EBF
Footballguy
Hence why I said necessary, but not sufficient.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Gabbert, Kaepernick, Locker, Ponder, Tebow (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Boccioni
- Start date
EBF
Footballguy
EBF
Footballguy
RE: Favre and Warner... I never saw either of them play in college. I have no idea what they were like. The stats suggest that Favre was pretty terrible though. Like I said earlier, I've yet to see a highly flawed NCAA QB "fix" his problems after making the jump to the NFL. I believe things like poise, decision-making, and accuracy are talents in the same way that strength and speed are talents. Players can improve these things if they work hard, but they have a natural ceiling that they can't surpass. Kyle Boller will never be as good at passing as Peyton Manning for the same reason that LeRon McClain will never be as fast as Chris Johnson: his body does not possess the capacity to reach that level. The brain is a body part and no amount of training can make people who panic under pressure suddenly become Joe Cool in the pocket. Locker will actually be a great test case. He was pretty poor in college. Low completion percentage. Low yards per attempt. Relatively low TD:INT ratio. Watching him play, he seemed to have a poor sense for managing the offense and relied on his physical talents to bail him out of tough situations. Yet teams look at his pedigree and his physical talents (five star high school recruit, cannon arm, strong, great speed) and think they can coach in all the mental stuff. Doubt it. I'd bet almost anything on him becoming another high-profile failure in the NFL.
squistion
Footballguy
You said about the same thing with McFadden's prospects for making it as a RB in the NFL, so Locker is in pretty good company.
SSOG
Moderator
Right. And here's another guy I consider to be an elite NFL QB: Brett Favre. He had a sub-55% completion percentage in college and threw just 7 TD passes as a senior. And here's another guy I would consider to be an elite NFL QB: Kurt Warner. He only managed to start for a single season at the University of Northern Idaho. And here's another guy I would consider to be an elite NFL QB: Trent Green. He threw 50% more INTs than TDs during his college career. And here's another guy I would consider to be an elite NFL QB: Matt Hasselbeck. He had a 56% college completion percentage and threw just 22 TDs for his entire career, against 26 INTs. That's four elite NFL QBs who weren't even particularly GOOD college QBs. Throw in Tom Brady (who, regardless of what counterfactual you construct about him being caught between a rock and a hard place, could hardly be called an "excellent college player"- his best season was 2500 yards and 20 TDs), and you've got 50% of the best QBs of the past decade who were rubbish college QBs.You know something? This argument sounds awfully familiar. I keep getting this sense of deja vu, as if I've made it before and you just completely ignored it...
I understand that the current crop of elite QBs also were elite in college, although I feel compelled to point out that you're being awfully liberal with the term "elite" when you apply it to Tom Brady- I think realistically the best you can say about him is that he could conceivably have been elite, possibly, maybe, if he'd just gotten more playing time. But then again, maybe not. I also think that there are a couple of current guys knocking on the door of "elite" who were not elite college players- guys like Matt Ryan (who, despite the early-season Heisman hype his final year at BC, had a surprisingly average career) and Josh Freeman. With that said, unless there's some meaningful reason to believe that being elite in college never mattered before but all of a sudden became of vital importance, I'd say that the fact that the current crop of elite NFL QBs were all elite college QBs represents more of a statistical fluke than a meaningful predictor of future behavior.
I might be underrating Ponder, but I'm very high on Locker's rushing ability. That's why I said he and Kaepernick are battling for the #2 spot on the list behind Tebow. That was a very high compliment for Locker, because Kaepernick's rushing numbers in college were unreal. Over the last 3 seasons, Kaepernick has posted 3519 rushing yards and 53 rushing scores (~1150/18 a year). He averaged over 7 yards per rush attempt. These numbers are doubly amazing when you remember that, in college, sacks are counted as rushes for negative yardage (which is why Tebow averaged under 5 ypa for his college career and never topped 1,000 rushing- take out his sacks and his numbers would look a lot better).
EBF
Footballguy
Brady's final season at Michigan:
62.8% completions, 7.6 yards/attempt, 20 TDs, 6 INTs
I'm not sure what isn't elite about that.
You brought up some good examples with Favre, Warner, Green, and Hasselbeck. I'd say the latter two were never among the top 5 QBs in the league at any point in their careers, but they were certainly better in the NFL than their college careers would have lead you to believe. As for Warner, I'm not sure he fits the discussion because, as you pointed out, he basically never played in college. In other words, he never had a chance to prove what he could do. So we don't know if he would've been a great college QB, a bum, or somewhere in between. It's not totally uncommon to see players like this wildly exceed expectations in the NFL. Guys like Drew Bennett, Matt Cassel, and Willie Parker did not excel in college either, most likely because their coaches never let them get on the field. In every case the player sat on the bench behind an (arguably) inferior talent. Call it "operator error." Not all college coaches are able to accurately assess the talent on their roster.
Favre is the most interesting example because his career was so pedestrian in college and so prolific in the NFL. I'll fall back on the same excuse that applies to Green and Hasselbeck: I never saw them play in college, so I have no way of saying what they were like as players back then. As I said before, of all the college QBs that I have seen, none of the ones who were highly flawed in college went on to become standout pros. On the flipside, I can remember countless examples of NFL franchises trying to "coach up" physical specimens like Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Whitehurst, and Kyle Boller. It hasn't worked.
Again, just an opinion. Nobody has to agree with me, but I think there's merit to what I'm saying. I think a QB will tell you everything you need to know about him by the end of his college career. You just need to pay attention and put the puzzle together. It's not always easy (I certainly didn't expect Freeman to become the best QB from that class), but some players are so spectacular that you almost know they'll succeed (Luck, Bradford) and others are so flawed that you almost know they'll fail (Locker).
62.8% completions, 7.6 yards/attempt, 20 TDs, 6 INTs
I'm not sure what isn't elite about that.
You brought up some good examples with Favre, Warner, Green, and Hasselbeck. I'd say the latter two were never among the top 5 QBs in the league at any point in their careers, but they were certainly better in the NFL than their college careers would have lead you to believe. As for Warner, I'm not sure he fits the discussion because, as you pointed out, he basically never played in college. In other words, he never had a chance to prove what he could do. So we don't know if he would've been a great college QB, a bum, or somewhere in between. It's not totally uncommon to see players like this wildly exceed expectations in the NFL. Guys like Drew Bennett, Matt Cassel, and Willie Parker did not excel in college either, most likely because their coaches never let them get on the field. In every case the player sat on the bench behind an (arguably) inferior talent. Call it "operator error." Not all college coaches are able to accurately assess the talent on their roster.
Favre is the most interesting example because his career was so pedestrian in college and so prolific in the NFL. I'll fall back on the same excuse that applies to Green and Hasselbeck: I never saw them play in college, so I have no way of saying what they were like as players back then. As I said before, of all the college QBs that I have seen, none of the ones who were highly flawed in college went on to become standout pros. On the flipside, I can remember countless examples of NFL franchises trying to "coach up" physical specimens like Tarvaris Jackson, Charlie Whitehurst, and Kyle Boller. It hasn't worked.
Again, just an opinion. Nobody has to agree with me, but I think there's merit to what I'm saying. I think a QB will tell you everything you need to know about him by the end of his college career. You just need to pay attention and put the puzzle together. It's not always easy (I certainly didn't expect Freeman to become the best QB from that class), but some players are so spectacular that you almost know they'll succeed (Luck, Bradford) and others are so flawed that you almost know they'll fail (Locker).
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Huh?In college football, those numbers are actually pretty pedestrian.
For instance, those are basically the same numbers that Adam Weber and Kirk Cousins put up last year in the Big 10 and I don't think anyone would say that either of them are elite.
Even Greg McElroy, who was nothing more than a caretaker, put up 70.9% completions, 9.5 yards/attempt, 20 TDs, 5 INTs.
EBF
Footballguy
My point wasn't that every great college QB will become a good pro.
My point was that all of the elite QBs in the NFL were great college QBs.
Brady's senior season certainly fits the bill. His stats were excellent in his last season at Michigan. So while he might not have had the draft hype of an elite NFL QB prospect, it's not accurate to characterize him as a weak college player. He was actually very good.
My point was that all of the elite QBs in the NFL were great college QBs.
Brady's senior season certainly fits the bill. His stats were excellent in his last season at Michigan. So while he might not have had the draft hype of an elite NFL QB prospect, it's not accurate to characterize him as a weak college player. He was actually very good.
SSOG
Moderator
Tom Brady's final season: 2600 yards, 20 TDs, 6 INTs, 7.6 ypa, 142 ratingElite by NFL standards? Sure, but by college standards? Only if you have an extremely generous definition of elite. That season is far closer to Kyle Boller than it is to Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, or Manning. For instance, here are some of the other elite seasons:
Philip Rivers- 4500/34/7, 9.3 ypa, 170 rating
Drew Brees- 3900/25/12, 7.2 ypa, 133 rating
Peyton Manning- 3800/36/11, 8.0 ypa, 148 rating
Roethlisberger- 4500/37/10, 9.1 ypa, 166 rating
Aaron Rodgers- 2600/24/8, 8.1 ypa, 154 rating
Tom Brady's final season was essentially identical to your average David Greene, Chris Leak, or Jason Campbell season (excluding Campbell's senior year, which was way better than anything Brady ever did). As I said, it was far closer to Kyle Boller than Philip Rivers. If that fits your definition of elite, then I agree that you'll be hard-pressed to find an elite NFL QB who was not also an elite college QB... just because it'll be hard to find *ANY* NFL QB who was not an elite college QB, because your definition of elite is so broad.
It's one thing for Matt Cassel to sit on the bench behind two Heisman trophy winners. It's another thing entirely for Kurt Warner to spend 3 years on the bench at the University of Northern Idaho. I would submit that the two really aren't all that comparable.
Look, you know I like you and I love the work you do, but I really just think you're falling prey to a bundle of cognitive biases right here. Most prominent is the recency bias, but I see some selection bias at work, some confirmation bias (Tom Brady was "elite" his senior year and Kyle Boller was "obviously flawed", despite the fact that Boller put up incredibly similar yardage, TDs, INTs, YPA, and Rating totals), some hindsight bias, etc. Unless you have some compelling narrative for how flawed QBs could have succeeded in the past, but are no longer able to, then I think Occam's Razor suggests that we should assume that the current lack of flawed QBs who are excelling in the pros is most likely just a result of sample size and statistical noise.
SSOG
Moderator
Out of curiosity, I went back and looked up some stats from the 1999 season. Here are the guys whose statistical profile most closely matched Tom Brady's from that year:Tom Brady, MICHIGAN- 12 games, 2600/20/6, 7.6 ypa, 142 ratingTodd Husack, STANFORD- 10 games, 2700/18/11, 8.7 ypa, 142 ratingMike Moschetti, COLORADO- 10 games, 2700/18/12, 8.1 ypa, 141 ratingChris Redman, LOUISVILLE- 11 games, 3600/29/13, 7.5 ypa, 142 ratingJarious Jackson, NOTRE DAME- 12 games, 2750/17/14, 8.7 ypa, 140 ratingBrady threw significantly fewer INTs than those guys, but those guys all (except for Redman) threw for substantially more YPA, and they all (especially Redman) threw for substantially more yards per game. Statistically, I'd call those seasons pretty comparable. You really want to go on record calling Tom Brady's last season "elite"?
EBF
Footballguy
Part of the problem is that statistics don't convey with 100% accuracy how a player performs. I can tell you that virtually no one in the Bay Area ever felt Kyle Boller was a great, or even a good QB. He was a top recruit who struggled before piecing together one good season with a coach who (at the time) was thought to have a special knack for getting the best out of his quarterbacks. I think any longtime Cal fan would readily admit that even close followers of the program never felt Boller was destined for a standout NFL career.
I'll admit that it's problematic to use statistics to demonstrate that certain players performed well while also suggesting that stats don't really tell the whole story. You can't have it both ways. FWIW, I've never felt that scouting was an entirely objective art that could be boiled down to punching a few numbers into a computer. In the end, you have to watch the player. This is especially true at the QB position.
My take on QB is that it's a mental position more than anything. There are hundreds of tall guys who can throw the ball 50 yards in a tight spiral. What separates the Lucks and Bradfords of the world from guys like Chris Rix is all between the ears. Good QBs have the ability to read defenses, anticipate open receivers, avoid the pass rush, make good decisions, and deliver accurate passes in a timely fashion. As I suggested earlier, I believe that these things are natural talents in the same way that size and speed are. Practice can make anyone faster and stronger, but no amount of bench presses or wind sprints can make a normal man run as fast as Chris Johnson or lift as much weight as Haloti Ngata. Likewise, I think there's a limit to the amount that a QB's "mental talent" can be improved by coaching.
Hence why I'm REALLY skeptical of a guy like Locker. He has all of the physical talent in the world and a great attitude. He's also a competitive player who works hard and gives everything on the field. But...he has never been a good passer. Prior to his senior season, people suggested that he was raw, but that another year of training under former USC offensive guru Steve Sarkisian would work wonders for his passing skills. Didn't happen. He came back as the exact same guy. Erratic with his accuracy. Easily flustered by pressure. After four years of college practice, he still couldn't do things that Andrew Luck and Aaron Rodgers were doing in their first collegiate games. Why? Because, IMO, he lacks "mental talent" for the QB position.
The problem is that "mental talent" is hard to quantify. Stats often tell the story, especially at the NFL level, but in college it's relatively easy for a crappy QB to dominate because the level of competition is poor. Not every dominant college QB will become a great pro, but it seems all of the ones who eventually become great pros have the ability to impose their will on the game.
At any rate, I've yet to personally see a QB with poor mental talent become a great pro. All of the guys who were frustrating teases in college (Anderson, Whitehurst, Boller) turned out to be the exact same guy in the NFL. So when these "looks like Tarzan, plays like Cade McNown" QBs come along, I steer clear. I haven't lived to regret it yet. Maybe someone like Locker will surprise me. If that happens, I'll happily eat crow.
I'm a determinist. I don't think you can change who you are. The trick with QB scouting is trying to figure out who the player is BEFORE he steps on an NFL field. That's not always easy.
I'll admit that it's problematic to use statistics to demonstrate that certain players performed well while also suggesting that stats don't really tell the whole story. You can't have it both ways. FWIW, I've never felt that scouting was an entirely objective art that could be boiled down to punching a few numbers into a computer. In the end, you have to watch the player. This is especially true at the QB position.
My take on QB is that it's a mental position more than anything. There are hundreds of tall guys who can throw the ball 50 yards in a tight spiral. What separates the Lucks and Bradfords of the world from guys like Chris Rix is all between the ears. Good QBs have the ability to read defenses, anticipate open receivers, avoid the pass rush, make good decisions, and deliver accurate passes in a timely fashion. As I suggested earlier, I believe that these things are natural talents in the same way that size and speed are. Practice can make anyone faster and stronger, but no amount of bench presses or wind sprints can make a normal man run as fast as Chris Johnson or lift as much weight as Haloti Ngata. Likewise, I think there's a limit to the amount that a QB's "mental talent" can be improved by coaching.
Hence why I'm REALLY skeptical of a guy like Locker. He has all of the physical talent in the world and a great attitude. He's also a competitive player who works hard and gives everything on the field. But...he has never been a good passer. Prior to his senior season, people suggested that he was raw, but that another year of training under former USC offensive guru Steve Sarkisian would work wonders for his passing skills. Didn't happen. He came back as the exact same guy. Erratic with his accuracy. Easily flustered by pressure. After four years of college practice, he still couldn't do things that Andrew Luck and Aaron Rodgers were doing in their first collegiate games. Why? Because, IMO, he lacks "mental talent" for the QB position.
The problem is that "mental talent" is hard to quantify. Stats often tell the story, especially at the NFL level, but in college it's relatively easy for a crappy QB to dominate because the level of competition is poor. Not every dominant college QB will become a great pro, but it seems all of the ones who eventually become great pros have the ability to impose their will on the game.
At any rate, I've yet to personally see a QB with poor mental talent become a great pro. All of the guys who were frustrating teases in college (Anderson, Whitehurst, Boller) turned out to be the exact same guy in the NFL. So when these "looks like Tarzan, plays like Cade McNown" QBs come along, I steer clear. I haven't lived to regret it yet. Maybe someone like Locker will surprise me. If that happens, I'll happily eat crow.
I'm a determinist. I don't think you can change who you are. The trick with QB scouting is trying to figure out who the player is BEFORE he steps on an NFL field. That's not always easy.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
The stats (which can admittedly be misleading) suggest that he played very well for his team.I don't think I need to spend any more sentences defending a guy who completed over 60% of his passes at 7.6 YPA with a phenomenal TD:INT ratio.
squistion
Footballguy
If we gave an award for the postings that use the most tortured logic to justify a position, I think EBF would be the frontrunner for the 2011 post of the year.
What the gentleman (who is AKA EastBayFunk) is saying here is basicly: "I am certain Locker will be a bust, because not only does he have accuracy issues that can't be fixed, but also he lacks the mental component to succeed in the NFL. I know this from the games I watched of him - the fact the Titans saw the same footage and still drafted him with the 1.08 pick mystifies me and it obviously proves that the people on this team who do this for a living are idiots because they can't see what I see."
"And it goes without saying, Locker will never be an elite NFL QB because all elite NFL QBs showed they were elite in college. What about Kurt Warner? Well, he doesn't count because he never got a chance at the University of Northern Iowa and for some inexplicable reason he was benched for 3 years until his senior season (after which he went undrafted in 1994)."
"And Brett Favre doesn't count either because I never saw him play in college - in fact any player I am not old enough to remember doesn't belong in this discussion."
"Tom Brady, of course, is the proof in the pudding. Yes, other college QBs, most of which fantasy owners have never heard of had similar numbers, but what distinguishes him is his amazing TD/INT ratio stat - you see, Brady had very few INTs, so that's why his numbers count, while people like Todd Husack, Chris Redman and Jarious Jackson are irrelevant. And the fact Brady wasn't drafted until the 6th round is because somehow all of the NFL teams who picked before NE didn't realize these numbers proved that he was an elite QB."
In a way I wish this discussion had continued. I can understand someone having the belief that Locker won't cut it at the pro level, but these grasping at straws rationalizations (which EBF is famous for) have been quite entertaining.
What the gentleman (who is AKA EastBayFunk) is saying here is basicly: "I am certain Locker will be a bust, because not only does he have accuracy issues that can't be fixed, but also he lacks the mental component to succeed in the NFL. I know this from the games I watched of him - the fact the Titans saw the same footage and still drafted him with the 1.08 pick mystifies me and it obviously proves that the people on this team who do this for a living are idiots because they can't see what I see."
"And it goes without saying, Locker will never be an elite NFL QB because all elite NFL QBs showed they were elite in college. What about Kurt Warner? Well, he doesn't count because he never got a chance at the University of Northern Iowa and for some inexplicable reason he was benched for 3 years until his senior season (after which he went undrafted in 1994)."
"And Brett Favre doesn't count either because I never saw him play in college - in fact any player I am not old enough to remember doesn't belong in this discussion."
"Tom Brady, of course, is the proof in the pudding. Yes, other college QBs, most of which fantasy owners have never heard of had similar numbers, but what distinguishes him is his amazing TD/INT ratio stat - you see, Brady had very few INTs, so that's why his numbers count, while people like Todd Husack, Chris Redman and Jarious Jackson are irrelevant. And the fact Brady wasn't drafted until the 6th round is because somehow all of the NFL teams who picked before NE didn't realize these numbers proved that he was an elite QB."
In a way I wish this discussion had continued. I can understand someone having the belief that Locker won't cut it at the pro level, but these grasping at straws rationalizations (which EBF is famous for) have been quite entertaining.
Last edited by a moderator:
