PDA

View Full Version : 2014 Draft: Why No Quarterbacks Are Locks to Be Drafted in the Top 10


Playoffs
04-17-2014, 01:06 PM
One veteran scout's view on...

2014 Draft: Why No Quarterbacks Are Locks to Be Drafted in the Top 10 (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2028620-2014-draft-why-no-quaterbacks-are-locks-to-be-drafted-in-the-top-10)
Six weeks ago, the general consensus among draft analysts was that three or four quarterbacks could be drafted within the top 10 picks of the 2014 NFL draft. While many still adhere to that theory, I am not one and never have been.

NFL clubs have over-drafted at the quarterback position for years. The thinking has been that it's almost impossible to sign a quality quarterback in free agency. If you want one, you have to draft one. The only way you can be sure of getting a quarterback is to draft one in the first round.

The problem with that thought process is that when you force the issue and over-draft at that position, it generally comes back to haunt you. A good percentage of first-round quarterbacks drafted in the last nine years have failed, and an even higher percentage of top-10 quarterbacks have failed to live up to expectations.

Recent history of first-round quarterbacks

When you look at the success rate of quarterbacks taken in the top 10 of the first round the last nine years, the results...
Greg Gabriel is a 30+ year NFL veteran scout with the Bills, National Scouting, Giants, and Director of College Scouting for the Bears for 9 years. Retired, he still consults for NFL teams and writes for NFP and BR.

Lucky
04-17-2014, 02:59 PM
From the article:

2008 saw two quarterbacks drafted in the first round, with one going third overall. Matt Ryan (http://bleacherreport.com/matt-ryan) was selected by the Atlanta Falcons. He has had a very good career but still hasn't met overall expectations.


Matthew Stafford (http://bleacherreport.com/matthew-stafford) from Georgia (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2028620-2014-draft-why-no-quaterbacks-are-locks-to-be-drafted-in-the-top-10#) was the first overall selection in the 2009 draft. While Stafford has played well, he has led the Lions to the playoffs only one time (2011).

While in some cases the jury is still out, in my opinion, less than a third of the top-10 quarterbacks have lived up to expectations.


His bar is pretty high if Ryan and Stafford haven't met expectations. And is the problem that teams have taken QBs in the top 10? Or just have drafted the wrong QB? If the Niners had drafted Rodgers, if the Titans had draft Cutler, if Kaepernick & Wilson been drafted rather than Locker and Gabbert, would this argument ever be made?

What the author should be saying is that NFL teams have not been very good at evaluating QB prospects. I would agree. Teams have been more concerned with metrics and level of competition, rather than production. Then you have a couple of QBs like Manziel and Bridgewater come along, and they are knocked for their size. And you have a Bortles who is knocked for his level of competition. Seems like the same problem regarding the evaluation process. Except this time, the guys who have produced were the highest rated from the outset. Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. There will be QBs taken from this draft that will be successful. The question is and always will be, can the NFL rate them correctly.

thunderkyss
04-18-2014, 03:39 PM
What the author should be saying is that NFL teams have not been very good at evaluating QB prospects. I would agree. Teams have been more concerned with metrics and level of competition, rather than production. Then you have a couple of QBs like Manziel and Bridgewater come along, and they are knocked for their size. And you have a Bortles who is knocked for his level of competition. Seems like the same problem regarding the evaluation process. Except this time, the guys who have produced were the highest rated from the outset. Sorry, I'm not buying the argument. There will be QBs taken from this draft that will be successful. The question is and always will be, can the NFL rate them correctly.

I think the author should be saying teams haven't done a very good job developing their QBs. Especially a guy like Gabbert. Like all other prospects, he had his strengths & weaknesses. I think his failure (much like Carr's) had more to do with the Jags not properly identifying his strengths & weaknesses thereby not preparing him very well to start in the NFL.

If I remember right, they were losing & figured they might as well start Gabbert.


What the author should be saying is that NFL teams have not been very good at evaluating QB prospects. I would agree. Teams have been more concerned with metrics and level of competition, rather than production.

Then where do you grade Keenum?

I don't understand how we can be concerned with production & not factor in metrics & level of competition. Manziel, by the way, produced very well against good competition.

Bridgewater's 171 rating is impressive. But so is Manziel's 172.... & Manziel faced tougher competition. So did Mettenberger 171, McCarron 167, & Murray 158.

Lucky
04-18-2014, 04:05 PM
I think the author should be saying teams haven't done a very good job developing their QBs.
You could also make the case that losing teams are drafting at the top 10. Often, these organizations are not as good as teams drafting below the top 10. It stands to reason that these teams aren't as good at scouting or developing QBs. Are there good QBs coming into the league just about every year? Then what does it matter if they are drafted in the top 10? If you think there's a good QB out there and you need one, then you better draft him before someone else does.

Spled
04-18-2014, 05:40 PM
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24531522/nfl-draft-10-worst-first-round-quarterbacks-drafted-since-2000

The Pencil Neck
04-18-2014, 07:19 PM
I don't understand how we can be concerned with production & not factor in metrics & level of competition. Manziel, by the way, produced very well against good competition.

Bridgewater's 171 rating is impressive. But so is Manziel's 172.... & Manziel faced tougher competition. So did Mettenberger 171, McCarron 167, & Murray 158.

Look at some the top guys in the NFL today (in no particular order) and where they came from:

1. Peyton Manning -- SEC
2. Tom Brady -- Big Ten
3. Matt Ryan -- ACC
4. Drew Brees -- Big Ten
5. Matthew Stafford -- SEC
6. Aaron Rodgers -- PAC 12
7. Andrew Luck -- PAC 12
8. Ben Roethlisberger -- MAC
9. Andy Dalton -- Mountain West
10. Joe Flacco -- CAA
11. Phillip Rivers -- ACC

And then look at some random guys who've bombed out:

1. Matt Leinart -- PAC 12
2. Jamarcus Russell -- SEC
3. Brodie Croyle -- SEC
4. Brady Quinn -- IND
5. Vince Young -- SEC
6. Blaine Gabbert -- SEC
7. Christian Ponder -- ACC
8. Jake Locker -- PAC 12
9. Ryan Leaf -- PAC 12

Level of competition doesn't seem to indicate whether a QB is going to be any good or not. And historically, I don't think it's been applied as much to QBs.

The problem with level of competition is that it works both ways. QBs on bad teams who don't have good wrs have to work harder to get the ball into tighter windows. That's more like the NFL. When Cutler was coming into the NFL from Vanderbilt, he had already been having to throw into tight windows because he was on a crappy SEC team playing against good SEC defenses.

But when you're talking about guys playing on GOOD SEC teams, they're surrounded by more talent and that makes them look better.

leebigeztx
04-18-2014, 07:32 PM
Ponder,locker,nor gabbert were good at college. They were avg if that in college. That's why I dunno why anyone is surprised they're bad. If you can't even perform at a high level playing qb in college,I dunno why I would think you could on the next level.

Wolf6151
04-18-2014, 07:36 PM
I think the author should be saying teams haven't done a very good job developing their QBs. Especially a guy like Gabbert. Like all other prospects, he had his strengths & weaknesses. I think his failure (much like Carr's) had more to do with the Jags not properly identifying his strengths & weaknesses thereby not preparing him very well to start in the NFL.

If I remember right, they were losing & figured they might as well start Gabbert.



Exactly. Putting all the blame for a QB not living up to team expectations on the QB implies that all teams and coaching staffs are equal and capable of coaching up a player. IMO, many times it's the teams fault that a QB prospect didn't live up to expectations. Some teams (Owners, GM's, and Coaches) just suck, they have low budget owners who are cheap on scouting and coaching and are more interested in the money aspect of the NFL than on hiring quality coaches and staff that would be capable of coaching up a QB prospect. Just like with Doctors or Lawyers or any other profession, just because your an NFL coach or scout doesn't mean your a good one.

thunderkyss
04-18-2014, 10:57 PM
Look at some the top guys in the NFL today (in no particular order) and where they came from:

1. Peyton Manning -- SEC
2. Tom Brady -- Big Ten
3. Matt Ryan -- ACC
4. Drew Brees -- Big Ten
5. Matthew Stafford -- SEC
6. Aaron Rodgers -- PAC 12
7. Andrew Luck -- PAC 12
8. Ben Roethlisberger -- MAC
9. Andy Dalton -- Mountain West
10. Joe Flacco -- CAA
11. Phillip Rivers -- ACC

And then look at some random guys who've bombed out:

1. Matt Leinart -- PAC 12
2. Jamarcus Russell -- SEC
3. Brodie Croyle -- SEC
4. Brady Quinn -- IND
5. Vince Young -- SEC
6. Blaine Gabbert -- SEC
7. Christian Ponder -- ACC
8. Jake Locker -- PAC 12
9. Ryan Leaf -- PAC 12

Level of competition doesn't seem to indicate whether a QB is going to be any good or not. And historically, I don't think it's been applied as much to QBs.


I'm not reading that list the same way you are. I'm not & never said the SEC is the only conference with good competition. NFL players come from the PAC12, the Big10, the SEC, & ACC. The Outliers on that list are Big Ben... but he's got elite size, with an elite arm. Had he gone to a major conference he most likely would have been a top 5 pick.

Joe Flacco also has size & a big arm. He also could have been a top 5 pick if he went to a major conference.

Andy Dalton.... well, he's from Texas. He's 6'2" 220 lbs, most likely had a mid 1st, early 2nd round grade. Came from a small school in a major conference. I'm giving Bridgewater that same grade even though he's from a small school in a small conference.



The problem with level of competition is that it works both ways. QBs on bad teams who don't have good wrs have to work harder to get the ball into tighter windows. That's more like the NFL. When Cutler was coming into the NFL from Vanderbilt, he had already been having to throw into tight windows because he was on a crappy SEC team playing against good SEC defenses.

But when you're talking about guys playing on GOOD SEC teams, they're surrounded by more talent and that makes them look better.

Wide open. When you're playing against less athletic players, scheme will get players wide open, even if your WRs aren't Big12 worthy. Curls, hooks, slants, & quick outs. Those routes, in the NFL, in better conferences even against better talent, make up speed & explosiveness means the ball has to get there quicker, with pop.

Besides, I'm not saying Bridgewater won't be successful. I like him. He's on my list of six (it's back to six). I'm saying I don't think he's a sure thing. I'm saying he shouldn't be drafted in lieu of an elite prospect. I'm saying he's no more likely to succeed in the NFL as 5 other QBs in this draft, even though some of those guys are your prototypical sized, played for a major program in a major conference, were productive, ran a pro-style offense, were accurate, were consistent, & won.

If I thought I was good at developing offensive systems & developing QBs in that system, I think I could be successful with any one of:


Aj McCarron
Aaron Murray
Ryan Mallet
Johnny Manziel
Teddy Bridgewater
Zack Mettenberger
Tom Savage


I would think I can make any one of them a starter in the NFL. I'd also think I could likely (but not as sure) work with


David Fales
Jimmy Garoppolo
Connor Shaw
Blake Bortles
Stephen Morris
Tj Yates
Case Keenum


& I would love to see what I could do with Logan Thomas or Josh Freeman.

But that's just me.

The Pencil Neck
04-18-2014, 11:39 PM
I'm not reading that list the same way you are. I'm not & never said the SEC is the only conference with good competition. NFL players come from the PAC12, the Big10, the SEC, & ACC.

Well... if you're going to talk "level of competition" and "defense", most people become extremely SEC-centric. The PAC12 and Big10 aren't really known for the defenses that the SEC is so the "level of competition" for the QB isn't the same as what I thought you were talking about.

But let me come at this another way... Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. are not known as a Quarterback schools. When you look at QBs and where they come from, there's no place that's really cranking out top pro after top pro. One comes from this school and then another comes from that school and then the next one comes from another school entirely. And those schools frequently come from wide ranging and different conferences and the QBs themselves may have been successful or UNsuccessful in college.

So, for me, level of competition is a total non-indicator. Sure, bigger name schools are going to go after and get bigger name prospects but by-and-large most of those guys don't turn into great pros.

Like you, I think that it's about the right guy finding the right spot and landing in it. OB has to find a guy (or guys) he can work with and teach and he's got to develop them. If that's McCarron, great. If it's Logan Thomas or Murray or Bridgewater or Manziel, great.

As long as it works.

The Pencil Neck
04-18-2014, 11:40 PM
& I would love to see what I could do with Logan Thomas or Josh Freeman.

But that's just me.

Freeman's now a Giant.

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 12:30 AM
So, for me, level of competition is a total non-indicator. Sure, bigger name schools are going to go after and get bigger name prospects but by-and-large most of those guys don't turn into great pros.


Interesting. I don't think anything can be discounted. Especially if you're (in the all inclusive sense) going to knock a guy for playing on a talented team.

Many factors, each weighing differently for each QB

Freeman's now a Giant.

I know, just saying. I'd have loved the opportunity & he probably went cheap.

infantrycak
04-19-2014, 12:43 AM
Interesting. I don't think anything can be discounted. Especially if you're (in the all inclusive sense) going to knock a guy for playing on a talented team.

It's not knocking a guy for playing on a talented team. It's knocking him for what he was asked to do/did do on a talented team. Not every QB on a talented team gets knocked for it. For example, there was nary a peep about it with VY...because it was clear he was critical to the success of the talented team.

The Pencil Neck
04-19-2014, 01:12 AM
Interesting. I don't think anything can be discounted. Especially if you're (in the all inclusive sense) going to knock a guy for playing on a talented team.

Many factors, each weighing differently for each QB

It's not that I'm knocking a guy for playing on a talented team or a talented conference per-se, it's that I'm not considering it a factor at all.

You're the one who's considering the conference as an indicator. In effect, you're knocking all the guys who don't play in the conferences or in the schools you like and you're inflating the value of guys who play in big-name conferences or at big-name schools.

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 07:59 AM
It's not knocking a guy for playing on a talented team. It's knocking him for what he was asked to do/did do on a talented team. Not every QB on a talented team gets knocked for it. For example, there was nary a peep about it with VY...because it was clear he was critical to the success of the talented team.

It's still the same.

QB X didn't have to do a whole lot because he played with a lot of talent.

QB X looked really good because he played against lesser talent.

Regardless what team we're talking about, if we were to use an NFL team for example, if I were to tell you Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 500 yards against the Eagles & the worst passing defense in the league, you'd look at it differently than if I said he threw for 500 yards against the Cleveland Browns top 10 passing defense.

It's a factor & it should be accounted, that's all I'm saying.

Aaron Murray vs Teddy Bridgewater, how is it possible that Bridgewater is gets a first round grade, but Murray gets a 4th/5th? If he were a RB, a CB, or a LB I can understand it, but we're talking about a QB.

I don't have a problem with Murray getting knocked for the injury, but he performed on the field as well as Bridgewater, consistently for four years, against stronger competition. He shouldn't have a 2nd round grade.

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 08:09 AM
You're the one who's considering the conference as an indicator. In effect, you're knocking all the guys who don't play in the conferences or in the schools you like and you're inflating the value of guys who play in big-name conferences or at big-name schools.

Yes.

Just like guys who don't have canon arms. They get knocked for that.

Guys who aren't accurate, get knocked for that. Guys who don't win get knocked for that. Guys who don't start for three years get knocked for that. Guys who aren't 6'5" 230 lbs get knocked for that. Guys who don't make good decisions get knocked for that.

"Everybody" agrees it would have been nice to see Garoppolo play against better competition.


How many QBs from the AAC, or the Big East have been taken with a top 5 pick? I can only think of McNabb & Bridgewater is no McNabb. If McNabb wasn't as athletically gifted as he was, with a strong NFL arm (I wouldn't say canon, but pretty strong), with good size (not great)... he wouldn't have been a top 10 pick (my opinion).

& I don't know if you caught it earlier, I still give Bridgewater a 1st round grade, just not a top 5 pick grade.

infantrycak
04-19-2014, 08:31 AM
It's still the same.

QB X didn't have to do a whole lot because he played with a lot of talent.

QB X looked really good because he played against lesser talent.

It's not the same thing and you missed my point entirely. I was not addressing the opposition level point. I was addressing being on a good team. Being on a good team is not always a knock on a QB prospect. McCarron based on his role on a good team is viewed as having been replaceable fairly readily without the team being severely impacted which is short-handed as saying he was carried. VY based on his role on a good team was was viewed as a critical piece of the good team which was generally predicted to take a giant step backwards with his departure.

It isn't a good D of McCarron to resort to a generic complaint against holding it against QBs for having been on good teams.

Aaron Murray vs Teddy Bridgewater, how is it possible that Bridgewater is gets a first round grade, but Murray gets a 4th/5th? If he were a RB, a CB, or a LB I can understand it, but we're talking about a QB.

I don't have a problem with Murray getting knocked for the injury, but he performed on the field as well as Bridgewater, consistently for four years, against stronger competition. He shouldn't have a 2nd round grade.

Why? He is injured. He is even smaller than TB whose size you had a problem with. And it is just wrong to say he performed as well as TB. And I like Murray a lot.

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 08:58 AM
It's not the same thing and you missed my point entirely.


No, I didn't miss it. We're just talking two different languages I guess.


I was not addressing the opposition level point. I was addressing being on a good team. Being on a good team is not always a knock on a QB prospect. McCarron based on his role on a good team is viewed as having been replaceable fairly readily without the team being severely impacted which is short-handed as saying he was carried. VY based on his role on a good team was was viewed as a critical piece of the good team which was generally predicted to take a giant step backwards with his departure.


If we're saying QB X didn't have to do a whole lot because he played on a talented team, we're not talking about Vince Young. We're talking about that guy who wasn't asked to do a whole lot because he was on a good team.


It isn't a good D of McCarron to resort to a generic complaint against holding it against QBs for having been on good teams.



I'm not talking about McCarron specifically. Most here agree that the QB who was carried by his team (McElroy, JWP, Lienart) should be rated lower than guys who contributed to their talented teams success (Palmer, Stafford, etc...). I don't have a problem with that. I've never argued that.

What I'm arguing, is if we think that way, then it makes sense that level of competition has to be accounted for as well.



Why? He is injured.


So is Mettenberger. I know he's going to take a hit for being injured. It's the size of the hit that I question. He should have the same grade as Mett IMO.


He is even smaller than TB whose size you had a problem with. And it is just wrong to say he performed as well as TB. And I like Murray a lot.

& I've never said that size is the only thing I'm looking at. Murray played against better competition. Murray uses his athleticism more. He's got more "wow" than Bridgewater. Murray's a 4 year starter. Murray has more traits that compensate for his size. They both ran pro-style offenses. They have both shown to be accurate & make good decisions (Bridgewater's better, even when considering he played in the AAC).

I give Bridgewater a first round grade. I don't understand how Murray has a 3rd/4th round grade.

The Pencil Neck
04-19-2014, 01:05 PM
How many QBs from the AAC, or the Big East have been taken with a top 5 pick? I can only think of McNabb & Bridgewater is no McNabb. If McNabb wasn't as athletically gifted as he was, with a strong NFL arm (I wouldn't say canon, but pretty strong), with good size (not great)... he wouldn't have been a top 10 pick (my opinion).

Since 1980:

ACC - 5 top 5 QB picks
Big 10 - 4 top 5 QB picks
Big 12 - 3 top 5 QB picks
Independent - 1 top 5 QB pick
Mountain West - 1 top 5 QB pick
PAC-12 -- 10 top 5 QB picks
SEC - 7 top 5 QB picks
SWAC - 1 top 5 QB pick
WAC - 1 top 5 QB pick

From that, the PAC-12 is obviously the top dog but it's not like they totally ran away and dominated it. SEC is pretty close and then the ACC, Big 10, and Big 12 aren't far behind. There were plenty of picks from "less powerful" conferences.

NOTE: I didn't make a HUGE effort to translate current colleges into whatever conference they were in at the time that the QB was selected.

Uncle Rico
04-19-2014, 01:39 PM
Wasn't Gabriel the head who said that Bortles was going to get a coach and GM fired? Ouch!

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 01:59 PM
Since 1980:

ACC - 5 top 5 QB picks
Big 10 - 4 top 5 QB picks
Big 12 - 3 top 5 QB picks
Independent - 1 top 5 QB pick
Mountain West - 1 top 5 QB pick
PAC-12 -- 10 top 5 QB picks
SEC - 7 top 5 QB picks
SWAC - 1 top 5 QB pick
WAC - 1 top 5 QB pick

From that, the PAC-12 is obviously the top dog but it's not like they totally ran away and dominated it. SEC is pretty close and then the ACC, Big 10, and Big 12 aren't far behind. There were plenty of picks from "less powerful" conferences.

NOTE: I didn't make a HUGE effort to translate current colleges into whatever conference they were in at the time that the QB was selected.

I appreciate your effort. I'm guessing you're saying if a QB (like McNabb) was from the BigEast, you have him counting towards the ACC?

So a QB taken in the top 5 from Louisville wouldn't be counted anywhere?

Again, I don't think a player from the SEC gets points over a player from the Pac12 or Big10... they all get points over the player from the AAC.

JB
04-19-2014, 03:05 PM
Wasn't Gabriel the head who said that Bortles was going to get a coach and GM fired? Ouch!

I think that was said about Manziel

The Pencil Neck
04-19-2014, 05:29 PM
I appreciate your effort. I'm guessing you're saying if a QB (like McNabb) was from the BigEast, you have him counting towards the ACC?

So a QB taken in the top 5 from Louisville wouldn't be counted anywhere?

Again, I don't think a player from the SEC gets points over a player from the Pac12 or Big10... they all get points over the player from the AAC.

Louisville is in the ACC and would have shown up there. Syracuse moved to the ACC and I counted them in there.

Another thing you may want to look at is exactly who those SEC QBs were:
1. Peyton Manning
2. Eli Manning
3. Tim Couch
4. Jamarcus Russell
5. Cam Newton
6. Matthew Stafford
7. Heath Shuler

Kind of an inconsistent track record.

The Pac 12?
1. Drew Bledsoe
2. Carson Palmer
3. Troy Aikman
4. John Elway
5. Andrew Luck
6. Ryan Leaf
7. Akili Smith
8. Joey Harrington
9. Mark Sanchez
10. Alex Smith

Again, some great ones mixed with some really bad ones.

This is one of the big reasons I'm not sold on conference as an indicator and don't use it. Just because some of these guys WERE picked in the top 5 doesn't mean they SHOULD have been picked there. In those cases, the scouts were probably blinded by their production against "high level competition" instead of really looking at the player and what they brought to the table.

thunderkyss
04-19-2014, 06:01 PM
Louisville is in the ACC and would have shown up there.

You mean Louisville will be going to the ACC. They're in the AAC now.

Still, your list is showing the better QBs coming out of the Major conferences. Your lists are proving my point.... I'm not saying every QB coming out of the SEC, or the PAC 12, or the Big 12 are going to be successful. But in those drafts, are you telling me there was a QB from a small conference that did better?

Then it's just one of many things to look at, like size, arm strength, accuracy, wins, situational decision making, etc...

Not the end all be all, but part of the equation. Just like the talent level the prospect is playing with.

The Pencil Neck
04-19-2014, 11:56 PM
You mean Louisville will be going to the ACC. They're in the AAC now.

Still, your list is showing the better QBs coming out of the Major conferences. Your lists are proving my point.... I'm not saying every QB coming out of the SEC, or the PAC 12, or the Big 12 are going to be successful. But in those drafts, are you telling me there was a QB from a small conference that did better?

Then it's just one of many things to look at, like size, arm strength, accuracy, wins, situational decision making, etc...

Not the end all be all, but part of the equation. Just like the talent level the prospect is playing with.

I'm not sure what you're asking. QBs from smaller conferences and were pretty successful?
1. Brett Favre
2. Dan Marino
3. Donovan McNabb
4. Philip Rivers
5. Randall Cunningham
6. Boomer Esiason
7. Jim Kelly
8. Steve McNair
9. Rich Gannon
10. Vinny Testaverde
11. Ben Roethlisberger
etc.

Or are you asking about guys that were drafted from smaller schools specifically when there was a "bad" QB drafted from the bigger conferences?

1. Tim Couch, Akili Smith -> Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Aaron Brooks
2. Jamarcus Russell -> Kevin Kolb? Bad year for QBs.
3. Heath Shuler -> Gus Frerrotte, Trent Dilfer
4. Ryan Leaf -> Matt Hasselbeck
5. Joey Harrington -> David Garrard
6. Mark Sanchez -> Not really.

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 03:46 AM
I'm trying to clarify what you are saying. You want to "look at exactly who those SEC QBs are" & I'm not saying every QB taken from the SEC is a good NFL QB prospect. Just because Jamarcus Russell came from the SEC, doesn't make him a better prospect than Kevin Kolb from Conference USA.

I liked both QBs in that draft & I liked Russell better than Kolb. I thought Russell would make a better pro, because he was bigger, stronger, faster, and played in the SEC.

Jamarcus failed in the NFL because he didn't dedicate himself to the game. Kolb failed because he couldn't play despite how hard he tried.

Also looking at your list, Phillip River's name caught my attention. He didn't come from a small conference. He came from a small school in a major conference. Still, he had prototypical size & a very strong arm. Playing well, being from a major conference, plus prototypical size & strong arm made him "most likely to succeed" in that draft.

Matt Ryan, small school, major conference, good size, strong arm was picked over Joe Flacco. One of the reasons, I think, was because Ryan played in DivI-A (a little more extreme difference in competition level) & the Blue Hens were Div I-AA. That doesn't mean that Ryan will be successful, or even more successful than Flacco. Just that he is most likely to.

And we're seeing that play out differently, but not because Flacco is a better QB than Ryan (he's not).

The Pencil Neck
04-20-2014, 01:25 PM
I'm trying to clarify what you are saying.

Let me clarify what I've been saying.

Conference is not indicative of success. Being a winning QB against schools with lots of people going to the NFL does not indicate that QB will necessarily be any more or less successful in the NFL.

Big time conferences and big time schools get their pick of the top level prospects. Because of that alone, they should have a much higher percentage of their QBs going on to be successful NFL QBs. And if, as you propose, playing against upper-echelon defenses loaded with talent that's going to the NFL serves to prepare those big conference players for a career in the NFL, then the NFL should be dominated by large conference QBs. There should be more of those big conference QBs playing and they should be playing at a higher level than everyone else.

But that's not what we see.

The NFL is not QBd only by guys from the big conferences or big schools; many of the top QBs come from smaller schools for whatever reason. The big conference QBs frequently do not get to the big leagues and see success. So level-of-competition does not seem to help as an indicator of whether a QB will be successful and I don't believe that most NFL scouts use it as anything other than a datapoint.

infantrycak
04-20-2014, 02:24 PM
The NFL is not QBd only by guys from the big conferences or big schools; many of the top QBs come from smaller schools for whatever reason. The big conference QBs frequently do not get to the big leagues and see success. So level-of-competition does not seem to help as an indicator of whether a QB will be successful and I don't believe that most NFL scouts use it as anything other than a datapoint.

I wonder how many of the college champion QBs from the last 20-25 years have gone on to NFL success?

ArlingtonTexan
04-20-2014, 02:43 PM
I wonder how many of the college champion QBs from the last 20-25 years have gone on to NFL success?

Off the top of my head, Cam newton is the best in the last dozen years

The Pencil Neck
04-20-2014, 03:23 PM
I wonder how many of the college champion QBs from the last 20-25 years have gone on to NFL success?

OK. This was a painful list to generate and I'm sure some of them are messed up...

1983: Bernie Kosar
1984: Robbie Bosco
1985: Jamelle Holieway (with Troy Aikman as his backup!)
1986: John Shaffer?
1987: Steve Walsh
1988: Tony Rice?
1989: Craig Erikson
1990: Shawn Jones
1991: Gino Torretta/Billy Joe Hobert/Mark Brunell?
1992: Jay Barker
1993: Charlie Ward
1994: Tommie Frazier
1995: Tommie Frazier
1996: Danny Wuerffel
1997: Brian Griese/Scott Frost
1998: Tee Martin
1999: Chris Weinke
2000: Josh Heupel?
2001: Ken Dorsey
2002: Craig Krenzel
2003: Matt Leinart?
2004: Matt Leinart
2005: Vince Young
2006: Tim Tebow/Chris Leak
2007: Jamarcus Russell
2008: Tim Tebow
2009: Greg McElroy
2010: Cam Newton
2011: A. J. McCarron
2012: A. J. McCarron
2013: Jameis Winston


From that list, I'd say only Bernie Kosar and Mark Brunell were really successful and they weren't exactly the greatest things since sliced bread.

EDIT: I should have included Cam Newton as successful, as well. My bad.

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 03:37 PM
Let me clarify what I've been saying.

Conference is not indicative of success...

And if, as you propose, playing against upper-echelon defenses loaded with talent that's going to the NFL serves to prepare those big conference players for a career in the NFL, then the NFL should be dominated by large conference QBs. There should be more of those big conference QBs playing and they should be playing at a higher level than everyone else.

But that's not what we see.


Then there's a disconnect, because that's exactly what I see.

Since 1980:

ACC - 5 top 5 QB picks
Big 10 - 4 top 5 QB picks
Big 12 - 3 top 5 QB picks
Independent - 1 top 5 QB pick
Mountain West - 1 top 5 QB pick
PAC-12 -- 10 top 5 QB picks
SEC - 7 top 5 QB picks
SWAC - 1 top 5 QB pick
WAC - 1 top 5 QB pick



Big conferences are the ones in bold.

I'm not sure what you're asking. QBs from smaller conferences and were pretty successful?
1. Brett Favre
2. Dan Marino- Played at Pittsburgh as an independent
3. Donovan McNabb
4. Philip Rivers- Played in the ACC
5. Randall Cunningham
6. Boomer Esiason- Played in the ACC
7. Jim Kelly- Played at the Miami... not a big conference, but they were a major program at one time.
8. Steve McNair
9. Rich Gannon
10. Vinny Testaverde Miami
11. Ben Roethlisberger
etc.


I think there is a disconnect on what we're calling big conference & small conference. If the school goes undefeated & gets to play for the national championship (in the BCS system) it's in a big conference. If the school goes undefeated & biches & moans about how unfair the BCS is, they're in a small conference.

Not all QBs are 6'3" or taller. Not all QBs have a laser rocket arm. Not all QBs ran a pro-system in college. Not all QBs have to be from a major conference... but the more of those (and others) these college QBs can check off, the better prospect they are for the NFL..... just my opinion.

But if you take a guy who isn't 6'3", who didn't run a pro system, who didn't play in a major conference, who doesn't have a rocket laser arm in the first round, you're wasting your pick.

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 03:38 PM
I wonder how many of the college champion QBs from the last 20-25 years have gone on to NFL success?

That takes Jameis Winston off the table.

The Pencil Neck
04-20-2014, 04:03 PM
Then there's a disconnect, because that's exactly what I see.

Big conferences are the ones in bold.

I think there is a disconnect on what we're calling big conference & small conference.

Obviously.

As I'm talking to you about this, I'm getting the feeling like the concept of "big conference" has been moving and shifting.

Like I said, I ignore conferences totally. I'm not a college football guy and I don't care about conferences at all. I don't follow that. I don't know which teams are in which conferences and I have to look it up every time.

When we started off, you were talking about how great the defenses were in the SEC as opposed to everyone else and how QBs from THAT conference faced a higher level of competition. Then during the conversation, it grew from the SEC to just "big conferences" and you listed SEC, Big 10, and PAC-12. And now in a subsequent post, you're adding Big 12 and the ACC to the list.

If your definition of higher level of competition is a group of 63 teams... then... OK. Whatever. That's not much of a restriction.

I'll continue to ignore it.

Playoffs
04-20-2014, 04:06 PM
I wonder how many of the college champion QBs from the last 20-25 years have gone on to NFL success?

Using this page to indentify every team in the conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Di vision_I_FBS

And this site to identify who took most of the QB snaps: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/

1990 Colorado 11–1–1 Darian Hagan
Georgia Tech 11–0–1 Shawn Jones
Miami 10–2 Craig Erickson
Washington 10–2 Mark Brunell
1991 Miami 12–0 Gino Torretta
Washington 12–0 Billy Joe Hobert
1992 Alabama 13–0 Jay Barker
Florida State 11–1 Charlie Ward
1993 Auburn 11–0 Stan White
Florida State 12–1 Charlie Ward
Nebraska 11–1 Tommie Frazier
Notre Dame 11–1 Kevin McDougal
1994 Florida State 10–1–1 Danny Kanell
Nebraska 13–0 Brook Berringer, Tommie Frazier
Penn State 12–0 Kerry Collins
1995 Nebraska 12–0 Tommie Frazier, Brook Berringer

1996 Florida 12–1 Danny Wuerffel
Florida State 11–1 Thad Busby
1997 Michigan 12–0 Todd Schultz
Nebraska 13–0 Scott Frost
1998 Tennessee 13–0 Tee Martin
1999 Florida State 12–0 Chris Weinke
2000 Miami 11–1 Ken Dorsey
Oklahoma 13–0 Josh Heupel

2001 Miami 12–0 Ken Dorsey
2002 Ohio State 14–0 Craig Krenzel
USC 11–2 Carson Palmer
2003 LSU 13–1 Matt Mauck
Oklahoma 12–2 Jason White
USC 12–1 Matt Leinart
2004 USC[20] 11–0 Matt Leinart
2005 Texas 13–0 Vince Young

2006 Florida 13–1 Chris Leak
Ohio State 12–1 Troy Smith
2007 LSU 12–2 Matt Flynn
Missouri 12–2 Chase Daniel
USC 11–2 John David Booty, Mark Sanchez
2008 Florida 13–1 Tim Tebow
2009 Alabama 14–0 Greg McElroy
2010 Auburn 14–0 Cam Newton

2011 Alabama 12–1 A.J. McCarron
LSU 13–1 Jarrett Lee, Jordan Jefferson
Oklahoma State 12–1 Brandon Weeden
2012 Alabama 13–1 A.J. McCarron
Notre Dame 12–1 Everett Golson
2013 Florida State 14–0 Jameis Winston

http://www.augiedoggy.com/Smilies4/whew-smiley-1p0.gif

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 04:15 PM
When we started off, you were talking about how great the defenses were in the SEC as opposed to everyone else and how QBs from THAT conference faced a higher level of competition. Then during the conversation, it grew from the SEC to just "big conferences" and you listed SEC, Big 10, and PAC-12. And now in a subsequent post, you're adding Big 12 and the ACC to the list.

I might have mentioned QBs from the SEC because there are several in this draft. But one of my points of contention has been that coming from a major program in a major conference will score higher (with me) than a prospect coming from a small program in a small conference. (as an aside, there are small programs in small conferences & big programs in small conferences).

& I know most people won't agree with me, but I see little difference between Bridgewater kicking butt in the AAC (same conference Bortles played in) and Keenum kicking ass in Conference USA. Or Timmy Chang taking names in the WAC. Or Joe Flacco in the Atlantic 10. If not for his big arm & prototypical size, Joe Flacco (imo) would not have been a mid-first round prospect (which is where I've been saying Bridgewater should be this entire time... mid first, early 2nd).

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 04:21 PM
Well... if you're going to talk "level of competition" and "defense", most people become extremely SEC-centric. The PAC12 and Big10 aren't really known for the defenses that the SEC is so the "level of competition" for the QB isn't the same as what I thought you were talking about.

But let me come at this another way... Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Georgia, Tennessee, etc. are not known as a Quarterback schools.

Allright, this is where it looks like we got off on the SEC & their defense. You're right, I'm talking about level of competition & the SEC is known for their defense.

But like you're saying, the SEC is not known for churning out QBs. Most teams in the SEC are the ground & pound, run the ball, play great defense teams.

I agree with that, I'm not arguing that.

The Pencil Neck
04-20-2014, 04:37 PM
I might have mentioned QBs from the SEC because there are several in this draft. But one of my points of contention has been that coming from a major program in a major conference will score higher (with me) than a prospect coming from a small program in a small conference. (as an aside, there are small programs in small conferences & big programs in small conferences).

& I know most people won't agree with me, but I see little difference between Bridgewater kicking butt in the AAC (same conference Bortles played in) and Keenum kicking ass in Conference USA. Or Timmy Chang taking names in the WAC. Or Joe Flacco in the Atlantic 10. If not for his big arm & prototypical size, Joe Flacco (imo) would not have been a mid-first round prospect (which is where I've been saying Bridgewater should be this entire time... mid first, early 2nd).

And what's the difference between Keenum kicking ass in the Conference USA and Tim Tebow killing it or Danny Wuerffel killing it or Vince Young killing it? Those guys faced that higher level of competition that you're talking about but it meant nothing for them when they reached the NFL.

Now, if you talk about the PAC-12, then I'm OK with that. Not because the QBs in the PAC-12 face a higher level of defensive competition but because the offenses that they play in are more passer-oriented. They get exposed to to higher level passing concepts as opposed to facing stiffer competition. And that allows them to generally develop more than SEC QBs.

And a player can be exposed to those more pro-like offensive concepts in almost any conference. So for me, it's not the conference that they're in or the defenses that they're playing against, but rather the offensive system that they learn. I'm going to downgrade a guy who plays in a ground-and-pound offense as a game manager. I'm going to downgrade a guy who has a lot of called running plays. I'm going to downgrade a guy who only makes a single read and runs because that's the scheme of the offense.

thunderkyss
04-20-2014, 05:55 PM
And what's the difference between Keenum kicking ass in the Conference USA and Tim Tebow killing it or Danny Wuerffel killing it or Vince Young killing it? Those guys faced that higher level of competition that you're talking about but it meant nothing for them when they reached the NFL.

Now, if you talk about the PAC-12, then I'm OK with that. Not because the QBs in the PAC-12 face a higher level of defensive competition but because the offenses that they play in are more passer-oriented. They get exposed to to higher level passing concepts as opposed to facing stiffer competition. And that allows them to generally develop more than SEC QBs.

And a player can be exposed to those more pro-like offensive concepts in almost any conference. So for me, it's not the conference that they're in or the defenses that they're playing against, but rather the offensive system that they learn. I'm going to downgrade a guy who plays in a ground-and-pound offense as a game manager. I'm going to downgrade a guy who has a lot of called running plays. I'm going to downgrade a guy who only makes a single read and runs because that's the scheme of the offense.

I've got no problem with any of that. It's all part of the final grade. I like Vince Young coming out of college, but I think his failure had more to do with off-field stuff than being able to throw the ball accurately.

I remember when Weurffel came into the league, but don't remember much about him playing, either in college or the NFL.

Teebow... I didn't agree with taking him in the first round, but I did believe there was something special about him. I'd have liked to have seen him play more as a QB & see how he developed, but too many people were so dead set against letting that happen. As long as it wasn't for the Texans, I'd have enjoyed watching it unfold.

Still... sounds like you're pegging me as a, "they gotta come out of the SEC" or "SEC QBs are superior" guy. & that's not me. Any of the major conferences would be fine by me. But a guy who throws for 4000 yards in the SEC will get more points (from me) than a guy who threw for 4000 yards in the AAC. He'll get more points, but not as much more, than a guy who threw for 4000 yards in the Pac12, or the ACC, or the Big12.

A guy who threw for 30 TDs & 4 interceptions gets points, more if he did it in a major conference (Big12, Big10, Pac12, ACC) than if he did it in the AAC, Mountain West, ConfUSA...

A guy who plays in a pro system will get points. More if he put up good numbers than if he didn't. More if he put up good numbers in a major conference, than putting up good numbers in a lesser conference.

Guys who put up good numbers get points. Guys who did it for 4 years get more than the guys who did it for three years, who get more than they did it for two years, who get more than the guys who did it for a single season... more points to the guys who played consistently well in a major conference as opposed to a smaller conference.

Jimmy Garopolo played in a "pro" style as well, where do you rank him? Tom Savage played in a "pro" style, where do you rank him?

Murray & McCarron put up numbers comparable to Bridgewater's, percentage wise, ratios, & passer ratings. They played in a pro system..... where do you rank them compared to Bridgewater?

DocBar
04-20-2014, 06:09 PM
Look at some the top guys in the NFL today (in no particular order) and where they came from:

1. Peyton Manning -- SEC
2. Tom Brady -- Big Ten
3. Matt Ryan -- ACC
4. Drew Brees -- Big Ten
5. Matthew Stafford -- SEC
6. Aaron Rodgers -- PAC 12
7. Andrew Luck -- PAC 12
8. Ben Roethlisberger -- MAC
9. Andy Dalton -- Mountain West
10. Joe Flacco -- CAA
11. Phillip Rivers -- ACC

And then look at some random guys who've bombed out:

1. Matt Leinart -- PAC 12
2. Jamarcus Russell -- SEC
3. Brodie Croyle -- SEC
4. Brady Quinn -- IND
5. Vince Young -- SEC
6. Blaine Gabbert -- SEC
7. Christian Ponder -- ACC
8. Jake Locker -- PAC 12
9. Ryan Leaf -- PAC 12

Level of competition doesn't seem to indicate whether a QB is going to be any good or not. And historically, I don't think it's been applied as much to QBs.

The problem with level of competition is that it works both ways. QBs on bad teams who don't have good wrs have to work harder to get the ball into tighter windows. That's more like the NFL. When Cutler was coming into the NFL from Vanderbilt, he had already been having to throw into tight windows because he was on a crappy SEC team playing against good SEC defenses.

But when you're talking about guys playing on GOOD SEC teams, they're surrounded by more talent and that makes them look better.IMO, picking a QB is witchcraft. Actually, I'm in the right system/coach/organization boat.

When did Texas join the SEC??

The Pencil Neck
04-20-2014, 11:52 PM
When did Texas join the SEC??

Dammit.

I do that every time.

The Pencil Neck
04-21-2014, 12:08 AM
Jimmy Garopolo played in a "pro" style as well, where do you rank him? Tom Savage played in a "pro" style, where do you rank him?

Murray & McCarron put up numbers comparable to Bridgewater's, percentage wise, ratios, & passer ratings. They played in a pro system..... where do you rank them compared to Bridgewater?

For me, it's not even about the numbers. I don't care how many TDs someone threw or how many interceptions someone threw or what their QB rating was. It's about looking at their delivery and their decision making.

Did they throw a catchable ball to the right place? I don't care if a ball went incomplete as long as it was thrown to the right place at the right time. Did they see what the defense was doing and make adjustments to take advantage of it... even if their receivers let them down? Do they make all the throws? Do they show anticipation or do they have to see the guy open... or do their receivers let them down when they do?

With Bridgewater, I see a guy with a good mind who generally puts the ball where it needs to be. He sometimes has accuracy issues and he sometimes relies too much on touch when he should fire the ball in and that worries me. I see a guy who could get bigger and stronger and I consider him the cream of this class... but like you, he's not the guy I'd prefer at 1-1 but I'd be fine with him at around 1-15 or so.

With Garoppolo, I've frequently mocked us or other teams taking him in the second round. I wasn't really aware of him until the Senior Bowl. I'd prefer to take him in the 3rd round but I think he might not last that long so if you want him, you'll have to go get him.

I like Murray in the 2nd -- but even then, I'd consider that risky -- and McCarron in the 3rd. Savage, I'd put around the 5th.

In the Texan's Talk mock, I took Garoppolo with the Jags at 70 and then I took McCarron for the Titans at 112.

infantrycak
04-21-2014, 08:51 AM
Using this page to indentify every team in the conversation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_football_national_championships_in_NCAA_Di vision_I_FBS

And this site to identify who took most of the QB snaps: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/

1990 Colorado 11𢴏 Darian Hagan
Georgia Tech 11𢠣 Shawn Jones
Miami 102 Craig Erickson
Washington 102 Mark Brunell
1991 Miami 120 Gino Torretta
Washington 120 Billy Joe Hobert
1992 Alabama 130 Jay Barker
Florida State 111 Charlie Ward
1993 Auburn 110 Stan White
Florida State 121 Charlie Ward
Nebraska 111 Tommie Frazier
Notre Dame 111 Kevin McDougal
1994 Florida State 10𢴏 Danny Kanell
Nebraska 130 Brook Berringer, Tommie Frazier
Penn State 120 Kerry Collins
1995 Nebraska 120 Tommie Frazier, Brook Berringer

1996 Florida 121 Danny Wuerffel
Florida State 111 Thad Busby
1997 Michigan 120 Todd Schultz
Nebraska 130 Scott Frost
1998 Tennessee 130 Tee Martin
1999 Florida State 120 Chris Weinke
2000 Miami 111 Ken Dorsey
Oklahoma 130 Josh Heupel

2001 Miami 120 Ken Dorsey
2002 Ohio State 140 Craig Krenzel
USC 112 Carson Palmer
2003 LSU 131 Matt Mauck
Oklahoma 122 Jason White
USC 121 Matt Leinart
2004 USC[20] 110 Matt Leinart
2005 Texas 130 Vince Young

2006 Florida 131 Chris Leak
Ohio State 121 Troy Smith
2007 LSU 122 Matt Flynn
Missouri 122 Chase Daniel
USC 112 John David Booty, Mark Sanchez
2008 Florida 131 Tim Tebow
2009 Alabama 140 Greg McElroy
2010 Auburn 140 Cam Newton

2011 Alabama 121 A.J. McCarron
LSU 131 Jarrett Lee, Jordan Jefferson
Oklahoma State 121 Brandon Weeden
2012 Alabama 131 A.J. McCarron
Notre Dame 121 Everett Golson
2013 Florida State 140 Jameis Winston

http://www.augiedoggy.com/Smilies4/whew-smiley-1p0.gif

Thanks for the research.

By my count that looks like 3 guys who ended up decent NFL starters.

bah007
04-21-2014, 09:32 AM
Since when did Garoppolo play in a "pro style" offense?

Eastern Illinois ran a variation of the Art Briles Air Raid. Garoppolo played in an offense similar to Manziel's.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 09:51 AM
Did they throw a catchable ball to the right place? I don't care if a ball went incomplete as long as it was thrown to the right place at the right time. Did they see what the defense was doing and make adjustments to take advantage of it... even if their receivers let them down? Do they make all the throws? Do they show anticipation or do they have to see the guy open... or do their receivers let them down when they do?

With Bridgewater, I see a guy with a good mind who generally puts the ball where it needs to be. He sometimes has accuracy issues and he sometimes relies too much on touch when he should fire the ball in and that worries me. I see a guy who could get bigger and stronger and I consider him the cream of this class... but like you, he's not the guy I'd prefer at 1-1 but I'd be fine with him at around 1-15 or so.

I like Murray in the 2nd -- but even then, I'd consider that risky -- and McCarron in the 3rd. Savage, I'd put around the 5th.


Which is odd, because I see Murray & McCarron fitting your "description" (though not all-inclusive I'm sure) to a tee... everything you listed there in blue. I think McCarron has better technique, from the way he holds the ball to his throwing motion & his feet are in sync with his reads. Murray, I think is that guy I think most people are looking for; Bridgewater/Manziel hybrid... jmo of course. But I bring this up because I'd like to know how you differentiate between McCarron & Bridgewater on those traits in the blue.

& this is not about me trying to push McCarron.... I couldn't care less if we don't draft him. But obviously my "system" is off from everyone else's & it's obvious I'm missing something. So I'm asking.



With Garoppolo, I've frequently mocked us or other teams taking him in the second round. I wasn't really aware of him until the Senior Bowl. I'd prefer to take him in the 3rd round but I think he might not last that long so if you want him, you'll have to go get him.

I like Murray in the 2nd -- but even then, I'd consider that risky -- and McCarron in the 3rd. Savage, I'd put around the 5th.

In the Texan's Talk mock, I took Garoppolo with the Jags at 70 and then I took McCarron for the Titans at 112.



Garoppolo is fun to watch, but I've only found bits of his senior bowl performance & cut-ups of a game vs Towson. If I were to see more cut-ups or games, I could probably give him a grade. As it is, he's got to be on my "developmental" list. But OB & all the other coaches & teams & scouts can see as much film as they want on him & talk to as many people as they can find about him. So if he goes in the second or 1st, I'm going to assume they did their due diligence & that JimmyG performed consistent with what little bit I saw.

Savage... I've seen maybe 4 or 5 cut-ups of his games, 1 whole game, & I think there's a highlight video for him to (or it was some internet "scout's" "study" of him). I generally liked what I saw. Lots of NFL throws, the quick outs, the intermediate outs, not a lot of the "over the LB in front of the safeties" throws. There were some but for a straight up drop back passer, I'd have thought I'd have seen more. Good reads, good feet, great arm, good placement.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 09:52 AM
Had McCarron gone to Pitt, I think he'd have looked something like Savage, maybe a little better because I think McCarron has better touch. But Savage knows his system, he trusts his system, & he works his system well. Most of the plays come from within the system. Had Savage gone to Alabama, he'd have looked like McCarron, maybe better because he's got a stronger arm. But that's all speculation....

I've really only got four grades. Franchise, Day 1 starter, Developmental, Not a QB. Most of the guys we've talked about are Day 1 starters. Savage falls between Day 1 starter & developmental guy because "we" don't know as much about him as we do the others. Garoppolo is a developmental guy, because we know even less about him.

How bad do I need a QB, how quickly do I think my Day 1 Starters will come off the board, am I in love with any of the Day 1 Starters...... that's how I determine what round I'd draft a guy. A Franchise QB, you take him at the first opportunity, even if that means trading up.

Like when the Broncos drafted Cutler. They obviously saw something there. If they had a top 10 pick, they'd have taken him. But they didn't. Instead, they waited for him to fall out of the top 10, moved up to get him. Tom Savage reminds me a lot of Jay Cutler. I can see a team trading up to get him.

If I'm looking for a Day 1 Starter, I'm looking to take a QB in the first to third round... if we get to round three & I still think two of three of my D1S will be there in the 4th, I'll hold off again. If I'm looking for a developmental guy, it's the same process, but I'm starting to look for a QB in the third. If someone takes one of them in the 2nd... no big deal. If I get to round seven & I think there are still a number of developmental guys out there, I'll pick one up undrafted.

I think there are 20 QBs in this draft. Not one of them is a franchise guy. Five of them look like Day 1 starters. Three or four of them looks like they might develop into a starter. I think there are four teams looking for a Day1Starter... a couple of developmental guys are getting a lot of hype. I think things are going to fall favorably for us to get a D1S in the second or later.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 10:05 AM
Since when did Garoppolo play in a "pro style" offense?

Eastern Illinois ran a variation of the Art Briles Air Raid. Garoppolo played in an offense similar to Manziel's.

Yeah, the term "pro style" gets thrown around a lot & it's hard to tell what people mean when they say it. When I'm talking about Garoppolo I'll use the quotation marks "pro" style or "pro style" because he uses more of a spread type offense... like the Patriots or Philly with McNabb, or any team that Peyton is on.

I say Garoppolo's offense is a "pro" style, because he called the protections at the line, not the coaches on the sideline, not the center. At Eastern Illinois, Garoppolo was asked to get in & out of the huddle quickly so he could survey the defense & make adjustments at the line.

But mentally is where Garoppolo really distinguishes himself (http://www.yardbarker.com/college_football/articles/meet_jimmy_garoppolo_small_school_big_numbers_and_ an_nfl_future_ahead_of_him/14803949). Off the field, there抯 been nothing but rave reviews about his focus and relationship with his teammates as a leader. Speaking with him, you immediately realize that he抯 genuine and humble, yet focused and decisive in his team and individual goals.

And on the field, few quarterbacks handle the type responsibility that Garoppolo does in the country. Responsible for not only helping in pass protections pre-snap (like most quarterbacks do), Garoppolo has the 搆eys to the Cadillac as he coach Babers says. He has full control at the line to adjust receivers routes or audible at the line.

揅oach [Babers] is a great playcaller and game planner, and usually puts us in the right play, I have full control if I feel we need to make a change or alter a route. It抯 a great feeling that he has that type of confidence in me.

bah007
04-21-2014, 11:23 AM
Yeah, the term "pro style" gets thrown around a lot & it's hard to tell what people mean when they say it. When I'm talking about Garoppolo I'll use the quotation marks "pro" style or "pro style" because he uses more of a spread type offense... like the Patriots or Philly with McNabb, or any team that Peyton is on.

I say Garoppolo's offense is a "pro" style, because he called the protections at the line, not the coaches on the sideline, not the center. At Eastern Illinois, Garoppolo was asked to get in & out of the huddle quickly so he could survey the defense & make adjustments at the line.



Okay that makes sense. When I hear pro style I think "pro style" protections and route concepts, which Eastern Illinois does not use.

But this is also accurate. Garoppolo was given far more control of his offense then most college QBs, from what little I've seen. So I can agree with that statement.

The Pencil Neck
04-21-2014, 12:59 PM
Which is odd, because I see Murray & McCarron fitting your "description" (though not all-inclusive I'm sure) to a tee... everything you listed there in blue. I think McCarron has better technique, from the way he holds the ball to his throwing motion & his feet are in sync with his reads. Murray, I think is that guy I think most people are looking for; Bridgewater/Manziel hybrid... jmo of course. But I bring this up because I'd like to know how you differentiate between McCarron & Bridgewater on those traits in the blue.

& this is not about me trying to push McCarron.... I couldn't care less if we don't draft him. But obviously my "system" is off from everyone else's & it's obvious I'm missing something. So I'm asking.


I actually like Murray a lot. I just haven't watched him as much as I've watched some other guys. Most of the time I've seen Murray, it's been because I was checking tape on someone else and not specifically looking at Murray. If it wasn't for his injury, he could be in the talks at the top of this draft class.

On to the other criteria, I don't look at the throwing motion/holding the ball the way you do. I think you're holding guys up to a standard that doesn't exist and you're giving guys points for something that's actually not ideal. Because of that, you don't like Bridgewater's motion and you like McCarron's motion for reasons that I don't agree with.

When I watch Bridgewater, I see a guy I think is more accurate than McCarron. I think he's reading the defenses better most of the time and making better decisions with the ball. He's also doing little things like moving the safeties with his eyes that I don't see McCarron doing as much or as well. I've also seen a lot more pressure get to Bridgewater as he's throwing and I've seen him respond to it better than McCarron. Now... McCarron might be able to be trained to respond better to pressure and he might be able to be trained to do all the things he does better at a level that surpasses where Bridgewater does it now but at this point, I see him as being behind Bridgewater in a lot of those things.

BUT.

That's just me. And I'm not some QB guru or expert or anything. I'm just a guy on his couch hoping his coach picks the right guy.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 01:11 PM
BUT.

That's just me. And I'm not some QB guru or expert or anything. I'm just a guy on his couch hoping his coach picks the right guy.

Fair enough. I guess it's all just about what we like in a QB & you and I obviously like different things.

I'll say this though. How they hold the ball, how they throw the ball, how they work their feet..... we might be seeing the same things & just saying it differently. A lot of guys say McCarron has a weak arm & Bridgewater's arm is strong enough. I see very little difference in ball velocity. imo, they both have serviceable arm... I really want to say barely, they'll both have to work on getting more velocity on the ball at the next level.

However, because Bridgewater's throwing motion is wrong (& that starts with where he holds the ball) he's probably more likely to appreciably improve his arm strength, where because Aj is already doing everything "right" he'll most likely have less gain. But again, that's speculation. It's most likely that neither will gain any appreciable increase in arm strength in the NFL.

The Pencil Neck
04-21-2014, 01:20 PM
Fair enough. I guess it's all just about what we like in a QB & you and I obviously like different things.

I'll say this though. How they hold the ball, how they throw the ball, how they work their feet..... we might be seeing the same things & just saying it differently. A lot of guys say McCarron has a weak arm & Bridgewater's arm is strong enough. I see very little difference in ball velocity. imo, they both have serviceable arm... I really want to say barely, they'll both have to work on getting more velocity on the ball at the next level.

However, because Bridgewater's throwing motion is wrong (& that starts with where he holds the ball) he's probably more likely to appreciably improve his arm strength, where because Aj is already doing everything "right" he'll most likely have less gain. But again, that's speculation. It's most likely that neither will gain any appreciable increase in arm strength in the NFL.

Arm strength is one of those things that I've heard both OB and Tom Brady say can be increased with the right work -- be it strength training, increased body mass, or improved mechanics.

I don't agree with the "If they hold the ball really high like Peyton Manning, they're holding the ball right" paradigm that you have. I think Aaron Rodgers' is an example of a guy who started off with the ball high but as he's worked on his motion in the pros and studied what works best, he's lowered where he holds the ball. I think Brady also holds the ball in a lower position than Manning does and I think he does that for a reason. I don't think Brady or Rodgers are just lazy; I think there's a biomechanical reasoning behind it.

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 01:38 PM
Now about level of competition.

There is no statistical system that captures every nuance of a game perfectly. However, when we all see what we see it's nice to look at the raw data which we hope confirms what we saw.

Jameis Winston played very well in 2013, Marcus Mariotta is one of the QBs to watch in 2014, & several people were disappointed that Bret Hundley decided to return to school. If you look at ESPN's College Football Total QBR - 2013 Season Leaders (http://espn.go.com/ncf/qbr) You'll see those three rated pretty well.

ESPN takes all the stats & calculates a QBR number "equally" for each QB. It doesn't matter than I like QBs who throw few interceptions, or played in a "pro" offense, or played in the SEC. All stats are tabulated & the QBR is calculated the same.

Looking at just the QBR, we see :


Jameis Winston.... 85.8
Marcus Mariota..... 85.2
Teddy Bridgewater 84.5
Derek Carr............ 81.7
Johnny Manziel..... 80.8
Zach Mettneberger 78.4
Aaron Murray........ 78
Blake Bortles........ 77.7
Brett Hundley....... 77.6
Aj McCarron.......... 77
David Fales........... 75.1
Tajh Boyd............. 74.7
Connor Shaw......... 70.8
Bret Smith............ 70.3



That's just some of the QBs in this class plus Winston, Mariota, & Hundley for comparison.

Now if you take into account the defenses these QBs played against, you get

Marcus Mariota......... 89.5
Jamies Winston........ 88.5
Johnny Manziel......... 86.3
Aaron Murray............ 86.1
Zach Mettenberger.... 85.1
Bret Hundley............ 84.8
Aj McCarron.............. 82.7
Teddy Bridgewater.... 80.9
Connor Shaw............ 80
Tajh Boyd................. 79.5
Blake Bortles............ 78.9
Derek Carr................ 76.3
Stephen Morris......... 73.7
David Fales.............. 71.3



So what does this mean? Nothing if you don't want it to. Your eyeball tells you that so & so is a good QB & this doesn't change anything. Or if you "knew" so & so wasn't as good as he looked, maybe this will help support your argument.

For me, it confirms that I'm not the only one who thinks some guys look good because they played weaker teams & some people looked worse because they played stronger teams.

It also tells me that Mariota & Winston are on a different level & I'll make a point to watch them in 2014. It also tells me if you liked Hundley in the first round, you shouldn't have a problem with Bortles in the first round (I never liked Bortles in the first round).

thunderkyss
04-21-2014, 01:55 PM
I don't agree with the "If they hold the ball really high like Peyton Manning, they're holding the ball right" paradigm that you have. I think Aaron Rodgers' is an example of a guy who started off with the ball high but as he's worked on his motion in the pros and studied what works best, he's lowered where he holds the ball. I think Brady also holds the ball in a lower position than Manning does and I think he does that for a reason. I don't think Brady or Rodgers are just lazy; I think there's a biomechanical reasoning behind it.

I'm looking at these guys as if they were prospects, none of them are finished products. I'm going to get one of them (at least) & mold him into my vision of an NFL QB. I'm looking at what I've got to start with & measuring how far we are from where I want to be.

If I want to get more velocity on the ball, I need my QB to strengthen his core & improve his rotation. We improve his core through exercise, weights, running, suicides, etc... We improve his rotation through drills, repetition & practice. Once he becomes Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers, I couldn't care less how he holds the ball, or where he puts his feet. However, if Rodgers thinks his game has fallen some & comes to me to help him get back to where he was, the first thing we're going to do is work on his mechanics, where he holds the ball, his throwing motion, etc...

If I get a QB prospect who is accurate downfield & has a strong arm, I'll probably go through the drills & what's "right" & what's not, but I probably won't make such a big deal about it. If I've got a guy who struggles with downfield accuracy, I'm going to be a lot more demanding about holding the ball the "right" way & improving his feet & throwing motion (in this sense, working with his feet is about establishing a base, weight transfer, & body rotation Bridgewater also needs to work on his feet & timing issues more related with reading a progression).

bah007
04-21-2014, 02:12 PM
I like the QBR as well but you have to be careful with it. It gives a heavy bonus to QBs who run a lot, which is not a skill that translates very cleanly to the NFL level. Pro coaches don't really want their QBs to be running unless it is necessary.

So when looking at those numbers you have to look at how much of an impact the rushing number adds to the total rating.

I'm not saying that you should discount a QB's ability to make plays with their feet, but you do have to differentiate between passing ability and running ability, which that rating does not.

Texian
04-25-2014, 07:47 PM
IMHO this QB draft class will closer to the 2004 QB draft class than the 2011 draft class.

thunderkyss
04-25-2014, 08:15 PM
IMHO this QB draft class will closer to the 2004 QB draft class than the 2011 draft class.

"Closer to" yes, but I doubt four Super Bowls will be won by this lot.

I'm thinking more like the '99 class. McNabb, Culpepper, Brooks. Several play-off appearances, some gaudy stats. Maybe a Super Bowl appearance. Several years of production.

Playoffs
04-28-2014, 04:48 PM
Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer
Found this interesting ... Percent of 2013 throws attempted within 5 yards of line of scrimmage: Bridgewater 48%, Manziel 49%, Bortles 51%, Carr 58%.

kiwitexansfan
04-28-2014, 07:37 PM
Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer

I struggled with this in regards to Carr initially, but then realised that is scheme determined as much as anything. He has plenty of arm to make other throws, just wasn't asked to.

The Pencil Neck
04-28-2014, 08:25 PM
Albert Breer ‏@AlbertBreer

This was posted in some of the breakdowns you posted earlier in the offseason. I'm surprised Breer is just getting to it now.

It would be hard for me to get past the NAME but as Kiwi said, he was just running his offense. Kid's got potential.