Ron Jaworski's on QB Kevin Kolb (Ranked #30)

[chris heff]

So to kind of get back on point here, I think Jaws ranking of Kolb is too high. I'd rank him around 50. Based on his past performance I would say there are about 17 back up QBs that are better. Don't misunderstand me, this is not personal. I be said this before, he lost the starting job twice with two different teams.

 

I know he lost the job in Philly due to injury, however the fact that they brought in Vick at all says to me that they were not fully confident in Kolb. Vick was still pretty polarizing at that point.

 

I'm sorry I don't buy the argument that in Arizona he didn't fit the system and played behind a bad OL. If he had shown anything there he would still be there.

[JohnC]

 

I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason.

 

Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article.

 

"Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL."

 

Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

 

I read the link you provided written by Chris Trappasso. From reading that link I am more encouraged, not less, that he is an excellent prospect with the odds suggesting success more than failure. You are absolutely correct that what most often differentiates a qb's success from failure is a qbs (innate) ability to quicly process information (read defenses and go throught the progressions.).As you smartly noted Trent Edwards had most of the required traits to be a good qb but failed in the most important category: having a deeper dimensial mind to sort out the chaotic burst of information a qb faces.

 

Where I think you are making a mistake is in setting up a paradigm with limited categories that predict qb success in today's game. The offensive game is changing. Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick, Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. You make very strong points regarding what is most essential for a qb to be a success in this fast paced game. What I am suggesting is that you widen your paradigm a tad bit in evaluating qbs then I will be more comfortable with your assessment of Manuel. As it stands I have a much more positive view of Manuel's prospect than you do.

 

.

[Dorkington]

So Kolb sucks, and EJ is going to fail.

 

Why do we even bother?

[hondo in seattle]

Kevin Kolb has only 21 NFL starts and has been injured much of his career.. Effectively, he's a NFL sophomore. I don't think, given his paucity of playing time, we can yet assess his ceiling with absolute certainty. I think he's done enough good things in his limited experience as a starter to at least suggest the possibility that he's capable of more.

 

EJ is a rookie. Like any rookie QB, even 1st round rookies, his chances of NFL stardom aren't great. But there is a chance.

 

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE. We knew what we had in Fitz. We knew his strengths and we knew his weaknesses. Unfortunately, so did our opponents.

 

We really don't know what we have in Kolb and EJ. Maybe both end up failing, who knows? But I'm beginning this season more hopeful in our QB play than I began last season. And for that I'm grateful.

[Orton's Arm]

I read the link you provided written by Chris Trappasso. From reading that link I am more encouraged, not less, that he is an excellent prospect with the odds suggesting success more than failure. You are absolutely correct that what most often differentiates a qb's success from failure is a qbs (innate) ability to quicly process information (read defenses and go throught the progressions.).As you smartly noted Trent Edwards had most of the required traits to be a good qb but failed in the most important category: having a deeper dimensial mind to sort out the chaotic burst of information a qb faces.

 

Where I think you are making a mistake is in setting up a paradigm with limited categories that predict qb success in today's game. The offensive game is changing. Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick, Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

Don't misunderstand what I am saying. You make very strong points regarding what is most essential for a qb to be a success in this fast paced game. What I am suggesting is that you widen your paradigm a tad bit in evaluating qbs then I will be more comfortable with your assessment of Manuel. As it stands I have a much more positive view of Manuel's prospect than you do.

 

> Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick,

> Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in the right system, a sufficiently athletic QB can use his athleticism to compensate for mental limitations. This right system would ask the QB to do a lot of things that only an athletic quarterback could do--thus playing to his strengths. At the same time, the person designing the system needs to avoid asking the QB to do some of the things expected from traditional pocket passers; because those things are beyond the QB's mental limits.

 

The above-described experiment has periodically been tried in the past. I remember the hype surrounding Kordell Stewart. Neil O'Donnell was described as an old guard QB: the kind of immobile pocket passer that highly athletic, Kordell Stewart-style QBs would soon replace. Kordell quickly flamed out; whereas Tom Brady (as immobile as they come) led his team to three Super Bowl wins.

 

This time around, highly athletic, mobile QBs--guys who don't necessarily have Aaron Rodgers-level information processing ability--are experiencing considerable success early in their careers. Is that success an anomaly, much like the one good season Kordell Stewart had, or Losman's one good season? Or has something changed--something which would allow today's athletic, mentally limited QBs to achieve more long-term success than that category of QBs had in the past?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say something has changed. Suppose for example offensive coordinators have gotten better at designing offenses well-suited to this style of quarterback. The competition between offensive and defensive coordinators is permanent. If offensive coordinators have unleashed a new style of offense uniquely suited to maximizing athletic QBs' strengths, how long will it be before defensive coordinators unveil new defenses well-suited to exposing their mental weaknesses?

[Dorkington]

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE.

 

Basically how I feel. I'm keeping my expectations low, but I think between the two of these guys we'll get some sort of improvement (as long as the offensive system doesn't suck).

[chris heff]

So Kolb sucks, and EJ is going to fail.

 

Why do we even bother?

I don't think Kolb sucks, I think he is a good veteran back up. I also think he was the best option available to the Bills.

 

I don't think EJ s going to fail.

 

Kevin Kolb has only 21 NFL starts and has been injured much of his career.. Effectively, he's a NFL sophomore. I don't think, given his paucity of playing time, we can yet assess his ceiling with absolute certainty. I think he's done enough good things in his limited experience as a starter to at least suggest the possibility that he's capable of more.

 

EJ is a rookie. Like any rookie QB, even 1st round rookies, his chances of NFL stardom aren't great. But there is a chance.

 

Kolb and EJ - combined - give me something I haven't felt in a while: HOPE. We knew what we had in Fitz. We knew his strengths and we knew his weaknesses. Unfortunately, so did our opponents.

 

We really don't know what we have in Kolb and EJ. Maybe both end up failing, who knows? But I'm beginning this season more hopeful in our QB play than I began last season. And for that I'm grateful.

I agree with you. I am a little more pessimistic about Kolb. I am more hopeful in our QB situation than I have been in years.

[BillsWatch]

So to kind of get back on point here, I think Jaws ranking of Kolb is too high. I'd rank him around 50.

 

It is ranking of projected starers of NFL teams. Sorry you think your little league football team QB should be on list ahead of Kolb but there are only 2 teams and asking for a ranking shows problem with reading comprehension.

[chris heff]

 

 

It is ranking of projected starers of NFL teams. Sorry you think your little league football team QB should be on list ahead of Kolb but there are only 2 teams and asking for a ranking shows problem with reading comprehension.

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

[JohnC]

> Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick,

> Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful.

 

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in the right system, a sufficiently athletic QB can use his athleticism to compensate for mental limitations. This right system would ask the QB to do a lot of things that only an athletic quarterback could do--thus playing to his strengths. At the same time, the person designing the system needs to avoid asking the QB to do some of the things expected from traditional pocket passers; because those things are beyond the QB's mental limits.

 

The above-described experiment has periodically been tried in the past. I remember the hype surrounding Kordell Stewart. Neil O'Donnell was described as an old guard QB: the kind of immobile pocket passer that highly athletic, Kordell Stewart-style QBs would soon replace. Kordell quickly flamed out; whereas Tom Brady (as immobile as they come) led his team to three Super Bowl wins.

 

This time around, highly athletic, mobile QBs--guys who don't necessarily have Aaron Rodgers-level information processing ability--are experiencing considerable success early in their careers. Is that success an anomaly, much like the one good season Kordell Stewart had, or Losman's one good season? Or has something changed--something which would allow today's athletic, mentally limited QBs to achieve more long-term success than that category of QBs had in the past?

 

For the sake of argument, let's say something has changed. Suppose for example offensive coordinators have gotten better at designing offenses well-suited to this style of quarterback. The competition between offensive and defensive coordinators is permanent. If offensive coordinators have unleashed a new style of offense uniquely suited to maximizing athletic QBs' strengths, how long will it be before defensive coordinators unveil new defenses well-suited to exposing their mental weaknesses?

 

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

[chris heff]

 

 

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

 

Could not have said it better.

[Buftex]

I have not read this thread in its' entirety, so forgive me if this has already been said...I love Ron Jaworkski, the Buffalo guy and all...while he likely knows or thing or two more than the rest of us about playing QB, lets' not forget that he has been horribly off in recent years, in assessing QBs. His word is not "gold" for me. He has been working coaching, or tutoring (whatever word you want to use) young college prospects, and even some guys who are already in the NFL...it seems to me his opinions on certain guys are influenced by the guy$ he works with.

[eball]

I have not read this thread in its' entirety, so forgive me if this has already been said...I love Ron Jaworkski, the Buffalo guy and all...while he likely knows or thing or two more than the rest of us about playing QB, lets' not forget that he has been horribly off in recent years, in assessing QBs. His word is not "gold" for me. He has been working coaching, or tutoring (whatever word you want to use) young college prospects, and even some guys who are already in the NFL...it seems to me his opinions on certain guys are influenced by the guy$ he works with.

 

Great post. I love listening to/watching Jaws analyze game film, but he has been decidedly "average" in predicting the success and/or failure of NFL QBs.

[MRW]

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

[JohnC]

Great post. I love listening to/watching Jaws analyze game film, but he has been decidedly "average" in predicting the success and/or failure of NFL QBs.

 

Isn't being average at predicting how a prospect does better than how the pro scouts do? Prognosticating how qbs will do when they move from the college to the pro ranks is incredibly difficult. It is an inexact science with the mystifying human ingredient of character/personality mixed in with the variables. Even when all the traits (physcial and mental) signal success for a prospect that doesn't necessarily translate into success. . Sometimes being average is a good thing when the standard is typically below average. The bottom line is that it is a very difficult endeavor.

[Gugny]

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

I maintain that Matt Moore is the best QB on Miami's roster. I just hope the Dolphins never realize it, because putting him in would make them a far better team.

[chris heff]

 

I'd trade Kolb for Moore in a heartbeat. Mallett scares me in spite of his physical tools, and Smith... we'll see, but it doesn't seem to me like he has the temperament to make it in the league.

 

I'm not sure if that's support for your point or not.

I think it does, threw out three names you said yes to one. There are other back up QBs you would probably trade Kolb for. Like maybe Kirk Cousins or Matt Flynn?

Edited July 9, 2013 by chris heff

[Chandler#81]

 

Finally the kind of reaction I expected. My reading comprehension is fine, I just don't believe Kolb will be the starter.

 

I'm not going to go through the entire list of back ups that may be better than Kolb, nor extoll the virtues of my Little League football team's QB, who was Rick Finn (Rick was better with his legs than his arm). I will ask you this, within our own division the backups as of today are, Ryan Mallett, Matt Moore and Geno Smith. Would you make a straight up trade of Kolb for any of these guys?

 

Touché! This settles it. I want Rick Finn!! Reading defenses be damned, RUN, RICK, RUN!!

[chris heff]

 

 

Touché! This settles it. I want Rick Finn!! Reading defenses be damned, RUN, RICK, RUN!!

It helped that Rick was about a foot taller and 20lbs. heavier than everybody else.

[Orton's Arm]

The mistake (I believe) you are making is that you are being too strict in categorizing types of players. It isn't an issue of a being an athletic qb at the expense of being a more cerebral qb. There is a spectrum where there is a merging of traits. You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. That type of qb is not going to be the type of qb that will get the Bills out of their generational muck. Would a Kordell Stewart type qb raise the prospects of this franchise? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that an athletic gifted qb can't be adequately adept at the mental side of the game to succeed.

 

Kaepernick and RGIII are both in their way physical marvels. Both played in very simplistic offenses, and both excelled. Just because they were effective in their first read offenses that doesn't mean that as they gain experience they won't mature into second and third read qbs. They both are smart people who have a passion for the game and are willing to put in the effort to get better.

 

You have made good points indicating what makes a good qb prospect. Where my position departs from your position is that your paradigm is too rigid. Players learn and evolve. A strength is a strength. But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That is why I'm more optimistic to Maneul's prospect than you are.

 

I agree that athletic ability and mental acuity are not mutually exclusive. Steve Young had great mobility, but he also had the accuracy and mental tools needed to be a great pocket passer. Even if injuries had robbed Young of his great mobility, his pocket passing along was good enough to make him one of the best QBs ever to have played.

 

But there is another type of QB: a guy who uses great athleticism to mask his below-average information processing ability. Kaepernick and RGIII--the two guys you mentioned--are in that category.

 

> But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching.

 

That depends on the weakness. No amount of hard work and good coaching was going to give Rob Johnson good pocket awareness; or Losman good awareness, or make Trent Edwards aware of opportunities more than five yards away from the line of scrimmage. All three of those quarterbacks failed due to their mental shortcomings--shortcomings which could not be erased by any amount of hard work or coaching. It's possible that players like Kaepernick, RGIII, and Manuel have higher mental ceilings than Johnson, Losman, and Edwards. It's also possible that offensive coordinators can do a better job of masking Kaepernick's/RGIII's/Manuel's mental weaknesses than they did at masking those of Johnson/Losman/Edwards.

 

> You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz.

 

I agree that there are strong similarities between O'Donnell and Fitz. But Joe Montana had physical limitations also: he lasted until the third round because he lacked a big time arm. The main difference between Joe Montana on the one hand and O'Donnell and Fitzpatrick on the other was that Montana didn't have an Irish last name. But the second-most important difference was that Montana was a ridiculously accurate passer who could hit receivers in perfect stride; and whose threw with perfect touch. The limitations of an O'Donnell or a Fitzpatrick don't signal the end of the pocket passer era. A team with a Fitzpatrick as its starter can obtain a huge QB upgrade by obtaining an Aaron Rodgers or a Peyton Manning.