How good will JaMarcus Russell be at the Pro Level?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by rvd420

i did and i replied i think hell be a good pro qb duh.

Are you disagreeing with the arguement or just ignoring it?

[rvd420]

he was not that bad.he damn was sure better than his rookie year,plus san fran had no offensive line either.

[rvd420]

put it this way i think hell be a future pro bowler.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by rvd420

he was not that bad.he damn was sure better than his rookie year,plus san fran had no offensive line either.

Well, Smith certainly had no help from his team in 2005. He had the emergence of Gore last year. But he's still not a great prospect.

Best case scenario for Russell would be Alex Smith. There's no way that Russell's rookie year would be as bad though. That year for Smith was all about Murphy's law; everything that could have gone wrong did!

[rvd420]

i agree.i didnt say smith was great i just said he wasnt THAT bad last year.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by rvd420

i agree.i didnt say smith was great i just said he wasnt THAT bad last year.

I guess, yeah.

He may have been the weakest of the starting 32 QBs again last year, but he at least showed the potential to be a starter.

And he played some really strong games down the stretch.

[rvd420]

exactly.thats all i was sayin.

[GTripp0012]

I forgot about Walter, Gradkowski, and Frye. Smith outpassed these guys.

He also outpassed Vick, who probably has more total value due to his legs.

[rvd420]

vick sucks and is overrated.hes also a ball hog.thats why the falcons recievers could catch passes last season,no chemestry between them and vick.vick wanted to run the ball all the time.granted he did give it to warrick dunn,but thats probably cause he knew dunn would whoop his ass if he didnt.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[That Guy]

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.

russel runs like a 4.85. he's not close to a rb/qb vick type.

[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.

[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.