Is Russell really better than Quinn?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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


Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.

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.

Yeah but you are not understanding my logic.

If you demand change or other scouts, you will get them. You are saying they have no other options, but money makes the world turn. That will make them find other scouts who are willing to change or are better.

OR, if they demand for better stuff is high, the scouts will change to improve themselves. The GMs just have to hold the scouts to high standards. And if the scouts are failing like you say so, they would. And therefore my logic would follow as stated above.


Again I dont think I am absolutely correct, but i am just basing this on economics. Also I think you are correct in many aspects, and I consider you one of the best posters on this site Gtripp, so because I am critical dont take it the wrong way.

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.

For example, Scout A believes that SEC Quarterbacks are better prepared for the NFL than any other conference. Scout A also believes that the Pac 10 is a horrible QB conference. In 1998, Scout A decided that Manning would be a better QB than Leaf based on his conference perception. Low and behold, Leaf busts, and Manning becomes one of, if not the greatest ever to play. Scout A's perceptions of conference are reinforced. In 2003, Scout A decides that Rex Grossman will certainly be a better prospect than Kyle Boller because of conference exp. While Grossman was a little underwhelming, Bollers complete inepititude convinces Scout A that he is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt with his theory.

So now you have another SEC QB in Russell and Quinn and non conference QB. Scout A already knows who the better prospect is, but now he can convince collegues he is right by reminding them of past history and Russell's big arm.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.Because Scouts SHOULD be learning from their mistakes. Once you have more years of information, it should become gradually easier and easier to identify what makes a bust a bust. But scouts don't investigate this.

McDougal was a mistake. Because of McDougal, Eagles scouts, in theory at least, have become more attune to why he busted and will avoid prospects with similar flaws.

You can't grade anything off a guy's rookie year so we don't know if Bunkley or Jackson was a good pick yet. But don't lump them together. Jackson was a 2nd rounder, his expectation as a player should not be the same as Bunkley's.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.


Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.