RSS Feed
17 Apr 2007
2007 Quarterbacks Draft Preview
by David Lewin
This year, as usual, a number of teams at the top of the draft are looking quarterback. The apples of scouts' eyes this time around are Brady Quinn and JaMarcus Russell. Quinn is the All-American boy, a four-year starter at Notre Dame, with all the measurables that teams look for. Russell, an early entry after his junior year, is more of a dark horse. He never achieved the level of success Quinn did in college, but he soundly outplayed Quinn in their head-to-head matchup at the Sugar Bowl and has ridiculous physical talent.
Still, if we've learned anything about the NFL draft in recent years it's that there's no such thing as a can't miss prospect, especially at the quarterback position. After Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, David Carr, etc. teams are more wary than ever about taking a QB high.
Last year, in Pro Football Prospectus 2006, I introduced a system for predicting the NFL passing performance of first- and second-round quarterbacks by looking at their on college statistics. (I may try to project running ability in the future, but it is not currently included.) After gathering and analyzing extensive data, I determined that games started and completion percentage in college were strong predictors of NFL success.
In fact, for first- and second-round quarterbacks these two variables explain roughly 65 percent of the variation in NFL performance. This is a remarkably high number given how much of an impact we believe that teammates have on a quarterback's play. The system accurately predicted Philip Rivers' breakout season, and the success or lack thereof, of many other young passers. With an eye on this research I take a closer look at the pro prospects of Russell, Quinn, and the other quarterbacks of the Class of 2007.
JaMarcus Russell
Russell is possibly the most physically talented quarterback prospect since John Elway. He's 6-foot-6, 260 pounds with an arm that makes Brett Favre look like Danny Wuerffel. Russell is also a good runner and his arm strength allows him to hit any open receiver while he is on the move. He has huge hands, which help him avoid fumbles, and remarkably quick feet for such large man. Physically, Russell compares favorably to Daunte Culpepper, Byron Leftwich, and Ben Roethlisberger, all of whom have had some degree of success in the NFL. Assuming he can get his weight under control, Russell figures to be more mobile than Leftwich and Roethlisberger, but not as good of a runner as pre-injury Culpepper.
However, hidden behind Russell's immense physical talent are a couple of major red flags. For starters, as recently as last summer's training camp, Russell was engaged in a fierce quarterback battle with Matt Flynn and Ryan Perriloux. There were rumors that Russell was gone to the NFL at the end of the season no matter how the year went, simply, because he was unsure that he'd be able to hold onto the starting job again. Russell emerged from the controversy to have a great season, but it was the first of his career in which he was statistically the best passer on his team. While this history doesn't doom Russell (Tom Brady had similar issues), I would still be wary of spending the number one overall pick and the 25 million dollar signing bonus that comes with it on a guy who wasn't even the clear-cut starter his final year in college. Less than six months ago, very few experts considered Russell a first-round pick. FO's own Michael David Smith, for example, wrote "I don't see Russell as a first-round pick at all" in the discussion thread for Seventh Day Adventure on September 17th. Late risers usually fail to live up to the hype.
An even bigger issue with Russell is that he is an atrocious decision maker. He consistently throws the ball into double and triple coverage. Like Favre he often gets away with it by making spectacular throws. Still, field vision is the single most important quality for a quarterback. You can get away with being average in this regard if you have superior arm strength and accuracy, but Russell still has a ways to go before he can be considered average at seeing the field.
Russell also has the tendency to simply throw the ball up for grabs when he gets confused. If you watched the Sugar Bowl you saw this happen on an early in the fourth quarter interception. Russell clearly blew his underneath reads, panicked, and just lofted the ball up. It went pretty much unnoticed because he played an otherwise stellar game, but it is a recurring problem. These passes didn't always end up picks in college because Dwayne Bowe, Craig Davis and Early Doucet (all future first day picks) did a nice job of winning jump balls. That won't fly at the next level.
Another concern is that Russell ran a fairly simple offense at LSU. The Tigers eschewed complexity partly to avoid confusing Russell, and partly because complexity was not necessary for an offense as talented as LSU's. Russell can make very difficult throws when he knows where to go with the ball, so the LSU coaching staff didn't have to get fancy. This will still be true to a degree in the NFL. In fact Drew Bledsoe did pretty well in his first few years in the league in a Patriots offense using similar principles. Unfortunately coaches often seem reluctant to play to their quarterback's strengths (see Vick, Michael) and try to force unique players into the cookie-cutter mold. Russell will struggle with an NFL-style offense at first, but if he's coached well (like Vince Young was last season) then this shouldn't be a prohibitive factor in his development.
All of these issues are related. Because of Russell's knack for making boneheaded plays at the worst possible times, he had Matt Flynn and Ryan Perrilloux breathing down his neck his whole college career. Any team that drafts him must be prepared to tolerate some very questionable decisions interspersed with Russell's trademark spectacular throws. He is also known to get down on himself and get rattled when things are not going well. All in all he has a number of characteristics that you don't like to see in a young quarterback.
Russell's understanding of the game is questionable at best. He constantly infuriated LSU fans with his inability to manage situations properly. Pretty much everything that Russell is can be summed up by describing the final drive from this year's LSU-Auburn game.
LSU took over with 1:04 to go at their own 20-yard line trailing 7-3 with no timeouts remaining. On the first play from scrimmage Auburn sat back in a soft Cover-2 zone with the safeties deep. Russell didn't notice this until it was too late and threw the ball out of bounds over the head of Craig Davis who was open running a vertical route down the sideline. The LSU coaching staff called Russell over and pointed out that he could pick the zone apart by throwing the ball to Davis in the Cover-2 hole at the sideline 20 yards downfield.
LSU then went out and ran the exact same play two more times. Russell hit Davis for gains of 20 and 21 yards. Davis was immediately drilled out of bounds both times. The Auburn safeties came flying downhill because they knew what was coming, but they couldn't stop it. Russell simply got the ball there too fast.
All of a sudden LSU was driving. They had the ball on the Auburn 39-yard line with 50-odd seconds to go. Auburn, knowing they were in trouble, changed up their defense getting out of the soft Cover-2. Russell went back to pass, and seeing something different from what he was expecting, got confused. Luckily the protection was good and he was able to scan the field for four or five seconds. Still not seeing anything he liked, Russell began to roll to his right. He escaped the pressure and continued to move towards the sideline at a leisurely pace. Instead of throwing the ball away to stop the clock Russell decided to tuck it and duck upfield. He was tackled in-bounds at the line of scrimmage for no gain.
He got up without any sense of urgency and with a grin on his face. He seemed to be quite pleased with himself for avoiding a sack and maybe picking up a yard. After about a second he finally heard all the people screaming for him to spike the ball and began to hustle to the line. However by then it was too late. By the time LSU got set and spiked it there were only 25 seconds remaining. Russell had just wasted 20 crucial seconds. I have only rarely been angrier while watching a football game (not because I'm an LSU fan, I'm not, but because I like to see the game played intelligently).
Russell ended up bouncing back on the next play by hitting Dwayne Bowe for 20 yards putting LSU back in striking distance with under ten seconds remaining. However he followed that up with a stupid illegal formation penalty that pushed them back to the 24-yard line, and then hit Craig Davis for a 19-yard gain with no time left on the clock. Overall Russell's numbers for the game looked pretty good (20/35, 267 yards, no TDs or picks), but when it counted he made certain LSU would come up short. That pretty much says all there is to say about Russell. He will tantalize you with impossible throws, but there is significant evidence that mentally he doesn't have what it takes to be a great quarterback.
So, overall Russell has a pretty risky profile from a scouting perspective. He might be great, but he could be the next Jeff George (which, unless you're Jason Whitlock, is not a good thing). That could be enough to keep teams from taking him first, but probably not. Here's something that should: Russell started only 29 games at LSU. Over the past ten years, collegiate games started has been the single greatest predictor of NFL success for early first-round quarterbacks. Since 1997 seven quarterbacks who started fewer than 30 games in college have been drafted in the top ten: Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Michael Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Alex Smith. Who's the best player on that list? Michael Vick? Alex Smith? I don't even know. All I know is that list does not leave me saying, "I gotta get me some of that."
There is one positive indicator among Russell's college stats: The player to whom he is most similar is Vince Young. Young started 32 games, Russell 29. Both completed 61.8 percent of their passes. Both lost starts because they platooned with an upper classman during their freshman year. Both are tall, strong, and obviously both are African-American. But the similarity only goes so far. Young started three more games than Russell. That doesn't seem like a significant number, but it is. Young has also been only moderately successful as passer and will probably never be one of the best passers in the league. As long as he's above-average, it's not a problem, because he brings so much to the table with his running ability. Russell, on the other hand, will succeed or fail based on his ability to pass the ball. He's decently mobile, but he is nowhere near Young's caliber as a scrambler. Even if he lives up to the comparison and becomes a slightly worse passer than Vince Young, I doubt people will consider that a success.
All in all, I would be very wary investing $25 million guaranteed in a guy who barely won his starting job in college, doesn't see the field well, is known to be immature, and has an unfavorable statistical profile. At least the Raiders will be able to admire the velocity and distance of Russell's passes on their way to the arms of opposing defensive backs.
Brady Quinn
Quinn is pretty much your stereotypical stud quarterback prospect. A four-year starter out of Notre Dame, he is used to having the national spotlight focused on him. At 6-foot-4, 225 pounds he is physically reminiscent of another Charlie Weis pupil named Brady. In fact, he is definitely more mobile, and probably has a better arm than Tom. The big difference between the two is the skill for which the Patriots' Brady is best known: staying cool under pressure.
Quinn has been in the national spotlight for so long that people have started to feel the need to tear him down. If you look for faults long enough you will find them. This is a major part of the reason why games started in college is so predictive. Players with few starts have not given scouts time to find their faults.
Quinn's slide is reminiscent of another recent top quarterback prospect who chose to stick around for his senior year, Matt Leinart. People nitpicked Leinart to pieces his senior year which caused him to drop farther than he should have; teams that passed on him are starting to regret it.
The big knock on Quinn is that he buckles under pressure. Last season, against the top defenses that Notre Dame faced, those that really pressured the quarterback well, Quinn came up short. This was particularly evident in LSU's manhandling of Notre Dame in the Sugar Bowl. Now, I think it makes sense that a quarterback might struggle when his offensive line is obviously overmatched, but still Quinn's ineptitude was worrisome. This is an important area for improvement, but it is far from a crippling weakness. Peyton Manning faced similar criticisms coming out of Tennessee and he seems to have done fine.
Quinn has a lot of things going for him. In addition to his good size and mobility, Quinn has an excellent arm. He doesn't throw the deep ball as well as Russell does, but he has great zip on his intermediate throws. Quinn has no problems hitting the deep outs, and loves to throw crossing patterns over the middle. He has had plenty of experience making these NFL-type throws after spending the last two years under Weis' tutelage.
Most people consider Quinn's time under Weis one of his greatest selling points. However, a few are somewhat concerned by the huge jump in Quinn's numbers after Weis' arrival. Was Quinn's success just a product of the system? I would suspect not, especially given the continued success of Tom Brady. Weis works wonders with quarterbacks, no doubt about that, but it seems that whatever he does to them is permanent.
In my opinion, Quinn's college stats match up pretty well with his scouting profile. He completed 58.0 percent of his passes in college and started 46 games. This projects Quinn as a good pro quarterback, but not a great one. Here is the complete list of players drafted in first two rounds over the past ten years who started at least 35 games and completed at least 57 percent of their passes: Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Drew Brees, Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler.
Are there any bad players on that list? The worst according to my numbers is Eli Manning, and he's been decent (maybe not up to expectations, but decent). I would be happy to spend a top ten pick on most of those players.
Brady Quinn's closest comparables paint an even prettier picture. Carson Palmer, Donovan McNabb and Jay Cutler all started 45 games, and completed 59, 58 and 57 percent of their passes respectively. If Quinn's pro career is as similar to those players as his college stats are, then he should be good enough to justify a high pick.
Charlie Weis recently said that Quinn is "a combination of Tom Brady and Peyton Manning." I'm a bit skeptical of that; it will be tough for Quinn to find time to both impregnate B-list actresses and teach the local kids how to boost an Escalade. All joking aside, Quinn is far from flawless as a prospect, but, in spite of his occasional shortcomings on the national stage, all evidence points to Quinn becoming a very good NFL quarterback.
Round Two
I've read in a couple of different places recently that the Raiders are thinking of passing on a quarterback in round one because they want to select Trent Edwards of Stanford in round two. I am unsure what to say about this decision. On the one hand, if they are really sure that Calvin Johnson is going to an outstanding player then they should take him. Drafting Russell so early would be a mistake, so avoiding that would have to be considered a positive.
On the other hand, Trent Edwards is not a good prospect either. He started 31 games at Stanford and completed 56.3 percent of his passes. He was never a particularly outstanding player, and he got hurt all four years. The projection system is not designed to handle injuries, and if he had stayed healthy Edwards would have played forty-some games, so perhaps he is better than the numbers say. Still, it's hard for me to believe that a guy who couldn't make it through a college season even once will be able to survive the NFL.
Teams looking for a QB in the second round should give Drew Stanton a long look. His play at Michigan State was uneven at best, but he has prototypical size, a strong arm and excellent mobility. Though he didn't start many games in college (29), he did complete 64.2 percent of his passes. It's tough to say too much about second-round QBs because there have not been many in recent years, but based on the limited data, completion percentage seems to gain greater importance in the second round. I wouldn't spend a first-round pick on Stanton, especially given his erratic play at Michigan State, but he has all the tools to be a quality NFL starter and could be a good value in the second round.
John Beck of BYU is another guy that may sneak into the end of the second round. He posted an excellent completion percentage at BYU and was a four-year starter. He lacks lacks elite talent, but he makes good decisions with the ball. He has the makings of a good but not great, prospect, a la Matt Schaub.
Conclusions
Last year at this time I wrote that, "I was almost hoping that [the system] would indicate that one of the three top prospects was going to be a bust, just so I could say that I called it. But the system projects all three to be good pros." Well, disappointed as I was with the lack of controversial predictions, I am glad that I stuck by the numbers. This year is different. The numbers are not quite black and white (Quinn's completion percentage is a little low, Russell has a number of starts a little above complete bust territory), but they are pretty clear: Brady Quinn is a much better quarterback prospect than JaMarcus Russell.
I am hardly pleased to call out Russell as a likely bust, and given the right situation and good coaching I am sure he could defy the odds and become a good pro. However, players like Russell rarely do.
Here's that under 30 starts list again: Ryan Leaf, Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Michael Vick, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Alex Smith.
Sorry, Raiders fans.
For more about the method behind the College Quarterback Projection System, and projections for young quarterbacks already in the league, see David's expanded article in Pro Football Prospectus 2007, available this summer.
First!
Great article, this is exactly what I have been thinking. Before the sugarbowl NO ONE was talking about Russell being the first overall pick and suddenly after one game everyone has him as the best player in College? No way, Im not buying it.
I also wonder if the Raiders come to their senses and pass on Russell and the Browns take Quinn, how far could Russell fall? Maybe Minnesota but I am not sure if they would use a first on a QB. If not them then I have no idea who would take him in the first. Your thoughts?
Great stuff, David. I was going to write basically the same for New Era Scouting, but I'll just link to this instead.
I love this stuff. Great analysis David.
Good article.
"Peyton Manning faced similar criticisms coming out of Tennessee and he seems to have fine." You seem to be missing a 'done'.
How does Troy Smith look as a second-round pick in the projection system? The numbers I found for him (which could be wrong) are 31 starts, 63.4 career completion percentage.
I'm sure people have soured on him as an NFL quarterback after Ohio State's dismal performance against Florida, and there was always concern about Smith being too short. I can see a team spending a first-day pick on him still, and am curious to know who he compares to.
I compared the two players on my posted link and echoed a lot of the same sentiments.
Jemarcus never had that season as a "#1 pick" for everybody to scrutinize every aspect of his game. Russells stock vastly increased after the bowl game where he "won the head to head matchup". Let's not forget that the game was basically a home game for Russell, and a road game against a tough defense for Quinn. Even in that game Russell had a dumb fumble ( which doesn't go against his QB rating) and Quinn had a potential TD pass that hit his receiver in the face mask in the endzone.
Quinn could have potentially been one of the top 2 quarterbacks selected last year and had to live his senior season under the microscope.
I don't know that Russell is as mobile as Rothlisburger, and I disagree that his arm makes Favre's arm look like Wueffell. There is a difference between a long toss competition and throwing a fastball down the middle of the field.
Do you think the QB's with less games started bust more often because their performance regresses over their inherent value ( and creating a lot of hype) and they get drafted with less experience and more hype and they bust?
Superb article. Great work David.
“Peyton Manning faced similar criticisms coming out of Tennessee and he seems to have fine.� You seem to be missing a ‘done’.
That, or the name of a body part.
Love it, love it, love it. I've been saying this to anyone that would listen ever since the Sugar Bowl, but I never did a numbers analysis like this. It truly is astounding how one game makes everyone think Russell is so amazing, especially since that game was against one of the worst defenses in college football.
I'd like to call a moratorium on bashing Whitlock after his spurt of sanity during the Don Imus crisis. Also the Raiders and Russell seem like a match made in heaven, let the hilarity begin!
In defense of Russell, he did have an outstanding season, he just wasn't noticed until the bowl game.
Russell:
He might as well be a combo of USS Lorenzen and Kyle Boller.
A bigger Kyle Bollier... Brilliant!
But in all seriousness, how do you let 1 game determine so much of the value for a player... 1 freaking game!
What if people hyped up the Colts/Texans week 16 game as a match between two former #1 draft picks. After the Texans beat the Colts, do we all run around and say that David Carr is better than Manning? Do we say that Manning can't win big games? That Carr is younger and has more potential? It's ONE GAME people. It was a basically home game on turf also, and Russell faced a weaker defense.
David, I have a question about the low number of starts for Russell- how many of the QB's you listed with a low number of starts had left college early, as Russell is doing? if you included a variable for "left college a year early" would that be a positive for QB's in your study?
Re 15:
I think you're on to something. I think I remember reading something a while ago on FO that if you include the 16 games of Alex Smith's rookie season in his projection, he comes out looking really good.
I still don't think Russell will be very good though.
Great article. Russell has always been worrisome to me, if I was fan of a team picking him at or near the top of the first round. People who compare him to Young, based upon statistical similarity, really are missing how different they are. Russell would really need to significantly outperform Young in passing stats to be Young's equal as a qb, given Young is a spectacular runner, and Russell merely o.k. to good. Also, Young's field command and game awareness in college was nearly unprecedented. Russell doesn't even come close. Luckily for Matt Millen, the Raiders are in front of them, and even if Al Davis doesn't go that route, I can't see Mike Martz endorsing Russell for his offense.
I do think that Quinn has been picked apart a little, and if he were to fall to the Vikings' spot, the Vikings would likely be smart to not put all their eggs in Tavaris Jackson's basket, who didn't come out well in David's system. I don't have, however, as good a feeling about Quinn as I did Matt Leinert, who to me was an obvious steal for the Cardinals. That could simply be the by-product of Leinert having far superior teammates, however.
Troy Smith's performance against Florida really shook my confidence in him. Yes, his offensive line was whipped, and playing from way behind will often make a qb look bad, but it really disturbed me that on many occasions Smith failed to throw to the wide open check down option when it was obvious his protection had collapsed. I had always been impressed with his ability to perform under pressure until then, and now, given his short stature, the fact that he wasn't a good decision maker against Florida makes me wary. Maybe he shouldn't be taken before the third round.
I also actually Like Young's delivery of the ball better than Russell. Yes, Young's is unorthodox, but given his height, the sidearm aspect is tolerable. What I like is that it comes out quickly, where Russell sometimes has a tendency to have a bigger wind-up, which in the world of NFL pass rushers, can be a problem. Yeah, Russell's hands are huge, so he won't be easy to strip, but when there is too much time between decision to throw, and the ball coming out, things can often go awry, even if just in terms of completion percentage.
Will: Keep in mind the abysmal playcalling by Tressel that game, though. They leaned on Troy Smith far, far, far too much, especially early on. I think Troy got a little shell-shocked that game.
Then again, I think the point you might've been making is that he looked like an excellent decision maker before, and now he just looks like an above-average one. And he needs to be excellent to compensate. Second or third round is where I would've put him, anyway. Making decisions as a quarterback is a lot easier when your opposing defenses suck, and they faced a lot of meh defenses last year.
You know, of the 32 teams in the league, 14 of them start a QB who was not a 1st-rounder, and half of them are starting 2nd day selections.
These non-first rounders include Brees, Bulger, Delhomme, Brady.
I suspect some young QB out of the lower rounds of this draft will be the only one we'll be talking about in a few years.
#15
Early entry QBs have a bad track record. The only recent one to crack the top 20 in DPAR was Ben Roethlisberger.
I will discuss later round QBs and many other things in my article in PFP 2007. If anyone has any questions that don't get answered here you can contact me at dlew33-at-yahoo-dot-com.
David-Any late round qb's that you think can be very good (Zabransky, Palko, Leak, etc)?
Sorry, Raiders fans.
Your apology is premature. I say that it's more likely than not that the Raiders do not pick Russell, either because they decide to go with Calvin Johnson (or perhaps even someone else) instead or because they trade the pick.
An odd article. If I understand this, completion percentage and starts are key in predicting NFL success. Now, no criteria is reported for either, but Russel is above average in completion percentage - 61.8 percent - and games started - 29, or just over 2 seasons. And, yet, the focus of the article is a critique of Russell outside of the numbers and why he still isn't worth the pick. Isn't the point of the numbers to get beyond this sort of analysis?
As to Brady, my real concern with him is that the quality of his coaching may make him an outlier. That is, he may not experience the kind of improvement that the previous QBs with his numbers experienced. None of them had great, pro coaching (Palmer was close, but McNabb worked with an option coach). So, Brady may be as good as he can get. In addition, how do you add Cutler as a positive comparison? He was above average for a 1st year guy, but it is a little early to consider a similar season for Brady to be a success.
Yeah, Pat, that's the thing. Smith really needs to be outstanding in regards to decision-making, and I have less confidence now than I did before that he will be, on the next level.
I think everyone is missing the point with the Young-Russell comparison. Young dominated the competition all season long, played him team into the National Championship and then SINGLE-HANDEDLY destroyed the best team in College in the biggest game of the year.
Russell did nothing close to this.
Any time you hear a players name mentioned as a potential top 5 pick for the first time After the season is over, that guy is always going to be a let down.
Re: 26
Any time you hear a players name mentioned as a potential top 5 pick for the first time After the season is over, that guy is always going to be a let down.
You mean like Vince Young?
I think the key to the whole article are the throwaway lines "This is a major part of the reason why games started in college is so predictive. Players with few starts have not given scouts time to find their faults."
Basically, this says to me that althogh Russell might become a good, even great, QB, there just isn't enough data, scouting or otherwise, to conclude that for sure. Similarly, when Brady came out, there wasn't enough data to conclude he would become a future HOF-er. If Brady had more starts, he surely would have been a first rounder.
I agree with the tone of the article that a first round pick is too dear for a pig in a poke like Russell.
re:24
The criteria you're looking for were included in the analysis Dave did last year. Pick up a copy of PFP 2006 and you'll see that 29 games is actually low for a 1st/2nd round QB. 61.8% is indeed good, and Dave points that out
and why he still isn’t worth the pick.
He isn't worth the pick because a first-overall draft choice shouldn't be just an average passer.
If Russell fell to, say, the bottom of the first round, he'd be a good value pickup there. Pretty much just like Eli Manning would've been considered a very good pick if he was a late first-round draft choice, rather than a first-overall pick.
Excellent article. I think this kind of analysis is very valuable.
I think age should be considered strongly as well. Three of those
#24: the number of starts for Russell is low in this way of predicting. 29 starts is low for a college QB that will go in the first or second round; ideally, you have at least 30 or more.
Though the qualitative analysis did go weirdly with this metric, it seemed fairly sound and was a good anti-study from the hundreds of ZOMG Russell is the bestest lol! people out there. Russell seems like yet another workout wonder that is destined to fail despite really astounding gifts; honestly, QBs in the NFL can't make stupid mistakes like what he does and stay successful.
I don't think that the Raiders are going to pick him. I think they're going to go with Johnson and go for success this season; Davis can't wait for a rookie QB to pan out (or not).
I love the bashing of Eli. I wonder if you guys were bashing Drew Brees as a bust 2 years after he was a starter?
33: Eli "bashing?" I don't see it. He's been mentioned twice in this article/thread:
"...Eli Manning [has] been decent (maybe not up to expectations, but decent)..."
"Eli Manning would’ve been considered a very good pick if he was a late first-round draft choice, rather than a first-overall pick."
Honestly, Chris, your constant trolling is a drag. I think everyone realizes by now that you hold Eli Manning in oddly high esteem, and that you are convinced Michael Vick is a fantastic quarterback with a strong, accurate arm who is extremely underrated because he's a game-changing running threat as well.
Back to the article: Forgot to say in my earlier post, Thank you for the great work, David.
3 of the
Actually, Eli Manning's problems have similarity to Vick's. Vick's biggest problem is not his performance, although that certainly is an issue, but rather that drafting him had too high an opportunity cost, and that he consumes way, way, too much cap space, relative to performance. The opportunity cost of drafting Eli Manning was also way too high, and he also consumes way too much cap space, relative to performance. This may change, given more development by Manning, but I'm not very confident at this point that this will happen.
Actually, Eli Manning's problems have similarity to Vick's. Vick's biggest problem is not his performance, although that certainly is an issue, but rather that drafting him had too high an opportunity cost, and that he consumes way, way, too much cap space, relative to performance. The opportunity cost of drafting Eli Manning was also way too high, and he also consumes way too much cap space, relative to performance. This may change, given more development by Manning, but I'm not very confident at this point that this will happen.
How does Kevin Kolb look? I've been saying he's the 2nd best QB in the draft.
Finally, a good article regarding the 2007 quarterbacks.
I have long been a proponent of Russell, and obviously I'm not going to change that now. However, there are many valid criticisms and concerns regarding Russell, and this article touches on them quite nicely. I have no problem with that, that's just the makings of a good, intelligent debate. My problem is when people come out with the Daunte Culpepper 2.0 and the Bollier stuff like a bunch of third graders; that's the kind of crap I would expect in a Yahoo! chat room, not on FO.
As pointed out earlier, Russell had a lot of things going for him at LSU. He played in a very simple system, had good pass blocking, and his receivers were all spectacular. Bowe will probably be the second receiver taken after Calvin Johnson, and Davis will be a first day pick as well. Early Doucet was rated by many as the #1 WR recruit in the country a couple of years ago, and basically everyone has him as one of the top players for the 2008 Draft. Moreover, as was pointed out in the article, Russell's decision-making ability was questionable at times, no doubt there.
So, like I stated earlier, Russell is not a perfect candidate; he has plenty of flaws if you analyze deep enough.
However, I will say a few things in defense of Russell.
One, he didn't suddenly pop onto the scene with the Sugar Bowl. Sure, Sportscenter may not have blown any loads over him while they were hyping up Troy Smith and talking about how there should be an Ohio State v. Michigan rematch, but if you really followed college football well, you'd heard about Russell long before January 3rd, 2007. Moreover, while playing well against Notre Dame, the Sugar Bowl was actually one of his worst games of the season.
Second, yes Russell narrowly won the starting job at LSU. However, LSU is simply loaded with talent, so that isn't much of a criticism. That would be about like criticizing Frank Gore for barely beating out Willis McGahee at Miami. Russell barely beat out Flynn, but Flynn is a very good QB in his own right, and Perrilloux was considered by many to be the nation's top QB recruit a couple of years ago. It's not like he was barely beating out some fifth string walk-on from Opelousas.
Third, despite the talent around him, Russell had no running game to help him, for the most part, in 2006. LSU didn't have a solid back until very late in the year, and the line struggled to run block. While they could run the ball fairly well against the crappy teams, they couldn't do anything against the better teams. In the aforementioned Auburn game, the LSU backs combined to rush for 28 yards off of 19 carries. In the loss to Florida, they could muster only 71 yards rushing off of 21 carries. In both games, Russell was actually the team's second leading rusher. On the year, Devin Hester, the team's starting fullback, was actually LSU's leading rusher in terms of carries, yards, and touchdowns. That just goes to show how bad their run game was. Still, even with no support from the running game, Russell still led LSU as the top offense in the SEC, and arguably in the nation.
All told, as I stated earlier, Russell has some flaws, no doubt about that. But, the truth is everyone has some flaws, and there is never such a thing as a perfect draft choice. At bottom though, Russell, due to being a once-in-a-generation physical specimen, has a tremendous upside, and while there is risk that goes along with that, you just can't turn down that much potential. That's why he'll go most likely in the top three, if not first overall.
Re 31, 35:
Are you trying to use a less than sign? The comment system is seeing that as html, which is why your comment is being eaten.
Great article, by the way!
I wonder what people would be saying about the Giants trade if AJ Smith didn't select Shawn Merriman, but say Thomas Davis ( the next OLB selected) instead.
The Giants never traded Merriman, they traded their pick and their "future first rounder".
Now that isn't a light package, but the media just loves throwing "Merriman" out there to prove their point. The pick could have easily been David Pollack who busted his neck and might have ended his career before it even started.
"Assuming he can get his weight under control, Russell figures to be more mobile than Leftwich and Roethlisberger"
Why is Leftwich's mobility compared to Roethlisberger's? One is a statue. The other is one of the more elusive QB's in the league, and maybe the best improviser.
Less than six months ago, very few experts considered Russell a first-round pick. FO’s own Michael David Smith, for example, wrote “I don’t see Russell as a first-round pick at all� in the discussion thread for Seventh Day Adventure on September 17th. Late risers usually fail to live up to the hype.
HA! I was the one who first (on this board) started talking about JaMarcus' NFL potential.
But I meant as more of a project, not the #1 pick overall. The guy has a cannon for an arm, but there's more to it than that.
Referring to Drew Stanton's play as uneven is quite the understatement. I did get a chance to watch many MSU games with Stanton and it was stunning. At times he looked like one of the best college QB's in recent years. Then other times it looked like he was playing the game for the first time. I personally wouldn't draft the guy, but David's correct in pointing out his mobility (excellent runner for his size) and strong arm. I'm sure that will be enough for somebody to take a chance on him.
Chris, it would have been less obvious then, but it wouldn't have changed the reality. Eli Manning isn't good enough to make it worthwhile to endure that sort of oportunity cost, and it was never very likely that he would be good enough. This is really no harsh criticism; just factoring the injury risk all players are subject to, such trades are nearly always a bad deal for the team trading up. Your David Pollack example proves the point. Giving up a shot at two good prospects, in return for a shot at one, is a losing game, even if you realy, really, like the one good prospect, especially in a game like football, where even the most important position is highly dependent on the performance at other positions, and the risk of career ending injury is relatively high.
#45: The draft pick cost isn't even the big deal. His cap size at this point is ridiculous already - (around $12M for the next few years).It gets even worse if Eli marginally improves in the next two years (but not significantly) when they have to resign him. It's unlikely that he'll take a pay cut, which means he'll continue to suck up probably $12-15M/year in cap space. He's just not worth that much.
#42
Byron Leftwich's career rushing totals: 120 for 364 in 44 starts. Roethlisberger: 119 for 311 in 40 starts. Leftwich is a much better runner than people think, I will probably have an article in PFP about this. People just think Leftwich is a bad runner because he is slow for a black guy.
#38
Kevin Kolb is a good prospect. He's a little tough to project because he could go anywhere from the late second to the fourth round. He started a lot of games and had a high completion percentage in college, but he doesn't have superstar talent. He's pretty similar to Beck in that he could be a good player, but probably not a great one.
I think Russell could be a good player, but he is too risky to take in the top 10. If he fell to the Panthers or the Packers that would be a more appropriate place for him.
Um, I know Troy Smith is rightfully slammed for his bad performance against Florida, but Russell didn't exactly light the world on fire against Florida either. His yardage and completion stats were better than Smith's (how could they not be?) but he threw three picks and lost a fumble.
Of course, this sent Smith tumbling down the boards, and Quinn gets slammed for performance in big games, yet Russell's shortcomings in their big early-season games are now forgotten because he turned it on after LSU was gone from national title contention. Seems a bit odd to me.
Re: 48
The suggestion that Smith went tumbling down draft boards due to the Florida game is, I think, a myth. I don't think there was ever great enthusiasm for Smith among NFL scouts. I think he was viewed as a mid-round pick before the Florida game and after it too. It's possible, I suppose, that if he had really lit it up that game that he might have gotten a 'bounce' from it but that's just speculation.
Re: 42
I wouldn't classify Big Ben as especially elusive (in the way that I normally think of the term), but he is very tough to bring down.
#26: you are EXACTLY right. Young's performance against USC was incredible. Truly one for the ages against a great team. Beating ND in a Bowl Game isn't that impressive and hasn't been for some long time now (apologies to ABC, of course). Beating maybe the 15th best college team is not the same as what Vince Young did.
Oh, I agree, Pat, that the cap space consumption is the bigger issue. Getting to a Super Bowl is made much more difficult when any player's cap consumption exceeds his relative performance by many millions of dollars. Which is why it sucks to be picking at the very top of the draft. Even if the player is decent, there is a good chance that for at least a few years that the performance will lag cap consumption, and if he isn't decent, roster construction gets really screwed up.
Having said that, the problem gets magnified when you start out trading upper tier prospects two for one.
Great article. Thanks, David.
I can well imagine that there is very little data on QB's taken in the 2nd round, because I bet there just aren't that many. It seems to me that if a team NEEDS a franchise QB, they'll be under a lot of pressure to take one in the first round, and if they don't and just want to build depth and potentially find a diamond in the rough for the future (e.g. Tom Brady), they'll draft one on the second day.
#47 - Or maybe Roethlisbergermeisterstein is really fast for a white QB of aryan extraction. :) I'm being facetious, but some people get all bent out of shape over remarks like that. Leftwich is certainly a pocket passer, or, as the Philadelphia alternative sports media calls them, "sell-outs."
I meant to say earlier that I thought you wrote a good article. Some of the people on these boards are just asses and always looking for something to criticize.
#52 - you make a great point about second-round QBs.
#51: Not really. Manning's cap hits for the first two years were pretty small - something like $3M-$4M, if memory serves. The contracts are obscenely backloaded. $3M-$4M is consistent with what his production's been so far. The big problem for Eli's already started - he's shown just enough that they wanted to exercise that $5M buyback. If he had been a clear-out bust, they could've just let him go after next year. It's the David Carr problem. Gets even worse for Manning in a year or two.
What a super article. As a Colt fan, I pay scant attention to college QBs, so it was a real learning experience regarding the two men and the basic metrics for evaluation.
And some excellent one-liners: Come on, Brady Quinn can't impregnate b-list actresses AND teach kids how to boost an Escalade? That's why God made the off-season! As Tony Montana said in "Scarface," First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women." If they had Escalades in 1984, I'm sure there would have been a 4th part to the quote.
Joe T, (#20) it's tough to denigrate Brees as a non-1st-rounder, since he was the first pick of the second round. The money is surely different, but he could easily have gone 10 slots higher or lower. Not like he was a 7th round "hey, let's pick this guy from Michigan, he looks like a competent backup" type guy. Tom Brady stands out so much as the exception that it's unfair to use him as an example.
Will Allen, if somebody comes up with a device to measure opportunity cost across a broad spectrum of daily life, they will become rich beyond measure. In B-school, we had to pick alternate investments, products to develop, JVs to form--and measure down to a defensible dollar figure the opp cost vs an alternative. But when measuring humans, it's amazing when somebody does it right. Like SD trading the #1 (Vick) pick to get LT and Brees in Rounds 1 and 2. They clearly took some risk, but played that opp cost issue very well. I love the draft-day trade down; it's like alchemy. The trade-up sometimes works great too, but it seems more obvious to me.
If Smith lasts to the 3rd round I think he will be an absolute steal for who ever selects him. However, the coaching staff may have to be creative to make him successful early on in his career ala Norv Turner with Alex Smith. Moving the pocket, lots of rollouts, etc.
I thought the NFL Network said that Russell ran a more complex offense then Quinn...from a Lions forum:
"There was an NFL Films analyst on the other day (Cosell). When he broke down the QBs, he said Quinn gets all this press because of Weiss and being NFL ready but the film told a different story. He said LSU actually ran a more complex NFL style offense with more motion, reads, routes and audibles than ND."
Food for thought.
Jamarcus Russell
yearstartsattcmpcmp%
------------------------ ----------------
2004414473 51
200512310 18760
200613342 23269
2007*12310 18760
------------------------ ----------------
411106 67961
*Assuming that he would've regressed
all the way back to his 2005 numbers (unlikely).
These hypothetical numbers would give him a better projection than Drew Brees and Donovan McNabb (4.17 and 3.75 resp.).
Projection Possibilities:
Russell's current projection turns out to be accurate (Patrick Ramsey-ish) and 'Dude! you should've stayed in school! You coulda been awesome.'
ProBowl QB, possible MVP candidate at some point - in line with the hypothetical career numbers above.
Something else and he becomes an outlier or the system is refined to give him a more accurate projection.
It isn't about rushing totals. It's about movement in the pocket. Roethlisberger isn't a runner, but he moves well. He's elusive. He has good awareness. He can throw on the move. Leftwich is a statue.
Besides size, Leftwich shouldn't be in the discussion of Russell. And Russell's movement reminds me a lot of Roethlisberger.
Russell isn't a runner (or at least doesn't take off much, given his college numbers), but he can move in the pocket and make people miss. He can also throw on the move.
Let's try this again without the table and list tags
Food for thought.
Jamarcus Russell
year---starts---att---cmp---cmp%
2004------4-----144----73----51
2005-----12-----310---187----60
2006-----13-----342---232----69
2007*----12-----310---187----60
------------41----1106---679----61
*Assuming that he would've regressed
all the way back to his 2005 numbers (unlikely).
These hypothetical numbers would give him a better projection than Drew Brees and Donovan McNabb (4.17 and 3.75 resp.).
Projection Possibilities:
[1] Russell's current projection turns out to be accurate (Patrick Ramsey-ish) and 'Dude! you should've stayed in school! You coulda been awesome.'
[2] ProBowl QB, possible MVP candidate at some point - in line with the hypothetical career numbers above.
[3] Something else and he becomes an outlier or the system is refined to give him a more accurate projection.
"But in all seriousness, how do you let 1 game determine so much of the value for a player… 1 freaking game!"
I agree, I would hate to see anyone make a determination of value based on one game by a certain Vikings QB
Curse you, David! Writing great articles like this that do serious damage to Russell's draft standing amongst FO readers prior to the reader mock draft is doing a serious disservice to those of us GMing teams set at QB and possessed of high first round picks. Still, nice work though. You're slightly higher on Brady Quinn than I thought you'd be.
Some look at Russell and see Leftwich.
Some look at Russell and see Big Ben.
Me? I look at Russell and see Rohan Davey.
Watch out, NFL Europe!
#61: It's not quite that simple. The projection system "cheats" a little - it only works for high-round draft picks. By doing that, it's "stealing" a large amount of information from normal scouts. Therefore you can't just prorate stats out and say "well, if he would've stayed in school one more year..." - because the requirement is that he'd stay in school one more year, and still be a high-round draft pick. That information you can't really glean by prorating stats out.
#65: True. I neglected to mention that it is my opinion that a QB with Russell's physical attributes and skills at a big time football school who produces (at least) those projected stats is going to be picked in the first round.
#65: True. I neglected to mention that it is my opinion that a QB with Russell’s physical attributes and skills at a big time football school who produces (at least) those projected stats is going to be picked in the first round.
It's not that simple. If he would go back to school and throw 20 interceptions next year and be benched in the bowl game after throwing 3 interceptions, he wouldn't be drafted in the first round.
Scouts look at more than just completion percentage and games started. The projection system leverages that. Yes, if scouts still thought that he was a first rounder after having another similar year, he'd very likely be a top-shelf quarterback.
But, as David pointed out in the article, Russell almost didn't start the season. If his own coach wasn't sure he'd be the best quarterback on the team, there's a good chance scouts' opinions would cool on him as well if he didn't continue to shine.
Re: 48
Mawbrew pretty much nailed it on Troy Smith. A lot of the mainstream media was fawning over Troy Smith, and that all came crashing to an end in the BCS title game against Florida. However, the meltdown against Florida didn't really change Smith very much in the eyes of the NFL. Even when he won the Heisman, most didn't have him any higher than a 2nd round pick, and the criticisms of him were the same then as they are now. So, that didn't change much.
Re: 58
I watched LSU play about nine times this season (in person against ULL and Arizona, and then on TV against Auburn, MSU, Florida, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas, and Notre Dame), and I'm not sure you could convince me that LSU's offense was more complex than Notre Dame's. That offense was honestly one of the simplest I have seen in ages. They just had so much talent in the passing game (between Russell, Bowe, Davis, Doucet, and a good OL) that they could be really simple, and they were. One of their favorite plays was the wide receiver screen. Opposing defenses were so afraid of Russell's arm and the WR's speed that they played the corners so far off that Russell could take the snap, throw it quick to the WR, and it would get 8-10+ yards every time. As an opposing fan, that was about the most frustrating thing possible to watch.
As for Russell against Florida, he didn't play that poorly. He went 24/41 (almost 60% completion rate) for 1 touchdown, 3 interceptions, and 1 fumble. One of the interceptions, though, was actually a ball that hit Bowe in the hands but was jarred out before he could gain complete possession, and the fumble was actually a botched snap. Don't get me wrong, that's not a great game, or even a good game, but that's better than pretty much everyone else fared against Florida, and all things considered it's not that bad of a performance considering it came against the eventual national champion, with one of the nation's best defenses, on the road, all the while he had no help whatsoever from the running game.
#64: Almost. But Russell has a neck.
Its great to see these debates backed by actual data rather than just what people "feel" about each player. Great analysis. I wonder if some NFL teams will start jumping on this like the A's and Red Sox did with sabermetrics. A couple of comments (not backed by data). Comparing Russell to Young is silly. Michael Robinson is more like Young than Russell is. Russell absolutely has to pass much better than Young to be his equal in the NFL. I'm still not quite sold on Young being great yet, but its undeniable that he has the potential to be a great leader that "knows how to win." Re:39. I'll give you that Russell had a much better supporting cast compared to Quinn, but don't go too crazy drooling over the LSU WRs. Bowe is very good, but he certainly isn't a clear cut #2 behind Calvin. Ginn and Meacham are right there with him and both could easily be taken before him. Point taken though that he had a lot of weapons.
#67 By stating that it's my opinion that he would be drafted in the first round I've covered the scout angle. That includes the implicit assumption that nothing will happen his senior year that would knock him out of the first round in scout's eyes. Things like poor TD/Int ratio, major injury, legal issues, playing worse his senior year than he did in his sophomore year, being benched, etc...
I think that assuming that Russell would've put up numbers (all of them not just completion percentage) in his senior year at least as good as he did in his sophomore year is much more likely than him not starting, being benched, or performing worse than he did in his sophomore year.
The real point of my post was that if you make some conservative projections about how he would have performed in his senior season, you get a much better projection. This in turn raises a number of other interesting questions to think about including how important it is for QB's to not come out early.
It's fine to disagree with my assumptions but I think that I've covered the three major factors in the QB projection system - picked in first round, completion percentage, and games started.
Great article. Kiper et al could not come up with something like this in their wildest dreams.
I hope that Al Davis does not read this. As a Bronco fan I am openly rooting for the Raiduhs to select Russell.
I wonder if outside the 10 year window of this analysis there is a notable exception, perhaps Troy Aikman, Trent Green?
I know RBs are what he said he would analyze next, but to me it seems the bust rate, (Penn State RBs aside except LJ), for RBs is much lower than QB or WR.
If possible I think a WR predictive algorythym would be the most needed, as this seems to be the hardest position to predict. If he were to find something, he would be wise to sell it before posting on a free site.
I hate the word upside, especially in situations like this. NBA GM's constantly screw up draft picks by ignoring the film on guys and instead going with "upside", drives me crazy.
Honestly how many times has a prospect lived up to his "upside"?
Memo to the Raiders: Look, the perfect specimen of a quarterback already exists in the NFL. His name is Michael Vick and he has unbelievable arm strength and is also probably one of the top 5 fastest players in the league, certainly the top 10.
Now after 6 seasons Vick has a career 75 QB rating and has thrown for 20 TDS in a season only once. So what is the one thing that everyone says Vick needs to learn to do? Read a defense and make more accurate throws.
So please Raiders dont use the 1st pick in the draft on a guy because of "upside". Do it because there is no question that he will unequivocally make your team better.
If and only if you are absolutely certain that you are taking a QB at #1(although I think Josh McCown is PERFECT for Oakland)atleast make the right choice.
Forget the names, what QB would you want in a situation like Oakland's?
A) A polished and experienced QB who has been coached for the last 2 years by a 3 time SB winning OC.
B) A QB that barely won the starting spot on his college team.
I am almost certain the Raiders will take Russell, and it will certainly doom them for another 3-4 years.
By stating that it’s my opinion that he would be drafted in the first round
You stated it was your opinion that someone who produces those stats (and with his skills/measurables) would be drafted in the first rounds. Scouts don't go by completion percentage alone. They watch game film. One bad game knocked Troy Smith back to Earth by pointing out that his flaws were, in fact, real. Russell hasn't had enough games yet for teams to see his flaws.
You can't "conservatively" project that he'd stay a first round pick in scout's eyes. You don't know what the scouts would see.
#60
Russell is similar to Leftwich in that he is 6'6 260 pounds, and they both have superior arm strength due to a long windmill type throwing motion. None of the above apply to Big Ben. Also, although running stats don't capture the whole picture, I think it is foolish to suggest that Roethlisberger is much more mobile than Leftwich when Leftwich clearly has been a more effective runner. Roethlisberger is AT BEST slightly more mobile than Leftwich, and I personally believe them to be approximately equal.
#74
It is perfectly reasonable for him to make the assumption that Russell if he went back to school and started and played well would be a first round pick. I think there would be probably only about a 75% chance of that happening, he could get hurt or play badly, or just not quite well enough, or even lose his job. But if he didn't then we would know that he is in fact a good prospect and I the projection system would view him more favorably. An interesting guy to watch in this regard is Colt Brennan of Hawaii. He would have been a late first or early second round pick this year, the third QB off the board. He chose to return to school after having statistically the best year of any quarterback ever. This is not smart, as regression to the mean suggests he is unlikely to duplicate it. The projection system was not particularly fond of him this year, but if he plays well enough to be rated highly by scouts again next year (he would have to play very well given the expectations of him and the inflationary effects of that offense) then the projection system will like him.
#74
You stated it was your opinion that someone who produces those stats (and with his skills/measurables) would be drafted in the first rounds. Scouts don’t go by completion percentage alone. They watch game film. One bad game knocked Troy Smith back to Earth by pointing out that his flaws were, in fact, real. Russell hasn’t had enough games yet for teams to see his flaws.
My previous post already addressed these items.
You can’t “conservatively� project that he’d stay a first round pick in scout’s eyes. You don’t know what the scouts would see.
My conservative projection was that Russell's stats (all of them) are likely to have been better in his senior season than they were in his sophomore season. In order to back my conservative claim up with data I'd have to look at three-year college QB starter stats in general (major football schools only) and find that most of the QB's who performed better their junior year than they did in their sophomore year also performed better in their senior year than they did in their sophomore year. I'm assuming this to be the case. This is connected to my opinion that Russell would have been a first round pick after his senior season barring what I believe to be unlikely events. Let me also make clear that I'm assuming that he would actually play equivalent or better his senior year than he did in his sophomore year leading to equivalent or better stats.
Barring an amazing performance against Florida, I don't think that Troy Smith was going to be a first round pick anyway. But then again, neither of us know what the scouts would see.
Pat is exactly right; even if Russell came back for his senior year and posted his sophomore year's stats, what if he coupled it with more interceptions? More near-interceptions, which scouts will notice and the stats will not? What if he shows a couple more awful games against top defenses? It's entirely possible he slips down out of the first, especially if other QBs (Brohm, maybe?) overtake him.
Anyway, I find it amazing the degree to which I agree with Dave's thoughts on both players. I have never been a big fan of Russell's, nor Quinn's, but I always saw Quinn as the more reliable QB, and at least potentially deserving of a top 10 choice.
I'm actually quite surprised by the comments in this thread; seems like only a couple people disagree and find Russell to be worthy of a top selection. I guess I could be wrong, but it seems like in previous discussions posters on these boards have supported him to a greater degree.
#77I don't think that anybody would or is disputing that it is entirely possible that if Russell
came back for his senior season, he could slip out of the first round. Pat is taking issue
(apparently) with my opinion that it is reasonable to assume that Russell (indeed most college
QB's) would perform better his senior season than he would during his sophomore season given
that he improved during his junior season, and that in so doing he would retain his status as
a first round draft pick. If Russell has a worse TD/INT ratio (or more near misses, etc...)
as a senior than he did as a sophomore, by my way of thinking, this is performing worse than his
sophomore season. I think that this is a less likely scenario than the one that I have proposed
as a condition for an interesting exercise - that of projecting Russell through 4 years to see
the differences in his QB projection.
This year's QB projection system will likely say that Russell is similar to Patrick Ramsey - a
borderline starter. I believe this is what he will turn out to be. I just find it interesting
that if my assuptions are reasonable (I believe that they are - although this can be quantified
and testing I'm not interested enough to actually do it) and if the QB projection system is
accurate, that Russell likely would have turned out to be a much better pro QB if he had
stayed for his senior year and obtained more game experience.
Another question for all of you out there?
If Russell would have had his exact same season last year where would he rank among the QB's? I would think he would be lower than the other Young, Leinart and Cutler.
What do you think?
Pat is taking issue
(apparently) with my opinion that it is reasonable to assume that Russell (indeed most college QB’s) would perform better his senior season than he would during his sophomore season given that he improved during his junior season, and that in so doing he would retain his status as a first round draft pick.
Performance isn't the issue! It's not how well they perform. It's what the scouts see. Right now, scouts haven't had time to see Russell's flaws clearly, so they assume they don't exist (or assume they're more minor than they are). Since the vast majority of players do have flaws, simple statistics says that Russell's likely worse than they think he is.
It is perfectly reasonable for him to make the assumption that Russell if he went back to school and started and played well would be a first round pick.
I don't think it is - and I think that's what the projection system says. The only other way to view the starts correlation is that starting more games in college somehow makes you a better quarterback (i.e., it's causative, and not correlative).
An interesting guy to watch in this regard is Colt Brennan of Hawaii. He would have been a late first or early second round pick this year, the third QB off the board. He chose to return to school after having statistically the best year of any quarterback ever. This is not smart, as regression to the mean suggests he is unlikely to duplicate it. The projection system was not particularly fond of him this year, but if he plays well enough to be rated highly by scouts again next year (he would have to play very well given the expectations of him and the inflationary effects of that offense) then the projection system will like him.
That's exactly what I'm saying for Russell as well.
Yeah, that's the question. More starts (and better completion) = a better NFL career. But what's the cause? In some cases, the QB learns to be a better player in college. But it's not guaranteed. Sometimes it's just that it takes 30+ starts for the scouts to figure out whether a QB really is good or not.
It's kind of like how it sometimes takes 8 games for teams to get enough scouting film on a guy. Tony Romo didn't look as good in the second half of the year once teams had some time to figure him out.
Matt Leinart improved on most of his stats from junior to senior year, yet he fell (if reports are true) from being a definite #1 to being drafted #10. Scouts saw more of him, and decided they didn't like what they saw as much.
Teams aren't even sure if Russell is the best QB this year. Most think he's going to the Raiders, because his physical talents are coveted by Al Davis, but that's different than saying that each team, if they had the #1 pick, would make the same decision. If he stays and is still a first-round talent, it's because he stayed *and* got better. It's not just because he stayed another year.
College football is basically the minor league for the NFL. The added mental requirements, (inteligence, handling pressure), of playing QB require actual competition which they can only acquire in college. These skills can not be developed by holding a clipboard in the NFL or getting killed playing for a non-competitive NFL team.