2007 Quarterbacks Draft Preview

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.

QBs who come out early are more likely to be character issues that are looking to get paid quickly and do not work towards developing a career where they could have more success and money. While I think that QBs that do not get a lot of playing time as underclassman are more likely to not have 'blue chip' talent. Obviously, there are exceptions to both of the above statements, but I think these are the reasons why games started has so much significance in determining the success of college QBs.

Given that we don't really understand the reason that college QB starts correlates with NFL success, it's very risky to make assumptions about projections for starts not actually made. You can certainly develop a case that Russell would have performed as Tampa Bay Mike assumes. The problem is you could have made the same assumptions for Tim Couch, etc.

40. Thanks - that was the problem.

I think age has to be considered as a factor. Three of the QB's listed with less than 30 starts were a year - two years older than Russell (Carr, Akili Smith, and Harrington).

Another point - Bill James noted in his studies of baseball prospects that huge jumps in performance before the age of 25 represented a new level of skill rather than an aberation. It seems to me Russell made enormous gains last years whereas Quinn slid back a little.

My bet is Russell has risen well past Quinn as a talent and prospect.

Great stuff, and particularly handy for someone who doesn't see any college fotball. I don't have much to add, but it seems as though Russell is too big a risk to take at #1.

Why do starts correlate with success? If you were a good prospect coming into college, and were a 3/4 year starter than you were good to begin with and would seemingly get better with all of those starts. Not only would you be a good "prospect" coming in, but you would turn into a good "player".

If you sit on the bench for years, or have a low comp. pct. and then play out of yourself, or show off good skills ( potential) then were you really that great player?

As somebody noted, how many players live up to their "potential?. The percentage of the "potential" guys that work out will not be as great as those "starts guys" who had success all along as well.

I don't see Leftwhich and Rothlisburger in the same mobility category either. Just because their rushing yards might be somewhat similar doesn't mean they have the same mobility. I guess it depends how you define mobility. Leftwhich either stands in a single spot 5-7 steps behind the center ( a statue) or runs ( rushing yards)... Rothlisburger doesn't get rushing yards when he dances around behind the line and then throws a pass. A defense would need a more controlled rush when rushing Rothlisburger, while they could tee off on Byron. The whole reason coaches run waggles, screens, draws on 3rd downs is so that defenses can't just tee off on the spot 5-7 steps behind a quarterback. Gary Kubiak ran a lot of that stuff last year so that David Carr wouldn't get sacked as much.

#68

Yeha I have seen Russell's LSU team about 6 times (once in person in 05) and I have no idea what makes an offense more like a NFL offense or not. It was loaded with speed at WR I know that much and they ran a bunch of crossing routes against Alabama.
trying to find another article that mentioned the NFL Network's comment about Russell and offense and I found something that said Mike Shula ran a complex offense-to my eye it looked like 2 straight runs up the middle and a pass on 3rd down 50% of the time.

I can understand comparisons of Russell to Culpepper, Leftwich, or Rothlisburger. Russell is certainly younger and healthier than Culpepper.

I have concerns about any QB taken early in the draft. Will the team give him the year or so to come up to speed before putting him on the field? Almost every QB could use that year of growth and even Peyton Manning, the most NFL QB ever, struggled that first year.

If a team is not willing to wait a year (see Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, etc.) for a top draft pick to play then they should pick the most NFL-ready player, such as Calvin Johnson.

I think Troy Smith could be compared to a Drew Brees. However, due to the admittedly poor judgment in that last game I think Troy could get picked up no sooner than the 3rd round rather than the 2nd round like Brees.

Re: 72. I'm not sure what the bust rate is at each position, but I'd bet there are plenty at every position. It would be interesting to see that broken down and see if there are any "safe" positions to draft. As for Penn State RBs, that bust myth is blown way out of proportion. There have been a couple of busts recently, but overall the Penn State backs have done pretty well. I'd say you could add Franco Harris and Curt Warner to the list with LJ of backs that have done at least OK! Enis is probably the biggest bust recently. A lot of people like to point to Ki-Jana, but he was on a horrible team and was derailed more by injury than by poor play. I suppose its still a bust of a high pick, but to characterize a broader group of people from a case like that makes no sense. This is another thing that would better be backed by stats than a common myth.

It depends how you define "bust", and the paramaters of your research.

You might come away with something like safety is the safest first round pick, because so few Safetys have been drafted, and the ones that have, have enjoyed at least some success.

Your really looking for something more like QB, RB, WR, Line, D-line, LB, CB.

You'd might also want to look at "performance bust" vs "injury bust". Did the guy just not get it, or did he blow his knee out a couple of times?

SI has a list of the 25 biggest draft busts:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/0704/gallery.nfl.draftbusts/content.1.html

Any chance we can devote an extra points for this? :)

"You’d might also want to look at “performance bust� vs “injury bust�. Did the guy just not get it, or did he blow his knee out a couple of times?"

Chris, I completely agree here. There may be some way to tell if a player is going to be good/bad at the NFL level. There never going to be any way to predict that a player is going to have someone tackle him across the knees in the 4th game of his rookie season.

In a Pats example, Andy Katzenmoyer ended up being a waste of a pick. That doesnt mean it was a bad pick. Sometimes you just can't predict injuries.

If Roethlisburger had his motorcycle incident a year earlier, he'd look like a complete bust.

Re: 84

Another point - Bill James noted in his studies of baseball prospects that huge jumps in performance before the age of 25 represented a new level of skill rather than an aberation. It seems to me Russell made enormous gains last years whereas Quinn slid back a little.

I didn't know that Russell and Quinn played baseball!

I'm being facetious, of course, but it is important to keep in mind that the fact that something holds true in baseball doesn't necessarily mean that it translates to football. I'd like to see an FO or similarly inclined study of the importance of age to players' NFL prospects.

#84

I have looked at the effect of age on quarterback career progression. As far as I can tell the only significant effect is that players who enter the league at age 21 have a big jump from year 1 to year 2. Other than that once you account for years in the league age has no effect. Also, Russell and Quinn are only ten months apart, which is not a huge difference.

#80Performance 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.

So scouts are more interested in uncovering flaws than in performance at the higest
level of college football? It's not that simple. Scouts see performance, level
of competition, measurables, workouts, and flaws. Russell has the performance and likely
would still during his senior year (I've already projected a huge regression back to his
first year starter days - which is unlikely), his competition is nop-notch, his measurables
are top-notch, his workout was great and likely would be as a senior, just leaving flaws.
I think that it's more probable that scouts will not see enough flaws to bump him
from possible first overall pick as a junior to out of the first round than it is otherwise.

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).

That is precisely what I think might be the case. Why is it so unreasonable to assume
that extra time practicing your craft during an apprenticeship (college ball) could
translate to your performing better when you are thrown into the fire (pro ball)? It
could affect skill level, pressure handling, confidence, etc...

That’s exactly what I’m saying for Russell as well.

I've already used Russell's first year starter numbers to (conservatively - i.e. less risk)
project his senior season. His junior year numbers are much better. I'm already accounting
for the (unlikely) event that his mean performance ability is his first year starter ability
and that he regresses back to that.

#83

The problem is you could have made the same assumptions for Tim Couch, etc.

Tim Couch's college numbers were inflated due to his offense (kind of like
Colt Brennan) as addressed in PFP2006. This is not the case with Russell.

I'm of the opinion that a lot of teams draft QB's on the basis of "upside" that end up busting because they incorrectly believe that "the mental discipline to play QB in the NFL can be taught, but you can't coach strength and speed".

This statement is probably incorrect on both counts. It's true that study, experience, coaching, and hard work can improve a QB's mental game, but it's probably like music. I can study piano for years and years and become competent, but I'll never be as good as someone who has a natural gift for it (who also studies for years and years). Some QB's, like Brady, Pennington, or Manning, seem to have an inherent mental ability to play QB, that study and coaching and experience only amplify. And I think a lot of teams underestimate the importance of that (or possibly, they ignore the signs that it is and will be conspiciously lacking...if a college QB has lousy decision making skills, it may be because he lacks football intelligence, or it may be indicative of a lack of work ethic, but in either case it's probable that simply "coaching him better" in the Pros will not fix either problem).

On the other hand, physical skills CAN be improved. Look at Manning improving his mobility last year, or Brady improving his long ball the year before. I know by age 23 or so you pretty much have the body you'll have, but you can tone it and improve it slightly, and the workout wonder freaks of nature will only retain their elite physical skills a few years before they regress to NFL averages (which are still pretty elite).

If I were looking for a QB, I would focus on one who has consistently shown a strong work ethic, good decision making ability, good instincts, and then at least competent physical abilities, in that order.

I will second the Drew Stanton observation as that dude was the personification of a bi-polar qb. One minute he's nailing a WR in stride 20 yards out and the next he's air-mailing some lame duck into quadruple coverage. It was bizarre. Kiper keeps hyping him, and I just do not understand what folks are seeing in the guy. I know I didn't see EVERY Spartan game, but I certainly saw at least half of Stanton's career starts in the Big Ten. And the MO never changed.

Here is Quarterback A from the Big Ten:

CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT

158 268 2185 59.0 8.2 17 6

And Stanton

CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT

164 269 1807 61.0 6.7 12 10

Anyone care to explain why QB A is a nobody come draft day and Stanton is the "sleeper"?

Re: 95 - "Tim Couch’s college numbers were inflated due to his offense (kind of like Colt Brennan) as addressed in PFP2006. This is not the case with Russell."

Yes, this was addressed in PFP2006 but that explanation left something to be desired. It dismisses Couch and his deviation from the projection based on this 'system QB' rationale, but it doesn't address a number of other QB's that played in similar offenses (Leftwich, Roethlisberger, Brees) but whose projections have less deviation.

I really enjoy David's articles on this topic but I thought the 'system QB' explanation had some holes.

There is another problem with Tampa Bay Mike's attempt to project Russell's future had he returned for his senior season. Yes, he probably would have played well enough to maintain a decent completion % and remain a high pick (remember, even if he falls into the second round the projection system still applies). But that does not mean that you can just add those theoretical numbers to his stats and alter his projection, because there is also the possibility that more starts in college mean more success because they represent more experience and learning. If Russell stayed for another year, he might have a better projection because he might actually be a better prospect than he is now, due to the additional experience he would have attained.

This is why games started is so useful. A high number of starts denotes skill (as the player has to beat the competition to earn the job), accurate scouting (as the scouts have lots of film), and experience.

#98

Couch is not much of an outlier at all. He didn't start very many games, and I believe that if he had gone back to school he either would have been exposed as a system QB and his stock would have dropped, or he would have gotten better and not been so bad in the pros (and he would have avoided being drafted by an expansion team which hurt his career).

Say what you want about me, my wife is hotter than yours.

Why is it so unreasonable to assume
that extra time practicing your craft during an apprenticeship (college ball) could
translate to your performing better when you are thrown into the fire (pro ball)?

Because I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that college coaches are better than pro coaches. You're implicitly assuming that once they reach the pro level, they stop "practicing", whereas all evidence shows that they continue to improve.

The statistical bias explanation is much simpler, and doesn't require bringing in any intangibles like "it builds their confidence" or somesuch.

So scouts are more interested in uncovering flaws than in performance at the higest level of college football?

Yes. Hence the ginormous number of Heisman Trophy winners who don't get drafted high. Or at all. Lack of flaws usually equals strong performance. Strong performance does not equal lack of flaws.

80:
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).

It takes chutzpah to argue with the man about what his own system says and what assumptions are reasonable regarding it.

80:
"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)."

It takes chutzpah to argue with the man about what his own system says and what assumptions are reasonable regarding it.

"Because I find it hard to believe that anyone would believe that college coaches are better than pro coaches. You’re implicitly assuming that once they reach the pro level, they stop “practicing�, whereas all evidence shows that they continue to improve."

Pat, thats true, but there may also be aspect of learning at work.

When I was learning to wrestle, there were a couple of kids who were state champions. I couldnt learn anything from them because I simply wasnt good enough to keep up. I didnt have the base.

After learning from the poorer wrestlers, I started being able to pick up things from the good kids.

There may be some aspect of that here: the guys who got more college starts have a more sound base on which to learn. The guys who dont, may be too far behind to learn anything.

Its much easier to learn something at half speed (college) and then have it sped up, than to try to learn it at full speed.

Re: 102

If you followed hockey or baseball, you'd notice that oftentimes young players who get rushed into the big leagues end up failing because they weren't ready, while players who get some time in the minors end up performing better down the line because they have the luxury of a shallower learning curve. Does that mean minor league coaches are better than major league coaches? Of course not. It just means that players need more time at the developmental level, i.e. college when talking about football.

Re: 103

Russell doesn't have to still be a first round pick. As long as he goes in the second round or earlier, the projection system applies. (In fact, the PFP2006 article notes that draft position within the first 2 rounds does not correlate with performance at all.) It would be pretty hard to imagine that Russell could suck so much or have flaws so big in his senior season that he'd drop all the way out of the second round.

Coaches want the guy with "high potential" because they believe they can tap into that. They want the guy with the rocket arm or mobility because they feel they can "teach" him the position. They want the raw talented prospect who gets into trouble because they feel they can heal them. ( Dic Vermiel and Lawrence Phillips)

Coaches overestimate their own ability.

Re: 100

A little memory is a dangerous thing. Perhaps I'm misremembering Couch's deviation from the projection and the discussion about it. I don't have the book in front of me, so that's certainly possible.

I certainly agree that his starting in Cleveland was disasterous for his career. I would go so far as to hypothesize that was the entire explanation for his performance (prior to his injury) falling below the projection.

I thought there was some discussion (in PFP2006) about Couch being a 'system QB' and that potentially accounting for some/all of the variation. That was the basis for my question about Brees and the others. Without much analysis, it seems there are as many 'system' QBs that meet or exceed their projections as fall short.

Re: 108

Couch's failure is attributed to both the Browns and his being a system QB. Not all system QBs are failures, but Couch comes from the Mike Leach system which makes nobodies put up huge numbers. Even if he had been drafted by another team, his projection would have to have been downgraded a bit for the system (just like David suggests downgrading projections for QBs with low attempts per game).

So, based on Pat's argument, Lewin's projection system requires the selection bias of "highly-ranked in the NFL draft" to begin having a good correlation?

That's interesting. So a high rating in the draft is used as a normalizing factor for all other projections outside of the statistics...cool. That sounds pretty Q&D, but it's probably reasonable.

Talking about QBs who had their stock drop dramatically - wasn't that the case with Orton? I know he looked like a legit heisman candidate for a short time. I'm not sure where he was projected to go before the wheels fell off and he messed up his shoulder though. It might be instructive to try and dig up other QBs that were projected to go high as juniors but stayed another year. Not all of them could be like Leinhart and only see a small drop like that.

Re: 109

What makes the 'Leech' system different from the 'Purdue' system that produced Brees and Orton?

The issue I've got, is that it's just too convenient to blame the 'Leach system' for Couch's falling below the projection. There's no way to evaluate the validity of that hypothesis because n=1. If we expand the view to other pass first, spread offense systems that have produced impressive stats I don't think there's much evidence they underperform the projection.

So who are the possible 1st round QB's next year? Brohm? Henne? Can Reggie Ball go back to school and come back? Maybe his mobility can add another layer to his game?

#112
It's impossible to say what the effect of Leach's offense was on Couch. My thoughts on the matter are that generally since the Ware/Klingler U Houston disasters in the early 1990s NFL teams have done a good job recognizing inflationary offenses and down grading QBs out of them. With Couch at the time no one knew that his QB coach/OC Mike Leach had a system that would go on to consistently produce the best passing numbers in the nation. Leach an offensive system that produces the best passing numbers in the nation, year in and year out without top notch talent. Hawaii's run and shoot is second in this regard. These systems put up much better passing numbers than Purdue or any other pseudo spread team. The point is that teams might not have known this in 1998. Still, overall, I think that expansion has much more to do with Couch's failure than his college system.

#113
As I've said before Colt Brennan is a fascinating experiment for the system this year. Does he fall from his first round status or does he justify it? Honestly, I'm guessing he has a let down year (similar to the last QB who went back to school after having a spectacular statistical season, Omar Jacobs) and falls out of the first two rounds.

There may be some aspect of that here: the guys who got more college starts have a more sound base on which to learn. The guys who dont, may be too far behind to learn anything.

The problem I have with that is that it implies that first round busts should be sent to NFL Europe, where they would improve. I don't buy that.

The main thing is that "not playing another year against lesser talent" is fixable, even after they're drafted. "Being an apparent statistical fluke" is not. And none of the busts listed every even remotely appeared fixable.

It just seems like a selection effect - just like Maurice Clarett, or Mike Williams. Too few games to realize that both wouldn't handle the NFL.

So, based on Pat’s argument, Lewin’s projection system requires the selection bias of “highly-ranked in the NFL draft� to begin having a good correlation?

Yes, basically. And the idea would be that you'd find a reverse correlation at the end of the draft - the guys with fewer starts drafted at the end of the draft are more likely to exceed their draft projection.

Re: 97:
"Anyone care to explain why QB A is a nobody come draft day and Stanton is the “sleeper�?"

Because (I hate to admit) Stanton played for a team with limited talent around him and Troy played for Ohio State. If you saw their game in 2006, there's your answer. Drew (who I think is the best QB I've seen at Michigan State, which goes back to Bobby McCallister) played with a handful of guys who are going to have NFL careers. Deandre Cobb and Chris Morris are the only ones who come to mind and they're both backups at best, thus far.

"The problem I have with that is that it implies that first round busts should be sent to NFL Europe, where they would improve. I don’t buy that.

The main thing is that “not playing another year against lesser talent� is fixable, even after they’re drafted"

Right, but what NFL owner is ballsy enough to send a first round guy who obviously doesnt get it to NFL europe? Can they really afford to be paying a guy $7-10m a year to play in europe?

#113:
Brohm should be the favorite who falls because he decided to come back-I think he is better then both Russell and Quinn.

Henne is much debated-I like him, but I am not sure if he is a 1st rounder.

Colt Brennan has already been mentioned.

I like Andre Woodson-he might move up boards if he has another good year.

and the JaMarcus Russell/Vince Young of the draft: Bobby Reid.

Right, but what NFL owner is ballsy enough to send a first round guy who obviously doesnt get it to NFL europe? Can they really afford to be paying a guy $7-10m a year to play in europe?

Uh, given that the alternative is paying him $7-10M/year to suck, I think the answer is "could they afford not to?"

Besides, first round players don't usually start costing a lot until year 3 or 4. First two years they're usually pretty cheap ($3-4M or so).

Oh, and I just heard an interesting quote today: Jim Tressel - you know, Troy Smith's coach - thinks Troy will be a third-round pick. His own coach. Tressel was ridiculously optimistic regarding Ginn Jr, Pittman, and Gonzo. Not so on Smith.

He also said that the team drafting Smith would have to not need a QB right away, since it would take time, and they would need to tailor their offense to him. Again: his own coach.

That just amazed me.

The reason sending them the NFL Europe won't work is that it is a step down from college. Also, once they've been exposed to the NFL often their confidence has been hurt so bad they will never recover. Not to mention getting sent to NFL Europe could hurt their confidence.

I think it's fair to assume that if Russell stayed in college another year, that 1) he would still be a 1st round draft pick (it's pretty hard to fall from possible #1 overall to out of the 1st round entirely), 2) he would improve, and 3) he would become a better pro.

Re: 116

Try again on identifying Quarterback A in #97 (hint: look at the name of the person who posted it).

So, based on Pat’s argument, Lewin’s projection system requires the selection bias of “highly-ranked in the NFL draft� to begin having a good correlation?

That’s interesting. So a high rating in the draft is used as a normalizing factor for all other projections outside of the statistics…cool. That sounds pretty Q&D, but it’s probably reasonable.

You could look at it as "Among QBs personnel people think are talented enough to be drafted in the first two rounds, this system projects which are most likely to succeed." Whatever the reasons are, it works.

The reason sending them the NFL Europe won’t work is that it is a step down from college. Also, once they’ve been exposed to the NFL often their confidence has been hurt so bad they will never recover. Not to mention getting sent to NFL Europe could hurt their confidence.

See previous statement: "The statistical bias explanation is much simpler, and doesn’t require bringing in any intangibles like “it builds their confidence� or somesuch." Confidence is also fixable.

I also don't agree that NFL Europe is a step down from college. I guarantee that any NFL Europe team could put up a better fight against, say, LSU, than a Division IAA opponent, for instance. Given that NFL Europe is pretty heavily populated with former college players, it seems difficult to imagine that it's worse.

(it’s pretty hard to fall from possible #1 overall to out of the 1st round entirely)

Not when your position as a first round pick is based entirely on your previous year. Russell, at the end of 2005, wasn't considered a first-round pick. Heck, Russell in late 2006 wasn't considered a lock for a first-round pick.

I appreciate the "apparently" lucid style of your writing but your bias shines through roughly immediately. I am an SEC fan(though not one of LSU), but Russell's story and ability is well documented and based on reality not conjecture, while your's seems to be based on second-hand notes. Russell was one of the leading passers in the NATION, and the SEC and he continually ripped the hearts out of his opponents. Your accusation against things like his vision or decision making prove you simply don't know what you are talking about. Sorry kid, we are glad to see Russell out of the league and you will be eating these words long after your own.....career, is over. Good luck at Denny's!!

118- I'm not big on Henne but I've heard other people mention him. He's a big guy, but his size means a slower release. When USC had the pressure on him, he didn't get rid of the ball quick enough. That could be very indicitave of a potential pro career. He could suffer the Bledsoe ( at the end of his career), Warner, and Leftwhich syndrome. When you give him some time, he can beat you with his throws ( most 1st round quarterbacks can), but the slower release limits what he can do as a pro ( good bye west coast offense).

So CA, since nobody else is willing to proffer an opinion on why folks go ga-ga about Stanton and not John Stocco will you explain it to me?

Because I don't think John boy is going to do anything at the pro level other than maybe hold a clipboard on a bad team for a season or two. And yet with an inexperienced receiver corps (the best returning starter had a total of 4 career catches) and in a run first offense he produced more than Stanton, he was more consistent than Stanton, and he CERTAINLY did far fewer things to LOSE games than Stanton.

That can't ALL be the difference in the teams. Because until even after beating Auburn the majority of the posters here stated loud and clear that Wisconsin was a mediocre team who got lucky.

So learn me how Stanton has become "Dreamy Drew" and Stocco is so much pocket lint?

I'm with you 100%, Badger. I know if the Bears drafted Stanton I would be very upset. He did absolutely zero to impress me in college. Despite my disdain for all things UW (proud U of I displaced in Madison), I actually was somewhat impressed with Stocco, and I could see him being a serviceable backup at the pro level; he's a "safe" backup.
Stanton, on the other hand, seems like the type of quarterback who will crash and burn at an NFL level - too many stupid decisions and complete meltdowns. Granted, his coaching staff at MSU didn't help (my hapless Juice Williams-led Illini got their first Big Ten win in three years against John L. Smith's squad), but he just never struck me as being anything more than a mediocre college starter at best. I never even got the impression that he had the natural physical gifts that NFL scouts look for.

#127

Henne gets compared to the last Michigan QB more often-Navarre...for the same reason. I think Henne has a better arm and is more accurate, but his slow release and his habit of not being able to feel the rush hurts him I think.

Did #125 just tell me I'm going to be working on at Denny's because JaMarcus Russell is going to be a good quarterback? If every sports writer who predicted something and was then wrong had to work at Denny's, well you would be getting your pancakes awfully quick nowadays. Not to mention that it's not my prediction, it's based on a mathematical model.

Brady's completion percentage of 58% is brought down by his freshman (47%) and sophomore (54%) seasons. Long time ago and different coaching. How many QB's even start their freshman year? The last two seasons have completion percentages in the mid- 60's.

Pat,

I think Tom did you a disservice by doing a poor job of explaining why teams don't send high pick busts to NFL Europe.

NFLE is definitely played on as high a level as college (although the stakes are lower). Also, the "once he's been exposed, his confidence is shattered forever" theory is unlikely. But it's not just confidence I'm talking about, it's polish and fundamentals and habits. Practice can help some but there's no substitute for in-game experience. However, if that in-game experience is in Houston or Detroit it could create bad habits and poor fundametals. Another year in college might have helped correct/prevent those issues (and maybe confidence issues as well, though I won't pretend to really know about that). NFLE could also help, but as someone pointed out already, there is too much stigma associated with the Europe league to send a high pick there. Also there is always the risk of injury, which teams are deathly afraid of in any non-NFL situation. Further, if a team picked a guy and started him in his rookie year with the intention of making him the permanent starter, they simply can't send him to Europe until he busts and is replaced by another starter on a semi-permanent basis.

Russell would be a great candidate for NFLE, if his team was determined to sit him for his rookie year and maybe sophomore too. Since this won't happen, the timing doesn't work for NFLE as the team will want him around for summer minicamps.

Still, if teams started sending raw high picks to Europe and treating it like a serious minor league instead of a slightly annoying chore, the careers of some players might be saved. The only problem is that you pretty much have to commit to not making the guy your expected starter going into his second year. Almost nobody on that under 30 starts list had that chance, which makes sense because it is a list of top 10 overall picks, and top 10 QB picks are usually made by teams that are desperate for a QB.

Ultimately what I'm saying is that Russell's best hope for a decent career is to be drafted by a team without a pressing need for him to start in his first two years, not to play significantly as a rookie and then go to NFLE before his second season (when he will again be a backup, at least going in). Of course, this will never, ever, ever, happen, so if I'm right then Russell will most likely be the next name on the bust list.

I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this yet, but that "2 seat bicycle car" looks like certain death. I can just see that thing buckling beneath Mario Williams' Lamborghini.

You know, Carson Palmer pretty much sucked until his senior year, then he lit it up for one season, and nobody seemed to be troubled with him going #1. Of course, USC didn't have the talent of LSU during his run, but then again, the Pac-10 isn't the SEC

He also had a higher INTs/ATT in his career then the Russell. He was at school one more year(both players had a redshirt year) and started 10-15 more games. Which I know is important in The System. And I'm not a pro football scout. But they both seemed to be highly-touted prospects who put it together in their last year and shot up the draft charts.

"Did #125 just tell me I’m going to be working on at Denny’s because JaMarcus Russell is going to be a good quarterback? If every sports writer who predicted something and was then wrong had to work at Denny’s, well you would be getting your pancakes awfully quick nowadays. Not to mention that it’s not my prediction, it’s based on a mathematical model."

If you watched film and came to the conclusion that Russell was going to be a bust, then I could feel your comments. Let me tell you where you really screwed up at, you never listed any negatives against Quinn. His decision making, especially under pressure (see HIS interceptions in the Sugar Bowl, one thrown while falling down which no QB should ever do and one thrown directly into double coverage) is below average. Quinn repeatedly buckles under pressure. I don't care if he started 100 games, when the pressure is on, he's not. You chose the Auburn and Florida games as your benchmarks, however neglected to mention that in the Auburn game LSU was in the redzone numerous times and were mysteriously peanlized each time to move them out of scoring range. Sure, go ahead and say it, "officials don't lose games", you have obviously not followed the SEC very closely. Another key point that you might have missed is that Will Muschamp, the former d-coordinator for LSU was hired by Tommy Tuberville for the precise reason of beating LSU. We see what happened to Auburn after they won their Super Bowl- they tanked the rest of the season. They were pumped for the game, and with a little help from the zebras, they prevailed. The Florida game was just one of those games- nobody played well. Being a scientist, I know that models can be tailored to fit a specific problem but they are not entirely accurate. Your model will not hold up with Russell- it's what happens on the field that you cannot predict with a model or a computer- the guy is a stud. Ask any coach in the SEC if they wanted him to come back for his senior season. Quinn is average at best and he is a system QB just as Tim Couch was. his numbers were inflated not because of the system though, but because of the water weak schedule that ND plays every season.

As for the complexity of the offense, I find it hard to believe that you or anyone not closely related to the LSU program could comment on the intricacies of the offense. Since I am close to the program, let me give you a little information. Russell routinely had 4-5 reads on each play and went to the line with two plays called- it was his choice to audible into or out of a given play. Russell was trusted by his o-coordniator and was allowed freedom at the line. He was responsible for all of the line (protection) checks, all of the defensive reads, and any other LOS details that were apparent. He basically had to be a coach on the field.

As for his "immaturity" this is the most bogus statement that your argument contains. You are reaching for straws to strengthen your case. Here is a guy whose teammates respected him. He housed 20 people in his apartment during Hurricane Katrina. Played through shredded wrist ligaments for over half the season in 2005 and led his team to the SEC championship game as a first year starer.

I understand that you are a quinn proponent however your argument against Russell is weak at best. I could take Quinn's games against Michigan and USC and write a similar argument using his two worst games of the season. Computers and models are fine, but you don't play football on a computer- you do it on the gridiron. Say what you will, but there is NO WAY to predict who will succeed and who won't.

"you don’t play football on a computer- you do it on the gridiron"

This is a great point, it takes a smart guy to say something that insightful. No wonder people were puzzled when I showed up in the computer lab in full gear on game day.

134

Anger management ?

How about saying :
As an insightful of LSU, I can tell you Russell had 4-5 reads etc.
[...]
As a scientist, I know each model has exceptions, I truelly think Russell will be one to yours.

What you say is very interesting and brings a lot of hope in Raiders' fans' heart, so say it a way we want to listen to you.

#136
To be fair, a lot of what you wrote about Russell in the article seems to be based on watching him on tape and pointing out his flaws. Unless your mathematical projection system specifically indicates things like "his understanding of the game is questionable at best" and "he has a tendency to just throw the ball up when he gets confused".

However, I'll be damned if that wasn't one of the best comebacks I've seen on these boards in a long time.

Thanks for the insight David. I enjoyed reading your article in the PFP and this has helped me solidify my own personal draft board (for those interested I now have Russell ranked at #7 and Quinn at #4, behind Johnson, Thomas and Peterson). I think it would be stupid to write Russell off just yet cause he didn't start enough games, but I agree it is not a good sign - your studies have proven that. I too was surprised that you analysed Russell more from a scouts perspective rather than a statistician's, but it is all good info for me. It also gives some decent perspective when listening to the same old, same old fawning over Russell by the talking heads. He does have some faults you know people...

Re: 114 "These systems put up much better passing numbers than Purdue or any other pseudo spread team."

Well I guess that depends on which passing numbers you're talking about. From a yardage, YPA, and TD perspective, Brees' Purdue numbers are comparable to Couch's last two years (per game basis). Couch's completion % was higher (69 vs. 61). I haven't found all the college stats for the other NFL QBs that I mentioned. Speaking of which, does anybody have a recommendation for good way/site to find college stats for NFL players. It's always a tedious process for me.

Interesting to see the passion regarding Russell. Until this morning I thought Troy Smith was the only draft QB that could inspire such controversy.

94. I think you are missing my point. The point I was making is that averaging 3-4 years of performance may work well in looking at a group of players it may not provide predictive value to an individual player if that player has made a huge jump in performance level.

What the sabermetricians found is that if you matched players of similar ability but there ages differed the career of the younger player would far exceed that of the older player. And, 1 year was a massive difference. So what I'm arguing is that the fact that Russell performed at a higher level (statisically) while being almost one year younger is perhaps a very significant predictor of their future career success.

It seems to me a worthwhile study to match a group of QB's by stats and then compare how the younger players careers compared to the older players of similar ability.

136:

To be fair, your article at many points drifts from the statistical analysis to "tape analysis." Stick to what you can measure; all that "tape analysis" does is get you lampooned by homers. You know a thing or two about College Football fans and you're pretty familiar with how impossible it is to have a rational argument with them when you get into difficult-to-measure concepts like field vision. Trust the stats to capture those things indirectly and leave them out of your analysis entirely IMHO.

Quinn threw a pick while he was being tackled to the ground in the Sugar Bowl?

Yes he was wrong, but he didn't exactly have a ton of time to run his offense ( even with that quicker release). Mcknight didn't exactly help him in big games ( with all those drops) and Smeregja had that TD dropped earlier in the sugar bowl

Why don't you bring up that fumble Russell had while he had a defender draped all over him. A small percentage of the time that play makes sports center ( in a good way), the rest of the time it ends up a pick of a fumble. If you have defenders draped all over you, protect the ball and take a sack... It shouldn't be the end of the world. It was very Daunte Fumblepeppereqsue. The slower release and "nfl long toss" potential have to remind you of fumblepepper also.

Re 135:
This qualifies as the FOMBC, right? I'm glad my team won't be taking him.

Re: 142

Certainly any subjective analysis is vulnerable to criticism by those with a different subjective analysis. But I appreciate it as a supplement to a simple table or recitation of sterile projections. I'd much rather have it (recognizing it for what it is) than not.

Call me a conspiracy theorist but if I'm one of the top GM's in the league I would start riling up the media and talking up guys like Russell.

That way you get these sorry teams who are stuck drafting Russell because their fans will be pissed if they don't.

If I'm Bob Kraft I start telling everyone that I know that I think Russell is best prospect since Elway immediately after the Sugar Bowl.

Then we get breaking news on Espnnews in which John Clayton's egghead comes on tv and tells us that NFL GMs are calling Russell the best prospect since Elway.

145:

While the subjective stuff adds value, I'm afraid it's far too integral to David's argumentation in the article. Look at the points he makes about JaMarcus Russell, in the order in which they were presented:

1.) Large, like Daunte, Ben, and Byron
2.) Not a definitive starter in preseason
3.) "Bad decision maker"
4.) "Throws the ball up for grabs"
5.) "Ran a fairly simple offense"
6.) Long anecdote describing his "bad decisions making"
7.) Brief mention of his completion percentage and games started

Isn't that troubling? There are a good 2000 words devoted solely to relatively subjective analysis before anything objective (other than the player's measurements) is stated. I come here for stats and methodology and didn't get much out of this. I'm far more interested in the statistical methodology, and research that went into these conclusions than the subjective stuff. If I wanted to hear about how he's a "specimen" or a "bad decision maker" I'd go consult the broad swath of articles from professional scouts. Write to your expertise!

Once again, just an opinion. I enjoyed the article for what it was, but it contained meager statistical analysis or methodology and seemed like nothing more than a longer, unedited, inferior version of your typical ESPN scout article.

I mean, Charles, how much can he say? If he doesn't give his own explanation for why a prospect that's been so roundly praised might not work out, all he does is list off his completion percentage, games started, and then compare that to some other players. I guess he could give a DPAR/gm number like in the prospectus, but otherwise, the numbers don't tell you much. Dave was offering an explanation for the system's preference of Quinn over Russell.

For example, if JaMarcus Russell is "a bad decision maker" who "throws the ball up for grabs," where is the comparison to other top prospects? Do we know how often he threw the ball "up for grabs" compares to other prospects? I certainly hope there is more than one anecdote to justify those claims. A chart or some stats from JaMarcus's games providing metrics for the risk profiles of Brady Quinn and JaMarcus Russell would have gone a long way toward explaining the "NFL-ready" argument we keep hearing about Quinn. Otherwise, it's just another opinion piece.

Part of the problem I think is that this isn't an article on methodology. Really, you need to read the first piece on the projection system to understand where he's coming from. Then, we could just get a table or chart, but instead we're treated to a discussion about the reasons why the projection system might be right. It's at least more interesting than just "the projection system says x and last year it said y and was z accurate."