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.Cutler started 45 games though (4 seasons). Young is a differerent case. He started 3 more games than Russell, which is a sizable difference. But Young also has an option with his legs that Russell simply doesn't have. VY will be a slightly above league average passer in his prime, but will be so much more valuable than that as a player because of his running skills.

As far as Russell's running skills are, I mean, Brady Quinn is the better runner of the two.

I say that the difference between the two guys will be epicly displayed by year 2 of their NFL careers. Russell is never going to get a chance to hit his prime unless he ends up in a situation like Grossman did. You think if Grossman was on the Raiders, he would have held his starting position? Russell simply will get the bust label before he has an adequate chance to learn the game. And it sucks for him. But he should have stayed in school. He needed the experience.

Let me be clear on one thing. Even if Russell is handeled properly in a good situation, the gap between him and Quinn will never be closed as some mediots think it will. The mythical upside surrounding Russell is not a reality. He's just not the prospect Quinn is. Doesn't mean he can't defy the odds to solidify himself as an NFL level passer in a good situation. It just means that Quinn will be better.

Remember, Grossman went 23rd to Chicago in 2003. The expectations surrounding him are not even comparible to the hype around Russell. Unfortuantely for JaMarcus, there's a double standard here. Because he's going to be a top 3 pick, as soon as it becomes clear that he's going to dissapoint, they will look for his replacement (as opposed to letting him grow into the borderline starter he can be in his prime). Grossman survived in part because no one expected anything from him.

Cutler started 45 games though (4 seasons). Young is a differerent case. He started 3 more games than Russell, which is a sizable difference. But Young also has an option with his legs that Russell simply doesn't have. VY will be a slightly above league average passer in his prime, but will be so much more valuable than that as a player because of his running skills.

As far as Russell's running skills are, I mean, Brady Quinn is the better runner of the two.

I say that the difference between the two guys will be epicly displayed by year 2 of their NFL careers. Russell is never going to get a chance to hit his prime unless he ends up in a situation like Grossman did. You think if Grossman was on the Raiders, he would have held his starting position? Russell simply will get the bust label before he has an adequate chance to learn the game. And it sucks for him. But he should have stayed in school. He needed the experience.

Let me be clear on one thing. Even if Russell is handeled properly in a good situation, the gap between him and Quinn will never be closed as some mediots think it will. The mythical upside surrounding Russell is not a reality. He's just not the prospect Quinn is. Doesn't mean he can't defy the odds in a good situation. It just means that Quinn will be better.


I agree that Russell should have stayed in school. Not that going to the Oakland Raiders is a good situation, but they do have a very solid defense, a good RB in LaMont Jordan, and they still have Randy Moss and Jerry Porter (despite their issues). Granted that offense needs a lot of help, but as the Bears proved, a great defense can really help a below average offense. Russell in Oakland could work.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Quinn is going to be the better pro. But if Oakland drafts Russell I don't necessarily think it means he's doomed.

I agree that Russell should have stayed in school. Not that going to the Oakland Raiders is a good situation, but they do have a very solid defense, a good RB in LaMont Jordan, and they still have Randy Moss and Jerry Porter (despite their issues). Granted that offense needs a lot of help, but as the Bears proved, a great defense can really help a below average offense. Russell in Oakland could work.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Quinn is going to be the better pro. But if Oakland drafts Russell I don't necessarily think it means he's doomed.Well, Russell is only doomed if the team that drafts him gives up on him. Cade McNown got doomed because the Bears traded him after only 2 seasons on the team. McNown wasn't a good prospect either, but like Russell, probably would have been adequate for the situation if allowed to grow in the system.

I just don't see Al Davis and the Raiders being patient with this kid. I don't see any team waiting through 3-4 years of backup quality play so that then can get a QB who is a bottom half starter in the league. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when you consider that at the back end of this deal (when the team that draft him would start to get some results), Russell is going to be getting 6-7 million a year to play.

JaMarcus Russell's best chance for success in this league will be on his 2nd go around maybe 4-5 years into the future (Much like David Carr). The team that drafts him is well on their way to a lengthy trial and error process that simply won't be worth the hassel.

Again, I don't hate Russell. I just have seen this story played out before.

Well, Russell is only doomed if the team that drafts him gives up on him. Cade McNown got doomed because the Bears traded him after only 2 seasons on the team. McNown wasn't a good prospect either, but like Russell, probably would have been adequate for the situation if allowed to grow in the system.

I just don't see Al Davis and the Raiders being patient with this kid. I don't see any team waiting through 3-4 years of backup quality play so that then can get a QB who is a bottom half starter in the league. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when you consider that at the back end of this deal (when the team that draft him would start to get some results), Russell is going to be getting 6-7 million a year to play.

JaMarcus Russell's best chance for success in this league will be on his 2nd go around maybe 4-5 years into the future (Much like David Carr). The team that drafts him is well on their way to a lengthy trial and error process that simply won't be worth the hassel.

Again, I don't hate Russell. I just have seen this story played out before.

Just out of curiosity, what was your take on Cutler and Young heading into last years draft?

Just out of curiosity, what was your take on Cutler and Young a year ago at this time?I thought Young would be an average NFL QB, and that both Leinart and Cutler would be better than him.

Of course, I know a lot more about projecting rookie QBs than I did 365 days ago.

But my logic was this: we know something for certain about Young; he can run. We also know based on like even paying attention to college football that he's a better game manager and passer than Vick. So if Vick could even survive in this league, Young would at least be average.

I liked Cutler as an underrated prospect, but didn't feel that his "ceiling" was as high as Leinarts (back in a day when I believed in the concept of "floors" and "ceilings", I'm not that naive anymore). I thought he might be better than Leinart, but also if you thought one guy was going to bust (which I didn't) it was probably going to be Cutler.

I ended up being right that none would bust, that was pretty solid.

I thought Young would be an average NFL QB, and that both Leinart and Cutler would be better than him.

Of course, I know a lot more about projecting rookie QBs than I did 365 days ago.

But my logic was this: we know something for certain about Young; he can run. We also know based on like even paying attention to college football that he's a better game manager and passer than Vick. So if Vick could even survive in this league, Young would at least be average.

I liked Cutler as an underrated prospect, but didn't feel that his "ceiling" was as high as Leinarts (back in a day when I believed in the concept of "floors" and "ceilings", I'm not that naive anymore). I thought he might be better than Leinart, but also if you thought one guy was going to bust (which I didn't) it was probably going to be Cutler.

I ended up being right that none would bust, that was pretty solid.

So I suppose my next question should be what in the past year has changed the way you evaluate a NFL QB prospect? Where did this knowledge come from?

I'm not asking b/c I question your evaluations, I'm asking b/c I like your posts and for the most part I agree with your assessments and opinions.

I for one thought Young would be the best of the 2006 QB draft picks. The jury is still out, but in the end I think it will be Leinart. That new stadium along with Wisenhunt and Grimm, I see Arizona emerging as a solid player in the NFC for years to come.

So I suppose my next question should be what in the past year has changed the way you evaluate a NFL QB prospect? Where did this knowledge come from?

I'm not asking b/c I question your evaluations, I'm asking b/c I like your posts and for the most part I agree with your assessments and opinions.

I for one thought Young would be the best of the 2006 QB draft picks. The jury is still out, but in the end I think it will be Leinart. That new stadium along with Wisenhunt and Grimm, I see Arizona emerging as a solid player in the NFC for years to come.I got into statistical projections and correlations, mainly.

I've come to realize that most of what scouts do for a living is a complete sham for job security to make their work seem like an art, when in reality all it really is would be lazy, shoddy work.

It's not hard at all to project a QB. They all do so much at the college level, I mean we have so much data on them that there should be no excuse for missing badly on a QB prospect. It should be twice as hard to pick at any other position than QB, and for whatever reason, scouts still make mistakes at QB.

I agree with you that Leinart will be the best of the 2006 class. Along with Rivers and Roethlisberger, they will emerge as three of the top QBs in the league. Campbell should be just a stride below that class, around Carson Palmer's level. Brady Quinn should also be an upper echilon QB, but I don't think he will crack the top 5 in the league at any point in his career.

Since 2004, a plethora of great QBs have come into the league, so the teams that are going to be perenial losers from here on out are the ones who don't pick up a great young QB. That's why passing on Quinn would be such a mistake, especially for the Raiders.

It continues to baffle me that at a position as make or break as Quarterback, teams won't do everything they can to make sure they aren't taking a future bust. But that's what seperates the men from the boys, I guess.

[quote=GTripp0012;298899]I got into statistical projections and correlations, mainly.

"I agree with you that Leinart will be the best of the 2006 class. Along with Rivers and Roethlisberger, they will emerge as three of the top QBs in the league. Campbell should be just a stride below that class, around Carson Palmer's level. Brady Quinn should also be an upper echilon QB, but I don't think he will crack the top 5 in the league at any point in his career."


I cant believe that you put any of those QB's above Palmer. Right now the only one comparable is Rothlisberger if anything they are on the same level.

[quote=GTripp0012;298899]I got into statistical projections and correlations, mainly.

"I agree with you that Leinart will be the best of the 2006 class. Along with Rivers and Roethlisberger, they will emerge as three of the top QBs in the league. Campbell should be just a stride below that class, around Carson Palmer's level. Brady Quinn should also be an upper echilon QB, but I don't think he will crack the top 5 in the league at any point in his career."


I cant believe that you put any of those QB's above Palmer. Right now the only one comparable is Rothlisberger if anything they are on the same level.

Last year at this time I would have said Leinart would be the best qb based on his college career. I had doubts about Young because of the offense he played in at Texas and his throwing motion. But he proved me wrong. Young was the best rookie qb last year hands down. He could be the best out of last years class. One thing you can not judge is the intangibles. Young has the ability to take the team and carry it. He does things that don't show up in the stat sheet and that's what makes him so impressive. Plus who is the guy throwing to? He has no WR's at all.

Cutler reminds me of Farve. Gunslinger that throws in double coverage way too much. Jury is still out on him. But you can't deny he has the skills to be great.

I cant believe that you put any of those QB's above Palmer. Right now the only one comparable is Rothlisberger if anything they are on the same level.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.