Changes to Draft/Game Rules to Overcome Good QB Dearth?

[maddenboy]

(to anybody who hasnt read every post in this topic, do yourself a favor and go back and read them. There's some very very good stuff back there).

 

1) Instead of changing the draft to allow more QBs picked, the NFL should change the practice squad rules. QBs should not count against the number of players on a PS (within reason, so Belichick cant hoard them and have 45 qbs on his PS). QBs on PS should not be counted against the salary cap. And the rules for plucking a player off another teams PS should be changed to make it harder to pluck another team's project QB who is making progress.

 

2) Allow backup QBs to practice more. Change the practice rules in the CBA to allow coaches and players more time to develop them. There is currently the argument that developing a QB takes reps from the starter. Change this.

 

3) Instead of making it easier for bad QBs to read and execute, instead the NFL could make the run-game easier. So other teams can be competitive.

 

4) There was a suggestion, above, that a current problem is that you can barely breathe on the QB or its a defensive penalty. This should stay. There are too few of them and its bad for the league if they get hurt. Brady going down does not make EJ a better QB.

 

5) Pass Interference should be changed in 2 ways. (a) make it 5 yards and a first down. (b) Do not allow any contact whatsoever when the ball is in the air. No more arm-bars. No more hooking the WR around the waist with the off-hand. No more judgment from the Ref about whether the contact affected the play. This, so that when an average QB spots an open receiver and throws to him, the open receiver actually stays open more often.

Edited January 16, 2015 by maddenboy

[Fadingpain]

The real answer is to make it harder for the great QBs to do what they do. Bring them down to the level of the EJs and Orton is more realistic. That way the difference in great and ok is not so aignificant.

 

Defensive illegal contact should notbe a penalty period. Or at a minimum- not an automatic first down. Only pass interference should be called an with that, make it a 15 yard penalty like in college ball.

 

then you allow the OL to get away with more holding so that the slower QBs can still have time to find an open guy. That way the QB position becomes more about throwing an accurate pass to a decently covered WR than deciphering WTF the D is doing.

The NFL also needs to go back to the rule were as long as a screen pass or dump off is completed behind the LOS, other players can already be blocking down field. This would create more of a bubble screen game which really does help lower level QBs

I have long thought that placing the ball at the spot of the foul on pass interference, or the automatic first down rule for defensive holding on a passing play are hugely critical penalties that really impact games.

 

I'm not sure how to fairly change these rules, but I think this is a great area to analyze. It depends on the nature of the play, but often giving the offense the ball at the "spot of the foul" on a 45 yard pass is ludicrous. The automatic first down thing also greatly impacts drives/games.

[Nanker]

Allow only one forward pass per team per quarter.

That should minimize their importance to the game.

[Fadingpain]

(to anybody who hasnt read every post in this topic, do yourself a favor and go back and read them. There's some very very good stuff back there).

 

1) Instead of changing the draft to allow more QBs picked, the NFL should change the practice squad rules. QBs should not count against the number of players on a PS (within reason, so Belichick cant hoard them and have 45 qbs on his PS). QBs on PS should not be counted against the salary cap. And the rules for plucking a player off another teams PS should be changed to make it harder to pluck another team's project QB who is making progress.

 

2) Allow backup QBs to practice more. Change the practice rules in the CBA to allow coaches and players more time to develop them. There is currently the argument that developing a QB takes reps from the starter. Change this.

 

3) Instead of making it easier for bad QBs to read and execute, instead the NFL could make the run-game easier. So other teams can be competitive.

 

4) There was a suggestion, above, that a current problem is that you can barely breathe on the QB or its a defensive penalty. This should stay. There are too few of them and its bad for the league if they get hurt. Brady going down does not make EJ a better QB.

 

5) Pass Interference should be changed in 2 ways. (a) make it 5 yards and a first down. (b) Do not allow any contact whatsoever when the ball is in the air. No more arm-bars. No more hooking the WR around the waist with the off-hand. No more judgment from the Ref about whether the contact affected the play. This, so that when an average QB spots an open receiver and throws to him, the open receiver actually stays open more often.

Interesting ideas, but I am not sure I agree with point 5.

 

I do agree that 5(b) in your post (LOL) would perhaps help the middling QB, but it would REALLY help the good QBs who already enjoy a big advantage. Something I have been tuning into lately is how in the NFL, with a top QB, the "open receiver" who gets the ball if often not really what I would call open.

 

In fact, a guy like Brady or Rodgers will see a receiver with a DB all over him, and it just doesn't matter. The QB is good enough to put the ball where it needs to go, and if the WR can get even .5 second of separation as he jinks and shifts, and the ball is right where it needs to be when it needs to be there, the WR is going to catch the ball.

 

A rule that says "hands off 100% without exception" would just mean that the elite QBs complete even more of their passes all the time, which would serve to separate teams, not bring them together.

 

At least that is my theory; not saying this is for sure.

Allow only one forward pass per team per quarter.

That should minimize their importance to the game.

I guess you are joking but this is brilliant!

 

I.E., why reach for a 6 ounce rubber tipped mallet when a 25 pound sledge hammer is required for the job?

 

If you want to minimize the impact of the most elite QBs on the game, go for the throat.

 

Obviously you are joking with one forward pass per quarter, but this thinking is correct.

 

How about limiting to one pass per series? Not saying that is good, bad, exciting, boring, or what...

But MAN...that would alter the game as we know it. In lots of ways.

[msw2112]

When I first saw this thread, I thought it was kind of ridiculous. As I read through some of the suggestions, I actually found that there were a number of good ideas. Some of the ones I really liked were 1) changes to the Defensive Holding/Pass Interference rules and 2) changes to the Practice Squad rules for QB's. I like the concept of the spring development league, and it would certainly fare better in smaller US markets than it did in Europe, but it would be extremely expensive and probably not generate enough revenue to make it worthwhile. Allowing contact with WR's up to 10 years instead of the current 5 is a reasonable proposal that was mentioned above. How about having two kinds of pass interference, just like we have "roughing the kicker" and "running into the kicker?" It brings subjectivity back into the game, but blatant PI could be a spot foul and minor contact that breaks the rule but doesn't likely prevent a catch (perhaps away from the play) would be a 5 or 15 yard penalty. How many times do the top QB's "throw one up" on 3rd down, with the intention of drawing a call just as much as attempting to make a play? It's like star players in the NBA intentionally doing something to draw a foul rather than genuinely attempting to score a basket. It seems like the Rogers', Manning's and Brady's of this world get a couple of key 1st downs this way every game. I believe Manning got 2 of those in the 1st half of the Bills-Broncos game, which kept drives alive and allowed them to mount a huge lead without really outplaying the Bills. I'm not in favor of changing the draft rules to favor QB's, going to 5 downs, 9 or 12 yards for a 1st down, etc., as I see those types of things to be too radical and changing the core of the game (the draft from a personnel standpoint and the other as far as the how the game is played).

Edited January 16, 2015 by msw2112

[BackInDaDay]

i believe the league's rule committee encourages clubs to think outside the box in order to field an affordable, competitive team, but diluting the skills necessary to play a position in order to increase parity is a very slippery slope. what's next? no players who run faster that a 4.4 40? no players who can bench 225 more that 15 reps? you're moving in the opposite direction of why we love the game - because these players are extraordinary.

 

i actually thought we were witnessing a paradigm shift with the advent of the QB read option a couple seasons back. i thought clubs were taking a stab at evolving their offense to expand the pool of players who could execute it. but rather than open up the rosters across the league to primarily athletic QBs with limited abilities to decode a defense - it only reinforced the need for a QB to posses such a skill - and thus became just another tool in the toolbox.

[Fadingpain]

i believe the league's rule committee encourages clubs to think outside the box in order to field an affordable, competitive team, but diluting the skills necessary to play a position in order to increase parity is a very slippery slope. what's next? no players who run faster that a 4.4 40? no players who can bench 225 more that 15 reps? you're moving in the opposite direction of why we love the game - because these players are extraordinary.

 

i actually thought we were witnessing a paradigm shift with the advent of the QB read option a couple seasons back. i thought clubs were taking a stab at evolving their offense to expand the pool of players who could execute it. but rather than open up the rosters across the league to primarily athletic QBs with limited abilities to decode a defense - it only reinforced the need for a QB to posses such a skill - and thus became just another tool in the toolbox.

I don't think the slippery slope will lead to limits on 40 yard times or bench press reps or anything like that, but your point is still well taken.

 

Most pro sports leagues would probably not favor rule changes which minimize the star impact value of their biggest stars.

A huge problem with the NHL as it currently stands is that the biggest stars in the game have trouble busting out and doing star-like things that make fans gasp in awe.

 

This is why my initial thinking was not to neuter Tom Brady, but to find ways to help out Kyle Orton so the task that confronts him isn't quite so great.

I think there are ways to do this, involving minor rule tweaks, many of which have been suggested in this thread.

 

By the way MSW2112: I love this idea of having 2 types of penalties for pass interference, like we have 2 penalties for hitting a kicker. This is a great example of a seemingly minor tweak to the game but which could have big impacts on critical plays and outcomes of games. It makes a lot of sense to me.

 

There are too many pass interference calls where yes, technically, there was some type of interference, but the penalty of spotting the ball at the spot of the foul 50 yards downfield at the 3 yard line is ludicrous. You see this all the time.

[maddenboy]

Interesting ideas, but I am not sure I agree with point 5.

 

I do agree that 5(b) in your post (LOL) would perhaps help the middling QB, but it would REALLY help the good QBs who already enjoy a big advantage. Something I have been tuning into lately is how in the NFL, with a top QB, the "open receiver" who gets the ball if often not really what I would call open.

 

In fact, a guy like Brady or Rodgers will see a receiver with a DB all over him, and it just doesn't matter. The QB is good enough to put the ball where it needs to go, and if the WR can get even .5 second of separation as he jinks and shifts, and the ball is right where it needs to be when it needs to be there, the WR is going to catch the ball.

 

A rule that says "hands off 100% without exception" would just mean that the elite QBs complete even more of their passes all the time, which would serve to separate teams, not bring them together.

 

At least that is my theory; not saying this is for sure.

 

I agree with your criticism.

 

What about

6) All interceptions will be considered downed at the point of the interception. No more picks-6. Encourage the lesser QBs to take more chances?

[BackInDaDay]

I don't think the slippery slope will lead to limits on 40 yard times or bench press reps or anything like that, but your point is still well taken.

well, once everyone's passing attack has been neutralized, the team with the advantage of a dynamic running attack will become the next target.. after all, some teams will have better linemen and backs..

 

This is why my initial thinking was not to neuter Tom Brady, but to find ways to help out Kyle Orton so the task that confronts him isn't quite so great.

the NFL is a gladiator sport - the weak are not supposed to survive

[Thrivefourfive]

How about the Bills just get a good quarterback so we don't have to makeup rules for their awefulness. Anybody here from Green Bay, New England, Seattle, Denver, Indy, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Detriot, New Orleans, Atlanta, Carolina, Miami, Dallas, Arizona, San Diego that want to change the rules in favor of the teams with terrible quarterbacks...?

 

Oh man, sorry...I just got really negative in this thread. Didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings if that's the case. It was just an honest response.

[maddenboy]

 

 

This is why my initial thinking was not to neuter Tom Brady, but to find ways to help out Kyle Orton so the task that confronts him isn't quite so great.

the NFL is a gladiator sport - the weak are not supposed to survive

 

But the point of this topic (as I see it) is not "how can we help the Bills win the super bowl."

 

Its "how can the NFL become more competitive?" Also, "How can the NFL make more money?"

 

In normal life, yes, the strong should survive. But this is about entertainment, and fans being righteously excited about their teams well past Thanksgiving. In a sport with 32 teams and only about 7-8 QBs.

Edited January 16, 2015 by maddenboy

[Mr. WEO]

Or maybe if there was a better way to put better coaches on NFL teams instead of the same old names/retreads we have seen this very week.

 

Or maybe if there was some way to get better GMs--how many "pros" ignored everything that R Wilson did in all those college games and wouldn't look at him because someone told them he was too short? Or passed on Brady--a two time Bowl game winner at one of the biggest, most storied football programs in American history? Or traded away a pick to get a nobody from nowhere like JP Losman? Or picking LTs instead of aMatt Ryan or an A Peteson when you have NO playmakers on your team? Or teams like Miami, Tampa, KC, Cleveland, Oakland, Washington, Jacksonville, Minny (twice!) passing on Aaron Rodgers to pick up guys like Ronnie Brown, "Caddy" Williams, "PacMan" Jones, Erasmujs Jones, MAtt Joes, Fabian Washington.

 

 

All teams select from the same pool and over the years everyone gets a chance to make a frachise pick at QB. There are too many bad, really dumb, picks. There is no rule fix for that.

[BackInDaDay]

 

But the point of this topic (as I see it) is not "how can we help the Bills win the super bowl."

 

Its "how can the NFL become more competitive?" Also, "How can the NFL make more money?"

 

In normal life, yes, the strong should survive. But this is about entertainment, and fans being righteously excited about their teams well past Thanksgiving. In a sport with 32 teams and only about 7-8 QBs.

 

 

 

then the solution is easy - expand the playoffs to include the top 3 teams in each division, and play the SB on the 4th of July

Or maybe if there was a better way to put better coaches on NFL teams instead of the same old names/retreads we have seen this very week.

 

Or maybe if there was some way to get better GMs--how many "pros" ignored everything that R Wilson did in all those college games and wouldn't look at him because someone told them he was too short? Or passed on Brady--a two time Bowl game winner at one of the biggest, most storied football programs in American history? Or traded away a pick to get a nobody from nowhere like JP Losman? Or picking LTs instead of aMatt Ryan or an A Peteson when you have NO playmakers on your team? Or teams like Miami, Tampa, KC, Cleveland, Oakland, Washington, Jacksonville, Minny (twice!) passing on Aaron Rodgers to pick up guys like Ronnie Brown, "Caddy" Williams, "PacMan" Jones, Erasmujs Jones, MAtt Joes, Fabian Washington.

 

 

All teams select from the same pool and over the years everyone gets a chance to make a frachise pick at QB. There are too many bad, really dumb, picks. There is no rule fix for that.

 

yeppers

Edited January 16, 2015 by BackInDaDay

[Fadingpain]

 

But the point of this topic (as I see it) is not "how can we help the Bills win the super bowl."

 

Its "how can the NFL become more competitive?" Also, "How can the NFL make more money?"

 

In normal life, yes, the strong should survive. But this is about entertainment, and fans being righteously excited about their teams well past Thanksgiving. In a sport with 32 teams and only about 7-8 QBs.

Yes, you've stated my intention in started the thread pretty well.

 

then the solution is easy - expand the playoffs to include the top 3 teams in each division, and play the SB on the 4th of July

 

yeppers

No, that doesn't help. The objective isn't to make everyone a playoff team (though works for the NHL)...the objective is to alter the rules slightly to catch the game up to where it has natural evolved, so that most teams have a competitive shot at winning, and not 1/3 of the league that is lucky to currently have a top QB.

Or maybe if there was a better way to put better coaches on NFL teams instead of the same old names/retreads we have seen this very week.

 

Or maybe if there was some way to get better GMs--how many "pros" ignored everything that R Wilson did in all those college games and wouldn't look at him because someone told them he was too short? Or passed on Brady--a two time Bowl game winner at one of the biggest, most storied football programs in American history? Or traded away a pick to get a nobody from nowhere like JP Losman? Or picking LTs instead of aMatt Ryan or an A Peteson when you have NO playmakers on your team? Or teams like Miami, Tampa, KC, Cleveland, Oakland, Washington, Jacksonville, Minny (twice!) passing on Aaron Rodgers to pick up guys like Ronnie Brown, "Caddy" Williams, "PacMan" Jones, Erasmujs Jones, MAtt Joes, Fabian Washington.

 

 

All teams select from the same pool and over the years everyone gets a chance to make a frachise pick at QB. There are too many bad, really dumb, picks. There is no rule fix for that.

If you are suggesting my intention in starting this thread is coming up with a way to "fix the game" so a poorly run organization can do well because they can't do well when left to their own devices, you are completely wrong.

 

It is worth noting that, at any point in time, maybe 1/3 of the league has a QB that will realistically allow them to compete for the Superbowl. Maybe 1/3. It's probably more like 5 or 6 teams in reality.

 

That is a function of how the game has organically evolved over time and the emphasis placed on the QB position. My point is that through careful analysis, the game can be shifted again so that the QB is not so crucial, which benefits almost all teams, not just the Bills or whichever "loser organization" you have in mind.

 

My suggestions would help the New England Patriots! They aren't going to have Tom Brady forever and they may not get that lucky with the the QB for the next 15 years. Who knows. The day will come too when they wish you didn't need one of the top 6 QBs in the league to win it all.

Edited January 16, 2015 by Stopthepain

[Fadingpain]

PS: There are 4 teams left in the NFL playoffs this year.

The Quarterbacks are Rodgers, Brady, Wilson, and Luck. Almost all teams in the league would be happy to take any of those 4 as their starting QB.

 

Does anyone think those names are coincidental and that if things had been slightly different, the QB names could have been Orton, Hoyer, Tannehill, and Carr?

 

Of course not.

 

And look at the QB names who might have played this weekend, had things gone differently last week...

 

Manning, Romo, Flacco, Newton.

 

The weak link in that chain, by far, is Newton in my opinion, and yet there are still a lot of teams who would probably love to have him. The other 3 are top QBs, one had a near career year, one is guaranteed HOF, and one has already won a Superbowl.

 

You can either re-structure the game so that any team can win it...or you can go Darwin and hope you have one of the top 5 or 6 guys in the game at any point in time.

[BADOLBILZ]

I have been thinking about starting this thread for a while, and some recent comments in various threads spawned some of my ideas here.

 

BUT: should the NFL consider changing the draft system so as to help teams take chances on more QBs?

 

Or, should the rules of the game be slightly modified to "assist" poor QB play? Of course, if the rules are changed to make it easier for a bad QB, it will make it even easier for a really good QB too...but that doesn't mean it can't be an interesting idea/debate.

 

A radical example might be making changing the distance to get a first down. Go from 10 yards to 8 or 9. Give the offense another down to work with. How about 5 downs? Too radical? What if a 4 down/10 yard system was converted to a 5 down/12 yard system? How would that play out over time? Would it favor offenses or defenses?

 

The reality is that most teams in the league do not have a QB who is good enough to see much success with, it is almost impossible to calculate a way to get an elite QB (it's luck mostly) and the handful of teams that have the elite QB do most of the winning, particularly come playoff time, which is really all that matters. They also tend to keep the great QBs forever, so top team turnover in the league is small and rare. Doesn't the average NFL fan win if all teams have a better chance to succeed offensively?

 

Regarding the draft: how about having a supplemental draft exclusively for QBs? The player's union would love it. Or how about a rule that says a QB drafted in any round other than 1 and 2 does not count against your pick!? So in Round 3, you can make your regular selection (say a linebacker) but if you want to add a QB, you can as a freebie. Maybe the "freebie bonus" should start in Round 4 or another round!?

 

This would allow teams to take way more chances on QB prospects or long shots without depleting their rosters at all other positions. In theory, it would help teams with poor QBs find a better one.

 

What do people think about these ideas?

 

 

 

The answer is already in place.

 

If your QB stinks run the ball and play up-tempo until he gets better or you find a better one.

 

You want to take the starch out of a pass rush that is rushing your young QB? Run the ball and move quickly to keep the defense from catching it's breath and implementing substitutions designed to dismantle your QB.

 

The rules of the game were changed to create more exciting offense and less injuries.

 

Anyone who thinks that defense is going to be re-emphasized because some broke-ass teams can't find a QB are crazy.

 

I agree with the idea of developing QB's away from Sunday's in the NFL. That is the most direct solution. The learning curve is unnecessarily steep.

[BackInDaDay]

Yes, you've stated my intention in started the thread pretty well.

No, that doesn't help. The objective isn't to make everyone a playoff team (though works for the NHL)...the objective is to alter the rules slightly to catch the game up to where it has natural evolved, so that most teams have a competitive shot at winning, and not 1/3 of the league that is lucky to currently have a top QB.

 

maybe QBs could have a handicap - like amateur golfers.. if EJ can get the ball within a couple yards of an intended receiver, it could be ruled a completion - even if it's picked off.

 

sorry.. but the responsibility in choosing top flight talent rests on having a top shelf scouting department, and a FO whose priority is the product on the field.

if the scouts tell the FO there's nobody worth drafting high - they should listen - instead of trying to create a marketing buzz with an unwarranted pick..

[BackInDaDay]

i don't believe it's luck that Seattle's OC - who was a QB at Wisconson - had knowledge of Russell Wilson, attended his pro-day, and convinced the GM to draft him. Wilson became a Seahawk in spite of the team - and the entire NFL's - crack team of scouts. honestly.. i think a lot of these guys are dumb as a rock, and only repeat what they hear rather than jeopardize their jobs. So what would i do if i were Pegula, or anyone in charge of the club? make it clear that anyone with a gut feeling about a kid, or who's heard very good things about a kid - should follow that lead until it washes out. kick the lazy coach-wannabes to the curb.. i heard about conversations between Knowshon Moreno's coaches and college scouts who had this reason and that, why he'd never amount to anything as a collegiate RB.. it's not science.. it's intuition, and keeping your ear to the tracks

[papazoid]

(to anybody who hasnt read every post in this topic, do yourself a favor and go back and read them. There's some very very good stuff back there).

 

 

 

2) Allow backup QBs to practice more. Change the practice rules in the CBA to allow coaches and players more time to develop them. There is currently the argument that developing a QB takes reps from the starter. Change this.

now your on to something

[Fadingpain]

 

The answer is already in place.

 

If your QB stinks run the ball and play up-tempo until he gets better or you find a better one.

 

You want to take the starch out of a pass rush that is rushing your young QB? Run the ball and move quickly to keep the defense from catching it's breath and implementing substitutions designed to dismantle your QB.

 

The rules of the game were changed to create more exciting offense and less injuries.

 

Anyone who thinks that defense is going to be re-emphasized because some broke-ass teams can't find a QB are crazy.

 

I agree with the idea of developing QB's away from Sunday's in the NFL. That is the most direct solution. The learning curve is unnecessarily steep.

Up-tempo offenses are a horrible idea if you have a middling QB. You won't get first downs and your O won't be on the field very often. Come 3rd quarter your defense, even if it is really good, will be shot. And then you'll lose worse than you otherwise would have anyway

 

Also, if all you can do is run the ball b/c you have a middling QB, the oppose D will know this and cheat in every possible way to stop your offense, making it even harder to accomplish anything. Your offense will be limited to begin with b/c you have a bad QB....throw in this level of predictability (they will run the ball) and the D ready for it, and you will go nowhere, really fast.

 

This stuff doesn't work.

 

maybe QBs could have a handicap - like amateur golfers.. if EJ can get the ball within a couple yards of an intended receiver, it could be ruled a completion - even if it's picked off.

 

sorry.. but the responsibility in choosing top flight talent rests on having a top shelf scouting department, and a FO whose priority is the product on the field.

if the scouts tell the FO there's nobody worth drafting high - they should listen - instead of trying to create a marketing buzz with an unwarranted pick..

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. At any point in time, maybe 6 or 8 guys on earth are capable of leading an NFL football team to the Superbowl. To me, that is a flaw in the game. Perhaps you think "that is fair enough and the way it should be."

 

I would rather slightly alter the rules of the game or draft structure so that this is not the case.

 

The game has evolved to where the fundamental structure of the game is now "out of whack" according to me. Perhaps you disagree. Fair enough.

i don't believe it's luck that Seattle's OC - who was a QB at Wisconson - had knowledge of Russell Wilson, attended his pro-day, and convinced the GM to draft him. Wilson became a Seahawk in spite of the team - and the entire NFL's - crack team of scouts. honestly.. i think a lot of these guys are dumb as a rock, and only repeat what they hear rather than jeopardize their jobs. So what would i do if i were Pegula, or anyone in charge of the club? make it clear that anyone with a gut feeling about a kid, or who's heard very good things about a kid - should follow that lead until it washes out. kick the lazy coach-wannabes to the curb.. i heard about conversations between Knowshon Moreno's coaches and college scouts who had this reason and that, why he'd never amount to anything as a collegiate RB.. it's not science.. it's intuition, and keeping your ear to the tracks

I don't follow. Are you suggesting that there are plenty of great QBs out there, such that any one of 20 or 25 NFL teams, in any given year, could have a real shot at the Superbowl? And that it's just crappy drafting and scouting that holds franchises back?

 

It sounds like this is more or less what you are saying. If so, I totally disagree.

 

Assuming you have perfect knowledge, perfect scouting, and perfect foresight, I still say there are like 8 QBs during any era who are capable of leading an NFL team to the Superbowl.

 

The game of football at the NFL level has evolved to the point where it is almost impossible to find a guy who can play the QB position at the highest level. Those who can are very rare.

 

I doubt many people on this forum know what the hell I'm talking about, but it's the same in Formula One racing. In any season, there are maybe 3 guys on earth who are capable of winning the World Driving Championship. Keeps things nicely boring.