How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by That Guy

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.

If somebody at QB could pull that offense up to league average (and I'm not sure too many players not named Peyton Manning could do that), that's suddenly a very good football team.

It REALLY shouldn't be hard for them to improve that offense. Hell, a team of UDFAs should have done a better job than they did last year.

Here's an interesting tidbit I picked up from the ESPN draft mag:

Over the last 5 drafts, none of the 31 other NFL franchises have spent more draft pick value points than the Raiders. Their payoff? A group of guys that has allowed more sacks than any other team in this league two years running.

That's either REALLY bad scouting, or just getting the shaft in terms of outcome.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's either REALLY bad scouting, or just getting the shaft in terms of outcome.

In the long range statistics like that don't lie. Bad luck is a pick or two here and there. A sustained effort of poor results is bad personell acquisition any way you slice it.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

In the long range statistics like that don't lie. Bad luck is a pick or two here and there. A sustained effort of poor results is bad personell acquisition any way you slice it.

Is five years really long range though?

In 2006 the Raiders were starting (at the start of the year) Robert Gallery, Barry Sims, Jake Grove, Brad Badger, and Langston Walker. Sims was with the team when they were making deep playoff runs as the LT, but moved inside to make room for Gallery. Badger was a FA signing.

The draft picks of the bunch were Gallery, Walker, and Grove. ALL were top two round selections. Walker was picked with one of the compensatory picks for Gruden.

I'm hesitant to say that it's the Raiders' fault for making 2 bad selections and an alright one in Grove (the consensus best lineman on that team). They invested a lot into Walker and Gallery and got no return.

But they are offensive linemen. It's hard to collect data on them. You have film and nothing else. Despite that MOST OL pan out. The Raiders managed to stumble on 2-3 busts. That's pretty unlucky. I mean if I spent 5 top 2 round picks on lineman, I would expect at least 4 to live up to the hype. The Raiders took 3 and got nobody to live up to the hype. Either the rest of the league knows something about OL the Raiders don't (which is always possible), or the Raiders just got the shaft.

It's not like they aren't building that team the right way. They just aren't getting the right men for the jobs.