Is Russell really better than Quinn?

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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??

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.

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.

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.