Is Russell really better than Quinn?

[DGreen28]

Quinn if put in a similar system to C. Weiss he will do well

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ok, then disregard what I said about the ND bias. It's really just a small piece of evidence for the much more important point that scouts suck at their jobs, and in most cases don't even complete their work. Thus the concepts of floors and ceilings evolve.

Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?

Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?

I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.

I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting? These people are currently using inherent error (floors and ceilings) as a staple of the way they go about their work. Maybe thats just not the best way?

Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.

The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.

I agree on your assessment of the floors and ceilings problem. It is a easy way for a scout not to fail. Since they say that, they can always use it to defend themselves next year.

I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting?

I think there is always room for improvement in the NFL and any organization. That is how the world improves, through competition and the push for improvement. But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.

[skinsfan_nn]

There is room for improvement in all things in any business. Scouting isn't a Math problem were there is a black and white, etched in stone answer. The human element tells you it will always be flawed, that's not rocket science.

This guys have NEVER played at the NFL level, you have no clue how they will do at this level. It's just an educated GUESS. How do you think it will ever be a perfect science? It's IMPOSSIBLE!

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

There is room for improvement in all things in any business. Scouting isn't a Math problem were there is a black and white, etched in stone answer. The human element tells you it will always be flawed, that's not rocket science.

This guys have NEVER played at the NFL level, you have no clue how they will do at this level. It's just an educated GUESS. How do you think it will ever be a perfect science? It's IMPOSSIBLE!

Nice post. Couldn't agree more

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

You don't need a crystal ball when you can correlate 10 years of draft prospects success rate to their college experience. Russell only started 29 games. I don't need a freakin crystal ball to know that he is never going to be an elite player.

Brady Quinn is better prepared right now (46 starts), and this will never change barring injury. There is a common misconception that players have "floors" and "ceilings".

But isn't this concept just a giant neon admittance that the grading process that is used today has flaws.

Think about it. In reality, every player lies at a definate point somewhere between his "floor" and his "ceiling". So all a floor and ceiling really are is an allowance for scouting error. Correct?

So when somebody says "Player X has a lower floor than player Y, but a higher ceiling", what I hear is "I have no freaking clue how to grade prospects".

Please don't take that personally, because its not a knock on you Skinsfan69, it's a knock on the entire process that we have come to accept.

What we can all agree on is that either Quinn is better than Russell or Russell is better than Quinn. That seems redundant, but the concept of floors and ceilings allows scouts to creatively dart around what their actual job is, ranking the players.

We as fans should NOT accept floors and ceilings, because that's just simply a cop out for not scouting a prospect well enough. We should try our best to pinpoint each guys career path prior to the draft, like I have done, and let the QBs themselves prove us right or wrong.

I understand what your saying but what gives you the qualifications to judge if Russell is or is not ready. Just because he started 29 games means he not ready?? That's complete BS. I know your brought out stats that showed guys that started less than 30 games. But what about the other side to that? I'm sure many NFL QB's in the past, and that are playing now did not start a gazillion games like Bardy Quinn did. You can argue both sides to your theory.

Now I agree that playing 4 years is a big advantage. No question about that. Nothing is better than game experience. But your acting like it can't be done. Your acting like just becase the guy only started 29 games means he can't handle the NFL. I think all that means is he may need to sit his first year, like JC, Carson Palmer and many others.

Tom Brady. Wasn't he sharing time w/ Drew Henson?
Mark Bulger. I know he didn't have a overly productive college career. Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round?
Jake Delhomme. I don't know where he even went to college.
Matt Hasleback. I know he went to BC but I don't think he started a whole bunch of games.
Brad Johnson. Played behind Casey Weldon???? I know he got some experience in the world league but he didn't play a lick in college.
Byron Leftwich. Didn't he play behind Pennington for two years??

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.

Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.

Now I do not know how much competition there is with scouts, but if that is true, then you may be correct. I still dont know about GMs not knowing any other alternatives, and therefore sticking to shitty opinions.

These GMs have tons of resources and very smart people who work for them. If there is a lack of competition which yields bad results for drafting, they would know. And when you know that, teams will change. What you are saying is that there is no competition(which may be true) but then the GMs dont know what else to do, so they use it?

Basically the GMs would have to be stupid, which just doesnt make sense. Why else would they take that scouting report, when they know it is wrong? That just doesnt make sense at all.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.

Gtripp, if you are expecting to find a scientific solution for each problem, you will be highly disappointed. There are SOOO many factors and variables that you would have to isolate and analysis. Draft experts dont have access every single one of these variable that would impact their assessments.


Look I am not saying use that as an excuse. You HAVE to know that when you are a scout. You have realize you cant be perfect. That allows you to change and adapt. I am sure tons of scouts make bad picks and move on, but that is the NFLs fault for not having a system with competition. Competition would weed out all these problems.

Yes you can improve, and maybe there will be better scouts in the future which will minimize busts, but there is no way to eliminate it. Just because we know that, doesnt mean we should stop trying to improve the system, however.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I understand what your saying but what gives you the qualifications to judge if Russell is or is not ready. Just because he started 29 games means he not ready?? That's complete BS. I know your brought out stats that showed guys that started less than 30 games. But what about the other side to that? I'm sure many NFL QB's in the past, and that are playing now did not start a gazillion games like Bardy Quinn did. You can argue both sides to your theory.

Now I agree that playing 4 years is a big advantage. No question about that. Nothing is better than game experience. But your acting like it can't be done. Your acting like just becase the guy only started 29 games means he can't handle the NFL. I think all that means is he may need to sit his first year, like JC, Carson Palmer and many others.

Tom Brady. Wasn't he sharing time w/ Drew Henson?
Mark Bulger. I know he didn't have a overly productive college career. Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round?
Jake Delhomme. I don't know where he even went to college.
Matt Hasleback. I know he went to BC but I don't think he started a whole bunch of games.
Brad Johnson. Played behind Casey Weldon???? I know he got some experience in the world league but he didn't play a lick in college.
Byron Leftwich. Didn't he play behind Pennington for two years??

This is a pretty solid argument. Let me explain the other part of my theory.

The guys you mentioned (exception to Leftwich who started 36 games, a pretty solid number) were ALL late round picks. These guys have proven that it is possible to have the mental capacity to buck the experience trend. And I expect Russell to have the exact same oppertunity to buck the trened as these guys did. There are always exceptions to every rule.

But for every Brady, Hasselbeck, and Brad Johnson, late round picks who were good prospects, do you have any idea how many late round picks had no talent whatsoever? I'd say the ratio for late round picks is like, 20:1.

So the experience equation is not perfect. Every prospect has his chance to buck the trend. But JaMarcus Russell is no more likely to become an elite passer than Cullen Finnerty (4 year starter at DII GVSU--led all D2 QBs in passing efficiency) is. Russell is FAR, far, far, far more likely to be at least as good as Rex Grossman is though. That's the statistical expectation for Russell. 95% chance that he will play somewhere in Grossman's vincinity. And that's not terrible (the Bears did get to a SB with that quality of player at QB), but its a terrible use of a top five pick.

So yes, I should probably, for sake of not sounding like a know-it-all prick, stop talking about Russell as an absolute certainty to be below average. Nothing is ever certain. I can just say, with a lot of confidence, that he will not be an elite player among the best QBs in the league. And if all stats can give me is a lot of confidence in a prediction, I'll take the 5% chance of error any day.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Basically the GMs would have to be stupid, which just doesnt make sense. Why else would they take that scouting report, when they know it is wrong? That just doesnt make sense at all.

I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Gtripp, if you are expecting to find a scientific solution for each problem, you will be highly disappointed. There are SOOO many factors and variables that you would have to isolate and analysis. Draft experts dont have access every single one of these variable that would impact their assessments.

Look I am not saying use that as an excuse. You HAVE to know that when you are a scout. You have realize you cant be perfect. That allows you to change and adapt. I am sure tons of scouts make bad picks and move on, but that is the NFLs fault for not having a system with competition. Competition would weed out all these problems.

Yes you can improve, and maybe there will be better scouts in the future which will minimize busts, but there is no way to eliminate it. Just because we know that, doesnt mean we should stop trying to improve the system, however.

I realize that we are far, far away from the draft being an exact science. At least 20 years, probably longer. But there are simple trends that decision makers are turning a blind eye to, and setting back their franchises.

In theory, drafting should get more and more accurate every year. I mean, that's what should be happening. Agreed?

Well, is it? You tell me. If it is, we have a non issue. If it's not improving, it's a bigger issue than anyone in the business could imagine. Because someone with knowledge of all these mistakes will come in and create a perennial winner and dominate their divisions for years, and years, and years until someone figures out whats wrong.

Oh wait, thats what the Pats and Eagles (and maybe Chargers too--its early) are doing already.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.

Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.

But a majority of the opinions available to scouts today--close to all, are bad, IMO. Scouting directors and scouts get fired all the time because they are making mistakes. But if they guys that replace them are making the same mistakes, that's not an improvement now is it?

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.