What is the definition of a Game Manager?

game/gām/

Noun: A form of play or sport, esp. a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck. Adjective:

  • Eager and willing to do something new or challenging: "they were game for anything".
  • (of a person's leg) Permanently injured; lame.


 

 

 

man·ag·er/ˈmanijər/

 



Noun:

  • A person responsible for controlling or administering all or part of a company or similar organization: "the sales manager".
  • A person who controls the activities, business dealings, and other aspects of the career of an entertainer, athlete, group of musicians,...


 

 

Probably a combination of the two.

 
I think game manager is kinda what you call a solid QB that you know you can trust to not lose the game for you. The very good QB's surpass this title because they go beyond the manager role and impact the game. The game manager is like the steady eddy employee who is trusted and respected for the role they play but they will not get promoted to the next level.

 
Do we want a "game manager" or somebody that the opposing defense is legitimately afraid of?

I'm not sure a game manager necessarily works within the context of the offense we're trying to run. If we were running a pro-style offense, a game manager type QB would be more suited to the role.

 
walksalone said:
Do we want a "game manager" or somebody that the opposing defense is legitimately afraid of?

I'm not sure a game manager necessarily works within the context of the offense we're trying to run. If we were running a pro-style offense, a game manager type QB would be more suited to the role.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think a game manager would be perfect.

Someone to distribute the ball to various playmakers. An offense built around a powerful run-blocking OL and the clock control ground game. A stifling defense on the other side of the ball.

Obviously we'll take more when we can.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
greenmonkey51 said:
They won't lose the game for you, but they also won't win the game for you.
Click to expand...
True more than I'd like to admit...

zoogies said:
Actually, I think a game manager would be perfect.

Someone to distribute the ball to various playmakers. An offense built around a powerful run-blocking OL and the clock control ground game. A stifling defense on the other side of the ball.

Obviously we'll take more when we can.
Click to expand...
True, but then isn't it a kind of a waste of talent? A bit like having a Porsche in the garage but taking the VW to work.

I'm all in with you on the run blocking O line, clock control, and a stifling defense. But having that weapon at QB that forces the opponents to have to game plan more to stop them, allowing your other playmakers to do damage.

 
The Maudfather said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is the best definition I would cite for a "game manager".

When it comes down to "what kind of quarterback do I want at Nebraska", I do not want a game-manager, I want a game-breaker. Someone that the defense has to account for at all times. Someone that can get his teamates involved and still be a threat himself. Someone that if the defense puts a spy on, or two spies, it will free another playmaker up on the field somewhere, and it's essentially a pick your posion of what you want to stop.

Just look at all the game-breaking quarterbacks we had in the past that defenses had to account for: Lord, Crouch, Frost, Frazier, Gill. Those are the types of quarterback we need. Granted, Lord was not the best thrower of the bunch, but he was a heullva athlete and our only option for quarterback with little talent around him. W

We need to get guys in recruiting that have "similar traits" to: Bubba Starling,. Carl Crawford, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, Steve McNair type quarterbacks. We have Brion Carnes and we do go after dual threat quarterbacks, and I hope it stays that way.

A game manager would be Zac Lee, and Cody Green's role in 2010. A game manager may not get you that big play, but he won't lose big yards to make dumb plays that will cost you.

I think Taylor made a LOT of strides last year, and I was please to see him grow into the role. But, he's still "learning the position".

While defense may keep an eye on Taylor, he didn't have many game-breaking plays as I thought he would. He has absolutely amazing acceleration going north & south, but laterally, I don't think he has that same speed or awareness/acceleration. This is not a knock on Taylor, but just more of an observation. I would like to see him make plays with his feet on 3rd and 8 if no one is open. I want to see him scramble and get those yards, and get tough yards when needed. There were times he could have taken off and got the first down, instead of throwing a dangerous pass. I think he needs to work on his "open field" moves and making the first guy miss & I don't think that' gets talked about enough.

Some of that could be by design. He may have been told not to scramble as much because of the depth issue. He just doesn't look comfortable when no one is open and trys to find the first down with his legs, but rather, he forces passes

On the option game he seems hesitant, but I will give him some slack there, he probably hasn't ran a whole lot of option before. I think he needs to be more aggressive taking it up-field, and make the defense comitt to one or the other. But again that takes a ton of practice and experience, especially for someone that is very, very, new to the option game, more so than anything else.

When it comes to the zone read, and he keeps it up the middle, he is absolutely a magician, and I think one of the very best to hold the ball in the belly of the running back before pulling it out. A prime example of that is the Ohio State game, and what he did in 2010. He showed flashes of it in 2011, but no real long touchdown runs.

Which is why running a shotgun-spread style Florida or Oregon offense would be best suited to run, with I-Formation and Diamond sets mixed in. I hope we are headed that direction.

I don't want to turn this into a Taylor thread, but those are just my observations on what I see as Taylor the "Game manager" and how I want to see Taylor as the "Game-breaker".

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would agree with those who do not want a mere game manager at quarterback. It is simply a participation ribbon type of accolade bestowed on a QB who the defense does not have to account for. Throughout modern Husker history, our greatest teams had outstanding athletes at QB, not mere game managers. Of course those great teams also had outstanding line play and suffocating defense. Right now we're running a deficit in all 3 areas.

 
Enhance89 said:
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.
Click to expand...
BINGO

When are the most numerative times you hear the term being used? Mostly in pregame analysis of a matchup. Mr tv commentator or radio guy is in a position of trying to hype up the upcoming matchup or current topic. Well so and so aint very good but they cant say that because it was detract some limelight away from the matchup, so they come up with the term "game manager" It is a bogus term in my mind and it means absolutely nothing. tv commentator thinking > "he cant run, he cant throw very well. Doesnt make very good decisions. inexperience. Oh yeah, he's good at managing the game" :rolleyes:

Not to mention being a game manager should have nothing to do with the players. It's the coach's responsibilities to manage and plan and put the guys in situations to succeed. The players? It's their job to take advantage of that management and make the necassary plays. The talk of Dilfer and Lee, they were put in the roles they played and it was their job to conduct that role in a successful manner. It was a decision made for the betterment of the team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't mean nothing, it means the player isn't an athlete or necessarily very talented/skilled, but uses awareness of the game to get by. It's short hand for describing "he's a little limited, but they play within those constraints."

It's the exact opposite of a raw, green, unpolished talent. I suppose the common term there is "He's just a freshman" ;)

It's sort of like the large, slow guy whom you think you can run circles around, but hands your a$$ to you in a pickup soccer or ultimate match, just from a superior savvy for playing the game. Or the running back who doesn't have an extra gear but is "steady and reliable" for gaining a few tough inside yards - yeah, that guy who can carry the load, at a consistent 3.5 ypc. It may be backhanded, a little, but it certainly isn't meaningless and just describes the how and the extent to which the player can hurt the other team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
By that definition, zoogies, would Steve Largent be a prototypical "game manager" version of a Wide Receiver? Too slow, too unathletic to play WR, but ended up in the Hall because he just kept working at it?

Is a game manager a "Plugger?" Someone who isn't flashy, but just keeps plugging away?

For a baseball equivalent, what about Greg Maddux? Never flashy, never overpowering, just a solid innings-eater. Nibbled the corners, forced ground balls, and won far more games than it seemed like he should? Is that a good analogy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a game manager is a guy that can control the game by going conservitive or by game breaking abilities. It just depends on what is needed to be done at a specific time in the game. Whether your up by 14 and need to run the clock out or your down by 14 and need to score.

At first, I thought it was a reference to a guy that is not overly athletic but can get the job done, but then when I look at a guy like RGIII, I think he is a great game manager just by how he gets things done and doesn't really hurt the team by doing them and he is VERY athletic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it is incorrect to imply that any "game manager" must have limited abilities. (althought this seems to now be the catch-all phrase for those who aren't especially gifted)

There have been numerous great managers who also had tremendous skill sets..........see examples listed in prior posts.

I think any game manager knows HIS limits.................and manages the game within the parameters of those particular skills, however high or low they fall on the scale.

 
zoogies said:
walksalone said:
Do we want a "game manager" or somebody that the opposing defense is legitimately afraid of?

I'm not sure a game manager necessarily works within the context of the offense we're trying to run. If we were running a pro-style offense, a game manager type QB would be more suited to the role.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think a game manager would be perfect.

Someone to distribute the ball to various playmakers. An offense built around a powerful run-blocking OL and the clock control ground game. A stifling defense on the other side of the ball.

Obviously we'll take more when we can.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think a game manager fits well within what Beck is trying to do. We have the weapons around Martinez, we don't need Martinez to be brilliant, we just need him to not f' up. Look at Todd Reesing...game manager. 2007 was his "true" sophomore year. He had no starts under his belt (or maybe 1 as a true freshman), completely unexperienced, wasn't exactly the most athletic guy on the field...but he managed the game and led KU to 11 wins.

I'd take a game manager over the T-Mart of early 2010 any day of the week. You can shut down a single playmaker, it's difficult to shut down a guy who's sole purpose on the field is distribute the ball to 5-6 other playmakers. We have 5-6 other guys on this offense that are playmakers. T-Mart can be the best playmaker on the team, but if he can't distribute the ball to the other 5-6...we are operating at about 20% of our potential. We see that in games like Texas 2010, or Washington 2.0.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top