List of Early Entries Declaring for the 2009 Draft

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Hail2theskins

personally dont and have never understood the love fest with stafford... he was a great recruit out of high school but really has been a remarkable underacheiver in college, 06 52 percent cmp, 07, 55% and this year 61%, granted his numbers this year were good for a college qb, but still only 15th in passer rating, 14th in passing yards and tied for 17th in touchdowns thrown, his "intangibles and potential" seem to be playing waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to big of a role on his draft status. clearly he has been progressing and getting better through each year of college, like most college qb's do, but the idea that he is a first round draft pick because of one decent year is beyond my comprehension...

Stafford's got a solid draft profile, not great (I would say the great draft profiles of the last 5 years are: Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart, Jay Cutler, Brady Quinn, and Chad Henne).

I think Stafford, physically, can be the first overall pick, but boy, a team would really have to like him to take him that high.

Matt Ryan on the other hand, another guy with a nice (but not great) draft profile, who I figured would be overvalued, but he really turned a lot of peoples heads. Even though guessing on intangibles is really shady business, when you're right, it can have great dividends.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Stafford's got a solid draft profile, not great (I would say the great draft profiles of the last 5 years are: Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers, Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart, Jay Cutler, Brady Quinn, and Chad Henne).

I think Stafford, physically, can be the first overall pick, but boy, a team would really have to like him to take him that high.

Matt Ryan on the other hand, another guy with a nice (but not great) draft profile, who I figured would be overvalued, but he really turned a lot of peoples heads. Even though guessing on intangibles is really shady business, when you're right, it can have great dividends.

I'm surprised how scouts hold a QB's physical qualities in such high regard when the position itself is a very cerebral position. Guys like JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and Michael Vick had all the physical tools but not nearly enough of the mental tools. Then again you get cerebral guys like Alex Smith and Joey Harrington only to watch them fall flat on their face. I guess in the end the only conclusion we can draw is that drafting QB's is a crap shoot unless it's the first round in 2004.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag359

I'm surprised how scouts hold a QB's physical qualities in such high regard when the position itself is a very cerebral position. Guys like JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, and Michael Vick had all the physical tools but not nearly enough of the mental tools. Then again you get cerebral guys like Alex Smith and Joey Harrington only to watch them fall flat on their face. I guess in the end the only conclusion we can draw is that drafting QB's is a crap shoot unless it's the first round in 2004.

Not a crapshoot, but it's dangerous to 1) attach a tag or title to a draft-eligible prospect, and then 2) use the tag/title as a justification for the pick.

It was dangerous for Matt Ryan to be judged as "clutch" before he ever took a snap in the NFL. You can't tell if a guy is clutch or not from his 3 year college career. But you can look at his fundamentals, draft profile, and skill set, and take him because you believe he's franchise material.

I don't think that makes it a crapshoot really, because Ryan was clearly a better prospect than JaMarcus Russell the year before. Was Ryan really two rounds better than the next possible prospect? I doubt that, but he's got a good chance to live up to that contract he signed.

It will be interesting when they lose their running game if he can still beat defenses with his arm and reading ability, and I'm far from sold on him, but he looks like a solid pick and a solid piece of scouting.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Not a crapshoot, but it's dangerous to 1) attach a tag or title to a draft-eligible prospect, and then 2) use the tag/title as a justification for the pick.

Yeah, I'm quoting myself.

One example of this mistake is the concept of "upside". You never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever take someone early in the draft because you like their "upside." Here's why:

Because upside is...not fictional...but opinional to the person doing the grading. You might see upside where there is none. Antonio Gates, now he had upside (i.e. untapped potential). Did anyone pick him on draft day because of that? No, because he wasn't at all a prospect.

It makes sense to take players for what they are. Not that you shouldn't look at how they might develop (because that's part of what they are), but you can't select players based on what they aren't. That sounds silly when I write it, but too often, a player is an NFL bust because he's taken to fill a role there's just no reason to believe he can play. That's your 'upside factor' there.