How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Cutler started 45 games though (4 seasons). Young is a differerent case. He started 3 more games than Russell, which is a sizable difference. But Young also has an option with his legs that Russell simply doesn't have. VY will be a slightly above league average passer in his prime, but will be so much more valuable than that as a player because of his running skills.

As far as Russell's running skills are, I mean, Brady Quinn is the better runner of the two.

I say that the difference between the two guys will be epicly displayed by year 2 of their NFL careers. Russell is never going to get a chance to hit his prime unless he ends up in a situation like Grossman did. You think if Grossman was on the Raiders, he would have held his starting position? Russell simply will get the bust label before he has an adequate chance to learn the game. And it sucks for him. But he should have stayed in school. He needed the experience.

Let me be clear on one thing. Even if Russell is handeled properly in a good situation, the gap between him and Quinn will never be closed as some mediots think it will. The mythical upside surrounding Russell is not a reality. He's just not the prospect Quinn is. Doesn't mean he can't defy the odds in a good situation. It just means that Quinn will be better.

I agree that Russell should have stayed in school. Not that going to the Oakland Raiders is a good situation, but they do have a very solid defense, a good RB in LaMont Jordan, and they still have Randy Moss and Jerry Porter (despite their issues). Granted that offense needs a lot of help, but as the Bears proved, a great defense can really help a below average offense. Russell in Oakland could work.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Quinn is going to be the better pro. But if Oakland drafts Russell I don't necessarily think it means he's doomed.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I agree that Russell should have stayed in school. Not that going to the Oakland Raiders is a good situation, but they do have a very solid defense, a good RB in LaMont Jordan, and they still have Randy Moss and Jerry Porter (despite their issues). Granted that offense needs a lot of help, but as the Bears proved, a great defense can really help a below average offense. Russell in Oakland could work.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that Quinn is going to be the better pro. But if Oakland drafts Russell I don't necessarily think it means he's doomed.

Well, Russell is only doomed if the team that drafts him gives up on him. Cade McNown got doomed because the Bears traded him after only 2 seasons on the team. McNown wasn't a good prospect either, but like Russell, probably would have been adequate for the situation if allowed to grow in the system.

I just don't see Al Davis and the Raiders being patient with this kid. I don't see any team waiting through 3-4 years of backup quality play so that then can get a QB who is a bottom half starter in the league. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, especially when you consider that at the back end of this deal (when the team that draft him would start to get some results), Russell is going to be getting 6-7 million a year to play.

JaMarcus Russell's best chance for success in this league will be on his 2nd go around maybe 4-5 years into the future (Much like David Carr). The team that drafts him is well on their way to a lengthy trial and error process that simply won't be worth the hassel.

Again, I don't hate Russell. I just have seen this story played out before.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Tripp, that is so funny that you brought up the Kyle Boller analogy with Jamarcus. I was about to bring that up, but I figured I'd go check some of your posts just in case. Sure enough, there it was. LOL!! When I heard Todd McShay bring up the whole 60 yd "Butt Throw" by Russell, I laughed my ass off (forgive the pun). Who friggin cares if he can throw it behind his back with his eyes closed, off the rafters, into the endzone??? How on earth does meaningless crap like that translate to the football field??

The comparison of Leinart to Quinn is very valid:
Leinart: played 4 years (3 of which he started) in a pro-style offense with a NFL caliber talent all around him and a pro-style coach. His leadership and smarts coupled with all that experience = success.
Quinn: also played 4 seasons, starting 3, and played in a pro-style offense with an NFL coach, and also played in some huge games.

I also like Quinn over Russell. He's got size and athleticism, plus Weis absolutely raves about him. Sure he's kind of obligated too, but Weis developed a guy named Tom Brady. Last I checked he's done okay. Hearing Weis wholeheartedly compare Brady with Quinn has got to make some FO's drool.

But I don't think we can say Russell has less of a chance of success. Vince Young only played 3 seasons. Cutler only played 3 seasons. They both did well and look to be developing nicely. I guess it's the decision making that may take a little longer to come around with QBs that leave school early. Like you said, at some point you just have to hope you pick the right guy.

I think the jury is still out on Boller. Did he get enough starts to prove himself? I don't think so. Did he have weapons around him to succeed? No. Now one thing Boller needs to do is make better decisions with the ball. And that is why McNair was brought in. Less TO's and let the defense win it. But I still think he can play. He just needs more time. The problem was Billick's ass was on the line and he didn't have anymore time to wait on Boller.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think the jury is still out on Boller. Did he get enough starts to prove himself? I don't think so. Did he have weapons around him to succeed? No. Now one thing Boller needs to do is make better decisions with the ball. And that is why McNair was brought in. Less TO's and let the defense win it. But I still think he can play. He just needs more time. The problem was Billick's ass was on the line and he didn't have anymore time to wait on Boller.

Boller has 34 starts in this league, I think that's enough to get a good idea of what kind of player someone is.

Boller stinks in my opinion. I don't see him ever becoming a quality starter.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

Boller has 34 starts in this league, I think that's enough to get a good idea of what kind of player someone is.

Boller stinks in my opinion. I don't see him ever becoming a quality starter.

It's funny how everyone heaps tons of praise on Ravens GM Ozzie Newsome, yet conveniently gloss over the trade he made to get Boller. A 2nd and a 1st for KB? Not worth it at all

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan69

I think the jury is still out on Boller. Did he get enough starts to prove himself? I don't think so. Did he have weapons around him to succeed? No. Now one thing Boller needs to do is make better decisions with the ball. And that is why McNair was brought in. Less TO's and let the defense win it. But I still think he can play. He just needs more time. The problem was Billick's ass was on the line and he didn't have anymore time to wait on Boller.

I think that this is the inherent difference between you and me when it comes to QB. When I look at a QB, I start with college stats. Even with a good deal of starts, Boller's completion percentage at Cal was pathetic (below 50%). I mean, he absolutely sucked.

So when a guy doesn't project to the NFL well, I feel that its on him to prove to me that he can in fact get it done in this league. Boller has simply given me no reason to believe that his college stats were a total fluke. If anything, what he has done so far only confirmed what his college statistics told us would happen. I don't know how much farther we should wait on Boller to prove everybody wrong, including his past performance. 99.9% of the time if the light hasn't gone on by now, it ain't happening.

I mean, we can let every player in the league prove himself experimentally, but in today's league where as a coach you get about 3 years to prove yourself, more than half the coaches in the league would lose their careers if they did it this way. Not all QBs are created equal. You have to start with an expectation for a guy...coaches simply don't have 10-15 years to let each player on their team set their own expectations through trial and error.

Like every QB to ever play in the NFL, Boller will continue to improve over the next few years. But based on what he's done so far, a normal improvement due to age won't be enough to make him a quality starter.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think that this is the inherent difference between you and me when it comes to QB. When I look at a QB, I start with college stats. Even with a good deal of starts, Boller's completion percentage at Cal was pathetic (below 50%). I mean, he absolutely sucked.

So when a guy doesn't project to the NFL well, I feel that its on him to prove to me that he can in fact get it done in this league. Boller has simply given me no reason to believe that his college stats were a total fluke. If anything, what he has done so far only confirmed what his college statistics told us would happen. I don't know how much farther we should wait on Boller to prove everybody wrong, including his past performance. 99.9% of the time if the light hasn't gone on by now, it ain't happening.

I mean, we can let every player in the league prove himself experimentally, but in today's league where as a coach you get about 3 years to prove yourself, more than half the coaches in the league would lose their careers if they did it this way. Not all QBs are created equal. You have to start with an expectation for a guy...coaches simply don't have 10-15 years to let each player on their team set their own expectations through trial and error.

Like every QB to ever play in the NFL, Boller will continue to improve over the next few years. But based on what he's done so far, a normal improvement due to age won't be enough to make him a quality starter.

I'm not disagreeing w/ you about Boller. He should not have been picked so high just becasue he threw the ball on his knees 60 yards. But I think he just needs more time. His last year starting he was starting to play well and had some really solid games. Some guys mature faster than others. But you are right. In today NFL guys need to play well ASAP.

[GTripp0012]

Here's a mock draft buster for you guys:

Lane Kiffin, head coach of the Raiders, reportedly wants to make Brady Quinn the first pick.

Al Davis wants to acquire a veteran QB and draft Calvin Johnson with the first pick.

So isn't it more than possible that if the decision is between Johnson and Quinn, that Russell will be the one to fall to Cleveland?

[SKINSnCANES]

I havent read what all of you wrote, hopefully this hasnt been said, but there was an article today about the biggest busts to be drafted at the QB position, its on fox news.

They ranked Schuler in the top ten biggest busts, and said that everyone was impressed by Schuler because he could "sit on his knees and throw the ball through the cross bars, which sounds very similar to what people are saying about russel"

I found that kinda ironic. I think being a QB isnt all about arm strength. Vick has amazing arm strength too but no one catches his passes...

[SmootSmack]

I think he's a fine GM. But I mean the Redskins have gotten guys like Cooley, Taylor, Campbell, Golston, Washington, Springs, Thomas; yet we continue to bitch about stupid stuff like signing Bruce Smith seven years ago and overlook everything else.

I guess it was just my feeble attempt to say not all GM's are infallible Gods, as many here tend to believe.

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

I think he's a fine GM. But I mean the Redskins have gotten guys like Cooley, Taylor, Campbell, Golston, Washington, Springs, Thomas; yet we continue to bitch about stupid stuff like signing Bruce Smith seven years ago and overlook everything else.

I guess it was just my feeble attempt to say not all GM's are infallible Gods, as many here tend to believe.

Heck yeah, plus Moss, Griffin, Rabach, now Fletcher... I do like a lot of our moves, but I also think we need the stability and consistency that comes with having a knowledgeable personnel man running the FO. If we had a decent GM back when the Danny took over I doubt Bruce Smith and Deion Sanders would have ever donned the burgundy and gold.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Which brings the original question back into focus: What is the significance of College playing experience?

Now seeing that a QB will enter the NFL on a very similar career path to the way he leaves it (barring of course a career ending injury), doesn't this change the value of NCAA QB experience? It now appears that starting more games would ALWAYS be beneficial to the QB. That would mean that leaving school early, while potentially a smart business decision, would ALWAYS hurt the quality of a guy's career.

Is this even plausible? Let's go to the numbers:

For first round QB's (of the last 10 years) only, it seems like we could--in fact--predict their successes at the next level based ONLY on the number of games they started in college. So if the scouts unianimously like a guy (because hes a first rounder), and he has a lot of college experience, recent history shows that this guy is a virtual lock for success. (This is really good news for J. Campbell, although there were exceptions--with very awful college stats).

Chad Pennington: 51 starts
Philip Rivers: 51 starts
Peyton Manning: 45 starts
Carson Palmer: 45 starts
Jay Cutler: 45 starts
Donovan McNabb: 45 starts
Daunte Culpepper: 44 starts
Matt Leinart: 39 starts
Jason Campbell: 39 starts
Drew Brees: 37 starts (he was the first pick in the 2nd round)
Eli Manning: 37 starts

Look at that company. More importantly, compare that company to guys who didn't start a lot of games in college.

Patrick Ramsey: 32 starts
Rex Grossman: 31 starts
Joey Harrington: 28 starts
JP Losman: 27 starts
David Carr: 26 starts
Tim Couch: 25 starts
Ryan Leaf: 24 starts
Aaron Rodgers: 22 starts
Alex Smith: 22 starts
Michael Vick: 19 starts
Akili Smith: 19 starts

So where does Russell fit in? Over his career at LSU, JaMarcus Russell started 29 games. Not only that, but his career 62% completion is not really any better than another SEC QB who left school early (and started 2 more games). I'm talking about the incomprable Rex Grossman.

For sake of comparision, Brady Quinn started 46 games at Notre Dame and ranks up there with McNabb and Palmer with his college stats.

This study argues that with another year of experience, JaMarcus Russell would be a great NFL QB prospect. But by coming out a year early, history as least suggests the guy will have a rather mediocre NFL career.

Those are VERY interesting stats. Good job digging that up. I am a stat head and that makes me scratch my head.
I have always felt that Quinn would make a better qb than Russell, but I thought Russell would be a good QB...maybe I am incorrect.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by jsarno

Those are VERY interesting stats. Good job digging that up. I am a stat head and that makes me scratch my head.
I have always felt that Quinn would make a better qb than Russell, but I thought Russell would be a good QB...maybe I am incorrect.

The most confusing part of the study is the realization that these horrible busts of players could have been very good QBs had they stayed in school another year. This study suggests that a majority of busts (with a decent amount of exceptions) only busted because they were underprepared for the next level, and not for any other reason.

[jsarno]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The most confusing part of the study is the realization that these horrible busts of players could have been very good QBs had they stayed in school another year. This study suggests that a majority of busts (with a decent amount of exceptions) only busted because they were underprepared for the next level, and not for any other reason.

It might show something about their mental state..."give me money now", and less to do with actual talent.
I would have never thought of those starts as being a factor, but it's hard to ignore the correlation.