How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

I dissagree with the entire notion that draft analysts push that one prospect can be better now, and somehow NOT the better overall prospect. I understand your point about Quinn's coaching, but it's not like Russell or any QB in D1 has to play playground-style because they lack coaching. Tom Brady did pretty well for himself after Weis left.

Now, it is possible for a guy to be a product of system, in college. But those guys do not end up being first day picks. Any scout that can't identify a guy as a product of his system with relative ease shouldn't be in the business.

My beef with the draft analysts theory has to do with what they THINK they know, but really don't, and are passing off as common knowledge. I have a problem with people in the mass media being of the opinion that Quinn can be better now, but Russell will be better later. No. This is wrong. If God told me that JaMarcus Russell was in fact (going to be) the best QB of this draft class, then I would have absolutely no reason in the world to expect any QB to have a better rookie season. Honestly, all the Charlie Weis coaching in the world is not going to help Brady Quinn if Russell is the better player. IF HES GOING TO BE THE BEST PROSPECT LATER, HE SHOULD ALSO BE THE BEST NOW!! Variatons from this general rule DO occur...but they can not be predicted.

(I'm not directing any of this at you Skinsfan69, this rant is entirely directed at people who get paid thousands of dollars to go on TV and give information that ignores logic)

So forget upside, I want to know who the better QB is. I reject the notion that Quinn can be better now and not later. I think Quinn is the better prospect for a multitude of reasons, maybe the biggest being that he stayed in school. But for the life of me I can't figure out what compells analysts to declare an inferior prospect to have enormous upside.

It's like JaMarcus Russell skinned his knee as a child, and instead of oozing blood, he leaked upside.

And none of this is his fault. He's in great position to become a millionaire at age 22. But what he gains now is essentially a trade off for the fact that (in my opinion in light of the data) hes not going to collect a big secondary deal. I think he plays out his 7 year rookie deal as a starter, and signs somewhere as a backup after that.

If I had to pick right now I would pick Russell. I think's he is a better QB based on his play vs. Quinn's. He's just better. He makes some thows that just "wow" you. But that does not mean he will be the better pro. But like I said he is going into a real tough situation. Oakland has a real bad line. He is going to play right away and so that could hurt him too. Plus he has a inexperienced coach. It's just a overall bad deal. So much of it comes down to if a guy can get the right coaching. Brady Quinn could go somewhere like Det. and get to be coached my Mike Martz and totally shine.

Look back at last year. Matt Leinart was a great college QB and he was probably ready to play right away. But Vince Young has more potential based on his ability to run and throw. Look at what he did against USC in his last game? He basically beat USC all by himself running and throwing. So this is why he went ahead of Leinart. Becasue of the upside, even though Leinart was more ready to play the pro game because of the system he played in.

I think when looking at the physical gifts of a quarterback you have to take into account what he does with those skills.

Michael Vick has incredible speed, agility and a big arm. He however has proven to be a below average passer.

McNabb has very good speed for QB, good agility, strength and very good arm however he is a passer 1st.

I'm not sold on the very atheletic QB unless he is more Steve Young than Michael Vick. I don't know enough about Russell to say what he is either way but he should be working on reading D's, progressions and touch passing more than anything else.

I think when looking at the physical gifts of a quarterback you have to take into account what he does with those skills.

Michael Vick has incredible speed, agility and a big arm. He however has proven to be a below average passer.

McNabb has very good speed for QB, good agility, strength and very good arm however he is a passer 1st.

I'm not sold on the very atheletic QB unless he is more Steve Young than Michael Vick. I don't know enough about Russell to say what he is either way but he should be working on reading D's, progressions and touch passing more than anything else.



russel runs like a 4.85. he's not close to a rb/qb vick type.

If I had to pick right now I would pick Russell. I think's he is a better QB based on his play vs. Quinn's. He's just better. He makes some thows that just "wow" you. But that does not mean he will be the better pro. But like I said he is going into a real tough situation. Oakland has a real bad line. He is going to play right away and so that could hurt him too. Plus he has a inexperienced coach. It's just a overall bad deal. So much of it comes down to if a guy can get the right coaching. Brady Quinn could go somewhere like Det. and get to be coached my Mike Martz and totally shine.

Look back at last year. Matt Leinart was a great college QB and he was probably ready to play right away. But Vince Young has more potential based on his ability to run and throw. Look at what he did against USC in his last game? He basically beat USC all by himself running and throwing. So this is why he went ahead of Leinart. Becasue of the upside, even though Leinart was more ready to play the pro game because of the system he played in.I don't think the Titans drafted anyone else but the guy they thought was the best QB prospect. We're not going to know if they were correct on the guy they chose until he reaches full maturity. If, I had to guess, I'd say Leinart is going to be the better player because, again, he has more college experience. But at come a time when they both retire, we still may not know. Leinart appears to be growing into an elite passer, and Young into a good passer with elite legs.

If it was only about passing, Leinart would have a 20 or so game edge on Young in experience. They wouldn't even be on the same level. Age isn't a factor; they were born within a month of each other.

If Russell really is a better QB than Quinn, I will be proven wrong in the next 5 years, and it will be quite clear. If he's good, he will turn the Raiders' around. A QB destined for greatness has never been held back by his team in the history of the game before. Russell may never be able to win a SB in Oakland, but if he's as good as advertised, he will overcome all that circumstancial stuff.

A good QB does not automatically make a team win, but with the Raiders' D already intact, it could really make all the difference for them. All that stuff about coach-killing receivers and a 31 yr old HC that the players wont respect and a dottering old owner (of which the last is of consequence) is ALL a product of losing. You know how to make the media start talking about "Randy Moss the leader" and "Lane Kiffin as coach of the year" and "the wily old Al Davis" instead of all the bashing they do of that team now? String a few wins together. It's just that simple.

After seeing that franchise get the shaft of the NFL for years, you'd think they're due to luck into 7 wins this year.

because they can't account well for the NFL suck factor. if anyone plays QB in oakland, they're going to suck. even peyton would look fairly average behind that line and with that running attack. when you're picked #1, you might get a stable team willing to build the right way (colts, eagles, chargers), or you might get al davis and a parade of coaches that shouldn't be in the NFL and have little authority within the organization. if you come into the NFL and all your team mates are malcontents and half-arsers, chance are you'll stop caring or have a hard time getting others to work harder on film study and passing drills, etc.I disagree. It's unprecidented in history that a quarterback can leave a bad situation and find unmitigated success elsewhere. The good QBs will play well regardless of their situation. It may not translate to wins if the rest of their team sucks, but they aren't going to suck simply because there are some questionable characters around them.

Peyton Manning would still be pretty damn good on the Raiders. Yes his protection would be considerably worse and he would not sustain drives quite as successfully as he does now in Indy, but if the Raiders had Manning and the Colts had Brooks, Oakland would be a perennial playoff contender and Indy would be very sub par.

Actually, this brings up the big idea here:

Quarterbacks do so much more and we have so much more collegiate data on them than any other position--possibly all other positions combined.

Why haven't scouts been able by this point to seperate busts from great prospects? Trial and Error was to be expected for a few years, but shouldn't the best scouts have been able to do the exact same research I just did and see that one prospect can not have more "upside" without being the best prospect in the present.

This highlights a great offshoot discussion about talent evaluation and so forth. There is also the economics of the draft and free agency(in terms of player acquisition not money) to discuss. But maybe that deserves another thread.

To opine on your question I would say that we all need to realize that football front offices and coaching staffs are staffed basically exactly the same as any other place of business anywhere in the world.

The rule of 80-20 almost always holds true. 80% of your people do 20% of the work and vice versa. Now why is this? Well in my mind there are a few different qualities that go into quality production.

Intelligence, motivation and education.

-You can't be greatly successful if you aren't capably intelligent. You don't need to be a genius but you can't be dumb or even just average.
-You can't be successful if you aren't motivated to do well. Motivation comes from both internal and external sources. Motivation leads you to always improve. Seeking constant improvement keeps you on top.
-You can't be successful if you don't know how to apply your intelligence and your motivation to use it. That's where education comes in. Not necessarily schooling but education in terms of being an expert in your field in as complete way as possible via experience, teaching and ultimately knowledge.

The sum of these qualities will guide success and there just are not a lot of people who have the necessary amounts of all three. Anyone here who works in a group venture knows this. There are always way more people basically doing nothing of much value while just a few do all the 'good' work. I quote 'good' because the quality of this work is relative to the work of everyone else. The 20% doing all the 'good' work for one group might not be doing near as 'good' a job as a similar set of people from another group. That's why some businesses succeed and others fail. Their 20% weren't 'good' enough. How successful a venture is depends directly on the abilities of these few people.

So in the football world, outside the lines, these same principles apply. In any given front office/coaching staff you have a few people doing all 'good' the work and the rest contributing both less of and less valuable production for whatever reason. In an office of 30 people (being generous), including scouts, coaches and personnel people, that’s about 6 people who are really the ones doing the bulk of the work. So the fate of multimillion dollar teams rest on the able (or not) shoulders of half a dozen people. If these people are great then the team succeeds but if not then you're the Raiders:)

It's like every other walk of life, there are only a few real good people, maybe a similar size set of capable people, a big lot of average people and a Giant load of complete worthless morons. This is why every time I read on this site that "we need a GM" the first thought that comes to mind is "Yeah because a GM will certainly be so much better than anything we've had because everyone knows intrinsicly that every GM knows exactly what he is doing and never screws up". Now I have no problem with people saying "Hey we should bring in Scott Pioli" because at least then we are addressing a specific person we can evaluate reasonably. "We need a GM" is such a worthless statement because chances are a randomly chosen GM(as the statement implies that ANY GM would do) is going to be horrible.

So to me it is obvious why so many people don't evaluate QBs, or any other position, that well. Most of them aren't very good. They’re too dumb, too unmotivated, not knowledgeable or some combination of the three to do a good job.

I think this even gets more intensified in sports where competition is so cut and dry. One's successes directly lead to failures of others whereas in the business world that is not entirely true. This really amplifies the distinctions between each team's 20%ers. You either win or lose mostly. Even if your 20%ers are the second best then they still lost.

I disagree. It's unprecidented in history that a quarterback can leave a bad situation and find unmitigated success elsewhere. The good QBs will play well regardless of their situation. It may not translate to wins if the rest of their team sucks, but they aren't going to suck simply because there are some questionable characters around them.

Peyton Manning would still be pretty damn good on the Raiders. Yes his protection would be considerably worse and he would not sustain drives quite as successfully as he does now in Indy, but if the Raiders had Manning and the Colts had Brooks, Oakland would be a perennial playoff contender and Indy would be very sub par.

i don't doubt indy would suck with brooks, but i'm not so sure peyton alone could pull oakland into the playoffs. their offense is a wasteland.

i don't doubt indy would suck with brooks, but i'm not so sure peyton alone could pull oakland into the playoffs. their offense is a wasteland.If somebody at QB could pull that offense up to league average (and I'm not sure too many players not named Peyton Manning could do that), that's suddenly a very good football team.

It REALLY shouldn't be hard for them to improve that offense. Hell, a team of UDFAs should have done a better job than they did last year.

Here's an interesting tidbit I picked up from the ESPN draft mag:

Over the last 5 drafts, none of the 31 other NFL franchises have spent more draft pick value points than the Raiders. Their payoff? A group of guys that has allowed more sacks than any other team in this league two years running.

That's either REALLY bad scouting, or just getting the shaft in terms of outcome.

I think when looking at the physical gifts of a quarterback you have to take into account what he does with those skills.

Michael Vick has incredible speed, agility and a big arm. He however has proven to be a below average passer.

McNabb has very good speed for QB, good agility, strength and very good arm however he is a passer 1st.

I'm not sold on the very atheletic QB unless he is more Steve Young than Michael Vick. I don't know enough about Russell to say what he is either way but he should be working on reading D's, progressions and touch passing more than anything else.


This is so right on.

Phyical skills are a mere component of the success of a QB. And I would say the MOST available component on the market. It seems to me there are way more people with the physical skills to be a good QB than there are people who have all the other components like intelligence, knowledge, leadership abilities, toughness, will, etc. Intangibles I guess. Not to say that someone with all those traits can get by without any phyical skills but there are plenty of guys with less than ideal skills but fantasic intangibles who have been great QBs than there are guys with less than ideal intangibles but fantasic phyical skills who have been great QBs. How many QBs can someone say, "Gee that guy was a complete moron who couldn't lead a mouse to cheese but really got it done with all those great skills"? I can't think of one. On the other hand I can name numerous guys who didn't have great arms, or quick legs but won SBs because they did everything right.

That's either REALLY bad scouting, or just getting the shaft in terms of outcome.

In the long range statistics like that don't lie. Bad luck is a pick or two here and there. A sustained effort of poor results is bad personell acquisition any way you slice it.