Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;289059]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[LEFT]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.
[/LEFT]

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=STPainmaker;289162][LEFT]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.
[/LEFT]
[/quote]

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

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;289154]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.[/quote]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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=That Guy;289139]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.[/quote]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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;289071]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;289186]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=That Guy;289188]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.[/quote]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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[QUOTE=STPainmaker;289162][LEFT]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.
[/LEFT][/QUOTE]

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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;289191]That's either REALLY bad scouting, or just getting the shaft in terms of outcome.[/QUOTE]

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.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=FRPLG;289187]Intelligence, motivation and education.[/quote]Very well thought out and stated.

I'm convinced that good scouting principles can be learned. And to answer my own question before, I had been thinking the quarterback class of 2006 went a long way to showing that scouts had learned good player valuation. After all we hadn't had a universially overvalued player at the QB position since JP Losman in 2004. Scouts knew that Rodgers and Smith were average players in 2005 and knew that you couldn't go wrong with anybody in the class of 2006.

But lo and behold we roll around to 2007 and theres a QB debate that, in my humble opinion, really shouldn't even be occuring. We have ten years of data on successful QBs and ten years of data on unsuccessful QBs. Theres a common link between the mediocre/bust players and a seperate link between all successful players. There's three criteria that right now seems to point to a guy having a successful career.

-First, and most importantly, a guy must be projected by scouts in the first round. They have to pass the eye test as a starting QB.
-If they pass the eye test, they must have considerable experience at the NCAA level. 35 starts minimum.
-If they pass the eye test and they have the experience, they must have quality college statistics. The key stat is completion percentage and 58% (career) is the threshold that seperates overrated from underrated. (Coincedentally, Quinn falls right at this 58% for his career. Russell actually falls much higher at 62%)

Over the last ten years, no player to meet all three of these criterias has not accrued at least a certain deal of success. Players who do not meet ALL 3 usually don't have much success at the next level. They can, but it's rarely, if ever, done.

Scouts should know this by now. I'm certain the good ones already do. I'm confident that if the Raiders take Russell with Quinn on the board, they don't have any good scouts. But that really wouldn't surprise anyone here, would it?

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=FRPLG;289193]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.[/quote]Is five years really long range though?

In 2006 the Raiders were starting (at the start of the year) Robert Gallery, Barry Sims, Jake Grove, Brad Badger, and Langston Walker. Sims was with the team when they were making deep playoff runs as the LT, but moved inside to make room for Gallery. Badger was a FA signing.

The draft picks of the bunch were Gallery, Walker, and Grove. ALL were top two round selections. Walker was picked with one of the compensatory picks for Gruden.

I'm hesitant to say that it's the Raiders' fault for making 2 bad selections and an alright one in Grove (the consensus best lineman on that team). They invested a lot into Walker and Gallery and got no return.

But they are offensive linemen. It's hard to collect data on them. You have film and nothing else. Despite that MOST OL pan out. The Raiders managed to stumble on 2-3 busts. That's pretty unlucky. I mean if I spent 5 top 2 round picks on lineman, I would expect at least 4 to live up to the hype. The Raiders took 3 and got nobody to live up to the hype. Either the rest of the league knows something about OL the Raiders don't (which is always possible), or the Raiders just got the shaft.

It's not like they aren't building that team the right way. They just aren't getting the right men for the jobs.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

No I agree but it is easy to take potshots at Oakland right now. Their overall ineptitude over the last several decades is what weighs my mind mostly. A few fleeting moments of success sandwhiched by total mediocrity. Plus Davis is just clearly out of it. I can't say who their last good draftee was.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=FRPLG;289202]No I agree but it is easy to take potshots at Oakland right now. Their overall ineptitude over the last several decades is what weighs my mind mostly. A few fleeting moments of success sandwhiched by total mediocrity. Plus Davis is just clearly out of it. I can't say who their last good draftee was.[/quote]I agree. They have a weak scouting department. Both Pro and College.

To their credit they have built one of the league's strongest secondaries through the draft. Nnamdi Asomugha is the best CB in the league that no one talks about. He will take your No. 1 receiving option completely out of the game.

But honestly, this would be some sort of impressive streak of ineptitude if they hadn't happened to trip and fall on Rich Gannon. [I]Jerry Rice[/I] would have become completely irrelivant.

*Shudder*

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Gannon has to be one of the oddest players in recent memory. Here's a guy who was at best a journeyman. I mean a guy you can't even compare to say Tim Ratay who just suddnely become a pretty darn good QB. I mean if he puts together 4 more seasons like he did toward the end we're talking about a potential HOFer. Out of total nothingness comes greatness. Weird.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=FRPLG;289205]Gannon has to be one of the oddest players in recent memory. Here's a guy who was at best a journeyman. I mean a guy you can't even compare to say Tim Ratay who just suddnely become a pretty darn good QB. I mean if he puts together 4 more seasons like he did toward the end we're talking about a potential HOFer. Out of total nothingness comes greatness. Weird.[/quote]That would have been a real dead era for QBs if it wasn't for him. I mean you had the retirement of Marino, Elway, and Young, and Favre went into a relative lull in his career for a few years. It would still be 3-4 years until McNair, Pennington, and Manning would emerge, and Brady's skills would actually develop to match the rep he had been handed. Kerry Collins was consistently among the league's top QBs!

It's got nothing to do with Russell or Quinn whatsoever, but since we are talking Raiders for some crazy reason, I thought I'd point this out.

Had Gannon not got hurt in 2004, Football Outsiders estimates that the Raiders offense would have put up 71! more points than they did with the exact same roster and Kerry Collins at QB. This is as much due to Collins ineptitude as it is to Gannon's greatness though.

In effect, if this is to be believed, that means Norv Turner was an injury away from taking the Raiders to the playoffs in his first season there.

Crazy.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

btw, daunte went from pro-bowler/possible MVP in minnesota to total joke in miami (possibly all due to injury), garcia went from good in SF, to terrible in cleveland AND detriot, to good in philly. plummer went to denver and had a couple good years. brunell, hasslebeck, and favre were all traded from their original franchises before they got to start and ended up doing pretty well.

archie manning was a good QB that could have been better if on a different team.

but the real reason you don't see a lot for average QBs turn into studs 6 years in after switching teams is cause at that point they've either had a stable environment to learn and work in over a good number of years, or they're considered a backup and brought in to learn a totally new system that they may or may not be used to with new players, possibly an entrenched starter, etc. It's just a hard transition. I mean, peyton's only known ONE system. same for brady, and mcnabb, and... that's gotta be part of it.

I mean, the teams that keep churning through 1st round busts are the same ones that keep changing coaches, systems, and players for the most part. detroit, oakland, cleveland, etc. of course, that doesn't mean all those QB picks were good ideas in the first place (who EVER thought boller would be any good? continuity DID help him, but only marginally).

I do agree that, at least for most QBs, they tend to how you what they got within a few years, unless they're backing up favre or named mark rypien.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

This is a really well written article from David Fleming that investigates a few of the flaws in the way QBs are scouted today.

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/news/story?id=2834663"]ESPN.com - NFL/DRAFT07 - Magazine: The edge of reason[/URL]

[QUOTE=David Fleming]And Russell? He started just 29 games. Yet by leaving school early, Russell -- whose start numbers are comparable to those of [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6358"]Rex Grossman[/URL] (31), [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=5889"]Joey Harrington[/URL] (28), Jim Druckenmiller (24) and [URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=4651"]Akili Smith[/URL] (19) -- has kept the scouts from piling up the dossier needed to overanalyze him. He also benefits from a backlash against the old-time NFL evaluators who bad-mouthed Young last year, only to watch him become an NFL phenom. Those scouts are far less inclined to rip Russell, leaving a power vacuum in most war rooms this spring that favors the "potential" believers over the "pedigree" crowd.[/QUOTE]

It's a good read.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Who knows, he hasen't played at this level yet?

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=dmek25;288974]I'm not entirely sold on Russell. could be another Dante Culpepper, with some NFL success. or could be another Akili Smith, who with Ryan Leaf formed the 2 biggest NFL busts ever[/quote]

nah man he will be a great qb has all the tools

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=That Guy;289275]btw, daunte went from pro-bowler/possible MVP in minnesota to total joke in miami (possibly all due to injury), garcia went from good in SF, to terrible in cleveland AND detriot, to good in philly. plummer went to denver and had a couple good years. brunell, hasslebeck, and favre were all traded from their original franchises before they got to start and ended up doing pretty well.

archie manning was a good QB that could have been better if on a different team.

but the real reason you don't see a lot for average QBs turn into studs 6 years in after switching teams is cause at that point they've either had a stable environment to learn and work in over a good number of years, or they're considered a backup and brought in to learn a totally new system that they may or may not be used to with new players, possibly an entrenched starter, etc. It's just a hard transition. I mean, peyton's only known ONE system. same for brady, and mcnabb, and... that's gotta be part of it.

I mean, the teams that keep churning through 1st round busts are the same ones that keep changing coaches, systems, and players for the most part. detroit, oakland, cleveland, etc. of course, that doesn't mean all those QB picks were good ideas in the first place (who EVER thought boller would be any good? continuity DID help him, but only marginally).

I do agree that, at least for most QBs, they tend to how you what they got within a few years, unless they're backing up favre or named mark rypien.[/quote]


man where have you been

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Picking a QB with the 1st pick is like playing russian roulette. I wouldnt pick him.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;297795]nah man he will be a great qb has all the tools[/quote]Which worked out wonderful for Akili Smith and Cade McNown.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

If you look at all the QB's drafted in the first round the last 20 years I bet less than 50% turned out to be good NFL qb's. A guy with Russell's passing ability comes along once every 10 years or so. Guys with Quinn's ability come along every year.

But if Russell goes to Oak. he doesn't have a chance for a few years. But Quinn could go to Det. and play well right away.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;298781]A guy with Russell's passing ability comes along once every 10 years or so. Guys with Quinn's ability come along every year. [/quote]How do you figure?

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

i think skinsfan69 has it back wards. every year someone wows all the NFL guys with superior arm strength. but the play making and decision making of someone like Quinn is seen every 5-10 years. i think Quinn is definitely the better pro prospect

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=dmek25;298803]i think skinsfan69 has it back wards. every year someone wows all the NFL guys with superior arm strength. but the play making and decision making of someone like Quinn is seen every 5-10 years. i think Quinn is definitely the better pro prospect[/quote]I agree. My critics might say that I've been on the "Brady Quinn man train" for awhile now.

I don't agree with the notion that necessarily one QB like Quinn comes around every 5-10 years. I mean, Leinart last year is probably a better pro prospect, Rivers and Roethlisberger in 2004, Carson Palmer 4 years ago, maybe even Pennington in 2000. All these guys will probably have better pro careers than Quinn, but this is the type of class Brady Quinn is right on the cusp of.

I completely and utterly agree that a guy like Russell comes along every year and steals the hearts of all the scouts with non NFL football related skills. It's funny really, and it just goes to show how completely off some scouts can be in their analysis...and how unwilling to learn from their mistakes they are. There is NO EXCUSE to not have QB grading down to a near exact science by now (after all these years of trial and error), but I believe that most scouts are ignorant fools.

Quinn just has done in college exactly what it takes to be successful at the next level: a [B]long[/B] and successful college career.

Russell would have been quite a pro prospect if he stayed in school another year, but the best he can hope for now is to be the next Rex Grossman, and get on a team that has a SB caliber defense and play adequately enough to win a championship.

With the massive success of guys like Pennington and Leinart, there's really no excuse to fall into the arm strength trap anymore. This goes double when people bad mouth a guy like Quinn, who has more than adequate arm strength.

I've seen numerous comparisions between Russell's 60 yd "butt throw", and Kyle Boller's 50 yard throw from one knee. It's beyond baffling that the people making these comparision actually haven't bothered to stop and look at how Kyle Boller actually turned out.

This leaves me with one conclusion: NFL scouts are completely and utterly clueless when it comes to projecting college players, especially QBs.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298776]Which worked out wonderful for Akili Smith and Cade McNown.[/quote]


and mcnabb and marino and montana and manning i can go on and on but i fear i will die listing names

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298783]How do you figure?[/quote]


you know guys like leinart,cutler, alex smith, carson palmer,

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Masterfully written article by John Clayton illustrating my point:

[url=http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2839055]ESPN.com - NFL/DRAFT07 - Clayton: Evaluating QBs just got tougher[/url]

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;298851]and mcnabb and marino and montana and manning i can go on and on but i fear i will die listing names[/quote]Quake, I have no idea what your point is. Mine is that physical skills count for next to nothing at this level.

Damn, do I admire your sig though.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298854]Masterfully written article by John Clayton illustrating my point:

[URL="http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft07/columns/story?columnist=clayton_john&id=2839055"]ESPN.com - NFL/DRAFT07 - Clayton: Evaluating QBs just got tougher[/URL][/quote]


u have a point but so do i just showing that draft picking is not a science it is a luck thing

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298855]Quake, I have no idea what your point is. Mine is that physical skills count for next to nothing at this level.

Damn, do I admire your sig though.[/quote]


my point is that once again there is no sure thing when it comes to drafting anybody thats all i am trying to say

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;298856]u have a point but so do i just showing that draft picking is not a science it is a luck thing[/quote]At some point, you just have to hope you picked the right guy. That doesn't mean that certain features (like college experience) generally indicate a good prospect.

At QB, however, its a whole different animal. There is just so much data on college QBs that we can easily correlate any first round talent with the busts of the last ten years or the guys who panned out. Like, I can say with 99% certainty that Quinn>Russell. Brady Quinn just has to stay healthy and avoid circumstances that could ruin his career. Russell should have stayed in school one more year.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298859]At some point, you just have to hope you picked the right guy. That doesn't mean that certain features (like college experience) generally indicate a good prospect.

At QB, however, its a whole different animal. There is just so much data on college QBs that we can easily correlate any first round talent with the busts of the last ten years or the guys who panned out. Like, I can say with 99% certainty that Quinn>Russell. Brady Quinn just has to stay healthy and avoid circumstances that could ruin his career. Russell should have stayed in school one more year.[/quote]


god man i respect the hell out of you but i just cant put quinn over russell man i just cant inhave weighed every possible option and i just cant

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;298860]god man i respect the hell out of you but i just cant put quinn over russell man i just cant inhave weighed every possible option and i just cant[/quote]That's cool.

I think you are a smarter talent evaluator than Todd McShay anyway. :food-smil

Everybody is entited to their opinion, but at some point, a lot of the scouts that ignore college stats for more flashy things like arm are going to get their roles reduced within their respective organizations and have their duties handed over to the better, more objective scouts.

NFL teams will get this QB scouting thing down to a science soon. IMO, it's just a tragedy that they haven't yet. You just have to wonder how many times Scouts can screw up and make excuses before the teams go hire someone else.

The Redskins actually have a really good college scouting department. It's too bad we trade all of our draft picks because I think the guys in our scouting department give us an inherent drafting advantage over most other teams. We seem to choose not to exercise this advantage.

Eventually teams will catch up to Philadelphia and NE in drafting the right guys because, after all, its really not rocket science. You pick the most talented guy with a good deal of experience at a need position, and hope that he doesn't unexpectedly bust. Avoiding underclassmen is a good way to cut down on busts.

And that right there is the source of the whole scouting issue. The fact that these guys think that they are one of only a select few in the world that can do their job. Learning how to be a good scout takes little experience as long as you are observant and willing to learn from past errors. Most guys in the league today simply aren't.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Also, if you are interested in seeing how some of the top QBs in this draft project to the NFL, this article is for you:

[url=http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2007/04/17/ramblings/nfl-draft/5082/]FOOTBALL OUTSIDERS: Football analysis and NFL stats for the Moneyball era - Authors of Pro Football Prospectus 2006 and 2005[/url]

Money Quote:

[QUOTE]Here is the complete list of players drafted in first two rounds over the past ten years who started at least 35 games and completed at least 57 percent of their passes: Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Drew Brees, Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler.

Are there any bad players on that list? The worst according to my numbers is Eli Manning, and he’s been decent (maybe not up to expectations, but decent). I would be happy to spend a top ten pick on most of those players. [/QUOTE]

One more for the road:

[QUOTE]I am hardly pleased to call out Russell as a likely bust, and given the right situation and good coaching I am sure he could defy the odds and become a good pro. However, players like Russell rarely do.

Here’s that under 30 starts list again: Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Michael Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Alex Smith.

Sorry, Raiders fans.[/QUOTE]

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;298783]How do you figure?[/quote]

I'm not going off of the combine stuff. Russell didn't even throw at the combine. I'm just going off of when I saw him play in games. He was making John Elway/Jeff George kind of throws. Just zipping it in small windows. Simply put no one in this draft has that kind of passing ability. Now that does not mean he is going to be a great pro qb. I'm just saying based on his college games he looked like a can't miss.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

Tripp, that is so funny that you brought up the Kyle Boller analogy with Jamarcus. I was about to bring that up, but I figured I'd go check some of your posts just in case. Sure enough, there it was. LOL!! When I heard Todd McShay bring up the whole 60 yd "Butt Throw" by Russell, I laughed my ass off (forgive the pun). Who friggin cares if he can throw it behind his back with his eyes closed, off the rafters, into the endzone??? How on earth does meaningless crap like that translate to the football field??

The comparison of Leinart to Quinn is very valid:
Leinart: played 4 years (3 of which he started) in a pro-style offense with a NFL caliber talent all around him and a pro-style coach. His leadership and smarts coupled with all that experience = success.
Quinn: also played 4 seasons, starting 3, and played in a pro-style offense with an NFL coach, and also played in some huge games.

I also like Quinn over Russell. He's got size and athleticism, plus Weis absolutely raves about him. Sure he's kind of obligated too, but Weis developed a guy named Tom Brady. Last I checked he's done okay. Hearing Weis wholeheartedly compare Brady with Quinn has got to make some FO's drool.

But I don't think we can say Russell has less of a chance of success. Vince Young only played 3 seasons. Cutler only played 3 seasons. They both did well and look to be developing nicely. I guess it's the decision making that may take a little longer to come around with QBs that leave school early. Like you said, at some point you just have to hope you pick the right guy.

Re: How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;298882]I'm not going off of the combine stuff. Russell didn't even throw at the combine. I'm just going off of when I saw him play in games. He was making John Elway/Jeff George kind of throws. Just zipping it in small windows. Simply put no one in this draft has that kind of passing ability. Now that does not mean he is going to be a great pro qb. I'm just saying based on his college games he looked like a can't miss.[/quote]I'm wary of anyone who makes a name for himself with pinpoint accuracy at the college level, especially if he has a rep for making poor decisions. That doesn't fly in the NFL.

The John Elway comparison sounds pretty accurate...but historic greatness is not predictable before the draft. Elway did a lot of stuff at the college level that Russell doesn't do very well.

I want to hesitate from labeling Russell a bust candidate, but he's just not a good NFL prospect. No QB in recent memory could have used his senior year of college more than Russell. The most ideal situation for him would be 3+ years of riding the bench so that he could get pretty far into his development before having to be put under the microscope. This could allow him enough time to develop into an NFL worthy starter before he gets labeled a bust.

If he goes first overall, he's not going to have that luxury. No matter which team he ends up on, he's going to develop a rep for poor decision making and being INT prone, and probably get the bust label sometime before 2009.

No matter what, he's never going to live up to expectations. He just isn't a good decision maker, period. Most underclass QB's aren't. If he can get into a favorable situation where he doesn't have to play right away, he might earn the perception of a starting quality QB (even though he's really the exact same player--just farther along in his development). If he gets thrown to the Wolves immediately, he's going to have a very rough first three years, and in today's league, generally its three strikes and you're out.

Unfortuante but true.