History tells us the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks

[DrDawkinstein]

Still need to shoot your shot though.

[Formerly Allan in MD]

2 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

It's not that they haven't gotten better at evaluating QBs. They've gotten the measurables down as much as possible. There is so simply no way to evaluate the most important traits a QB must have to succeed at the next level. You can't tell the all important " processor speed" in their head while NFL speed bullets are flying around them. There is no way to do that. You can get a gut feeling as to what makes them tick, what drives them. That's about it. Then throw in external variables like fit , scheme and coaching along with the talent around them. You can determine to a degree which prospects have the best chance to succeed, it still doesn't mean they cannot fail. There is no such thing. Barnwell opines that the NFL is " terrible" at doing the impossible. 

Now you're talking.  I assume you include as part of "processor speed," instincts.

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

I guess that would make those people incapable, then.

It wouldn't make them incapable. They may very well be able to achieve greatness as an NFL QB. They are simply doing something else, somewhere else on planet earth. It's a hackneyed statement that's almost certainly inaccurate. If the argument is that there are few people playing QB in American college football capable of NFL greatness, that's a statement that's likely true. Decades of evidence supports this. On planet earth though? It's hyperbole and probably not true. 

3 minutes ago, Formerly Allan in MD said:

Now you're talking.  I assume you include as part of "processor speed," instincts.

Yes, I believe instincts would factor into it. If the instincts are not great, it probably lead to slower decision making, and poorer. We've seen plenty of QBs that had the physical traits, but played the game a half beat slow in the NFL. I like to reference Rob Johnson when discussing this, but there are certainly others. He looked the part, and his " arm talent" as it's called these days could wow you in practice. When the red jersey came off though, he was transformed. Perhaps exposed is more accurate. That's why it's so hard to evaluate these players. The game is just faster and more complex. 

[mjt328]

2 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

 

I disagree with Barnell.  All things considered, NFL scouts do a pretty good job of evaluating Quarterbacks.

 

For QBs, the college game is almost a different sport from the NFL.  Not only is the competition bigger, fast and smarter, but the offensive schemes are different and more complicated.  Instead of getting by on athletic talent alone, it requires the ability to quickly process the field and make split second decisions.

Despite this, NFL scouts are remarkably strong at predicting which QBs have the best chance at success.

 

Any draft study will show that Top 5-10 picks having a MUCH higher percentage of success than picks 11-32... which have a higher percent than 2nd Round Picks... which have a higher pct. than 3rd Round Picks... etc., etc., etc.  If NFL scouts were absolutely "terrible" at their jobs, this would not be the case.  Every team would have just as much luck drafting a QB in the 7th Round or signing an UDFA, as they would drafting a guy in the Top 3.

 

The NFL Draft also cannot be compared to other sports.  Because no other sport has a SINGLE POSITION that makes as much difference as the Quarterback.  So QBs will always be overdrafted.  That's not because teams are terrible at evaluating.  It's because they are willing to take a higher risk with QBs than other positions.

 

 

[Formerly Allan in MD]

2 hours ago, Marv's Neighbor said:

Terrible QB evaluations???  Dennis Shaw, James Harris, RJ, Losman, Trent Edweards, EJ, etc., etc.  What could possible go wrong here?

It started in year one.  A number of the new teams came up with good quarterbacks; we wound up initially with Bob Brodhead, as I recall.

[Mr. WEO]

I think quibbling over the order that 3 future HOF QBs were drafted the same year is a pretty dumb argument.

 

Some guys are hits, some aren't.  It's not really a science, so why point out the obvious?

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, Gugny said:

History tells us that, no matter what, talking heads are going to find 5-6 QBs to talk about every single year in order to generate interest.

 

The bottom line is that there simply aren't that many people on the planet who are capable of being great QBs in the NFL.

 

Agreed.  How can the author assess that the NFL is bad at assessing QB talent or that they just find all there are.  If there was another league where NFL QBs that washed out went and shined, or another league that selected all the good ones, then he'd have a point.

 

It'd be like saying people are just not very good at finding gold in their back yard.

Edited April 9, 2018 by reddogblitz

[SoTier]

5 hours ago, DCOrange said:

 

On the flipside, for the sake of Part 1 of this article, in which the argument is simply "Is he the best QB in the class or is he not?", I'd argue that Allen is one of like 3 guys that has a legitimate chance of being the best in this year's class.

 

Well, in 2002, 2007, 2010, and 2013, getting "the best QB in the class" wouldn't get you more than a backup at best.

 

55 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Agreed.  How can the author assess that the NFL is bad at assessing QB talent or that they just find all there are.  If there was another league where NFL QBs that washed out went and shined, or another league that selected all the good ones, then he'd have a point.

 

It'd be like saying people are just not very good at finding gold in their back yard.

 

NFL teams aren't looking for gold in backyards.  They're looking for gold in the places that have produced gold in the past, and their top prospects, the first round QBs, still only hit about half the time ... and that's with the QBs taken at #1 hitting at about 80%.  QBs taken between #2 and #32 only hit a little more than four times out of ten.  That's pretty discouraging odds.  Now, some teams luck out and find their franchise QBs but most don't because even among the 50% QBs that are "successes" there are going to be several who are only decent starters at best.  I would agree with the author that the NFL isn't very good at evaluating QB prospects.

[Punt75]

7 hours ago, ddaryl said:

 

 

and the Bills have been even worse, but even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut

 

GREAT!   This is a good Post - - who else are the "media experts" going to talk about - -DB's, LB's, etc. 

[Bing Bong]

Guys we don't know at all how these guys are going to be in the pros. The scouts hardly know

 

Every one is entitled to their opinion. That's the fun of it. But I get annoyed by the "I called deshaun Watson, dak, Wilson being good QBs". I'm sure every body has missed more than they hit

 

Every one is entitled to their opinion. That's the fun of it. But I get annoyed by the "I called deshaun Watson, dak, Wilson being good QBs". I'm sure every body has missed more than they hit

 

I'd love if Pete became a franchise QB. But it'd be bittersweet to have savior pete beating his chest for the next 12 years. 

[EmotionallyUnstable]

I can’t get over Barnwell’s 2013 synopsis:

 

First QB Drafted: EJ Manual 

Best QB Drafted: Geno Smith

 

???

[BisonMan]

5 hours ago, mjt328 said:

 

I disagree with Barnell.  All things considered, NFL scouts do a pretty good job of evaluating Quarterbacks.

 

For QBs, the college game is almost a different sport from the NFL.  Not only is the competition bigger, fast and smarter, but the offensive schemes are different and more complicated.  Instead of getting by on athletic talent alone, it requires the ability to quickly process the field and make split second decisions.

Despite this, NFL scouts are remarkably strong at predicting which QBs have the best chance at success.

 

Any draft study will show that Top 5-10 picks having a MUCH higher percentage of success than picks 11-32... which have a higher percent than 2nd Round Picks... which have a higher pct. than 3rd Round Picks... etc., etc., etc.  If NFL scouts were absolutely "terrible" at their jobs, this would not be the case.  Every team would have just as much luck drafting a QB in the 7th Round or signing an UDFA, as they would drafting a guy in the Top 3.

 

The NFL Draft also cannot be compared to other sports.  Because no other sport has a SINGLE POSITION that makes as much difference as the Quarterback.  So QBs will always be overdrafted.  That's not because teams are terrible at evaluating.  It's because they are willing to take a higher risk with QBs than other positions.

 

 

This is the correct way to look at this problem. Success isn’t random and is obviously slanted toward pro scouts evaluations. 

 

Looking at at pure success rates out of context would tell you batting .300 is terrible in baseball. Yet that’s the best players. The worst bat in the low .200s.

[mjt328]

1 hour ago, BisonMan said:

This is the correct way to look at this problem. Success isn’t random and is obviously slanted toward pro scouts evaluations. 

 

Looking at at pure success rates out of context would tell you batting .300 is terrible in baseball. Yet that’s the best players. The worst bat in the low .200s.

 

Baseball batting average was actually the same analogy I was thinking of.

The best players in the league only get hits 3-4 out of 10 times at the plate. 

 

NFL Scouts can generally take a group of 30-40 eligible quarterback prospects per year.  Out of that mass of players, maybe 1-3 (at the most) turn out to be decent NFL starters.  Even less turn out to be stars.  The vast majority of the time, scouts had those guys pegged as the top prospects out of the year's draft class.  And for every Tom Brady that shocks the world, the scouts correctly predict that 200-300 late round prospects will turn into nothing at the pro level.

[Gugny]

4 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Agreed.  How can the author assess that the NFL is bad at assessing QB talent or that they just find all there are.  If there was another league where NFL QBs that washed out went and shined, or another league that selected all the good ones, then he'd have a point.

 

It'd be like saying people are just not very good at finding gold in their back yard.

 

Mark it down.  We agreed.

[CommonCents]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Mark it down.  We agreed.

Hot Dog.

[Misterbluesky]

10 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

What turns me on is listening to former QB's talk about current QB's and future NFL QB's.You know..the fellas that actually played the game,the ones that see things in a different way.Joe Smith,a retired GM worker,from Saginaw,Michigan who got a bit bored with life and decided to post opinions on his "football" website are as meaning full to me as looking at a rotted out Halloween carved pumpkin on Christmas Day.It ain't happening ...

[K D]

I am very good at evaluating QB's. This year it's Rosen. He's been my favorite since Winston and before him it was Luck. I didn't think anyone from last year's draft was going to be very good. I would have done the exact same thing and passed but I would have made sure I got Rosen this year at all costs. I don't like anybody next year or the year after. Nobody else is on my radar currently. Shea Patterson might have a nice year but it's only one year and he will still be a question mark to me. Not as sure of a thing.

[BadLandsMeanie]

4 minutes ago, Misterbluesky said:

...are as meaning full to me as looking at a rotted out Halloween carved pumpkin on Christmas Day.It ain't happening ...

 This is an interesting mental image. And, if I may say so, not what one might think of as a "typical" or "normal" comparison.

 

I don't know, somehow it made me laugh wondering how you came up with that item as a point of comparison?

 

Then I got to thinking of a family so poor that this is what they do to celebrate Christmas

 

 

[Rob's House]

9 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

I think that phrase has become trite hyperbole in the sports talk world. Odds are there are a fair amount of people on the planet that are capable of being great QBs. Just not that many of them that are playing college football in the USA. 

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.

5 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

I think quibbling over the order that 3 future HOF QBs were drafted the same year is a pretty dumb argument.

 

Some guys are hits, some aren't.  It's not really a science, so why point out the obvious?

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.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Rob's House

[reddogblitz]

34 minutes ago, kdiggz said:

I am very good at evaluating QB's. This year it's Rosen. He's been my favorite since Winston and before him it was Luck. I didn't think anyone from last year's draft was going to be very good. I would have done the exact same thing and passed but I would have made sure I got Rosen this year at all costs. I don't like anybody next year or the year after. Nobody else is on my radar currently. Shea Patterson might have a nice year but it's only one year and he will still be a question mark to me. Not as sure of a thing.

 

You're .50% at best. We'll see if Luck can rehab that shoulder and return to good play. If he does and Rosen is a miss you'll be at .33%.Pretty much like everybody else.

51 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

Mark it down.  We agreed.

 

Exactly Gug. Saying they were bad at evaluating seems to indicate they're missing some.  I can think a few missed on but it's been a while back. Flurje ,Moon, and Brad Johnson