How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[CooleyFan47]

Your list is pretty convincing.

However, based on choosing more college experience over those who leave early could cause some problems. Say a guy has 10 more career starts over the next guy beneath him just because he decided to stay in the league another year due to the current people declared for the NFL draft. Quinn could have left last year and still been a first round pick, but would he have been picked over the likes of Young, Leinart, and Cutler, maybe Cutler.

On the same note, a guy with no experience can be leaving because he just is that good, and there is no reason not to take it to the next level. Young did this, and he proved himself as a gamewinner when he finally got the chance to start last season.

Not disagreeing with your experience arguement, just stirring the kettle.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by CooleyFan47

On the same note, a guy with no experience can be leaving because he just is that good, and there is no reason not to take it to the next level. Young did this, and he proved himself as a gamewinner when he finally got the chance to start last season.

Young proved himself as a play maker. Really as a RB at QB. His successes as a QB were few and far between. In fact he looked less a QB than Vick looked like at the same point in his career. I think it still remains to be seen whether Young will ever be a quality QB in the NFL. I know there are many who don't think he will. The league's history is riddled with athletic play making QBs who never did a damn thing because they couldn't actually, you know, pass the ball. Young hasn't shown anyone he can actually pass the ball effectively. Far from it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CooleyFan47

On the same note, a guy with no experience can be leaving because he just is that good, and there is no reason not to take it to the next level. Young did this, and he proved himself as a gamewinner when he finally got the chance to start last season.

Not disagreeing with your experience arguement, just stirring the kettle.

Interesting point.

I don't see Vince Young as an exception to the arguement. I think Young made a good business decision to come out, but this arguement still thinks that he would have been a much better prospect had he waited a year.

His rookie season was pretty much what anybody would have expected from a rookie QB passing wise. Low completion %, high INTs. The Titans won more games because he made timely plays with his legs and just happened to stumble upon some hapless opponents (Giants).

But due to the results of this, I don't think theres ever going to be a prospect who is "just that good" or otherwise too good to return for another year. They can always better themselves.

[Longtimefan]

It's always difficult to predetermine how a player (espically a QB) will perform when moving from the college level to pro, only time will tell on that one.

Your post however does shed light on some interesting concepts. I'm just hoping that our QB (Jason Campbell) continues to mature at the rate we have hoped. That's the most interesting part of the upcoming season, watching the continued maturation process of Campbell.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Longtimefan

It's always difficult to predetermine how a player (espically a QB) will perform when moving from the college level to pro, only time will tell on that one.

Your post however does shed light on some interesting concepts. I'm just hoping that our QB (Jason Campbell) continues to mature at the rate we have hoped. That's the most interesting part of the upcoming season, watching the continued maturation process of Campbell.

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.

[That Guy]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

I disagree. It's unprecidented in history that a quarterback can leave a bad situation and find unmitigated success elsewhere. The good QBs will play well regardless of their situation. It may not translate to wins if the rest of their team sucks, but they aren't going to suck simply because there are some questionable characters around them.

Peyton Manning would still be pretty damn good on the Raiders. Yes his protection would be considerably worse and he would not sustain drives quite as successfully as he does now in Indy, but if the Raiders had Manning and the Colts had Brooks, Oakland would be a perennial playoff contender and Indy would be very sub par.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I disagree. It's unprecidented in history that a quarterback can leave a bad situation and find unmitigated success elsewhere. The good QBs will play well regardless of their situation. It may not translate to wins if the rest of their team sucks, but they aren't going to suck simply because there are some questionable characters around them.

Peyton Manning would still be pretty damn good on the Raiders. Yes his protection would be considerably worse and he would not sustain drives quite as successfully as he does now in Indy, but if the Raiders had Manning and the Colts had Brooks, Oakland would be a perennial playoff contender and Indy would be very sub par.

i don't doubt indy would suck with brooks, but i'm not so sure peyton alone could pull oakland into the playoffs. their offense is a wasteland.

[FRPLG]

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.

This highlights a great offshoot discussion about talent evaluation and so forth. There is also the economics of the draft and free agency(in terms of player acquisition not money) to discuss. But maybe that deserves another thread.

To opine on your question I would say that we all need to realize that football front offices and coaching staffs are staffed basically exactly the same as any other place of business anywhere in the world.

The rule of 80-20 almost always holds true. 80% of your people do 20% of the work and vice versa. Now why is this? Well in my mind there are a few different qualities that go into quality production.

Intelligence, motivation and education.

-You can't be greatly successful if you aren't capably intelligent. You don't need to be a genius but you can't be dumb or even just average.
-You can't be successful if you aren't motivated to do well. Motivation comes from both internal and external sources. Motivation leads you to always improve. Seeking constant improvement keeps you on top.
-You can't be successful if you don't know how to apply your intelligence and your motivation to use it. That's where education comes in. Not necessarily schooling but education in terms of being an expert in your field in as complete way as possible via experience, teaching and ultimately knowledge.

The sum of these qualities will guide success and there just are not a lot of people who have the necessary amounts of all three. Anyone here who works in a group venture knows this. There are always way more people basically doing nothing of much value while just a few do all the 'good' work. I quote 'good' because the quality of this work is relative to the work of everyone else. The 20% doing all the 'good' work for one group might not be doing near as 'good' a job as a similar set of people from another group. That's why some businesses succeed and others fail. Their 20% weren't 'good' enough. How successful a venture is depends directly on the abilities of these few people.

So in the football world, outside the lines, these same principles apply. In any given front office/coaching staff you have a few people doing all 'good' the work and the rest contributing both less of and less valuable production for whatever reason. In an office of 30 people (being generous), including scouts, coaches and personnel people, that’s about 6 people who are really the ones doing the bulk of the work. So the fate of multimillion dollar teams rest on the able (or not) shoulders of half a dozen people. If these people are great then the team succeeds but if not then you're the Raiders

It's like every other walk of life, there are only a few real good people, maybe a similar size set of capable people, a big lot of average people and a Giant load of complete worthless morons. This is why every time I read on this site that "we need a GM" the first thought that comes to mind is "Yeah because a GM will certainly be so much better than anything we've had because everyone knows intrinsicly that every GM knows exactly what he is doing and never screws up". Now I have no problem with people saying "Hey we should bring in Scott Pioli" because at least then we are addressing a specific person we can evaluate reasonably. "We need a GM" is such a worthless statement because chances are a randomly chosen GM(as the statement implies that ANY GM would do) is going to be horrible.

So to me it is obvious why so many people don't evaluate QBs, or any other position, that well. Most of them aren't very good. They’re too dumb, too unmotivated, not knowledgeable or some combination of the three to do a good job.

I think this even gets more intensified in sports where competition is so cut and dry. One's successes directly lead to failures of others whereas in the business world that is not entirely true. This really amplifies the distinctions between each team's 20%ers. You either win or lose mostly. Even if your 20%ers are the second best then they still lost.

[GTripp0012]

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?

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Interesting point.

I don't see Vince Young as an exception to the arguement. I think Young made a good business decision to come out, but this arguement still thinks that he would have been a much better prospect had he waited a year.

His rookie season was pretty much what anybody would have expected from a rookie QB passing wise. Low completion %, high INTs. The Titans won more games because he made timely plays with his legs and just happened to stumble upon some hapless opponents (Giants).

But due to the results of this, I don't think theres ever going to be a prospect who is "just that good" or otherwise too good to return for another year. They can always better themselves.

Passing wise I thought he did better than anyone could have expected. 12td's and 13ints is not bad at all for a rookie. He played in a veer offense, the same as Alex Smith. Smith was god awful his first year. But you saw the big jump from year one and two with Smith and I think you will see the same with Young. But one thing this guy can do is just kill you with his legs. McNabb is the best passer/runner. He can kill you with both. I think if Young can stay with Chow he is going to be just as good as McNabb.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Passing wise I thought he did better than anyone could have expected. 12td's and 13ints is not bad at all for a rookie. He played in a veer offense, the same as Alex Smith. Smith was god awful his first year. But you saw the big jump from year one and two with Smith and I think you will see the same with Young. But one thing this guy can do is just kill you with his legs. McNabb is the best passer/runner. He can kill you with both. I think if Young can stay with Chow he is going to be just as good as McNabb.

Yes, this is a common phenemenon. Rookie to second year tends to be a big statistical jump in passing. I expect Young to become a league-competant passer this year.

Alex Smith's rookie season was catastrophically bad. He was one rare exception to my prior argument.

Young's probably going to be better than McNabb in his prime.