Question - How elevated do a QB's intangibles have to be in order to make up for so-so athletic ability?
What is the minimum-required athletic skill-set, and what would he need in the way of processing quckness, field awareness, poise under pressure, decision-making etc. to make up for athletic mediocrity in other areas of play in order to be good enough to consistently win 10+ games a year as a pro?
(Note - Might work the opposite way - i.e. How physically talented does a dude need to be to make up for being functionally slow-thinking or dumb)?
And to further complicate matters are the varying ways teams prioritize intangibles, apply stereotypes etc. etc.
It's a good question. I would just add it's probably more complicated then this. Each QB, good or bad, is different in all of those attributes and more. It wouldn't surprise me if there's 10 or 20 more attributes, not all equal or chance it impacts as often.
Each one is a sliding scale that can help or hurt compared to someone else. If the mix is sufficiently beneficial it may give that player an advantage over others and allow them to be late on something else.
But then of course there's the intangibles. Injuries. OL play. Playcalling/offensive strategy. Quality of playmakers (do they get open early? find seams in the defense?).
Even then it's not cut or dry as each of these intangibles can probably be broken down further. I.E. Field awareness. Maybe the guy can easily see and recognize one type of play or on one side or at certain depth levels, but not others. Or better yet can see 90 percent of the field but you didn't notice there's a couple spots on the field where he just seems to suck it.
Maybe he can throw on the run, or maybe he can't. Palmer wasn't good on the run, and you couple that with his limited mobility and that chained together to create a bad situation for him. He needed to stay in the pocket and have the ability to subtlety slide away from pressure to buy more time. That was his mobility. Other guys, say an athletic guy, might not be able to slide like that, and will have to rely on his athleticism to escape the pocket to buy time. Some guys, might be able to do both. Even then it gets more complex. So the guy can't slide. Can he learn? Some will, some won't.
If a guy has a big arm but can't see the field deep, that's a problem. Whereas a guy with a weak arm that can see the field deep but is a little slow processing quick throws, well that's a problem. Stuff like this.
A guy has a strong arm, but his release is slower, thus his big arm can distract that in overall time the CB's might have a bigger window then you initially think. Of course there will be times such a setup deceives like when a batter is expecting a changeup and gets a fastball.
They can also chain together. If the guy with a big arm, processes a bit slow, and has a slow release, and the play is going to an area of the field he is less accurate on. Or the guy has the big arm, processes normally, with a normal release, but the receiver came out of his break late and is barely getting open.
But since all these things come in to play at one point or another or in conjunction, that at times some of these benefits or drawbacks won't occur and at other times cluster together and seemingly always occur.
Sometimes we like to say with blanket coverage a person is this or that, when in reality that might describe them 90 percent, but there's that 10 percent where they aren't. So offenses should try to keep the QB from doing those things, and defenses should want to put the onus on the offense to have to do it those ways.
I think overall you have to find a QB with the right mix that fits your offense and that you are confident can perform in it. Then us as fans have to hope they can find that, and that the offense itself can lead to success. Because you can have a QB be good at the offense, but if the offense sucks.... Then also defense, special teams.
I'm sure it's much more complicated then even this, I'm just spitballing.