Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;300970]I understand what your saying but what gives you the qualifications to judge if Russell is or is not ready. Just because he started 29 games means he not ready?? That's complete BS. I know your brought out stats that showed guys that started less than 30 games. But what about the other side to that? I'm sure many NFL QB's in the past, and that are playing now did not start a gazillion games like Bardy Quinn did. You can argue both sides to your theory.

Now I agree that playing 4 years is a big advantage. No question about that. Nothing is better than game experience. But your acting like it can't be done. Your acting like just becase the guy only started 29 games means he can't handle the NFL. I think all that means is he may need to sit his first year, like JC, Carson Palmer and many others.

Tom Brady. Wasn't he sharing time w/ Drew Henson?
Mark Bulger. I know he didn't have a overly productive college career. Wasn't he drafted in the 6th round?
Jake Delhomme. I don't know where he even went to college.
Matt Hasleback. I know he went to BC but I don't think he started a whole bunch of games.
Brad Johnson. Played behind Casey Weldon???? I know he got some experience in the world league but he didn't play a lick in college.
Byron Leftwich. Didn't he play behind Pennington for two years??[/quote]This is a pretty solid argument. Let me explain the other part of my theory.

The guys you mentioned (exception to Leftwich who started 36 games, a pretty solid number) were ALL late round picks. These guys have proven that it is possible to have the mental capacity to buck the experience trend. And I expect Russell to have the exact same oppertunity to buck the trened as these guys did. There are always exceptions to every rule.

But for every Brady, Hasselbeck, and Brad Johnson, late round picks who were good prospects, do you have any idea how many late round picks had no talent whatsoever? I'd say the ratio for late round picks is like, 20:1.

So the experience equation is not perfect. Every prospect has his chance to buck the trend. But JaMarcus Russell is no more likely to become an elite passer than Cullen Finnerty (4 year starter at DII GVSU--led all D2 QBs in passing efficiency) is. Russell is FAR, far, far, far more likely to be at least as good as Rex Grossman is though. That's the statistical expectation for Russell. 95% chance that he will play somewhere in Grossman's vincinity. And that's not terrible (the Bears did get to a SB with that quality of player at QB), but its a terrible use of a top five pick.

So yes, I should probably, for sake of not sounding like a know-it-all prick, stop talking about Russell as an absolute certainty to be below average. Nothing is ever certain. I can just say, with a lot of confidence, that he will not be an elite player among the best QBs in the league. And if all stats can give me is a lot of confidence in a prediction, I'll take the 5% chance of error any day.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300973]Basically the GMs would have to be stupid, which just doesnt make sense. Why else would they take that scouting report, when they know it is wrong? That just doesnt make sense at all.[/quote]I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300974]Gtripp, if you are expecting to find a scientific solution for each problem, you will be highly disappointed. There are SOOO many factors and variables that you would have to isolate and analysis. Draft experts dont have access every single one of these variable that would impact their assessments.

Look I am not saying use that as an excuse. You HAVE to know that when you are a scout. You have realize you cant be perfect. That allows you to change and adapt. I am sure tons of scouts make bad picks and move on, but that is the NFLs fault for not having a system with competition. Competition would weed out all these problems.

Yes you can improve, and maybe there will be better scouts in the future which will minimize busts, but there is no way to eliminate it. Just because we know that, doesnt mean we should stop trying to improve the system, however.[/quote]I realize that we are far, far away from the draft being an exact science. At least 20 years, probably longer. But there are simple trends that decision makers are turning a blind eye to, and setting back their franchises.

In theory, drafting should get more and more accurate every year. I mean, that's what should be happening. Agreed?

Well, is it? You tell me. If it is, we have a non issue. If it's not improving, it's a bigger issue than anyone in the business could imagine. Because someone with knowledge of all these mistakes will come in and create a perennial winner and dominate their divisions for years, and years, and years until someone figures out whats wrong.

Oh wait, thats what the Pats and Eagles (and maybe Chargers too--its early) are doing already.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300981]I don't understand how you arrive here. Many GMs aren't scouts. They just rely heavily upon the opinion of scouts to make accurate judgements. So if their scouts are wrong too often, they fire them, only to hire a scout who has the same problem.

That doesn't make the GMs stupid, they are just using the resouces available to them, and those resources aren't any more valuable than you or I.[/quote]

Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300987]Well I am assuming that if a GM is intelligent and rational, they will not use, or they will demand better resources.

If they GMs want it, they have the money to make it happen. If your theory is true, then GMs would not take opinions which are bad. They would demand better ones, or change.[/quote]But a majority of the opinions available to scouts today--close to all, are bad, IMO. Scouting directors and scouts get fired all the time because they are making mistakes. But if they guys that replace them are making the same mistakes, that's not an improvement now is it?

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300985]
In theory, drafting should get more and more accurate every year. I mean, that's what should be happening. Agreed?

Oh wait, thats what the Pats and Eagles (and maybe Chargers too--its early) are doing already.[/QUOTE]


Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300991]But a majority of the opinions available to scouts today--close to all, are bad, IMO. Scouting directors and scouts get fired all the time because they are making mistakes. But if they guys that replace them are making the same mistakes, that's not an improvement now is it?

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.[/quote]

Yeah but you are not understanding my logic.

If you demand change or other scouts, you will get them. You are saying they have no other options, but money makes the world turn. That will make them find other scouts who are willing to change or are better.

OR, if they demand for better stuff is high, the scouts will change to improve themselves. The GMs just have to hold the scouts to high standards. And if the scouts are failing like you say so, they would. And therefore my logic would follow as stated above.


Again I dont think I am absolutely correct, but i am just basing this on economics. Also I think you are correct in many aspects, and I consider you one of the best posters on this site Gtripp, so because I am critical dont take it the wrong way.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

Just because a scout is a "bad" scout, doesn't mean he is incapable of supporting a really good prospect or anything. Just that he isn't using good reasoning, so if he lands a good prospect with shoddy reasoning, he's more likely to be convinced that his reasoning was good. If he supports a poor prospect under the same methodology, he's already seen his system "work" so he's unwilling to change his behaviors. It's a psychological bias.

For example, Scout A believes that SEC Quarterbacks are better prepared for the NFL than any other conference. Scout A also believes that the Pac 10 is a horrible QB conference. In 1998, Scout A decided that Manning would be a better QB than Leaf based on his conference perception. Low and behold, Leaf busts, and Manning becomes one of, if not the greatest ever to play. Scout A's perceptions of conference are reinforced. In 2003, Scout A decides that Rex Grossman will certainly be a better prospect than Kyle Boller because of conference exp. While Grossman was a little underwhelming, Bollers complete inepititude convinces Scout A that he is correct beyond a shadow of a doubt with his theory.

So now you have another SEC QB in Russell and Quinn and non conference QB. Scout A already knows who the better prospect is, but now he can convince collegues he is right by reminding them of past history and Russell's big arm.

Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=djnemo65;300995]Why should drafting get more accurate every year? I think it is much more difficult than you are allowing. It will never be an exact science.

The Eagles and Pats have done well, but where is the evidence that they are doing anything differently than anyone else? It seems to me they are using the same methods, only with more efficiency and success. Also, don't forget that they have drafted guys like Broderick Bunkley, Jerome McDougle, and Chad Jackson who haven't panned out, so it's not like they don't make mistakes either.[/quote]Because Scouts SHOULD be learning from their mistakes. Once you have more years of information, it should become gradually easier and easier to identify what makes a bust a bust. But scouts don't investigate this.

McDougal was a mistake. Because of McDougal, Eagles scouts, in theory at least, have become more attune to why he busted and will avoid prospects with similar flaws.

You can't grade anything off a guy's rookie year so we don't know if Bunkley or Jackson was a good pick yet. But don't lump them together. Jackson was a 2nd rounder, his expectation as a player should not be the same as Bunkley's.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300998]
Hoo, this happens all the time. Scout A is not correct in his conference analysis because Scout A doesn't understand the value of a sample size. But he would argue to the death that he his right. Scout A has "ten years" of experience, but he hasn't been doing his job right, he's just been coincidentally lucky.[/quote]


Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300997]Yeah but you are not understanding my logic.

If you demand change or other scouts, you will get them. You are saying they have no other options, but money makes the world turn. That will make them find other scouts who are willing to change or are better.

OR, if they demand for better stuff is high, the scouts will change to improve themselves. The GMs just have to hold the scouts to high standards. And if the scouts are failing like you say so, they would. And therefore my logic would follow as stated above.

Again I dont think I am absolutely correct, but i am just basing this on economics. Also I think you are correct in many aspects, and I consider you one of the best posters on this site Gtripp, so because I am critical dont take it the wrong way.[/quote]I value critism highly. It makes me a better person. I am highly respective of critism to my theories as long as its done in a civil manner, just like this. I thank you for being patient as I try to best explain some seemingly outlandish suggestions.

I am saying the market for "good" scouts is so small that it isn't on the radar of many GMs. The culture is going to be really, really difficult to change until some "good" scouts start having a lot of success, then the rest of the league will go copycat on them.

I think GM's accross the league are getting restless with scouts. So there is a lot of scouting turnover in NFL organizations. This also leads to decreased loyalty, which is an issue. I think you are 100% with the demanding of other scouts, but this is a lot like how the Warpath demands a GM for the Redskins. A majority of GM's out there just rely on scouts for their info. Some are just glorified "bad" scouts themselves. So while we can change who's in charge, its going to stay bad unless they know what they are doing. Same with scouts. It's going to stay bad until a "good" scout/GM has success, and his methodologies are discovered and copied.

Some scouts will try to improve themselves, but they can't do so until they realize that everything they learned before is wrong. And this is a tough realization. Essentially, while they have a deep scouting background, they know nothing more about successful scouting than you or I. So even if they realize this and start to change themselves, they are still in danger of getting fired.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;301000]Ok the only problem with your theory is that is not falsifiable. You cant prove it wrong or argue against it. His way of prediction could be right, based on the assumption that prediction is not always an exact science. But what you are saying cant be argued against. Basically anyone can claim an argument like that, it is called a 3rd degree of power in politics.

It is when you claim that a what a person feels is correct, is wrong because they dont know what is right and wrong.

It is an interesting claim, but you cant argue against it. And if you cant argue agaisnt a theory, that means it is a bad one. I mean I am done tons of research on theories and arguments and I could link you up with an article about good theories and bad ones, and what are the factors needed for a good one. Falsifiability is an important factor.

You are Basically saying the advice a scout gives, is based on wrong ideas, but randomly gets lucky at times.[/quote]Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

If I'm right, I achieve unmitigated success on the highest level of sport building. If I'm wrong, I'm pretty much out of a job in my mid 30s, and have to start over from that point.

I'm that confident in it.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;301002]Duely noted. I realize the burden of proof is on me and my elaborate challenge to the system. But I would argue that the current climate of accepted failure in scouting is proof enough that something, if not everything, is amiss. Busts become acceptable. And I don't have all the answers for non QB positions. But I also am not (yet) a scout. I feel that every year, I will learn something more about the NFL and how I can improve my own scouting techiques. I think QBs are easy to do mathematically, but because of the lack of stats on other positions, they will be a lot harder.

And yes, I am saying "the advice a scout gives is based on a bunch of incorrect and unfounded perceptions, but randomly gets lucky at times". This is my claim, 100% accurate.

Can I ever prove this? Maybe not. But to me, there is a huge culture of scouting thats got it wrong, and I would have no problem using my personal career to go into the field of scouting and test my theory if I can.

I'm that confident in it.[/quote]

Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300976]This is a pretty solid argument. Let me explain the other part of my theory.

The guys you mentioned (exception to Leftwich who started 36 games, a pretty solid number) were ALL late round picks. These guys have proven that it is possible to have the mental capacity to buck the experience trend. And I expect Russell to have the exact same oppertunity to buck the trened as these guys did. There are always exceptions to every rule.

But for every Brady, Hasselbeck, and Brad Johnson, late round picks who were good prospects, do you have any idea how many late round picks had no talent whatsoever? I'd say the ratio for late round picks is like, 20:1.

So the experience equation is not perfect. Every prospect has his chance to buck the trend. But JaMarcus Russell is no more likely to become an elite passer than Cullen Finnerty (4 year starter at DII GVSU--led all D2 QBs in passing efficiency) is. Russell is FAR, far, far, far more likely to be at least as good as Rex Grossman is though. That's the statistical expectation for Russell. 95% chance that he will play somewhere in Grossman's vincinity. And that's not terrible (the Bears did get to a SB with that quality of player at QB), but its a terrible use of a top five pick.

So yes, I should probably, for sake of not sounding like a know-it-all prick, stop talking about Russell as an absolute certainty to be below average. Nothing is ever certain. I can just say, with a lot of confidence, that he will not be an elite player among the best QBs in the league. And if all stats can give me is a lot of confidence in a prediction, I'll take the 5% chance of error any day.[/quote]

Personally I wouldn't take Russell or Quinn number one. You can get productive QB's in rounds 3-6. Especially if I were Oak, Det or Clev. Clev already has two young guys in D. Anderson and C. Frye. Although I think Frye isn't really that good. But Anderson can really play. So can John Kitna. Oak should make a trade, or get him if he is cut for D. Culpepper and bring in a solid vet to back him up if he's not ready. Or stick with Walter. All I know was Walter was a STUD in college. Now, I'm not sure if he sucks, or he has no help. All of these teams need some O-linemen in the worst way.

Here is an interesting thing I heard on NFL Network. It was said at the combine that Chris Leak threw the best ball out of all the QB's. Plus he started all 4 years at Fla. Now if Chris Leak were 6'3 or 6'4 instead of 5'11 or 6'0 would he go in the 1st round? What about Troy Smith? Has everyone just all of a sudden gave up on this kid? Wasn't he one of the best qb's in the country, if not the best? What about Kevin Kolb out of Houston? He started all 4 years too. My point is some of these later round guys can really play if they are ever given the chance that Russell and Quinn are going to get. If you judge what they did on the field you could argue that they are just as good as Russelll and Quinn. Some didn't throw the ball as much as say Quinn did, but if they were given that same chance I would argue that they would have put up similar passing numbers that Quinn did.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;301005]Personally I wouldn't take Russell or Quinn number one. You can get productive QB's in rounds 3-6. Especially if I were Oak, Det or Clev. Clev already has two young guys in D. Anderson and C. Frye. Although I think Frye isn't really that good. But Anderson can really play. So can John Kitna. Oak should make a trade, or get him if he is cut for D. Culpepper and bring in a solid vet to back him up if he's not ready. Or stick with Walter. All I know was Walter was a STUD in college. Now, I'm not sure if he sucks, or he has no help. All of these teams need some O-linemen in the worst way.

Here is an interesting thing I heard on NFL Network. It was said at the combine that Chris Leak threw the best ball out of all the QB's. Plus he started all 4 years at Fla. Now if Chris Leak were 6'3 or 6'4 instead of 5'11 or 6'0 would he go in the 1st round? What about Troy Smith? Has everyone just all of a sudden gave up on this kid? Wasn't he one of the best qb's in the country, if not the best? What about Kevin Kolb out of Houston? He started all 4 years too. My point is some of these later round guys can really play if they are ever given the chance that Russell and Quinn are going to get. If you judge what they did on the field you could argue that they are just as good as Russelll and Quinn. Some didn't throw the ball as much as say Quinn did, but if they were given that same chance I would argue that they would have put up similar passing numbers that Quinn did.[/quote]IMO, taking QBs in round 3-6 is a bad strategy because its a total crapshoot. The guy you get probably isn't good and knowing this, theres never really a good time to give a guy significant playing time.

One of the trickiest things about the QB projection system is that it starts to lose its accuracy beyond round 2. So while guys like Leak have numbers that look a lot like Quinn's, they still don't project very well historically due solely to their draft status. In this case, the best explaination is the scouts generally do a pretty good job at seeing which guys [B]can't[/B] play. I mean the Brady's of the world seem to slip through the cracks, but generally a 6th round projected guy probably can't play at the NFL level.

Most guys (at QB) can't play. That should be the assumption, as opposed to the other way around. There will probably be a 6th round gem, but I'm not sure theres a good predictive system right now.

If Leak was a 6' 4" guy, would he have a 1st round projection? I don't know. If he was 6' 4" would he be a lot more likely to succeed? I mean, a lot of the stuff I believe says I should answer no to this question, but maybe height does correlate to NFL success given other conditions. Has there been a successful passer under 6 feet at the NFL level? No. Is it impossible to have success and be short? I don't see why it would be.

I don't have all the answers, nor do I claim to. I know a very select few things when it comes to the NFL (like Quinn>Russell with 95% accuracy). Maybe lack of height correlates to NFL failure. But then again, short guys don't often get drafted high, so I fear this could be a weak study.

It's certainly a question worth asking though.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;300999]Because Scouts SHOULD be learning from their mistakes. Once you have more years of information, it should become gradually easier and easier to identify what makes a bust a bust. But scouts don't investigate this.

McDougal was a mistake. Because of McDougal, Eagles scouts, in theory at least, have become more attune to why he busted and will avoid prospects with similar flaws.

You can't grade anything off a guy's rookie year so we don't know if Bunkley or Jackson was a good pick yet. But don't lump them together. Jackson was a 2nd rounder, his expectation as a player should not be the same as Bunkley's.[/QUOTE]

Well we have your top 10 Gtripp and we have you down as saying Quinn should be the guy, against all popular consensus. So all we can do is wait and see. I have my own opinions but I am not secure enough in them to indict and entire professional caste. So if Quinn turns out to be a better pro than Russell, I will admit you were right, even if all those 70 year old hacks probably won't in turn.

By the way, put me down for bust on Quinn. You can hold me to that too.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

My only argument would be that Russell had a better QB rating in college than Quinn. That is probably what the scouts are looking at. If you asked my opinion then I think that Quinn is more experienced than Russell. I am no Pshchic though so only time will tell who is truely better.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;301004]Well I am not saying you are wrong, you may be right. I just have my reservations in accepting theories blindly. I was just pointing out my issues with your theory.

And just because it may be impossible to prove, does not mean it is wrong. I would say keep it up, and update your theory. Don't be hypocritical and assume your theory is always or 100% correct. That would be a bit ironic, because you are arguing that scouts do the same thing.[/quote]I think my arguement can be falsified and it can be done by proving that the accuracy of scouting has reached its apex and can't make anymore significant gains.

I, in turn, could support my argument by suggesting possible ways to improve scouting (which I have done), and then proving that these ways work better (which has yet to be done).

I'm just trying to show that the logical approach would seem like scouting could be bettered. That doesn't make me right or wrong, it just gives an alternative hypothesis to the way things are being done.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

The bottom line (to this point) is the fact that being a very long way from having a bust free draft due to a near perfect ordering of the prospects is not an excuse to not improve the way we do things.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

No way in hell would I would take Brady Quinn number one, or number two for that matter. I think he is 2nd round talent When I look at him as an overall QB, I don't see Peyton Manning, I don't see Carson Palmer, I don't see Tom Brady and I don't see Troy Aikman. I see an average to above average starting NFL QB. No more no less. I think many of the guys like Leak, Smith,Kolb and Drew Stanton could be just is good as Brady Quinn if they played in the same offense that he did. And that's no knocking Quinn cause all those guys are very good college QB's.

I could see Russell being as good as McNabb, which is really really good and a chance to be great. His arm is the best I've seen in a long long time. And that is why he is going to go #1. People see his overall potential.

But I will be the first to admit I'm not draft expert. All we can do is wait it out and see. Let's review this thread a year from now.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan69;301139]No way in hell would I would take Brady Quinn number one, or number two for that matter. I think he is 2nd round talent When I look at him as an overall QB, I don't see Peyton Manning, I don't see Carson Palmer, I don't see Tom Brady and I don't see Troy Aikman. I see an average to above average starting NFL QB. No more no less. I think many of the guys like Leak, Smith,Kolb and Drew Stanton could be just is good as Brady Quinn if they played in the same offense that he did. And that's no knocking Quinn cause all those guys are very good college QB's.

I could see Russell being as good as McNabb, which is really really good and a chance to be great. His arm is the best I've seen in a long long time. And that is why he is going to go #1. People see his overall potential.

But I will be the first to admit I'm not draft expert. All we can do is wait it out and see. Let's review this thread a year from now.[/QUOTE]

I agree 100%, if anyone is overated it is Quinn. Going into 2006 season Quinn was the Heisman favorite and a media darling at golden ND. A QB named "Brady" with Patriots Tom Brady's QB coach as his Head Coach. Alot was expected of Quinn and ND and it did not turn out well.
I think alot of this Russell/Quinn debate is heightened by the fact that ND/Quinn is on national TV every weekend beating weak teams like northeastern. When the time came to play the top teams Quinn did not shine and thus lost the Heisman.
Russell is in much tougher SEC. they were not on National TV very often and not many people saw him on a rregular basis.

This the same situation that happened last year with Vince Young/Matt Leinart. Leinart was on national TV all the time being on the multi-national champion USC. Leinart is a classic drop back, pocket passer that ran a pro system at USC for a former NFL head coach. USC played in the far inferior PAC 10.
Vince Young played in a college style offense, is an unconventional scarmbling option qb that also threw the ball well, but made his living running the ball as a QB. Texas was not on national TV all that much and Vince was not a big media darling until after they USC, even though they beat OSU in Ohio. Texas plays in the much tougher Big 12 than the pass happy PAC 10.

GTripp0012-
You talk about the repeated mistakes NFL front office make on players year after year. I agree and this is one of them. NFL teams blow it each year because of their insistance on certain criteria for players.
Like:
1) QB's have to be to be tall pocket passers. Says who? Eddie LaBaron, Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young were all scrambling, not very tall and had Hall of Fame careers.
2) Rb's and WR's have to run sub 4.5 in the 40. Emmit Smith ran a 4.6 and dropped to the bottom half of the first round. There is a long lst of WR's that did not have lightnening speed and had long/great careers. Art Monk comes to mind.

ETC. ETC

I could go on position by position about the stupid measurements the NFL team measure college player. What happened to the good old fashioned watching film and draft a good "FOOTBALL PLAYER" and not a combine work out freak.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

the thing that makes me laugh is when people say Russell is a better athlete. guess who had the better 40 time? and the better vertical jump?

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

Who cares.
Who was the better QB last year in real games?
That is what should matter. Not sit ups/push ups and 40 times.
Vertical leap for a QB? It does not come into play for a Qb on a football field, unless he wants to do the the Lambeau leap.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301250]Who cares.
Who was the better QB last year in real games?
That is what should matter. Not sit ups/push ups and 40 times.
Vertical leap for a QB? It does not come into play for a Qb on a football field, unless he wants to do the the Lambeau leap.[/quote]I know that 40 times and bench reps and vertical leaps are not good measures of anything football, especially for QBs, but when the argument is that Russell is a better "athlete", and then you have combine numbers that contradict it, I mean, people like that end up losing their credibility.

You may think that who is the better athlete is a completely irrelivant arguement, and I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But some people actually argue that Russell is the better athlete, and aside from being irrelivant, it couldnt be further from the truth.

That is what Dmek is saying, and I agree with him.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301224]I agree 100%, if anyone is overated it is Quinn. Going into 2006 season Quinn was the Heisman favorite and a media darling at golden ND. A QB named "Brady" with Patriots Tom Brady's QB coach as his Head Coach. Alot was expected of Quinn and ND and it did not turn out well.
I think alot of this Russell/Quinn debate is heightened by the fact that ND/Quinn is on national TV every weekend beating weak teams like northeastern. When the time came to play the top teams Quinn did not shine and thus lost the Heisman.
Russell is in much tougher SEC. they were not on National TV very often and not many people saw him on a rregular basis.
[/quote]As much as Brady Quinn didn't deserve the Heismann last year, I mean he was so much closer to deserving it than Russell that it wasn't even funny. Remember, Russell wasn't even in consideration for the Heismann last year because there were a bunch of more valuable players on his own team (Landry, Glen Dorsey, maybe even Bowe), than he was. Brady Quinn WAS Notre Dame football last year. If we are comparing college careers, this isn't even a debate.

The guy who did win the Heismann certainly deserved it--but again Quinn's college career as a whole trumps Troy Smith's. Smith simply had a better season for a better team.

Russell was playing some very good football at the end of last year, but I'll be damned the day that playing half a season of high caliber college football warrents the No. 1 overall pick.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;301261]As much as Brady Quinn didn't deserve the Heismann last year, I mean he was so much closer to deserving it than Russell that it wasn't even funny. Remember, Russell wasn't even in consideration for the Heismann last year because there were a bunch of more valuable players on his own team (Landry, Glen Dorsey, maybe even Bowe), than he was. Brady Quinn WAS Notre Dame football last year. If we are comparing college careers, this isn't even a debate.

The guy who did win the Heismann certainly deserved it--but again Quinn's college career as a whole trumps Troy Smith's. Smith simply had a better season for a better team.

Russell was playing some very good football at the end of last year, but I'll be damned the day that playing half a season of high caliber college football warrents the No. 1 overall pick.[/quote]

I would compare the Russell situation to Carson Palmer. A little bit. Palmer did not have a great career. He underacheived, got hurt and never lived up to his potential until his senior year. Norm Chow shows up and he takes off, becomes the number one pick and the rest is history. He was drafted #1 because scouts saw his potential. Palmer is a top NFL QB now.

Despite what you think Tripp, Russell played has played well for two straight years. Trust me. And last year he was aked to do more. LSU ran all kind of pro formations. 3, 4 and 5 wr sets were very common. And out of those formations I saw this guy make some throws that other guys just can't make. Everyone ( coaches and scouts that do this for a living) say this guy has a John Elway type of arm. Now that is really saying something when people say this about a player. Can he benefit from playing a senior season? W/out question he would. He probably needs more game experience. But with that being said why are you so shocked that this guy is rated ahead of Quinn? He outplayed Quinn head to head. It wasn't even close. Yes Russell had the better thea but that's not his fault. I know Quinn threw for a ton of yards but so did Ty Detmer. These guys are looking at pro potential, not stats. And to them, Russell has the better pro potential.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301250]Who cares.
Who was the better QB last year in real games?
That is what should matter. Not sit ups/push ups and 40 times.
Vertical leap for a QB? It does not come into play for a Qb on a football field, unless he wants to do the the Lambeau leap.[/quote]
i think your posts would have more credibility if you didn't have such a hard one for Notre dame. i agree the 40 and the other combine stuff is irrelevant when comes to winning football. i was making a generalized statement that alot of people don't know. but i do think Quinn will be the better quarterback. how many people even knew Russell's name before they beat Notre dame? not many

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;301294]i think your posts would have more credibility if you didn't have such a hard one for Notre dame. i agree the 40 and the other combine stuff is irrelevant when comes to winning football. i was making a generalized statement that alot of people don't know. but i do think Quinn will be the better quarterback. how many people even knew Russell's name before they beat Notre dame? not many[/QUOTE]

I grew up a ND fan and watched a ton of ND football growing up;I do not have a hard one for them.
Is it because I called them "golden ND'? Or is it because I said they did not have a very tough schedule this last year in comparison to teams like OSU, LSU or Texas? Those things are true aren't they?
ND to their credit does get extra TV coverage, bowl consideration and national title attention because of their huge following. BUt that is good for the game. It is like when the Yankees and Red Sox meet in the ALCS. Big money to be made. But I have nothing against them. I do not think what I said to be untrue or slandering ND in any way. It is the truth... right?
My point was Quinn had a lot of hype and was very highly rated before the 2006 season started. They were ready to give him the Heisman before the season even started.
Plus, for some to to blame ND's season on the rest of the team and excuse Quinn is not right. Quinn was the one that had the bad games and multiple interceptions in the Michigan and LSU losses.
Ben Roethlisberger Played on a much weaker team, Miami of Ohio and still led his team to bowl wins and many upsets of higher ranked teams. ND has much more talent that any Miami of Ohio team, yet Roelisberger still QB'ed his team to victory after victory.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301224]This the same situation that happened last year with Vince Young/Matt Leinart. Leinart was on national TV all the time being on the multi-national champion USC. Leinart is a classic drop back, pocket passer that ran a pro system at USC for a former NFL head coach. USC played in the far inferior PAC 10.
Vince Young played in a college style offense, is an unconventional scarmbling option qb that also threw the ball well, but made his living running the ball as a QB. Texas was not on national TV all that much and Vince was not a big media darling until after they USC, even though they beat OSU in Ohio. Texas plays in the much tougher Big 12 than the pass happy PAC 10.
[/quote]

I think that is a rather poor analogy, because by no means is Leinart a bad QB. Also Young came into a situation with a decent Titans D. If you are saying that Leinart was overrated that is wrong. He clearly is a good QB who played well last year on a bad team.

If anything he is an example of what Quinn will be. A good QB who is undervalued and will drop in the first round.

Quinn will be better than Russell in the NFL. You can hold me to that. I almost want to say Russell will be a bust which is not true, but I think he will perform far far lower than expectations.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=hooskins;301318]I think that is a rather poor analogy, because by no means is Leinart a bad QB. Also Young came into a situation with a decent Titans D. If you are saying that Leinart was overrated that is wrong. He clearly is a good QB who played well last year on a bad team.

If anything he is an example of what Quinn will be. A good QB who is undervalued and will drop in the first round.

Quinn will be better than Russell in the NFL. You can hold me to that. I almost want to say Russell will be a bust which is not true, but I think he will perform far far lower than expectations.[/QUOTE]

You should re-read my post,
I never said Leinart was not a good QB or overrated.
What I said was it was similar in that you had two (Leinart/Quinn) who were media darlings and were on National TV almost every weekend. They are your more classic drop back passers, playing in Pro Style offenses in college and coached by former NFL coaches. Many of the draft experts said Leinart/Quinn are more prepared for the NFL than the other two.
Plus add that Leinart/Quinn were drafted/rated behind QB's (Young/Russell) even thought many think they will not be as good early in their NFL careers. That is a lot of coincidence.
More coincidence, Young/Russell are drafted above Leinart/Quinn because they have higher upside. They have more potential to be better once they learn the pro game. Young/Russell were not on National TV as much in college so they did have as much hype. They did not play in pro style offenses in college.
I think similarities are many and my analogy is pretty good.

Regarding your comment about Young coming into a decent Titan D, the Titans were reeling at 0-3 when Young stepped in for a veteran QB with super bowl experience. A rookie stepping in to a 0-3 team and he made it work. Many of the wins were directly related to Young's great play, the 50 yard run in the Texans overtime win for example. You should not take credit away form V. Young, he played well enough to win all of those games and almost get them in the playoffs after starting 0-3 is remarkable for any QB much less a rookie that was not supposed to be ready for the NFL.

Regarding who will be better in the NFL, Quinn or Russell? I hope they both succeed, the NFL has a shortage of good QB's. I am not sure why you and some others are rooting against Russell? My opinion is much more will play into what team they go to, the situation that team is in and the playing time they see, not so much their invidual talent. They are both good QB's.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;301294]ihow many people even knew Russell's name before they beat Notre dame? not many[/QUOTE]

Are you kidding? Maybe my grandmother didnt know his name, but my grandfather did and he doesn't even like college football particularily. You must not watch a lot of college ball, because this guy has been a stud for two years now. I think it was his comeback against ASU in 06 that really put him on the map, right after Katrina had hit.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

if he was that big a stud, why no heisman invite? he made his name with the win over Notre dame, and his arm strength. to me, he is just another akili smith

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301320]More coincidence, Young/Russell are drafted above Leinart/Quinn because they have higher upside. They have more potential to be better once they learn the pro game. Young/Russell were not on National TV as much in college so they did have as much hype. They did not play in pro style offenses in college.
I think similarities are many and my analogy is pretty good.[/QUOTE]

Ok, but what is upside? Russell either will be really good, or he won't. There is no mythical concept of potential of which he will only hit under certain circumstances. Upside just simply refers to the growth that each prospect will make over the course of his NFL career. Every player grows. Is there any reason at all to expect Russell to grow at a different rate than any other QB? I don't understand why this would occur.

JaMarcus Russell will be 'X' good. This is a simplification of a simple concept. He's only going to be as good as he is. So what is Russell's "X"? Is it Ryan Leaf? Rex Grossman? Patrick Ramsey? Byron Leftwich? Carson Palmer? Daunte Culpepper? I believe he will be the next Rex Grossman. That is his ultimate potential. Until proven otherwise, its' reasonable to make a case for him being the next Donovan McNabb. That could possibly be his potnetial.

But to say he has "upside", you might as well be telling me that he's also got two arms and two legs. Tell us where you think he will be in his prime. He's either going to be better than Quinn or worse than Quinn. Saying he has upside is neither analysis nor a prediction. Maybe he will turn out to be a better QB than Quinn, but certainly that would be because he was the better prospect all along...not because of a belief that he grew differently than every other quarterback, correct?

[QUOTE] Regarding your comment about Young coming into a decent Titan D, the Titans were reeling at 0-3 when Young stepped in for a veteran QB with super bowl experience. A rookie stepping in to a 0-3 team and he made it work. Many of the wins were directly related to Young's great play, the 50 yard run in the Texans overtime win for example. You should not take credit away form V. Young, he played well enough to win all of those games and almost get them in the playoffs after starting 0-3 is remarkable for any QB much less a rookie that was not supposed to be ready for the NFL.

Regarding who will be better in the NFL, Quinn or Russell? I hope they both succeed, the NFL has a shortage of good QB's. I am not sure why you and some others are rooting against Russell? My opinion is much more will play into what team they go to, the situation that team is in and the playing time they see, not so much their invidual talent. They are both good QB's.[/quote]Don't take credit away from Vince Young's teammates. I mean Young played the game consistently composed and focused for a rookie, like the good QB prospect he was. But he wasn't a good passer, and while his running was very effective, it wasn't as effective as he was given credit for. 0-3 doesn't tell you much, it was a three game sample with an inept QB (Collins). Young played about how you would expect from a dynamic rookie, and his teammates played some great football at times and kept the score close allowing one play to make the difference in a few games, and Young did his job. But VY's passing wasn't anything you wouldn't have expected from him as a rookie. He's still got a long way to go to get his team to the next level. Leinart was better in 2006 on a worse team last year. I'd bet the Cardinals are a better team than the Titans in 2007, and Leinart might be a pro bowler.

I'm not rooting against Russell in the slightest. I am rooting for Quinn. But I can asimilate them with past QB prospects based on college stats, and it doesn't look good for Russell. This is consistant with everything about him that seems like he shouldn't be a top pick. As Hooskins pointed out, he wasn't on the NFL's radar until January. Once he got on the NFL radar, he should have taken another year to prove that he belongs there like Quinn did. If Quinn had done what Russell did and left after his Jr. season, he wouldn't have been a good prospect either.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=djnemo65;301329]Are you kidding? Maybe my grandmother didnt know his name, but my grandfather did and he doesn't even like college football particularily. You must not watch a lot of college ball, because this guy has been a stud for two years now. I think it was his comeback against ASU in 06 that really put him on the map, right after Katrina had hit.[/quote]But even in this offseason, no one knew if Russell was even going to be LSU's starter. I mean, talk about someone who wasn't on the NFL 1st round radar, his own team was evaluating other options.

It's hard to argue with the way he responded this year. But he has huge red flags in both decision making and college experience, and yet rather than come back to get these issues ironed out, he left for a big pay day.

Would a lot of guys have done the same thing? Of course. But then again I guess that's why there are so many busts.

What Leinart did by coming back for his Sr. year could have been the difference between an average NFL career and a hall of fame career. That's how important another year of college experience is to a position as mentally reliant as NFL Quarterback is.

I think Leinart will be a better QB prospect than Quinn, for the record, but that Quinn will be a pretty good QB in his own right.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=dmek25;301330]if he was that big a stud, why no heisman invite? he made his name with the win over Notre dame, and his arm strength. to me, he is just another akili smith[/quote]I think you are overexaggerating a bit, but ultimately this is the right idea. He put together a dominant 2nd half of the year this year on a great football team, and all of a sudden he is the second coming. Quinn simply has been doing it longer. Quinn has absolutely proven himself a competant NFL prospect. There are just too many unanswered questions surrounding Russell.

All QB prospects can use more seasoning, but in Russell's case, it seems really obvious to me at least. Dude is not NFL ready, and thats not something that can change once you enter the league.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;301330]if he was that big a stud, why no heisman invite? he made his name with the win over Notre dame, and his arm strength. to me, he is just another akili smith[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that's the best standard for evaluating a quarterback. Only 3 guys got invites this year. Just because a couple media guys with morning shows who know nothing about college ball waited till after that game to start talking about him doesn't mean his name hasn't been out there for over 2 years.

He had 8 fourth quarter comebacks in college playing as an underclassman. He has always showed poise and maturity. I love how people who have barely watched him play make bold proclamations about his future in the NFL.

I think if LSU had a deal with NBC this debate would be a lot more one sided.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=djnemo65;301345]I think if LSU had a deal with NBC this debate would be a lot more one sided.[/quote]I do too.

:D

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;301335]But even in this offseason, no one knew if Russell was even going to be LSU's starter. I mean, talk about someone who wasn't on the NFL 1st round radar, his own team was evaluating other options.

[/QUOTE]

That wasn't an indictment of Russell, but rather a testament to the amazing depth LSU had at that position, including a guy who won mvp in the Peach Bowl the year before after Russell got hurt, and the number one player coming out of high school. The fact that Russell was still able to easily secure the position is if anything a further credit to his ability.

There's no question that Quinn is the more NFL ready of the two, but by your own argument Gtripp rookies are developmental projects who shouldn't be expected to contribute immediately.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=GTripp0012;301334]Ok, but what is upside? Russell either will be really good, or he won't. There is no mythical concept of potential of which he will only hit under certain circumstances. Upside just simply refers to the growth that each prospect will make over the course of his NFL career. Every player grows. Is there any reason at all to expect Russell to grow at a different rate than any other QB? I don't understand why this would occur. [/QUOTE]

The reason is because Jamarcus, like Vince Young, has never played in a pro style offense. Quinn and Leinart have played in a pro style offense for years and there is plenty of tape to see them in it and they know what to expect. Jemarcus will either sink or swim with a more complicated pro system.

Interesting Note:
I just spoke to my buddy that is an LSU alum and attends multiple games a year. He bleeds LSU football. I trust his football opinion and he knows the LSU players very well.

He says safety L. Landry is a can't miss, one of a kind player. That he is special and what sets him apart is he is a smart football player. He understands his role and is rarely out of position. He has a good head on his sholuders and is very mature for his age. He is a good person.
Jamarcus on the other hand he was not sold on him making it. He says, yes he has a rocket for an arm, is a decent athlete, is big yet fairly agile ofr his size. But he questions his smarts and his football smarts.
My friend is a huge gambler, he will gamble on anything. He told he would not bet on Jemarcus making it in the NFL. That he is not a sure thing.
He will either hit it out of the park or miss completely.
I was surprised that this die-hard LSU fan would say anything remotely bad about his LSU players so this is eye opening for me.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=Defensewins;301350]He says safety L. Landry is a can't miss, one of a kind player. That he is special and what sets him apart is he is a smart football player. He understands his role and is rarely out of position. He has a good head on his sholuders and is very mature for his age. He is a good person.
Jamarcus on the other hand he was not sold on him making it. He says, yes he has a rocket for an arm, is a decent athlete, is big yet fairly agile ofr his size. But he questions his smarts and his football smarts.
My friend is a huge gambler, he will gamble on anything. He told he would not bet on Jemarcus making it in the NFL. That he is not a sure thing.
He will either hit it out of the park or miss completely.
I was surprised that this die-hard LSU fan would say anything remotely bad about his LSU players so this is eye opening for me.[/quote]I would agree with your friend on both accounts although I carry neither the vast experience with LSU that he does nor any potential biases from such fanship.

Landry seems like a can't miss at safety...presuming you need a safety. Russell would have benefited from another year at LSU.