Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG
Intelligence, motivation and education.
|
Very well thought out and stated.
I'm convinced that good scouting principles can be learned. And to answer my own question before, I had been thinking the quarterback class of 2006 went a long way to showing that scouts had learned good player valuation. After all we hadn't had a universially overvalued player at the QB position since JP Losman in 2004. Scouts knew that Rodgers and Smith were average players in 2005 and knew that you couldn't go wrong with anybody in the class of 2006.
But lo and behold we roll around to 2007 and theres a QB debate that, in my humble opinion, really shouldn't even be occuring. We have ten years of data on successful QBs and ten years of data on unsuccessful QBs. Theres a common link between the mediocre/bust players and a seperate link between all successful players. There's three criteria that right now seems to point to a guy having a successful career.
-First, and most importantly, a guy must be projected by scouts in the first round. They have to pass the eye test as a starting QB.
-If they pass the eye test, they must have considerable experience at the NCAA level. 35 starts minimum.
-If they pass the eye test and they have the experience, they must have quality college statistics. The key stat is completion percentage and 58% (career) is the threshold that seperates overrated from underrated. (Coincedentally, Quinn falls right at this 58% for his career. Russell actually falls much higher at 62%)
Over the last ten years, no player to meet all three of these criterias has not accrued at least a certain deal of success. Players who do not meet ALL 3 usually don't have much success at the next level. They can, but it's rarely, if ever, done.
Scouts should know this by now. I'm certain the good ones already do. I'm confident that if the Raiders take Russell with Quinn on the board, they don't have any good scouts. But that really wouldn't surprise anyone here, would it?