Are QB mechanics really that important? A lesson from Packers QB coach Steve Mariucci that still applies now.

[Peppers90 NC]

im more concerned with his footwork inside the pocket moreso than throwing mechanics

[Smithers]

50 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Steve Young.

"Put a camera on my feet, and I will know what kind of game I played" 

- Steve Young

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, Smithers said:

"Put a camera on my feet, and I will know what kind of game I played" 

- Steve Young

Young is probably the truest "dual threat" I've seen.

The vast majority of dual threat QBs (Elway, for example) were generally decent to above-average passers. The best passers (like Rodgers) were only fair to moderate running threats.

Young is the one guy I can think of off the top of my head who was equally dangerous in both aspects. Second place might be Tarkenton.

[Smithers]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Young is probably the truest "dual threat" I've seen.

The vast majority of dual threat QBs (Elway, for example) were generally decent to above-average passers. The best passers (like Rodgers) were only fair to moderate running threats.

Young is the one guy I can think of off the top of my head who was equally dangerous in both aspects. Second place might be Tarkenton.

I agree...and I love that Young acknowledges that his footwork determines his passing accuracy more so than anything else.  

[panthers55]

The idea of learning good mechanics is to do the same thing over and over until it is second nature and part of muscle memory. What Norv talked about was actually better decision making and playing quicker regarding Cam. You can have unusual mechanics as long as the result is a consistent throw that gets where it supposed to go. 

Arnold Palmer had a very untraditional golf swing but he did the same thing every time and more than not he hit the fairway. So there was no need to change his swing because it worked for him and gave him consistent results. 

That is the problem for Cam. He doesn't produce consistent results. One week he threads the needle between 2 defenders and the next week misses a wide open receiver running 10 yards in front of him by a good 5 yards. He is wildly inconsistent. So that is why his mechanics are being discussed. 

[Saca312]

59 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

The idea of learning good mechanics is to do the same thing over and over until it is second nature and part of muscle memory. What Norv talked about was actually better decision making and playing quicker regarding Cam. You can have unusual mechanics as long as the result is a consistent throw that gets where it supposed to go. 

Arnold Palmer had a very untraditional golf swing but he did the same thing every time and more than not he hit the fairway. So there was no need to change his swing because it worked for him and gave him consistent results. 

That is the problem for Cam. He doesn't produce consistent results. One week he threads the needle between 2 defenders and the next week misses a wide open receiver running 10 yards in front of him by a good 5 yards. He is wildly inconsistent. So that is why his mechanics are being discussed. 

Now this take I can respect.

[Saca312]

4 hours ago, X-Clown said:

What exactly is this list of completion percentage supposed to prove?

That completion percentage =/= accuracy.

[BrianS]

17 minutes ago, Saca312 said:

That completion percentage =/= accuracy.

By definition, completion percentage does equate to accuracy.  If a ball is not accurate, generally it cannot be caught.  An accurate ball is caught, minus receiver error - aka drops.

I don't see how anyone can attempt to say Cam is not wildly inconsistent in his passing.  He is.  It's just a fact.

If Cam were consistently throwing good balls, no one would give a crap about his mechanics.  That's the point that Holmgren was really trying to make.  Not that mechanics were unimportant, but that as long as the QB is consistently giving his receivers a good ball to catch, does it matter how it gets there?  No!

If Cam threw it sideways and completed 65% of his passes, would anyone care?  Unlikely!

The conversation regarding Cam's mechanics is valid because he is under achieving with respect to his potential.

 

[X-Clown]

15 minutes ago, BrianS said:

By definition, completion percentage does equate to accuracy.  If a ball is not accurate, generally it cannot be caught.  An accurate ball is caught, minus receiver error - aka drops.

I don't see how anyone can attempt to say Cam is not wildly inconsistent in his passing.  He is.  It's just a fact.

If Cam were consistently throwing good balls, no one would give a crap about his mechanics.  That's the point that Holmgren was really trying to make.  Not that mechanics were unimportant, but that as long as the QB is consistently giving his receivers a good ball to catch, does it matter how it gets there?  No!

If Cam threw it sideways and completed 65% of his passes, would anyone care?  Unlikely!

The conversation regarding Cam's mechanics is valid because he is under achieving with respect to his potential.

 

Does that mean that Case Keenum, Alex Smith, and Josh McCown are all more accurate throwers of the football than Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers? Do Tom and Aaron need to work more on their mechanics to become elite like Case, Alex, and Josh?

 

[TheRed]

There's nothing wrong with discussing his mechanics or footwork. It's a valid concern. But you need proper perspective to form a judgment. When I say perspective I mean the fact that he is asked to do more in this offense than any other QB in the league. You can't judge on completion percentage alone and try to draw comparisons to QB's like Rodgers, Brady, and Brees. None of those QB's have as many designed runs as Cam or are used as a battering ram or asked to shoulder the run game when the running backs can't even muster 3 yards a carry. This takes a toll on anyone, he's human at the end of the day. When you add the inconsistencies along the OL to all the other factors, it's difficult to imagine he will suddenly develop picture perfect mechanics and footwork overnight. I think he can definitely improve, but you have to be realistic.

[ecu88]

38 minutes ago, TheRed said:

There's nothing wrong with discussing his mechanics or footwork. It's a valid concern. But you need proper perspective to form a judgment. When I say perspective I mean the fact that he is asked to do more in this offense than any other QB in the league. You can't judge on completion percentage alone and try to draw comparisons to QB's like Rodgers, Brady, and Brees. None of those QB's have as many designed runs as Cam or are used as a battering ram or asked to shoulder the run game when the running backs can't even muster 3 yards a carry. This takes a toll on anyone, he's human at the end of the day. When you add the inconsistencies along the OL to all the other factors, it's difficult to imagine he will suddenly develop picture perfect mechanics and footwork overnight. I think he can definitely improve, but you have to be realistic.

Great post but he is still MFing 

[RetiredCollegeCoach]

Excellent thread. "Mechanics" are mainly beloved by scouts, and scouts have a habit of latching onto anything that can make athletic performance seem more rational and standardizable than it actually is. A good coach works to improve habits, not "mechanics".

[panthers55]

2 hours ago, RetiredCollegeCoach said:

Excellent thread. "Mechanics" are mainly beloved by scouts, and scouts have a habit of latching onto anything that can make athletic performance seem more rational and standardizable than it actually is. A good coach works to improve habits, not "mechanics".

I get what you are trying to say and as I posted earlier, the issue isn't good mechanics or bad so much as producing a consistent swing, throw, kick with whatever mechanics you employ.  I agree with your observation that good habits are more important than mechanics in isolation. Because habits are more encompassing than simple mechanics.Yet if habits are defined as practiced behaviors performed consistently until they become second nature, then they share commonalities.  Good mechanics seems to be the result of practiced  consistent movements or actions designed to build muscle memory which usually increases your ability to produce a reproducible result.

[RetiredCollegeCoach]

7 minutes ago, panthers55 said:

I get what you are trying to say and as I posted earlier, the issue isn't good mechanics or bad so much as producing a consistent swing, throw, kick with whatever mechanics you employ.  I agree with your observation that good habits are more important than mechanics in isolation. Because habits are more encompassing than simple mechanics.Yet if habits are defined as practiced behaviors performed consistently until they become second nature, then they share commonalities.  Good mechanics seems to be the result of practiced  consistent movements or actions designed to build muscle memory which usually increases your ability to produce a reproducible result.

I would put it this way: Any which way a guy throws a ball is his "mechanics" of throwing it. If he's throwing well, his mechanics are good. He's practiced it a hell of a lot already, and it's working for him - let him keep practicing it instead of trying to force him into some new prescribed motion that may feel artificial for his body.

Hell, after years of sports science, we still barely understand what we call "arm strength" (in the sense that it applies for a quarterback or a pitcher). We have an idea that it's complicated and has to do with tendons, their length, where and how they attach - but we don't have the whole picture. I tend to think that it's often best to trust a man who's been throwing a ball and inhabiting his own body for his whole life to know the best way to use his own body to throw.

That said, I have never coached on that side of the ball - I have trusted a lot to others over the years on this front.