Is Russell really better than Quinn?

[skinsfan_nn]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by skinsfan_nn

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.

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.

[skinsfan_nn]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

In case you don't remember, Leaf had a successful college career at Washington State University, where he was a finalist for the Heisman Trophy his junior year. He was selected as the second overall pick, first overall pick was......that's right Manning in the 1998 NFL Draft, after which many scouts predicted that Leaf would have a stellar career in the NFL. I guess they were wrong to.

[hooskins]

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?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

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?

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.

[skinsfan69]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[hooskins]

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

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.

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.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by hooskins

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?

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?

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.

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.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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 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.

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?

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.

[hooskins]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.