How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[FRPLG]

The love of Russell is perplexing to me. But the more I look at him and all the available draft info/rumors/speculation I am wondering where this guy really stands as a draft prospect from the standpoint of the league in general.

We all know that everyone expects the Raiders are enamored with him. It seems everyone bases this thought on Oakland's draft history pretty much exclusively. As far as I know the Raiders have not said word one about Russell. With that being said, is this a case of a player getting overvalued by league experts because they expect him to be taken by the Raiders? If we could go back in time 5 or 6 weeks and remove Oakland from the entire process I think undoubtedly no one would be talking about Russell as the first pick. Would he even be a top ten guy? Something tells me that he is a lot closer to Jason Campbell in terms of talent than he is to say McNabb. That is, his immediate impact is probably limited and his long term impact is not certain. A QB in the top 10 of the draft to me needs to look and feel like a stud. Not a 'maybe' stud.

Why this overvalue?

Well certainly some of it is Johnny Come Latelys who just like to look smart and predict the draft. But I wonder if a high percentage of this Russell hyping is a result of pumping him up. Why would anyone NOT want the Raiders to take him at 1? If, like I believe, a good amount teams probably project Russell as a late 1st rounder then it is to their advantage to have him taking too high. It is a loss of value and therefore a potentail gain for them.

Of course there are too many 'experts' who are too dumb or oblivious to realize this and have just jumped on the bandwagon for Russell without realizing the level of disingenuosity. Voila, Russell is a top 10 pick.

I think it'll be very interesting to see where he goes if the Raiders work the Moss/Rodgers deal and end up taking Johnson instead. Someone will probably be dumb enough to have bought the hype but if not could he fall precipitously?

[Daseal]

I still feel Russell is a better prospect then Brady Quinn who had a much softer schedule and never showed up in the big games.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Daseal

I still feel Russell is a better prospect then Brady Quinn who had a much softer schedule and never showed up in the big games.

I think you could be right.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I think Russell is really only going to be a product of the team he goes to, which unfortunately is looking like the Raiders. If they can provide some protection for him and Randy Moss stays, it could be a nice match.

As of now, Russell looks to me like someone who needs his receivers to make plays, rather than someone like Brady or Manning who make THEIR receivers look good.

[That Guy]

the thing is a lot of the low start guys happened to go to awful teams. peyton, mcnabb, rivers, etc generally went to teams with good gms that now have a history of building great team talent (colts, eagles, chargers). campbell also has the advantage of a strong offense around him, and so it'd also be pretty disappointing if he can't put it together.

[skinsfan69]

Everyone is in love with his physical skills. They are off the charts. The only question is will he be able to handle the larger playbooks, reading NFL defenses and have good decision making. Brady Quinn is ahead of him here becasue he got to play under Weiss and a true pro offense. Quinn is probably ready to play now more than anybody. But the draft is all about potential and no one has more of it than Russell. That is why he will be the number one pick.

One thing that scares me is the whole Oakland organization. It seems that they change coaches every other year. Is this guy from USC going to be able to handle a pro coaching job, command respect in the locker room and deal with starting a rookie QB in the NFL? Hell no. Horrible hire! This was probably the worst hire I have ever seen. Al Davis is such a dumb ass. So Russell will probably have a new coach in two years and he will have to learn a new offense every other year. I think Russell is in a no win situation going to Oakland. Plus they have one of the worst lines in the NFL. So IMO he is not going to do well becasue of the unstable organization. If Russell had the chance to learn under a Jon Gruden or Cam Cameron then I think he would be just fine.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

Everyone is in love with his physical skills. They are off the charts. The only question is will he be able to handle the larger playbooks, reading NFL defenses and have good decision making. Brady Quinn is ahead of him here becasue he got to play under Weiss and a true pro offense. Quinn is probably ready to play now more than anybody. But the draft is all about potential and no one has more of it than Russell. That is why he will be the number one pick.

I dissagree with the entire notion that draft analysts push that one prospect can be better now, and somehow NOT the better overall prospect. I understand your point about Quinn's coaching, but it's not like Russell or any QB in D1 has to play playground-style because they lack coaching. Tom Brady did pretty well for himself after Weis left.

Now, it is possible for a guy to be a product of system, in college. But those guys do not end up being first day picks. Any scout that can't identify a guy as a product of his system with relative ease shouldn't be in the business.

My beef with the draft analysts theory has to do with what they THINK they know, but really don't, and are passing off as common knowledge. I have a problem with people in the mass media being of the opinion that Quinn can be better now, but Russell will be better later. No. This is wrong. If God told me that JaMarcus Russell was in fact (going to be) the best QB of this draft class, then I would have absolutely no reason in the world to expect any QB to have a better rookie season. Honestly, all the Charlie Weis coaching in the world is not going to help Brady Quinn if Russell is the better player. IF HES GOING TO BE THE BEST PROSPECT LATER, HE SHOULD ALSO BE THE BEST NOW!! Variatons from this general rule DO occur...but they can not be predicted.

(I'm not directing any of this at you Skinsfan69, this rant is entirely directed at people who get paid thousands of dollars to go on TV and give information that ignores logic)

So forget upside, I want to know who the better QB is. I reject the notion that Quinn can be better now and not later. I think Quinn is the better prospect for a multitude of reasons, maybe the biggest being that he stayed in school. But for the life of me I can't figure out what compells analysts to declare an inferior prospect to have enormous upside.

It's like JaMarcus Russell skinned his knee as a child, and instead of oozing blood, he leaked upside.

And none of this is his fault. He's in great position to become a millionaire at age 22. But what he gains now is essentially a trade off for the fact that (in my opinion in light of the data) hes not going to collect a big secondary deal. I think he plays out his 7 year rookie deal as a starter, and signs somewhere as a backup after that.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I dissagree with the entire notion that draft analysts push that one prospect can be better now, and somehow NOT the better overall prospect. I understand your point about Quinn's coaching, but it's not like Russell or any QB in D1 has to play playground-style because they lack coaching. Tom Brady did pretty well for himself after Weis left.

Now, it is possible for a guy to be a product of system, in college. But those guys do not end up being first day picks. Any scout that can't identify a guy as a product of his system with relative ease shouldn't be in the business.

My beef with the draft analysts theory has to do with what they THINK they know, but really don't, and are passing off as common knowledge. I have a problem with people in the mass media being of the opinion that Quinn can be better now, but Russell will be better later. No. This is wrong. If God told me that JaMarcus Russell was in fact (going to be) the best QB of this draft class, then I would have absolutely no reason in the world to expect any QB to have a better rookie season. Honestly, all the Charlie Weis coaching in the world is not going to help Brady Quinn if Russell is the better player. IF HES GOING TO BE THE BEST PROSPECT LATER, HE SHOULD ALSO BE THE BEST NOW!! Variatons from this general rule DO occur...but they can not be predicted.

(I'm not directing any of this at you Skinsfan69, this rant is entirely directed at people who get paid thousands of dollars to go on TV and give information that ignores logic)

So forget upside, I want to know who the better QB is. I reject the notion that Quinn can be better now and not later. I think Quinn is the better prospect for a multitude of reasons, maybe the biggest being that he stayed in school. But for the life of me I can't figure out what compells analysts to declare an inferior prospect to have enormous upside.

It's like JaMarcus Russell skinned his knee as a child, and instead of oozing blood, he leaked upside.

And none of this is his fault. He's in great position to become a millionaire at age 22. But what he gains now is essentially a trade off for the fact that (in my opinion in light of the data) hes not going to collect a big secondary deal. I think he plays out his 7 year rookie deal as a starter, and signs somewhere as a backup after that.

If I had to pick right now I would pick Russell. I think's he is a better QB based on his play vs. Quinn's. He's just better. He makes some thows that just "wow" you. But that does not mean he will be the better pro. But like I said he is going into a real tough situation. Oakland has a real bad line. He is going to play right away and so that could hurt him too. Plus he has a inexperienced coach. It's just a overall bad deal. So much of it comes down to if a guy can get the right coaching. Brady Quinn could go somewhere like Det. and get to be coached my Mike Martz and totally shine.

Look back at last year. Matt Leinart was a great college QB and he was probably ready to play right away. But Vince Young has more potential based on his ability to run and throw. Look at what he did against USC in his last game? He basically beat USC all by himself running and throwing. So this is why he went ahead of Leinart. Becasue of the upside, even though Leinart was more ready to play the pro game because of the system he played in.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

If I had to pick right now I would pick Russell. I think's he is a better QB based on his play vs. Quinn's. He's just better. He makes some thows that just "wow" you. But that does not mean he will be the better pro. But like I said he is going into a real tough situation. Oakland has a real bad line. He is going to play right away and so that could hurt him too. Plus he has a inexperienced coach. It's just a overall bad deal. So much of it comes down to if a guy can get the right coaching. Brady Quinn could go somewhere like Det. and get to be coached my Mike Martz and totally shine.

Look back at last year. Matt Leinart was a great college QB and he was probably ready to play right away. But Vince Young has more potential based on his ability to run and throw. Look at what he did against USC in his last game? He basically beat USC all by himself running and throwing. So this is why he went ahead of Leinart. Becasue of the upside, even though Leinart was more ready to play the pro game because of the system he played in.

I don't think the Titans drafted anyone else but the guy they thought was the best QB prospect. We're not going to know if they were correct on the guy they chose until he reaches full maturity. If, I had to guess, I'd say Leinart is going to be the better player because, again, he has more college experience. But at come a time when they both retire, we still may not know. Leinart appears to be growing into an elite passer, and Young into a good passer with elite legs.

If it was only about passing, Leinart would have a 20 or so game edge on Young in experience. They wouldn't even be on the same level. Age isn't a factor; they were born within a month of each other.

If Russell really is a better QB than Quinn, I will be proven wrong in the next 5 years, and it will be quite clear. If he's good, he will turn the Raiders' around. A QB destined for greatness has never been held back by his team in the history of the game before. Russell may never be able to win a SB in Oakland, but if he's as good as advertised, he will overcome all that circumstancial stuff.

A good QB does not automatically make a team win, but with the Raiders' D already intact, it could really make all the difference for them. All that stuff about coach-killing receivers and a 31 yr old HC that the players wont respect and a dottering old owner (of which the last is of consequence) is ALL a product of losing. You know how to make the media start talking about "Randy Moss the leader" and "Lane Kiffin as coach of the year" and "the wily old Al Davis" instead of all the bashing they do of that team now? String a few wins together. It's just that simple.

After seeing that franchise get the shaft of the NFL for years, you'd think they're due to luck into 7 wins this year.