The brilliance of Philip Rivers

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

And I thought it was because he is slow ploding painful to watch and has a long neck...


But sometimes Rivers is like this,

[Stinky Wizzleteats+]

For Mr Hoarse and Supercharger...

[Steve]

I think part of the issue with Rivers is that it is difficult to use the usual discriptions about him, because there really aren't any other players like him. The two closest similarities are Fouts and Dan Marino. Both were slow, but had good quickness in their drops. None of the 3 looks very smooth, or effortless in their drops. All of them are sort of ungainly (Fouts most of all), but they moved around fairly well in the pocket and could deliver the ball even as the pressure collapsed the pocket. People like to call all of them for their lack of athleticism/not being athletic, it's just that it is not quite right.

While I am ranting, the other thing I always hate is when people knock Rivers arm strength. I know he doesn't have a rocket for an arm, but the guy gets knocked a lot and mostly what I think it is is that Rivers always seems to know how much touch to put on the pass. A lot of really strong armed guys tend to throw lasers on every down, but then the ball never gets out of reach of the LB, or is coming in so hard the receiver can't handle it. Rivers has a knack or ability to get the ball there in just the right combination of arc and power. Enough arc that it is usually just away from the DB, enough power to get it in the window in time. And because of it, I think people assume he can't throw hard because he doesn't do it. But there is a difference between not throwing hard and not being able to. Every once ina while Rivers does throw a hard pass that gets there in a hurry, he just doesn't do it very often.

[Antonio's Gates]

Rivers has one of the best deep balls in the nfl. That pass to malcom last week was perfect. Not many qbs can make that accurate of a throw downfield, even ones with more power in their arms than rivers.

[thelightningwill]

I think part of the issue with Rivers is that it is difficult to use the usual discriptions about him, because there really aren't any other players like him. The two closest similarities are Fouts and Dan Marino. Both were slow, but had good quickness in their drops. None of the 3 looks very smooth, or effortless in their drops. All of them are sort of ungainly (Fouts most of all), but they moved around fairly well in the pocket and could deliver the ball even as the pressure collapsed the pocket. People like to call all of them for their lack of athleticism/not being athletic, it's just that it is not quite right.

While I am ranting, the other thing I always hate is when people knock Rivers arm strength. I know he doesn't have a rocket for an arm, but the guy gets knocked a lot and mostly what I think it is is that Rivers always seems to know how much touch to put on the pass. A lot of really strong armed guys tend to throw lasers on every down, but then the ball never gets out of reach of the LB, or is coming in so hard the receiver can't handle it. Rivers has a knack or ability to get the ball there in just the right combination of arc and power. Enough arc that it is usually just away from the DB, enough power to get it in the window in time. And because of it, I think people assume he can't throw hard because he doesn't do it. But there is a difference between not throwing hard and not being able to. Every once ina while Rivers does throw a hard pass that gets there in a hurry, he just doesn't do it very often.

I agree with all this except for the part about Fouts dropping back quickly. Maybe that was true early in his career, but, later, when he had trouble with his legs, every step back looked slow and painful. Fortunately, like Rivers, he had one of the quickest releases of all time.

But, then again, you only said that Fouts had quickness in his drops. He was pretty good at dropping the ball. Not sure if he still has the team record for fumbles. I think, at one time, he had the league record for QB fumbles. Fortunately, Dave Krieg came and obliterated that record not long after Fouts retired.

Both Fouts and Rivers had a lot of touch to their passes - Rivers's touch passes have a lot better spirals though. Fouts was accurate as fuck - dude and his receivers were the masters of the timing pass - I don't think Winslow and Joiner cared if the ball was wobbly. Marino threw more rockets than Fouts and Rivers did/do, but, like you said, Rivers can dart the ball if he needs to.

[thelightningwill]

Rivers has one of the best deep balls in the nfl. That pass to malcom last week was perfect. Not many qbs can make that accurate of a throw downfield, even ones with more power in their arms than rivers.

I agree.

[Panama]

Okay.

Technically, the word "okay" is not a word. The term that has come to be used as a synonym of "all right" is "OK," derived from a fad around Boston and New York circa 1838-39 of abbreviating intentional misspellings of common phrases, such as "NC" for "nuff ced," "KG" for "know go," "KY" for "know yuse," and "OK" for "oll korrect." "OK" probably survived the others due to being popularised during Martin Van Buren's failed presidential campaign of 1840, as New York boosters formed an "OK Club," referring to Van Buren's nickname, "Old Kinderhook."

It is only in recent decades that some people have attempted to spell the word "okay." It is believed that this derives from Woodrow Wilson's use of the term "okeh" in 1919 under the erroneous belief that its derivation is Choctaw. The spelling "okay" first made its appearance in 1929, and "okey" in 1932, but these alternate -- and incorrect -- spellings all stem from attempts to make the word something it isn't.

OK?

[thelightningwill]

Technically, the word "okay" is not a word. The term that has come to be used as a synonym of "all right" is "OK," derived from a fad around Boston and New York circa 1838-39 of abbreviating intentional misspellings of common phrases, such as "NC" for "nuff ced," "KG" for "know go," "KY" for "know yuse," and "OK" for "oll korrect." "OK" probably survived the others due to being popularised during Martin Van Buren's failed presidential campaign of 1840, as New York boosters formed an "OK Club," referring to Van Buren's nickname, "Old Kinderhook."

It is only in recent decades that some people have attempted to spell the word "okay." It is believed that this derives from Woodrow Wilson's use of the term "okeh" in 1919 under the erroneous believe that its derivation is Choctaw. The spelling "okay" first made its appearance in 1929, and "okey" in 1932, but these alternate -- and incorrect -- spellings all stem from attempts to make the word something it isn't.

OK?

OK can be confused with a certain state with a certain prowess for producing dumb ex jocks. So I prefer "okay" - less confusing.

But thank you for the etymology. I did not know all that.

By the way, it is not okay to start a sentence with "but". It is a conjuction - like "or" and "and" and you can't very well conjoin anything at the beginning of a sentence. "However" would have been a finer choice on my part.

"And" now everybody knows my thoughts on "athleticism." It's a fucking unclean word.

Sorry I hurt some feelings or bored some people. Just know I detest the fucking word. There are other "ex-jock" words and cliches I can't stand, but I think athleticism is on the top of my list. Yes, unfortunately, I was wrong on my original point - athleticism is, most definitely, a word. But I don't think that was ever my problem with it - I use non-words quite a bit. Plus, I love rap music, which includes a plethora of non-words. My problem with "athleticism" and "athlete" in general is that some douche is getting paid a lot more than I ever did as a journalist to state the obvious - a football player is an athlete - no fucking duh. It's almost as bad as when John Madden used to get paid to tell us that a football player was a football player. Try giving us some details and specifics. And, now, I won't bring it up again.

The main point is Rivers is king.

Go Chargers.

[Panama]

OK can be confused with a certain state with a certain prowess for producing dumb ex jocks. So I prefer "okay" - less confusing.

But thank you for the etymology. I did not know all that.

By the way, it is not okay to start a sentence with "but". "However" would have been a finer choice on my part.

And now everybody knows my thoughts on "athleticism." It's a fucking unclean word.

Sorry I hurt some feelings or bored some people. Just know I detest the fucking word. There are other "ex jock" words I can't stand, but I think athleticism is on the top of my list. Yes, unfortunately, I was wrong on my original point - athleticism is, most definitely, a word. But I don't think that was ever my problem with it - I use non-words quite a bit. My problem with "athleticism" and "athlete" in general is that some douche is getting paid a lot more than I ever did as a journalist to state the obvious - a football player is an athlete - no fucking duh. It's almost as bad as when John Madden used to get paid to tell us that a football player was a football player. Try giving us some details and specifics. And, now, I won't bring it up again.

The main point is Rivers is king.

Go Chargers.

OK.

[oneinchpunch]

It's almost as bad as when John Madden used to get paid to tell us that a football player was a football player. Try giving us some details and specifics.

Madden was almost as bad as Howard Cossell. That guy was a hack.

[Steve]

I agree with all this except for the part about Fouts dropping back quickly. Maybe that was true early in his career, but, later, when he had trouble with his legs, every step back looked slow and painful. Fortunately, like Rivers, he had one of the quickest releases of all time.

But, then again, you only said that Fouts had quickness in his drops. He was pretty good at dropping the ball. Not sure if he still has the team record for fumbles. I think, at one time, he had the league record for QB fumbles. Fortunately, Dave Krieg came and obliterated that record not long after Fouts retired.

Both Fouts and Rivers had a lot of touch to their passes - Rivers's touch passes have a lot better spirals though. Fouts was accurate as fuck - dude and his receivers were the masters of the timing pass - I don't think Winslow and Joiner cared if the ball was wobbly. Marino threw more rockets than Fouts and Rivers did/do, but, like you said, Rivers can dart the ball if he needs to.

Fouts just didn't look graceful at all. Slow and painful it definitely looked, but that is not the same thing as not being quick. He was awkward as hell dropping back, but it was fairly fast, especially at a time when other QB were a lot slower then Fouts was. Other QB were doing so much deep drops and waiting for receivers to manuver open. By comparison Fouts was one of the quickest passers of his day. By modern standards, he doesn't compare as well, but I still think he was OK.

As far as the dropping the fumbles, that was all on how Fouts held the ball. He let it get away from his chest and often didn't have 2 hands on the ball in the pocket. So, when he got hit, the ball just came out. Rivers had the same problem early in his career, but fixed it as part of his improvement with his mechanics.

Fouts was just good at knowing how much time he had and then making sure he got rid of it before that, but the actual time it took to go through his throwing motion wasn't anything special. Rivers and Marino have much more compact, sidearm motions that generate power through core muscles, so they can get rid of the ball more quickly because they don't need to step into the pass as much. They delivery is also a lot shorter.

[thelightningwill]

Fouts just didn't look graceful at all. Slow and painful it definitely looked, but that is not the same thing as not being quick. He was awkward as hell dropping back, but it was fairly fast, especially at a time when other QB were a lot slower then Fouts was. Other QB were doing so much deep drops and waiting for receivers to manuver open. By comparison Fouts was one of the quickest passers of his day. By modern standards, he doesn't compare as well, but I still think he was OK.

As far as the dropping the fumbles, that was all on how Fouts held the ball. He let it get away from his chest and often didn't have 2 hands on the ball in the pocket. So, when he got hit, the ball just came out. Rivers had the same problem early in his career, but fixed it as part of his improvement with his mechanics.

Fouts was just good at knowing how much time he had and then making sure he got rid of it before that, but the actual time it took to go through his throwing motion wasn't anything special. Rivers and Marino have much more compact, sidearm motions that generate power through core muscles, so they can get rid of the ball more quickly because they don't need to step into the pass as much. They delivery is also a lot shorter.