How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[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?