both. However, if you had to pick one or the other, the first one dominates in importance. That's why "game manager" is a frequently used term as a compliment. Acknowledging that the QB has weaknesses, but not in the most important area.

The opposite, I don't know if there's a term for it. Maybe a "Jamarcus Russell."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top