Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
Actually, this brings up the big idea here:
Quarterbacks do so much more and we have so much more collegiate data on them than any other position--possibly all other positions combined.
Why haven't scouts been able by this point to seperate busts from great prospects? Trial and Error was to be expected for a few years, but shouldn't the best scouts have been able to do the exact same research I just did and see that one prospect can not have more "upside" without being the best prospect in the present.
|
because they can't account well for the NFL suck factor. if anyone plays QB in oakland, they're going to suck. even peyton would look fairly average behind that line and with that running attack. when you're picked #1, you might get a stable team willing to build the right way (colts, eagles, chargers), or you might get al davis and a parade of coaches that shouldn't be in the NFL and have little authority within the organization. if you come into the NFL and all your team mates are malcontents and half-arsers, chance are you'll stop caring or have a hard time getting others to work harder on film study and passing drills, etc.