Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

I mean is he really that much better? Quinn has more experience, NFL style offense in ND, incredible stats, and smarts. Is the whole "big game" thing holding him back?

Any experts here want to explain this to me?

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

I'm by far no expert but just my opinion and observation .Well compare the game where their teams played against each other who performed better there. Last Sugar Bowl if I remember correctly LSU 41 ND 14. Russell looked like an all pro, superbowl winning mvp compared to Quinn if you ask me.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

I'm not an expert, but i can see Russell being an NFL bust. i really think Quinn will be a pretty good pro. thank god we aren't the team making that choice

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

I think Edwards and Stanton might even be as good as Russell on the pro level. Russell is really hit or miss right now. I think his ceiling is probably higher than Quinn's (or the other two aforementioned guys) but so is his floor.

If the Raiders draft him it will be interesting to see how his cannon arm style meshes with Kiffin's west coast philosophy.

Even more interesting is the notion that Russell is a great athlete. Perhaps he is, but Quinn had a faster 40 and higher vertical leap.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300910]I mean is he really that much better? Quinn has more experience, NFL style offense in ND, incredible stats, and smarts. Is the whole "big game" thing holding him back?

Any experts here want to explain this to me?[/quote]Ya know, Hooskins--you'd think the year Peyton Manning of all people won the super bowl, the big game arguement would get pissed down the drain as the worthless piece of garbage it is.

Luckily for the teams picking 11-20, the draft idiots are still advising the teams 1-10 who to take. This means the actual quality draft prospects will be falling once again this year.

I maintain that if everybody knew what they will in 5 years, Quinn should be the No. 1 overall pick in this draft. He will not be the best player from this draft, but he's a QB and therefore has a positional advantage over ever other position, and the team that drafts him will be really happy with him in the long run.

For more analysis on the subject, read any of my posts in [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-nfl-draft-central/17504-how-good-will-jamarcus-russell.html"]this thread[/URL], primarily the initial post. I'm not going to debate this one any more because its silly to debate the merits of past history vs. anecdotal evidence.

The team that drafts Russell is going to use him improperly based on a miscalculation of his value. That's all there is to it.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=SmootSmack;300915]I think Edwards and Stanton might even be as good as Russell on the pro level. Russell is really hit or miss right now. I think his ceiling is probably higher than Quinn's (or the other two aforementioned guys) but so is his floor.

If the Raiders draft him it will be interesting to see how his cannon arm style meshes with Kiffin's west coast philosophy.

Even more interesting is the notion that Russell is a great athlete. Perhaps he is, but Quinn had a faster 40 and higher vertical leap.[/quote]Quinn also had a better bench press.

I don't know why so many scouts think difference between having the arm to make every NFL throw (Quinn), and having the arm to throw 60 yards from your butt (Russell) makes a difference, much less one that outweighs all of Quinn's other advantages. In any other line of work, doing your job this poorly would be immediate grounds for dismissal. IMO, the profession of scouting has become a joke. [SIZE=4][B]These people are unwilling to learn from their mistakes[/B][/SIZE].

I'm being very careful to not blame Russell for a mess he didn't create. If he didn't have a bunch of 70 year old scouts watching his every move, he could be drafted at a spot more adventageous to his experience level low 1 or early 2, and he would be allowed more time to develop on a better team. It wouldn't make Russell any better of a prospect, but it would give him reasonable expectations and allow him, if he worked hard enough and earned his way onto the field, to achieve a reasonable amount of success relative to his skill level

Russell is going to get screwed because a bunch of guys can't do their job. I'm not anti-JaMarcus Russell. I just think any process that would rate him over Quinn is a joke. In my mind, its no longer even an issue.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300917]Ya know, Hooskins--you'd think the year Peyton Manning of all people won the super bowl, the big game arguement would get pissed down the drain as the worthless piece of garbage it is.


[/quote]

That is what I was thinking, why do college championships really matter that much? I mean it is a great addition, but I feel the draft experts are underplaying everything else Quinn has going for him.

I really think the Raiders should take him, but that is just my opinion.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300920]Quinn also had a better bench press.

I don't know why so many scouts think difference between having the arm to make every NFL throw (Quinn), and having the arm to throw 60 yards from your butt (Russell) makes a difference, much less one that outweighs all of Quinn's other advantages. In any other line of work, doing your job this poorly would be immediate grounds for dismissal. IMO, the profession of scouting has become a joke. These people are unwilling to learn from their mistakes.

I'm being very careful to not blame Russell for a mess he didn't create. If he didn't have a bunch of 70 year old scouts watching his every move, he could be drafted at a spot more adventageous to his experience level low 1 or early 2, and he would be allowed more time to develop on a better team. It wouldn't make Russell any better of a prospect, but it would give him reasonable expectations and allow him, if he worked hard enough and earned his way onto the field, to achieve a reasonable amount of success relative to his skill level

Russell is going to get screwed because a bunch of guys can't do their job. I'm not anti-JaMarcus Russell. I just think any process that would rate him over Quinn is a joke. In my mind, its no longer even an issue.[/quote]

Do you think Russell is not good, or just overrated? I think he is pretty good but just overrated this draft because of his arm strength and size.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300921]That is what I was thinking, why do college championships really matter that much? I mean it is a great addition, but I feel the draft experts are underplaying everything else Quinn has going for him.

I really think the Raiders should take him, but that is just my opinion.[/quote]Well, I like the Raiders. Always have to a degree. And if they don't take Quinn, I'd consider it a draft error.

But I've given up on their ability to make intelligent decisions as a franchise. The Skins front office may be 50 times more gung ho, but they aren't anywhere near as inept.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300925]Well, I like the Raiders. Always have to a degree. And if they don't take Quinn, I'd consider it a draft error.

But I've given up on their ability to make intelligent decisions as a franchise. The Skins front office may be 50 times more gung ho, but they aren't anywhere near as inept.[/quote]

If you are looking for front offices worst than the Skins, I would also contend Detroit is up there to with Oakland.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300924]Do you think Russell is not good, or just overrated? I think he is pretty good but just overrated this draft because of his arm strength and size.[/quote]Well, I think the designation of good depends on expectation, and I don't think you can seperate one from another.

I think, based on his college production, that Russell will have a very similar career path to Rex Grossman.

And Grossman is a much better player than the media would have you think. He also lost two years due to injury to set his career back, so Russell will probably be better than that.

But I don't know too many teams who would spend a first rounder if they knew that this was what they were getting.

It's good value for the bottom of the round, and taking Russell to be your QB is better than trying to stick an unknown in there instead (That's to say the Ravens would be smarter to take Russell at 29 to fill a need as opposed to trying to get the QB of the future in the 4th round--because thats just a crapshoot). But he's not going to improve a bad franchise with his early career play.

Russell can have success if you give him a running game and a defense. He's not going to be completely inept. But hes simply not a good prospect, and making him the No. 1 pick (or even a top 10 pick) means he will be wearing the bust label by 2010.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300926]If you are looking for front offices worst than the Skins, I would also contend Detroit is up there to with Oakland.[/quote]Yeah, well, taking one top 10 receiver is questionable the way WRs are being graded by scouts. Taking more than one is inexcusable. I could not support a team that took 3 in consecutive years, espically with all the red flags around Mike Williams.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300928][B]Yeah, well, taking one top 10 receiver is questionable the way WRs are being graded by scouts. [/B]Taking more than one is inexcusable. I could not support a team that took 3 in consecutive years, espically with all the red flags around Mike Williams.[/quote]

Well you know my feelings about CJ this draft, although I agree that drafting WRs in a row is very bad.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300931]Well you know my feelings about CJ this draft, although I agree that drafting WRs in a row is very bad.[/quote]Hey, if he redefines the position and changes the way defenses play for good, I'll eat crow every day for 5 years.

I'm just wondering what all this hype is being based on.

It's just that WR grading has become so piss poor, that you are better off taking the last remaining receiver of a certain group (like Robert Meachem as opposed to CJ) than to take the most hyped guy. History argues that they have an equal chance at success, and one costs you way less.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

If we were drafting a QB, I would only hope we would take Quinn over Russell. IMO there is a good chance Russell will be the next Leaf.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=skinsfan_nn;300937]If we were drafting a QB, I would only hope we would take Quinn over Russell. IMO there is a good chance Russell will be the next Leaf.[/quote]The differences between Leaf and Russell is that Russell's college production looks monsterous compared to Leaf. Russell just simply didn't play enough college football to adequately prepare himself for the next level. I think the next Joey Harrington, David Carr, or Rex Grossman would be more accurate comparisions.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

Quinn vs. Russell is similar to Shane Battier vs. Kwame Brown. The Wizards could have taken Battier who showed throughout his college career that he was a very good player and had all the tangible and intangbile qualities to be a solid pro player.

But Brown was phenomenal in workouts, absolutely abusing other top prospects include Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry. And his "rawness" made him more appealing to coaches/front office staff who thought he had untapped potential that they could bring out, whereas Battier was as good as he was going to get.

Well, six years later maybe Battier has been nothing more than a solid serviceable player and he is as good as he is going to get. But what he is is pretty good, whereas Brown has to be one of the biggest busts ever.

Another analogy, it's like when some girl wants to date the "bad boy" because she thinks she can change him while the nice guy sits in the corner wondering what the heck just happened here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is scouts/coaches/front office execs etc. sometimes try to force things that aren't there and may never be there largely because of their egos, yet fail to see what's right in front of them. In the immortal words of Gmanc711 sometimes "it is what it is"

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300933]Hey, if he redefines the position and changes the way defenses play for good, I'll eat crow every day for 5 years.

I'm just wondering what all this hype is being based on.

It's just that WR grading has become so piss poor, that you are better off taking the last remaining receiver of a certain group (like Robert Meachem as opposed to CJ) than to take the most hyped guy. History argues that they have an equal chance at success, and one costs you way less.[/quote]

Haha I will need to hold you to that. I dont know about the complete redefinition, but I think he will be very good.

But back to the thread, I think there is something else the experts have against Quinn. They just want the bigger, stronger QB rather the smarter experienced one. I still dont get it.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

Unfairly to Quinn, I'm sure a lot of NFL teams are comparing him to the last two highly touted Notre Dame QBs-Ron Powlus and Rick Mirer-both who were complete busts.

Unfairly to Russell, I'm sure a lot of NFL teams are saying "Wow, he's just like Vince Young"

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300942]But back to the thread, I think there is something else the experts have against Quinn. They just want the bigger, stronger QB rather the smarter experienced one. I still dont get it.[/quote]This point is probably worthy of its own thread topic. But since Russell vs. Quinn may be the shining example that ushers in the new era of scouting principles, this may be the best place to make this point.

I'll try to keep this brief. It's not my strongsuit.

Russell vs. Quinn is just the most fitting example of all the problems that are wrong with scouting today. Among them:

1) The gross refusal to learn from past mistakes
2) The overvaluation of skills that do not contribute to winning football OR contribute far less than we are led to believe
3) The TV scouting media is centered around just a few select opinions, and these select few (exception to Kiper) aren't the hardest workers, to say the least.
4) The out-of-control media hype machine and the cutthroat, dangerous nature surrounding the draft.
5) The inability to admit even the possibility that the qualities that created a good football player 40 years ago just maybe might be somewhat obsolete (see: Roy Williams, Dallas Safety)
6) The perception of the draft being a crapshoot and a lack of desire to even attempt to improve scouting techniques to gain a competitive edge.
7) The inexplicable slow nature of incorporating college statistics into the scouting process.
8) The ridiculous emphasis on the combine and the pride that scouts defend the value of the combine with.
9) The ridiculous inability to correctly evaluate NFL talent even when you get to see these guys play every Sunday.
10) The refusal to realize that rookie football players are almost always a liability and the propensity of teams to draft for immediate need, when they should be trying to draft for future need.
11) The propensity to give up on a successful prospect way too early
12) Teams that hold onto a worthless prospect way too long

I'm sure theres a few I forgot, but these inherent biases (and some scouts may avoid Quinn like the plague because they learned to hate ND at a young age...it happens) are causing the draft to become a crapshoot. Either more people will realize stuff like this and there will be a leaguewide upheavel of scouting departments, or a select few teams will fix these principles, and dominate the league while the other teams wallow in their ignorance. With sabremetric football evaluation starting to gain popularity, some teams will get a lot better at avoiding busts in the draft and through FA. The question is, will all teams adhere to this, or just a select few?

These are going to be a very interesting next couple of offseasons.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300940]The differences between Leaf and Russell is that Russell's college production looks monsterous compared to Leaf. Russell just simply didn't play enough college football to adequately prepare himself for the next level. I think the next Joey Harrington, David Carr, or Rex Grossman would be more accurate comparisions.[/quote]

In case you don't remember, Leaf had a successful college career at [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_State_University"][COLOR=#0000ff]Washington State University[/COLOR][/URL], where he was a finalist for the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisman_Trophy"][COLOR=#0000ff]Heisman Trophy[/COLOR][/URL] his junior year. He was selected as the second overall pick, first overall pick was......that's right Manning in the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_NFL_Draft"][COLOR=#0000ff]1998 NFL Draft[/COLOR][/URL], after which many scouts predicted that Leaf would have a stellar career in the NFL. I guess they were wrong to.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

We can talk about this subject 500 different ways. The only way to tell is about 2-3 years from now. No one has a crystal ball. Brady Quinn is probably better prepared to play right now. But Russell has the higher ceiling and better physical gifts. I think we can all agree on those two things. So who freaking knows? There is no such thing as a draft expert.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

GTripp,
Do you seriously think hatred for ND would cause a professional scout to make his decision differently?

On the other points, I agree to an extent. For some reason I refuse to believe that all scouts and front offices are plagued by this lack of rationality. I mean these guys are doing this professionally with better resources and knowledge.

You really think they will continue to make mistakes? Why wouldnt GMs get other people to help?

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;300948]We can talk about this subject 500 different ways. The only way to tell is about 2-3 years from now. No one has a crystal ball. Brady Quinn is probably better prepared to play right now. But Russell has the higher ceiling and better physical gifts. I think we can all agree on those two things. So who freaking knows? [B]There is no such thing as a draft expert.[/B][/quote]
There are definitely people, currently in the draft media, who should not be making their own mock drafts because they dont even know wtf they are talking about.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300940]The differences between Leaf and Russell is that Russell's college production looks monsterous compared to Leaf. Russell just simply didn't play enough college football to adequately prepare himself for the next level. I think the next Joey Harrington, David Carr, or Rex Grossman would be more accurate comparisions.[/quote]

I would say the jury is still out on Grossman. I mean he did lead his team to the SB in his first year starting.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300949]GTripp,
Do you seriously think hatred for ND would cause a professional scout to make his decision differently?

On the other points, I agree to an extent. For some reason I refuse to believe that all scouts and front offices are plagues by this lack of rationality. I mean these guys are doing this professionally with better resources and knowledge.

You really think they will continue to make mistakes? Why wouldnt GMs get other people to help?[/quote]Because no GMs even realize that this is an issue. I'm sure Scott Pioli in NE realized this a long time before I did, and had such a huge advantage that it wasn't even fair. I'm sure Pioli also realizes theres a lot left for him to learn.

Most scouts I'm sure think that they've been around the game long enough to know all that the game has to offer. But who can blame them? No one is going to admit they spent a 30 year career doing something incorrectly.

I don't think all scouts that think Russell is better than Quinn hate ND, but I'm sure theres somebody who is critiquing Russell and Quinn differently because of a bias.

I'm also sure some people think Charlie Weis is a genius and just assume that Quinn is good because he says. And that's a horrible reason to draft Quinn.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

I would think being successful as a scout, a key thing would be the ability to learn, adapt, and change. Why would a successful agent do the same exact thing for 30 years?

I am not trying to be an ass, I just dont buy into stuff that sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

From what I understand, people are concerned about Quinns arm in making a lot of NFL throws and he's missed open receivers in college, so they're afraid he won't be able to hit what's considered open in the NFL.

I think Russell will rely less on an offensive line and be able to go down the field better than Quinn. As with all prospects, I think more than anything it comes down to the system and situation each player is in.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=skinsfan69;300948]We can talk about this subject 500 different ways. The only way to tell is about 2-3 years from now. No one has a crystal ball. Brady Quinn is probably better prepared to play right now. But Russell has the higher ceiling and better physical gifts. I think we can all agree on those two things. So who freaking knows? There is no such thing as a draft expert.[/quote]You don't need a crystal ball when you can correlate 10 years of draft prospects success rate to their college experience. Russell only started 29 games. I don't need a freakin crystal ball to know that he is never going to be an elite player.

Brady Quinn is better prepared right now (46 starts), and this will never change barring injury. There is a common misconception that players have "floors" and "ceilings".

But isn't this concept just a giant neon admittance that the grading process that is used today has flaws.

Think about it. In reality, every player lies at a definate point somewhere between his "floor" and his "ceiling". So all a floor and ceiling really are is an allowance for scouting error. Correct?

So when somebody says "Player X has a lower floor than player Y, but a higher ceiling", what I hear is "I have no freaking clue how to grade prospects".

Please don't take that personally, because its not a knock on you Skinsfan69, it's a knock on the entire process that we have come to accept.

What we can all agree on is that either Quinn is better than Russell or Russell is better than Quinn. That seems redundant, but the concept of floors and ceilings allows scouts to creatively dart around what their actual job is, ranking the players.

We as fans should NOT accept floors and ceilings, because that's just simply a cop out for not scouting a prospect well enough. We should try our best to pinpoint each guys career path prior to the draft, like I have done, and let the QBs themselves prove us right or wrong.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300954]I would think being successful as a scout, a key thing would be the ability to learn, adapt, and change. Why would a successful agent do the same exact thing for 30 years?

I am not trying to be an ass, I just dont buy into stuff that sounds like some kind of conspiracy theory.[/quote]Ok, then disregard what I said about the ND bias. It's really just a small piece of evidence for the much more important point that scouts suck at their jobs, and in most cases don't even complete their work. Thus the concepts of floors and ceilings evolve.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

Quinn if put in a similar system to C. Weiss he will do well

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300957]Ok, then disregard what I said about the ND bias. It's really just a small piece of evidence for the much more important point that scouts suck at their jobs, and in most cases don't even complete their work. Thus the concepts of floors and ceilings evolve.[/quote]

Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?

Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300962]Well I wasnt just referring to the ND bias, I was also talking about your comment that scouts suck and they dont want to change. And GMs just accept not drafting good players?[/quote]I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.

I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting? These people are currently using inherent error (floors and ceilings) as a staple of the way they go about their work. Maybe thats just not the best way?

[quote]Just doesnt seem to make sense, I just always feel through competition, the need and desire to improve and succeed is always there and changing. I guess since I am an Econ major, I just cant look at the world like that.[/quote]The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300964]I just think that the concepts of floors and ceilings are stone cold admittences that scouting is a flawed process. When you start to allow massive and total room for error into your work ("JaMarcus Russell might be a better prospect than Brady Quinn but he also might be far worse"), I mean how can anyone say that the process isn't flawed.
[/quote]
I agree on your assessment of the floors and ceilings problem. It is a easy way for a scout not to fail. Since they say that, they can always use it to defend themselves next year.

[quote=]
I mean, look at how many 1st round busts you get from every draft. Do you not believe there is room for improvement in the world of scouting?[/quote]

I think there is always room for improvement in the NFL and any organization. That is how the world improves, through competition and the push for improvement. But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

There is room for improvement in all things in any business. Scouting isn't a Math problem were there is a black and white, etched in stone answer. The human element tells you it will always be flawed, that's not rocket science.

This guys have NEVER played at the NFL level, you have no clue how they will do at this level. It's just an educated GUESS. How do you think it will ever be a perfect science? It's IMPOSSIBLE!

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[QUOTE=skinsfan_nn;300968]There is room for improvement in all things in any business. Scouting isn't a Math problem were there is a black and white, etched in stone answer. The human element tells you it will always be flawed, that's not rocket science.

This guys have NEVER played at the NFL level, you have no clue how they will do at this level. It's just an educated GUESS. How do you think it will ever be a perfect science? It's IMPOSSIBLE![/QUOTE]

Nice post. Couldn't agree more

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300956]You don't need a crystal ball when you can correlate 10 years of draft prospects success rate to their college experience. Russell only started 29 games. I don't need a freakin crystal ball to know that he is never going to be an elite player.

Brady Quinn is better prepared right now (46 starts), and this will never change barring injury. There is a common misconception that players have "floors" and "ceilings".

But isn't this concept just a giant neon admittance that the grading process that is used today has flaws.

Think about it. In reality, every player lies at a definate point somewhere between his "floor" and his "ceiling". So all a floor and ceiling really are is an allowance for scouting error. Correct?

So when somebody says "Player X has a lower floor than player Y, but a higher ceiling", what I hear is "I have no freaking clue how to grade prospects".

Please don't take that personally, because its not a knock on you Skinsfan69, it's a knock on the entire process that we have come to accept.

What we can all agree on is that either Quinn is better than Russell or Russell is better than Quinn. That seems redundant, but the concept of floors and ceilings allows scouts to creatively dart around what their actual job is, ranking the players.

We as fans should NOT accept floors and ceilings, because that's just simply a cop out for not scouting a prospect well enough. We should try our best to pinpoint each guys career path prior to the draft, like I have done, and let the QBs themselves prove us right or wrong.[/quote]

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??

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=hooskins;300967]But I dont know how much of that is due to the scouts purposely not trying to change or improve. I think they are, and in the world we are in, they must.

Also how can you blame 1st round busts on faulty analysis of draft experts? Perhaps some people just fail, for various reasons. Projecting anything, any business, is not an exact science. While I agree change for improvement is always good, you also have to account for simple fact that some people pan out, and others don't.[/quote]Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300964]

The problem is that a majority of scouts aren't competing. They simply provide information that the competing franchises all rely on. Rumor has it that the Bengals, for example, have one scout on their payroll. Most prospect scouting comes from independant sources.

So there is no competition. They just have "a system" to grade prospects and the worst part is that the GMs accept it because they simply know no alternative. Many of my draft theories are still untested, but the currect system is just so damn inefficient that my theories (and I dont want to sound egotistical here) may be the only alternative right now.

And now the Warpathers are a step ahead of GMs in this one sense.[/quote]

Now I do not know how much competition there is with scouts, but if that is true, then you may be correct. I still dont know about GMs not knowing any other alternatives, and therefore sticking to shitty opinions.

These GMs have tons of resources and very smart people who work for them. If there is a lack of competition which yields bad results for drafting, they would know. And when you know that, teams will change. What you are saying is that there is no competition(which may be true) but then the GMs dont know what else to do, so they use it?

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.

Re: Is Russell really better than Quinn?
 

[quote=GTripp0012;300971]Scouts can't even begin to improve themselves until they identify theres a problem. Have you heard Todd McShay on TV? He's so damn cocky that he's the farthest thing from realizing that he just might be wrong.

This second paragraph is just the problem. Nobody ever wonders why these prospects fail. They just make excuses like "he wasn't a hard worker" or "he was in a bad situation" or "he didnt gel with his teammates"

These aren't reasons, Hoo, these are excuses. Until somebody actually investiagates the reasoning for a prospect busting like David Lewin did with QBs (not enough college experience), they can't adjust the problem with scouting.

Scouts in todays game just aren't curious enough to improve themselves. They just take a bust pick, make excuses for him, and move on scouting the only way they know how to.

And its a major problem in todays game.[/quote]

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.