Thurman#1 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 11 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said: This is sobering in a way so don't read of you are over anxious already! History tells us the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks Bill Barnwell ESPN Staff Writer We could come close to an NFL record this year before any players take a snap. There are five quarterbacks who could come off the board on Day 1 of the draft, which would tie the 1999 draft for the second most since the merger. The only draft to post six first-rounders is the legendary Class of 1983, which delivered a trio of Hall of Famers in John Elway, Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. As much as the league seems to be struggling to pick between the prospects in this year's class, though, the coaches and executives of 1983 weren't able to separate the wheat from the chaff until well after the fact. Elway was the first overall pick, but the Chiefs still managed to draft Todd Blackledge seven picks before Kelly. Blackledge threw 29 career touchdowns. Kelly topped 29 in 1991 alone. Tony Eason was taken one pick after Kelly and 12 picks before Marino, who would post the greatest passing season in league history to that point during his second campaign. A league full of coaches and personnel executives who had spent and would go on to spend the majority of their lives working in the game of football were not able to pick between a trio of future Hall of Famers and two guys who would fail to make a single Pro Bowl. (Ken O'Brien, drafted after Eason and before Marino, at least made two Pro Bowls over his 10-year career.) Thirty-five years later, I'm not entirely convinced we've gotten much better at evaluating quarterbacks. The league has access to more information than ever before, but the job has become tougher. A wider range of passing offenses at the collegiate level have made it more difficult for obstinate coaches to translate amateur success into bland professional schemes. Passers come better prepared for the pre-draft process than ever before and are far more selective about throwing at the combine. As a result, the range of opinions -- anonymous and otherwise -- we hear about these players before they enter the league is truly remarkable. The error bars are impossibly large. Ask around about Wyoming quarterback Josh Allen and you'll hear that he'll turn into budding MVP candidate Carson Wentz or Titans washout Jake Locker. You'll hear that Heisman Trophy winner Baker Mayfield will turn into either Johnny Manziel or Russell Wilson. This doesn't happen in other sports. Jaylen Brown didn't enter the NBA draft only to be compared to both Jimmy Butler and Bill Murray in "Space Jam." More at http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects Yup, it's fair. And worth adding that as bad as the NFL is at evaluating QBs, nobody is better. It's not that the NFL is awful. It's that evaluating QBs coming out of college is unbelievably hard.
reddogblitz Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Yup, it's fair. And worth adding that as bad as the NFL is at evaluating QBs, nobody is better. It's not that the NFL is awful. It's that evaluating QBs coming out of college is unbelievably hard. Maybe there just aren't very many on earth? Edited April 10, 2018 by reddogblitz
Lfod Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) The bar was set in college. The bar is set a lot higher in the NFL. Then after you consider all the contributing factors you still won't know if a guy can cut it until he actually plays in NFL games. So they couldn't make it an exact science. It probably would change up how drafts are done if it was an exact science. You gather all the information possible and you formulate the best guess you can with all the information available. You have to understand who your drafting is a human being and not a robot. Dynamics are involved in the chances for success. Think I would have a better shot to be a successful rookie QB for the Patriots or the Browns? The difference between the pressure for that rookie to start ASAP or have them learn behind some one established. So the NFL is hard and you have more bust then guys that end up elite. That's the nature of the beast and you can't tame a beast without understanding it's nature and risk of getting your face bitten off. Bring on the Draft. I'm ready to see the Wizard Beane in action. Edited April 10, 2018 by Lfod
Bag of Milk Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) In reality the scouts and talent evaluators do the best that they can. Saying that the NFL is bad at it, begs the question who is good at it? It is an inexact science. No one has completely cracked the code. The best that I know of as IT related to QB's might be Ron Wolf when GM of the Packers. One year Green Bay went to camp with Brett Farve, Aaaron Brooks, Matt Hasselback, Kurt Warner and Ty Detmer. Even Bill Walsh for all of his greatness, pushed Trent Edwards into Marv Levy's arms with his glowing evaluation. Lookup any GM in the history of the league and you ultimately will be underwhemed by the number of hits they have compard to misses. In 1974 The Steelers had probably the greatest draft in history: WR Lynn Swann (Round 1), LB Jack Lambert (Round 2), WR John Stallworth (Round 4), C Mike Webster (Round 5) Four Hall of Famers in one draft!!! Out of curiosity I looked up their 1975 draft and they had 21 picks! (draft was 17 rounds) I could only identify one above average player. Incredibly disparity. Inexact science. Edited April 10, 2018 by Bag of Milk
Thurman#1 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, reddogblitz said: Maybe there just aren't very many on earth? Great QB evaluators or great QBs? Or neither? Yeah, it's really hard and it's also hard to separate guys who never had a chance from guys who might have but were handled badly or botched their own careers by themselves. 1 hour ago, Bag of Milk said: In reality the scouts and talent evaluators do the best that they can. Saying that the NFL is bad at it, begs the question who is good at it? It is an inexact science. No one has completely cracked the code. The best that I know of might be Ron Wolf when GM of the Packers. One year Green Bay went to camp with Brett Farve, Aaaron Brooks, Matt Hasselback, Kurt Warner and Ty Detmer. Even Bill Walsh for all of his greatness, pushed Trent Edwards into Marv Levy's arms with his glowing evaluation. Lookup any GM in the history of the league and you ultimately will be underwhemed by the number of hits they have compard to misses. In 1974 The Steelers has probably the greatest draft in history: WR Lynn Swann (Round 1), LB Jack Lambert (Round 2), WR John Stallworth (Round 4), C Mike Webster (Round 5) Four Hall of Famers in one draft!!! Out of curiosity I looked up their 1975 draft and they had 21 picks! (draft was 17 rounds) I could only identify one above average player. Incredibly disparity. Inexact science. Nice post. Interesting. Great comparison between the '74 and '75 Steeler drafts. Edited April 10, 2018 by Thurman#1
reddogblitz Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 44 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Great QB evaluators or great QBs? Or neither? I was thinking QBs.
GunnerBill Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) It is hard evaluating QBs but I think the NFL is starting to get it. It has been a long process though. They are still overly obsessed with three things:- 1. Size 2. Arm strength 3. People who played in "pro style" offenses. Three characterstics that history of the last 10-15 years tells you have no correlation with NFL success. Edited April 10, 2018 by GunnerBill
Thurman#1 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 20 minutes ago, reddogblitz said: I was thinking QBs. Gotcha.
Thurman#1 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, GunnerBill said: It is hard evaluating QBs but I think the NFL is starting to get it. It has been a long process though. They are still overly obsessed with three things:- 1. Size 2. Arm strength 3. People who played in "pro style" offenses. Three characterstics that history of the last 10-15 years tells you have no correlation with NFL success. I guess I disagree. Looks to me like there's a pretty large correlation. Out of the franchise QBs in the league now, how many are 6' 1" or under? The percentage is low. How many of the franchise QBs have weak arms? The percentage is non-existent. There's a minimum. And how many franchise guys who play outside, especially in the north, have stronger than average arms? The percentage is a bit higher because cutting through the wind is a factor. How come Pennington looked elite or near-elite until his surgery reduced the strength of his arm? There's a clear correlation. And while having experience in pro-style offenses absolutely is NOT a requirement, does having a pro-style background increase your odds of success, same as being taller does, same as having a quick release, same as having had more progressions to go throgh in college? Probably, and it definitely increases your chances of fitting pro-style offenses in the pros, making it easier for a team to incorporate you in their offense without too many changes. Certainly there's no exact correlation, on anything at all. But some things help and some things hurt. There are correlations. But if people were so obsessed with these three things, how come Mayfield seems likely to go in the top six or seven? IMHO if we are starting to get a larger number of guys succeeding, it is because teams are more willing to deeply change their offenses to coddle the new QBs. And I'm not sure how well that will work out down the road. But it's an interesting thing to watch. Edited April 10, 2018 by Thurman#1
atlbillsfan1975 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 Fit is the piece that is rarely talked about. The big 6 names being thrown around this year all can be NFL quarterbacks. Stepping into the right situation for each individual will play a part in their success.
GunnerBill Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Looks to me like there's a pretty large correlation. Out of the franchise QBs in the league now, how many are 6' 1" or under? The percentage is low. How many of the franchise QBs have weak arms? The percentage is non-existent. There's a minimum. And how many franchise guys who play outside, especially in the north, have stronger than average arms? The percentage is a bit higher because cutting through the wind is a factor. How come Pennington looked elite or near-elite until his surgery reduced the strength of his arm? There's a clear correlation. And while having experience in pro-style offenses absolutely is NOT a requirement, does having a pro-style background increase your odds of success, same as being taller does, same as having a quick release, same as having had more progressions to go throgh in college? Probably, and it definitely increases your chances of fitting pro-style offenses in the pros, making it easier for a team to incorporate you in their offense without too many changes. Certainly there's no exact correlation, on anything at all. But some things help and some things hurt. There are correlations. But if people were so obsessed with these three things, how come Mayfield seems likely to go in the top six or seven? IMHO if we are starting to get a larger number of guys succeeding, it is because teams are more willing to deeply change their offenses to coddle the new QBs. And I'm not sure how well that will work out down the road. But it's an interesting thing to watch. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. That is what correlates. And I do mean accuracy and not completion %. There is a range of arm strengths playing Quarterback in the NFL. Clearly if you are end of career Peyton Manning you don't have enough arm but most college QBs are in the range that is good enough to succeed. Matt Ryan has never had a big arm. Tom Brady has never had a big arm. Peyton himself never had a big arm. They won with accuracy. Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson do have big arms... they are also accurate. Equally if you are 5'9 you chances if succeeding are slimmer but most people who play QB at the college level are within the height range of what can succeed in the NFL. Accuracy wins. Always has, always will. Anticipatory throwing wins. Always has, always will. The size, arm and pro style offense obsession is slowly fading. But it still exists. EDIT: on arm the only guy in the now 5 years I have been evaluating QBs that I have thought "not enough arm" was Cody Kessler. Edited April 10, 2018 by GunnerBill 1
Thurman#1 Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 1 minute ago, GunnerBill said: Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. That is what correlates. And I do mean accuracy and not completion %. There is a range of arm strengths playing Quarterback in the NFL. Clearly if you are end of career Peyton Manning you don't have enough arm but most college QBs are in the range that is good enough to succeed. Matt Ryan has never had a big arm. Tom Brady has never had a big arm. Peyton himself never had a big arm. They won with accuracy. Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson do have big arms... they are also accurate. Equally if you are 5'9 you chances if succeeding are slimmer but most people who play QB at the college level are within the height range of what can succeed in the NFL. Accuracy wins. Always has, always will. Anticipatory throwing wins. Always has, always will. The size, arm and pro style offense obsession is slowly fading. But it still exists. Agreed, certainly that accuracy correlates. But accuracy when throwing to the wrong targets won't help you. The key skill, IMO, is going through progressions very fast and making the right throw. That's a really rare skill. Composed, informed information processing and decision-making at a high speed. There are some successful guys without Brees-like accuracy. Newton and Roethlisberger for two. There is absolutely a minimum necessary level, but you don't have to have a laser-sight. (Don't get me wrong, I"m an accuracy fan. I hope the Bills get somebody who's accurate, but sometimes it's not all that clear who's where on the scale. Has Allen's accuracy improved with Palmer's coaching and work on his mechanics? Yeah, it's improved throughout the whole offseason. Will that stick? Ah, there's the rub? Who knows. Will a year or more of time on the bench to make sure those mechanical changes become part of his muscle memory? IMO the odds improve and maybe quite a bit. I'd rather have any of the other top four guys than Allen, myself. But I'll understand whoever picks him and what they're thinking. Tom Brady has lost something off his arm, this year in particular, but he has had a strong arm. He improved his arm strength a lot after college working with a QB coach. And yeah, most people in college are within the range of what can succeed. But many are within that part of the range - below 6'1" or so - that succeeds a good deal less frequently. Being Mayfield's height makes the game more difficult. You've got to be much more cognizant of and dependent on throwing lanes and lanes of sight. It's still possible to succeed and even to have extreme success, as Wilson and Brees show. But it adds a layer of complexity, and that's never good.
GunnerBill Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 My view is not about Josh Allen. It might explain why I am not mad on Allen though. I just don't see those things and get excited and I think pro scouts overvalue them. They are nice to haves, they should the be the icing on the cake of an evaluation and too often they appear to be the basis of it. I also don't believe Brady ever had a great arm. Even those couple of years when he threw deep more with Randy Moss... it was his placement that was exceptional. 1
Fadingpain Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Logic said: I agree with Bill Barnwell (which is a sentence that makes me ill to type). There are some "anonymous NFL sources" who just INSIST that Josh Allen is worth a top 10 or top 5 pick. I'm not buying it. He SO CLEARLY demonstrates many of the traits of a colossal bust. And yet, a 6'5" frame and a cannon arm have a tendency to give NFL scouts complete amnesia and hypnotize them into thinking "we can make something of this kid!". I won't bite. Allen will bust.Why can't these guys learn? Because they are meathead jocks/glorified gym teachers? Edited April 10, 2018 by Fadingpain
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 Aside from good or bad fortune, which people still tend to ignore, and is of course uncontrollable. You should keep hedging the situation by planning to draft another QB high in the next year or two, not necessarily in the top 10. Perhaps in the top 2-3 rounds. And, stay after it with your strategy, the Bills have been awful at this. They seem to have always wanted to build the team first, and then get a QB. My biggest question about all of these guys like Allen, which is unknown, is how they handle adversity. Right now he is filled with confidence, everyone telling him how great he is. What happens when he finds out it doesn't work out as advertised, he isn't improving his accuracy and the footwork didn't help? Or he has a trait like "slow" eyes at the NFL level? Just sayin'.....lots of uncertainty. All you can do is follow a procedure of looking for traits that correlate, and ignore the ones that seem to be overrated. Let someone else take the risk who hasn't figure it out, and yes they're still some out there.
Mr. WEO Posted April 10, 2018 Posted April 10, 2018 8 hours ago, Rob's House said: I sometimes wonder how many would be QBs chose baseball instead. It's a better gig in a lot of ways. You get a longer leash, more job openings, more money, longer career, and you don't take the beating an NFL QB does. Personally, I think the threat of having a baseball hummed at your melon at 90+ mph, or worse, having a line drive drilled up the middle while you're in an awkward position on the mound, is more terrifying than getting pounded by a DE, but other than that it's a pretty sweet gig. I think his point was that 3 of the QBs that went in the 1st rd, one before Kelly and all 3 before Marino, sucked ass. Yeah but 'the NFL" found all three. Individual teams with totally different FO's evaluated them differently and selected based on that. But, as someone above said, there is no evidence that the NFL doesn't sign great QBs that go on to greatness elsewhere. Therefore the author should more properly conclude that some individuals/FO's/teams are better than others at identifying the better QBs. But is so obvious it doesn't merit mention. It's a poorly conceived article.
Royale with Cheese Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 1 hour ago, mead107 said: Looking more and more like my guy 1
iinii Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 On 4/9/2018 at 12:24 PM, Logic said: I agree with Bill Barnwell (which is a sentence that makes me ill to type). There are some "anonymous NFL sources" who just INSIST that Josh Allen is worth a top 10 or top 5 pick. I'm not buying it. He SO CLEARLY demonstrates many of the traits of a colossal bust. And yet, a 6'5" frame and a cannon arm have a tendency to give NFL scouts complete amnesia and hypnotize them into thinking "we can make something of this kid!". I won't bite. Allen will bust. Why can't these guys learn? To err is human......
The_Dude Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 On 4/9/2018 at 1:08 PM, BadLandsMeanie said: This is sobering in a way so don't read of you are over anxious already! History tells us the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks Bill Barnwell ESPN Staff Writer We could come close to an NFL record this year before any players take a snap. There are five quarterbacks who could come off the board on Day 1 of the draft, which would tie the 1999 draft for the second most since the merger. The only draft to post six first-rounders is the legendary Class of 1983, which delivered a trio of Hall of Famers in John Elway, Jim Kelly and Dan Marino. As much as the league seems to be struggling to pick between the prospects in this year's class, though, the coaches and executives of 1983 weren't able to separate the wheat from the chaff until well after the fact. Elway was the first overall pick, but the Chiefs still managed to draft Todd Blackledge seven picks before Kelly. Blackledge threw 29 career touchdowns. Kelly topped 29 in 1991 alone. Tony Eason was taken one pick after Kelly and 12 picks before Marino, who would post the greatest passing season in league history to that point during his second campaign. A league full of coaches and personnel executives who had spent and would go on to spend the majority of their lives working in the game of football were not able to pick between a trio of future Hall of Famers and two guys who would fail to make a single Pro Bowl. (Ken O'Brien, drafted after Eason and before Marino, at least made two Pro Bowls over his 10-year career.) Thirty-five years later, I'm not entirely convinced we've gotten much better at evaluating quarterbacks. The league has access to more information than ever before, but the job has become tougher. A wider range of passing offenses at the collegiate level have made it more difficult for obstinate coaches to translate amateur success into bland professional schemes. Passers come better prepared for the pre-draft process than ever before and are far more selective about throwing at the combine. As a result, the range of opinions -- anonymous and otherwise -- we hear about these players before they enter the league is truly remarkable. The error bars are impossibly large. Ask around about Wyoming quarterback Josh Allen and you'll hear that he'll turn into budding MVP candidate Carson Wentz or Titans washout Jake Locker. You'll hear that Heisman Trophy winner Baker Mayfield will turn into either Johnny Manziel or Russell Wilson. This doesn't happen in other sports. Jaylen Brown didn't enter the NBA draft only to be compared to both Jimmy Butler and Bill Murray in "Space Jam." More at http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23039883/history-tells-us-nfl-terrible-evaluating-quarterbacks-means-2018-draft-prospects As a student of history I disagree. Stupid people are bad at picking QBs. Yes, Buddy Nix was stupid. He literally drafted a QB just to draft a QB because he was as slow as he talked. Now thats not to say there have never been any unforeseen busts...what I’m saying is when you do the autopsy on Jamarcus Russell’s career, it’s pretty obvious it was a mistake from the get-go and there were all the signs. Seriously, look at the busts and ask yourself — wasn’t the bust potential or the overreach (Ponder) just overwhelming from the beginning?! When you do that you start to see the stupidity in drafting the busts was obvious when it they did it and they didn’t see the obvious signs or ignored them because they’re stupid. They buckled to stupidity caused by immense pressure and did something stupid. Then look at those busts and compare them to Rosen, Darnold, and Mayfield — those three kids are way cleaner than the busts. Im The_Dude, and I say trade up! (I was calling nobody in general stupid other than Buddy Nix...he drafted EJ...that was stupid.)
Recommended Posts