Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


The Mid Round QB fallacy

NFL Draft Central


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2010, 06:33 PM   #121
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,341
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?
Without using the Skywalker/Solo Halloween Regression Method.... quickly looking at some franchise level QBs taken in the 1st (Brees & Favre may as well have been); Manning x 2, Brees, Favre, McNabb, Palmer, Rivers, Rodgers, all those guys records improved within the 1st-3rd years without a major supporting cast change. Once they understood the NFL and started "getting it". They made those around them better.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 02-16-2010, 08:08 PM   #122
RG Glee
 
Schneed10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Newtown Square, PA
Age: 35
Posts: 8,331
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
This has nothing to do with I was just saying before (and shouldn't be considered an extension to the argument), but I don't actually believe that either of the quarterback prospects have a metaphorical high ceiling as players. I think there's a scheme evaluation that will occur with Shanahan's system where he will look at all the available players, and ask which ones can execute the bread and butter of his route tree the very best. And if the answer is either Clausen or Bradford, I think he will take them at No. 4.

But a scheme evaluation is not a player evaluation. It's probably a lot more complicated. I don't know, I've never really tried to do one. Player evaluation wise, these aren't high ceiling prospects. I think I have a very good (if not complete) idea of who these two guys are. And to reach towards that franchise quarterback level, I think you need to be willing to scale a playbook away from the things that Clausen and Bradford struggle with. With Bradford, that may be harder because I don't think the things he struggles with are readily apparent (different than saying they do not exist -- a lot different). If you create a QB friendly system for them, I think either of these guys is capable of reaching their top level potential.

Of course, you could do the same thing for Chad Pennington or Jason Campbell or Dan Lefevour. I fully support Mike Shanahan's ability to evaluate all possible options in this draft...but the point comes when you make so many concessions in your offense to try to create a great player out of a top prospect, that you wonder exactly why these are the top prospects in the draft.

Maybe we think about it the wrong way.
Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.
Schneed10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:19 PM   #123
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,729
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paintrain View Post
I've been quoted (although mis-named) by Matt Terl. My life's work is complete.
Hey guys check it out. I haz picture of Paintrain
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2010, 08:21 PM   #124
Naega jeil jal naga
 
Dirtbag59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland
Age: 29
Posts: 14,729
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.
What a battle. The two biggest number guys (albeit different number types) on the warpath going head to head.
__________________
"It's nice to be important, but its more important to be nice."
- Scooter

"I feel like Dirtbag has been slowly and methodically trolling the board for a month or so now."
- FRPLG
Dirtbag59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 12:31 AM   #125
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
Of course.
Its interesting that you say of course now but i was responding to your statement that:
Quote:
I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.
I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.
Its like being a No.1 receiver anyone can label Roy Williams a No.1 receiver but Miles Austin's play on the field made him the No.1

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33 View Post
The physical differences in QBs is far more vast than a mere tenth of a second in the 40-time or 10lbs in a bench press. You've got their release, velocity, accuracy, accuracy on the move, foot speed, foot quickness, etc. Most importantly is the mental and leadership aspect of a QB prospect, what type of competition has the prospect played in college, what type of system, all important factors to consider.

Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.
And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB. Naturally if their all similiar physically the difference has to be the immeasureables.
And that is why picking a QB is such a crap shot at the end of the day after everything has been measured you still don't know.
*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)

Imo another reason you can't predict a QBs success has nothing to do with the player its about the situation more then the player.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 09:41 AM   #126
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,341
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?
It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

Quote:
Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?
No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

Quote:
Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the situation is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.
The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

Quote:
That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.
A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

Quote:
And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different physically measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB.
That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

Quote:
*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)
As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Quote:
Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.
Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 11:20 AM   #127
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 12,514
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtbag359 View Post
If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

It might only be two bullet points but they're easily two of the most important aspects of being an NFL QB.
Agreed; they talk about his long ball but it's never where it needs to be. He's even missed several with Moss or whoever nearly wide open.

The reading def needs to be improved, I'll defend him to an extent saying that he might only have time to make his basic reads before he has to get rid of the ball, however with a little more time he might get some extra looks in. He needs to compensate by having better pocket presence or having the pocket move (which obviously would be coming from above his call).
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 11:26 AM   #128
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 12,514
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?
Are you an economist or something? Football isn't only a science and it can be hard to measure art. I know that I've said it before but your pretty and obscure numbers can't explain everything for good or for bad. Some things are unquantifiable or just aren't represented well by numbers. There are too many factors to consider to break it down to something so concise; with all of the tape that you watch I figured you'd have this down by now because at times it seems like you only watch the stats board.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 11:28 AM   #129
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 12,514
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"
hahahaha

we'd never draft a QB, that's for certain
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 11:29 AM   #130
Gamebreaker
 
tryfuhl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Waldorf, MD
Age: 31
Posts: 12,514
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.
And that's the reason that once a QB becomes elite.. that the team is rarely in the position to draft a top QB prospect again.
tryfuhl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 04:45 PM   #131
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schneed10 View Post
I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.
I think Jason Campbell could easily enter the top echilon of quarterbacks. Still. Problem is that I absolutely do not think that he WILL, and especially not here. I used to think it was only a matter of time before he'd be in the top ten, but the quality of our offense has declined greatly since 2007 and the beginning of 2008. And thusly, while I can still see the potential there, I think the longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to achieve anything beyond what he already has.

Same deal with any rookie we might draft. The quality of the offense he'd be in from day one is pathetic. The system, however, would be the one proven thing we'd have to work with. We don't have great talent on the outsides or in the backfield, or up front, so in effect what we're looking for is a system quarterback. Can he execute the Shanahan playbook as well as any other player in this draft? If the answer is yes, I don't see why we wouldn't take one at four.

I honestly have no idea if a system quarterback drafted in the second round is as good as a system quarterback drafted in the first. I really don't think any team has ever tried to take a system quarterback in the top ten picks. And I don't see why Washington would be any different. But I think Shanahan has to at least evaluate all the options. If his system values accuracy above all, and Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the two most accurate passers in the entire class (ignoring McCoy), then I think you almost have to take one of them.

But are we rebuilding on offense? Or are we just adding Shanahan players to what already exists? And if we're rebuilding, why did we hire Shanahan? And what of 2011? There's so much context I can't answer here, but the one thing I think I can answer is that, context-neutral, Bradford and Clausen are both reaches at No. 4.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 04:48 PM   #132
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Shanahan's mentor, Walsh, was famous for taking undervalued quarterback prospects and building a system that hid their weaknesses while exposing those of the defense. In a class like this, I find it hard to believe we won't even try that.

And that's why I feel that we will spend a first round pick on a quarterback, but that it won't be at No. 4. It will be at No. 25 or something, and it will be McCoy.

But it's an interesting thought that we may do that, and Clausen might still be available at that point. And then there's a legitimate dilemma that we'll have to pick between Clausen and McCoy at the back end of the first round to be our quarterback of the future.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 04:58 PM   #133
Special Teams
 
PHazard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Originally Portsmouth, VA but now Ocala, FL
Posts: 207
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!
PHazard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 05:01 PM   #134
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,894
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2010, 05:03 PM   #135
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy

Quote:
Originally Posted by PHazard View Post
I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!
There are a lot of teams that need a QB, but a lot of them are going to go the veteran route. Come draft day, there might be two or three teams that need one, and one of those might be Carolina who doesn't pick before we pick twice. Arizona could be the other, and they don't pick until right around 25. Every team, however, has needs outside of quarterback.

There's also a bunch of teams that will be perfectly happy to test the draft later. Cleveland's run by Holmgren now, and he's NEVER taken a QB in the first round.

Someone is going to take Bradford within the top ten picks. After that, who knows.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.55774 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25