The "It" Factor

[PrometheusFaulk]

I know Bill Barnwell isn't everyone's favorite writer, but I enjoyed this article and thought it might be an interesting conversation starter.

http://grantland.com/features/it-factor-nfl-quarterback-intangibles/

What are your thoughts on the "it" factor?

Is it something real, and can be measured?

If so, why are NFL evaluators so bad at recognizing "it" when it comes to drafting?

Is it hogwash? A bunch of psychobabble that means very little compared to measurable and observable characteristics?

If so, why do so many people around the league tout it as one of the most vital factors towards determining success?

Who has "it?" Can you gain "it" at any point in your career if you don't have "it?" Is "it" something you're born with, or something that comes from experience and success?

I don't know where I stand on, "it." Just wanted to get some takes.

 

[Prime Time]

My definition of the "It Factor" for a QB is when your offense scores lots of points and your team wins lots of games. Everyone looks like they have the "It Factor" when they win. Kurt Warner and Brett Favre are two examples that come to mind. Success="It Factor." Failure=No "It Factor."

According to some, Sam Bradford did not have the "It Factor" or any kind of swagger because his team lost too many games and he didn't wave his arms and yell enough. Those kinds of people are silly and know next to nothing about pro football.

Case in point: this article says this about Mark Sanchez - “He definitely has the It Factor.” Why? “He’s got the charismatic smile and a swagger on and off the field. It’s the way he walks, the way he talks, the way he acts around his teammates.”

I think what they are talking about is charisma and likability which is a ridiculous reason to draft, sign, or play someone ahead of others who aren't deemed to have those qualities.

An interesting article nonetheless. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

 

[Greg Stone]

I think the "it" factor is understanding the game so well that you give yourself and your teammates an advantage as opposed to being a great athlete who has to mechanically go through a list on each play. Charisma and enthusiasm can have an effect as well, albeit smaller IMO.

 

[Dieter the Brock]

"It" means the ability to win games, doesn't it?
Kurt Warner - It factor
Blaine Gabbert - no it factor
etc.....

 

[Oldgeek]

The "It" factor is amplified when surrounded by talent.

 

[PrometheusFaulk]

My definition of the "It Factor" for a QB is when your offense scores lots of points and your team wins lots of games. Everyone looks like they have the "It Factor" when they win. Kurt Warner and Brett Favre are two examples that come to mind. Success="It Factor." Failure=No "It Factor."

According to some, Sam Bradford did not have the "It Factor" or any kind of swagger because his team lost too many games and he didn't wave his arms and yell enough. Those kinds of people are silly and know next to nothing about pro football.

Case in point: this article says this about Mark Sanchez - “He definitely has the It Factor.” Why? “He’s got the charismatic smile and a swagger on and off the field. It’s the way he walks, the way he talks, the way he acts around his teammates.”

I think what they are talking about is charisma and likability which is a ridiculous reason to draft, sign, or play someone ahead of others who aren't deemed to have those qualities.

An interesting article nonetheless. Thanks for taking the time to post it.

So - is "it" a thing, in your opinion, that can be determined proactively (in other words, prior to NFL success) or is "it" just something used to explain success retroactively?

I always think about this guy on this topic, as a case study:

http://m.pfref.com/m?p=XXplayersXXGXXGannRi00.htm&t=0

Did NFL teams all just miss that Rich Gannon had "it" until he was 33? What happened there?

 

[Zaphod]

I believe that the "it factor" is a phrase commonly used by media types who don't necessarily have the knowledge, training or understanding to quantify or articulate their praise in a quarterback's skill.

So instead, said quarterback is said to have the "it factor", while another has not.

This also pertains to a holistic misunderstanding of the team game as it pertains to a quarterback's quarterback's overstated contribution in that team's success or failure.

 

[shaunpinney]

To me the "it" factor is just about confidence, its the law of nature, the Alpha male has "it".

In the sporting arena you can have a player with "it" factor and he can raise the game of the rest of his team. Its getting people to believe in you, without even trying - it's that aura that, lets say a QB, can have that makes people believe. You can have the "it" factor and not necessarily be the best athlete or you can be the best athlete and still not have "it".

 

[bomebadeeda]

The reason that "it" is so hard to evaluate, is that when the light comes on, That player may not be in a position to be noticed.

Take Aaron Rodgers. He's arguably the best QB in the league and certainly one of the top 3. But how many teams bypassed him during the draft. Even SF took Alex Smith instead of him. But a few years to season behind Farve (who was notorious on being hard on backups...... Can you say Pop Warner, Kurt....) and he's got it.Alex Smith never had "it". Even when his team was running at their best and Smith was being given credit for it....one concussion...and he's out....period. End of discussion.

Now how would you even start to develope a test to see if that "factor" was there. You have to go about things the way every team does. And somewhere along the way. It happens...or it doesn't.And many times teams see a little bit.....and think more will come. But something inhibits growth to the next level of "it-ness". Maybe an injury. Maybe a certain defense (or offense...) that changes the perceived ideas.....It can be fleeting.

Remember how we all regarded Kurt Warner during 99-01. Fast-forward to after his hand injuries and very few felt he still had those intangibles. But given time Kurt rebounded. It took a few years. But he regained "that mojo". And how could one measure that. Or not be able to measure it through his down years.

Oh well. Just my 2 cents on the subject.

 

[-X-]

"It" is a fickle bitch. You can have "it" if you're a natural born talent and come into the league carrying "it." But you can lose "it" if you don't end up playing well and wash out. You can also develop "it" if you're a UDFA and aren't expected to do much, but eventually do. So "it" is a relative and subjective word that means exactly sh"it".

 

[WoodsideRam]

The first time I heard the phrase "It factor" was when it was used to describe Mark Sanchez. Well, guess what? I also watched him crash head first into the very large ass of an offensive lineman and lose the football on national TV. My uncle has the “it factor”. He’s a great salesman. Doesn’t mean I want him playing QB for the Rams. Just because you have a nice smile, and an engaging personality who can light up a room, doesn’t mean you can play QB at a high level in the NFL. To me it seems like a phrase that draft pundits and sports media types like to parrot when they want to appear like they know what they’re talking about in regards to forecasting the success of QBs who come into the league. If you want a QB with charisma, personality, a nice smile fine. I’ll take the wallflower who can process information faster than everyone else and complete his passes at a 62% clip.

 

[SierraRam]

I think NFL evaluators get too caught up in the measurables and consequently miss out on what really makes an effective QB: Intelligence and Leadership. A young QB with these characteristics can succeed if given the time to absorb the playbook and the atmosphere of the NFL. (Rodgers) Football players want their QB to fight with them, but so few QB's come in and immediately succeed. Too many are forced to start too early and play with inferior supportive casts. (sound familiar?)

Ideally, it would have been nice to have a Shaun Hill for Sam's first year or two...

 

[ericf706]

The "It" factor is hard to recognize, but to me it's defiantly there. IT is the drive, the competitiveness, the killer instinct that some athletes have and others don't. Without IT David Eckstein never suits up for an MLB team. With IT JD Drew might have been great. IT is the reason Pujols was "disrespected" and driven by his low draft status.

When natural ability and talent align (and health) with the IT factor you get generational players.

It's not made up, and the people with it might be a little off.
That's my two cents anyway.

(Sorry for the baseball slant, but I had the Cards game on.)

 

[nanotech]

Well, then, there it is.

 

[rdw]

"It" is a fickle bitch. You can have "it" if you're a natural born talent and come into the league carrying "it." But you can lose "it" if you don't end up playing well and wash out. You can also develop "it" if you're a UDFA and aren't expected to do much, but eventually do. So "it" is a relative and subjective word that means exactly sh"it".

I actually laughed out loud. That rarely happens... bravo!
Great post, I believe you hit the nail on the head.

 

[thirteen28]

The "it" factor is something a lead vocalist in a rock band has. For a QB it can be defined by measures such as having the physical tools, and the mental ability to put everything together and play the position as it was meant to be. You don't see QB's with lousy mental skills and/or no ability to make any of the requisite throws nevertheless thrive because they have some undefinable "it" factor.