Is Russell really better than Quinn?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Fair enough. So what sort of career do you expect from Charlie "44 starts" Frye?

Well, his draft projection was as a 5th rounder, so like most QBs taken after round two, I wouldn't expect a whole lot from him.

I'd really be scared if Frye had come out early...he might not know which endzone is his.

Generally if you completely suck as a prospect, no amount of experience is going to save you. I'm not sure any teams would have spend a 2nd round pick on Frye to keep him from the Browns.

[djnemo65]

GTripp, I think you are making too big a deal out of these starts. Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good. Several of the top quarterbacks in the league came from situations where they were good enough to secure the starting position at an early age. Fine, you would expect that with their kind of talent. But if you think that those starts are the reason they are succesful you are underestimating the importance of talent.

Let me put it this way. If Peyton Manning had been behind a superior upper classman for his first couple years at Tennessee would he be less of a pro today? I can guess your answer, and I strongly disagree.

[SmootSmack]

Didn't Tom Brady only start like 25 games in his Michigan career? He was backing up Griese the first couple of years wasn't he?

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Tom Brady only start like 25 games in his Michigan career? He was backing up Griese the first couple of years wasn't he?

I thought it was Drew Henson.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I thought it was Drew Henson.

Oh maybe. I thought it went Griese Brady Henson

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Didn't Tom Brady only start like 25 games in his Michigan career? He was backing up Griese the first couple of years wasn't he?

The system has a tough time explaining Tom Brady. Here's a guy that went to College playing sporadically for 4 years and had great success in the NFL. There are plenty of reasons why Brady is so good without traditional college starting experience, and one arguement would be that he IS experienced because the raw number of starts is not accurately reflective of the amount of experience he acquired playing off and on at Michigan.

No matter what the reasoning is, it seems that Brady is one oddball from a very strong trend. But he was also a late round crapshoot pick, so he is already a really rare case in the fact that he was a 6th rounder who made it. Even if he had 40 starts, Tom Brady being Tom Brady is still not something anyone could have predicted at this point in statistical analysis coming out.

It is really scary to think about Brady with 20 more starts though...really scary.

One thing it would be interesting to do is to college the college stats of the Brad Johnsons, Tom Bradys, Trent Greens, Matt Hasselbecks, and Mark Brunells (oh damn, I went there) of the world, and compare them to the stats of all the hundreds of day 2 guys who didnt make it and see if we can pull any trends outside of games started.

[SmootSmack]

How about Rick Mirer (37 starts)?

[KLHJ2]

http://www.michiganfansite.com/playe...p?playerid=205

Henson beat out Brady when he was only a Freshman.
Griese was before them both. Brady was there before Henson, but stayed there longer. Henson chose Baseball.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

How about Rick Mirer (37 starts)?

I don't have the stats on Mirer, so I dont know what his completion % look like, but the study of college exp I'm refering to only goes back through 1997.

There are many reasons for this. The NFL was far less of a mental game back when Mirer busted. Physical advantages were more of a factor than they are now. QBs were not picked in the first round every year, and they were evaluated very differently than today.

I'm not saying we shouldn't investigate why Rick Mirer busted with 37 starts, but we shouldn't treat that information as identical to someone with 37 starts in a more recent decade, such as a Matt Schaub.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by angryssg

http://www.michiganfansite.com/playe...p?playerid=205

Henson beat out Brady when he was only a Freshman.
Griese was before them both. Brady was there before Henson, but stayed there longer. Henson chose Baseball.

Thanks

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

GTripp, I think you are making too big a deal out of these starts. Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good. Several of the top quarterbacks in the league came from situations where they were good enough to secure the starting position at an early age. Fine, you would expect that with their kind of talent. But if you think that those starts are the reason they are succesful you are underestimating the importance of talent.

Let me put it this way. If Peyton Manning had been behind a superior upper classman for his first couple years at Tennessee would he be less of a pro today? I can guess your answer, and I strongly disagree.

"Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good." Well, yeah, of course. But the experience from college made them better pro prospects than they would have been.

I'm not underestimating the importance of talent at all. If anything, I'm being elitest about what it takes to be a successful QB in the NFL.

#1 it takes a special breed of player (nature theory)
#2 it takes an adequate amount of preparation (nurture theory)

I think you need to be both a #1 and a #2 to have a successful NFL career at QB.

If you aren't a #1 physically and mentally by the time you get to college, you will probably never be a #1. Only a few guys fit the bill. Most of these guys get noticed as first rounders, but the guys like Bulger, Hasselbeck, Brunell, and Brady fall into this category also.

To be the best you can be, you need to get all the experience you can in college. And I do believe you will be less of an NFL player if you skimp on the college experience. But all the experience in the world isn't going to help if you aren't the special breed of player that puts you in group #1.

And I believe Russell is a #1. But he will never be a #2 and mediocre may be the best he can hope for.

There are only a handful of college guys who are No. 1's and because of the propensity for guys to leave early, there ends up being even less successful NFL QBs.

[djnemo65]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It is really scary to think about Brady with 20 more starts though...really scary.

Oh come on!

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

It is really scary to think about Brady with 20 more starts though...really scary.

I had 60 plus starts if you count the sandlot. I am the next Dan Marino! Woooo Hooooooo!

[budw38]

Originally Posted by djnemo65

Are you kidding? Maybe my grandmother didnt know his name, but my grandfather did and he doesn't even like college football particularily. You must not watch a lot of college ball, because this guy has been a stud for two years now. I think it was his comeback against ASU in 06 that really put him on the map, right after Katrina had hit.

Great game for LSU < Im a Sun Devils fan > , so the win was bitter sweet . The comeback was more special teams , they ran two blocked punts in for TDs . Maybe they are both all pro one day , one things for sure ,,, they will be very , very wealthy !

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by angryssg

I had 60 plus starts if you count the sandlot. I am the next Dan Marino! Woooo Hooooooo!

Show us what you got, brother!