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.

[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 STPainmaker

I think when looking at the physical gifts of a quarterback you have to take into account what he does with those skills.

Michael Vick has incredible speed, agility and a big arm. He however has proven to be a below average passer.

McNabb has very good speed for QB, good agility, strength and very good arm however he is a passer 1st.

I'm not sold on the very atheletic QB unless he is more Steve Young than Michael Vick. I don't know enough about Russell to say what he is either way but he should be working on reading D's, progressions and touch passing more than anything else.

This is so right on.

Phyical skills are a mere component of the success of a QB. And I would say the MOST available component on the market. It seems to me there are way more people with the physical skills to be a good QB than there are people who have all the other components like intelligence, knowledge, leadership abilities, toughness, will, etc. Intangibles I guess. Not to say that someone with all those traits can get by without any phyical skills but there are plenty of guys with less than ideal skills but fantasic intangibles who have been great QBs than there are guys with less than ideal intangibles but fantasic phyical skills who have been great QBs. How many QBs can someone say, "Gee that guy was a complete moron who couldn't lead a mouse to cheese but really got it done with all those great skills"? I can't think of one. On the other hand I can name numerous guys who didn't have great arms, or quick legs but won SBs because they did everything right.

[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

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?

[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.

[FRPLG]

No I agree but it is easy to take potshots at Oakland right now. Their overall ineptitude over the last several decades is what weighs my mind mostly. A few fleeting moments of success sandwhiched by total mediocrity. Plus Davis is just clearly out of it. I can't say who their last good draftee was.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

No I agree but it is easy to take potshots at Oakland right now. Their overall ineptitude over the last several decades is what weighs my mind mostly. A few fleeting moments of success sandwhiched by total mediocrity. Plus Davis is just clearly out of it. I can't say who their last good draftee was.

I agree. They have a weak scouting department. Both Pro and College.

To their credit they have built one of the league's strongest secondaries through the draft. Nnamdi Asomugha is the best CB in the league that no one talks about. He will take your No. 1 receiving option completely out of the game.

But honestly, this would be some sort of impressive streak of ineptitude if they hadn't happened to trip and fall on Rich Gannon. Jerry Rice would have become completely irrelivant.

*Shudder*

[FRPLG]

Gannon has to be one of the oddest players in recent memory. Here's a guy who was at best a journeyman. I mean a guy you can't even compare to say Tim Ratay who just suddnely become a pretty darn good QB. I mean if he puts together 4 more seasons like he did toward the end we're talking about a potential HOFer. Out of total nothingness comes greatness. Weird.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Gannon has to be one of the oddest players in recent memory. Here's a guy who was at best a journeyman. I mean a guy you can't even compare to say Tim Ratay who just suddnely become a pretty darn good QB. I mean if he puts together 4 more seasons like he did toward the end we're talking about a potential HOFer. Out of total nothingness comes greatness. Weird.

That would have been a real dead era for QBs if it wasn't for him. I mean you had the retirement of Marino, Elway, and Young, and Favre went into a relative lull in his career for a few years. It would still be 3-4 years until McNair, Pennington, and Manning would emerge, and Brady's skills would actually develop to match the rep he had been handed. Kerry Collins was consistently among the league's top QBs!

It's got nothing to do with Russell or Quinn whatsoever, but since we are talking Raiders for some crazy reason, I thought I'd point this out.

Had Gannon not got hurt in 2004, Football Outsiders estimates that the Raiders offense would have put up 71! more points than they did with the exact same roster and Kerry Collins at QB. This is as much due to Collins ineptitude as it is to Gannon's greatness though.

In effect, if this is to be believed, that means Norv Turner was an injury away from taking the Raiders to the playoffs in his first season there.

Crazy.

[That Guy]

btw, daunte went from pro-bowler/possible MVP in minnesota to total joke in miami (possibly all due to injury), garcia went from good in SF, to terrible in cleveland AND detriot, to good in philly. plummer went to denver and had a couple good years. brunell, hasslebeck, and favre were all traded from their original franchises before they got to start and ended up doing pretty well.

archie manning was a good QB that could have been better if on a different team.

but the real reason you don't see a lot for average QBs turn into studs 6 years in after switching teams is cause at that point they've either had a stable environment to learn and work in over a good number of years, or they're considered a backup and brought in to learn a totally new system that they may or may not be used to with new players, possibly an entrenched starter, etc. It's just a hard transition. I mean, peyton's only known ONE system. same for brady, and mcnabb, and... that's gotta be part of it.

I mean, the teams that keep churning through 1st round busts are the same ones that keep changing coaches, systems, and players for the most part. detroit, oakland, cleveland, etc. of course, that doesn't mean all those QB picks were good ideas in the first place (who EVER thought boller would be any good? continuity DID help him, but only marginally).

I do agree that, at least for most QBs, they tend to how you what they got within a few years, unless they're backing up favre or named mark rypien.

[GTripp0012]

This is a really well written article from David Fleming that investigates a few of the flaws in the way QBs are scouted today.

ESPN.com - NFL/DRAFT07 - Magazine: The edge of reason

Originally Posted by David Fleming

And Russell? He started just 29 games. Yet by leaving school early, Russell -- whose start numbers are comparable to those of Rex Grossman (31), Joey Harrington (28), Jim Druckenmiller (24) and Akili Smith (19) -- has kept the scouts from piling up the dossier needed to overanalyze him. He also benefits from a backlash against the old-time NFL evaluators who bad-mouthed Young last year, only to watch him become an NFL phenom. Those scouts are far less inclined to rip Russell, leaving a power vacuum in most war rooms this spring that favors the "potential" believers over the "pedigree" crowd.

It's a good read.

[skinsfan_nn]

Who knows, he hasen't played at this level yet?

[EARTHQUAKE2689]

Originally Posted by dmek25

I'm not entirely sold on Russell. could be another Dante Culpepper, with some NFL success. or could be another Akili Smith, who with Ryan Leaf formed the 2 biggest NFL busts ever

nah man he will be a great qb has all the tools