How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11]

skinsfan69
04-18-2007, 04:07 PM
28 TDs, 8 INTs, and 67% are wonderful numbers. But it was only one year. He would have been a much better prospect if he came back another year and did it again. Quinn made a significant improvement every year through his Junior year, and then came back to improve his game for another season, and this difference will be reflected between Russell and Quinn at the pro level. I promise you.

There are a lot of college numbers that will be decieving. That's why I say its far more important that an NFL prospect take more from his college experience (games started), than he gives (everything else).

Do you disagree with the notion that Russell would have been a significantly better prospect if he stayed at LSU for his senior year season? I mean, it sounds like you are on board with this concept, but you continue to argue in spite of it.

Completion percentage is important. And Russell was certainly better at it than Quinn in college. There are a lot of experience related reasons to expect Quinn to be better than Russell at the next level. Completely aside from starting 17 more games (one and a half freakin seasons), Russell made a lot of boneheaded decisions at the college level. I mean, at times, it almost seemed like he lacked the ability to adjust to certain defensive coverages, and was easily confused. Many LSU fans were frusterated by this.

You can make a solid argument that Russell was a better college QB than Quinn because the college game allows for physical skill to overcome inconsistent mental play. Based on what we already know about what makes a guy successful at the pro level, Quinn>Russell (by a sizable margin) just seems like the gimme of the year. Stastical projections only improve my confidence in this.

Of couse he would benefit from playing his senior year. But Russell has nothing left to prove. His stock can only go down. If you were him would you stay? Hell no. He is mostly likely going to be the number one pick in the draft. That means a 50 million $ signing bonus. Why would you go back and risk getting hurt? Remember what happened to Leinart? If he had left his 3rd year he would be a 49er right now, and he would have went first in the 05 draft. Would that last year made difference? Sure. But he got outplayed by Vince Young on the big stage and cost himself millions of dollars. So keep that in mind. It's not just about getting more game time with most guys. Leinart being the exception.

Yes Russell made some bonehead plays. But so did Brady Quinn. So did Peyton Manning in the SB. All QB's make bad decisions in every game that they play in. But Russell made less mistakes every year he started. He grew and matured like every good QB does. You act like QB's are suppose to be like robots and not make mistakes. It happens to the best QB's in football every game.

I remember watching Brady Quinn throw into double coverage against LSU so many times it wasn't even funny. He played terrible. Does than mean he is a bad decision maker? No. He just had a bad game. Remember Tripp, QBs are not robots and stats don't always tell the whole story.

GMScud
04-18-2007, 04:14 PM
It's funny how everyone heaps tons of praise on Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, yet conveniently gloss over the trade he made to get Boller. A 2nd and a 1st for KB? Not worth it at all

He should probably get a little flack for the Boller move, but his other first round picks have made something like 27 combined pro-bowls. Some of his draft picks:
Johnathan Ogden, Ray Lewis, Ed Reed, Todd Heap, Terrel Suggs, Jamal Lewis, Chester Taylor, Casey Rabach, Chris McAllister, Brandon Stokely, Peter Boulware... that's just off the top of my head, and not mentioning his free agent acquisitions. Personally I'd like to have the guy in our front office. At least he is wise enough to emphasize the draft.

SmootSmack
04-18-2007, 04:25 PM
I think he's a fine GM. But I mean the Redskins have gotten guys like Cooley, Taylor, Campbell, Golston, Washington, Springs, Thomas; yet we continue to bitch about stupid stuff like signing Bruce Smith seven years ago and overlook everything else.

I guess it was just my feeble attempt to say not all GM's are infallible Gods, as many here tend to believe.

EARTHQUAKE2689
04-18-2007, 04:44 PM
Remember, Palmer is a guy playing in his prime. I'm saying that when Leinart and Rivers and Roethlisberger get a few more years starting experience under their belt, they will be as good, maybe a little better than Palmer.

And that's not bashing Palmer in anyway, just saying there are better QBs than him. He's almost certainly a perennial pro bowler.


Spoken like a true football genius very well put tripp could not have said it better myself

GMScud
04-18-2007, 04:49 PM
I think he's a fine GM. But I mean the Redskins have gotten guys like Cooley, Taylor, Campbell, Golston, Washington, Springs, Thomas; yet we continue to bitch about stupid stuff like signing Bruce Smith seven years ago and overlook everything else.

I guess it was just my feeble attempt to say not all GM's are infallible Gods, as many here tend to believe.

Heck yeah, plus Moss, Griffin, Rabach, now Fletcher... I do like a lot of our moves, but I also think we need the stability and consistency that comes with having a knowledgeable personnel man running the FO. If we had a decent GM back when the Danny took over I doubt Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders would have ever donned the burgundy and gold.

GTripp0012
04-18-2007, 05:40 PM
Of couse he would benefit from playing his senior year. But Russell has nothing left to prove. His stock can only go down. If you were him would you stay? Hell no. He is mostly likely going to be the number one pick in the draft. That means a 50 million $ signing bonus. Why would you go back and risk getting hurt? Remember what happened to Leinart? If he had left his 3rd year he would be a 49er right now, and he would have went first in the 05 draft. Would that last year made difference? Sure. But he got outplayed by Vince Young on the big stage and cost himself millions of dollars. So keep that in mind. It's not just about getting more game time with most guys. Leinart being the exception.

Yes Russell made some bonehead plays. But so did Brady Quinn. So did Peyton Manning in the SB. All QB's make bad decisions in every game that they play in. But Russell made less mistakes every year he started. He grew and matured like every good QB does. You act like QB's are suppose to be like robots and not make mistakes. It happens to the best QB's in football every game.

I remember watching Brady Quinn throw into double coverage against LSU so many times it wasn't even funny. He played terrible. Does than mean he is a bad decision maker? No. He just had a bad game. Remember Tripp, QBs are not robots and stats don't always tell the whole story.At think point, I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I clearly don't believe that all first round projected QBs are created equal. I think we both agree on a lot of crucial points but are allowing some minor points we don't agree on to blow this argument out of proportion. We are both Skins fans, and Quinn having a better career than Russell won't affect us in any way since neither will land in our division.

jsarno
04-18-2007, 07:49 PM
Which brings the original question back into focus: What is the significance of College playing experience?

Now seeing that a QB will enter the NFL on a very similar career path to the way he leaves it (barring of course a career ending injury), doesn't this change the value of NCAA QB experience? It now appears that starting more games would ALWAYS be beneficial to the QB. That would mean that leaving school early, while potentially a smart business decision, would ALWAYS hurt the quality of a guy's career.

Is this even plausible? Let's go to the numbers:

For first round QB's (of the last 10 years) only, it seems like we could--in fact--predict their successes at the next level based ONLY on the number of games they started in college. So if the scouts unianimously like a guy (because hes a first rounder), and he has a lot of college experience, recent history shows that this guy is a virtual lock for success. (This is really good news for J. Campbell, although there were exceptions--with very awful college stats).

Chad Pennington: 51 starts
Philip Rivers: 51 starts
Peyton Manning: 45 starts
Carson Palmer: 45 starts
Jay Cutler: 45 starts
Donovan McNabb: 45 starts
Daunte Culpepper: 44 starts
Matt Leinart: 39 starts
Jason Campbell: 39 starts
Drew Brees: 37 starts (he was the first pick in the 2nd round)
Eli Manning: 37 starts

Look at that company. More importantly, compare that company to guys who didn't start a lot of games in college.

Patrick Ramsey: 32 starts
Rex Grossman: 31 starts
Joey Harrington: 28 starts
JP Losman: 27 starts
David Carr: 26 starts
Tim Couch: 25 starts
Ryan Leaf: 24 starts
Aaron Rodgers: 22 starts
Alex Smith: 22 starts
Michael Vick: 19 starts
Akili Smith: 19 starts

So where does Russell fit in? Over his career at LSU, JaMarcus Russell started 29 games. Not only that, but his career 62% completion is not really any better than another SEC QB who left school early (and started 2 more games). I'm talking about the incomprable Rex Grossman.

For sake of comparision, Brady Quinn started 46 games at Notre Dame and ranks up there with McNabb and Palmer with his college stats.

This study argues that with another year of experience, JaMarcus Russell would be a great NFL QB prospect. But by coming out a year early, history as least suggests the guy will have a rather mediocre NFL career.

Those are VERY interesting stats. Good job digging that up. I am a stat head and that makes me scratch my head.
I have always felt that Quinn would make a better qb than Russell, but I thought Russell would be a good QB...maybe I am incorrect.

GTripp0012
04-18-2007, 07:54 PM
Those are VERY interesting stats. Good job digging that up. I am a stat head and that makes me scratch my head.
I have always felt that Quinn would make a better qb than Russell, but I thought Russell would be a good QB...maybe I am incorrect.The most confusing part of the study is the realization that these horrible busts of players could have been very good QBs had they stayed in school another year. This study suggests that a majority of busts (with a decent amount of exceptions) only busted because they were underprepared for the next level, and not for any other reason.

jsarno
04-18-2007, 08:02 PM
The most confusing part of the study is the realization that these horrible busts of players could have been very good QBs had they stayed in school another year. This study suggests that a majority of busts (with a decent amount of exceptions) only busted because they were underprepared for the next level, and not for any other reason.

It might show something about their mental state..."give me money now", and less to do with actual talent.
I would have never thought of those starts as being a factor, but it's hard to ignore the correlation.

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum