QB Bust Prognostication Screen (1 Viewer)

[Bob Magaw]

haven't tried to pick it apart with counter-examples, but on the surface the author seems to make some salient points...

there is much left out, but even blunt instruments like clubs can be effective on occassion...

mayock is concerned about the inconsistency... that would be hard to set up a screen for consistency/inconsistency...

completion percentage is an obvious thing to look at (stafford not great there), as well as career starts (rivers was one of the best there, stafford coming out as a junior, still far more starts than sanchez)...

http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackbusts.php

NFL Draft History: Quarterback Busts

By Matt McGuire

Last week, the most epic NFL Draft debate of all-time took place on ESPN. As always, it was Mel Kiper versus Todd McShay, and they were talking about what they would do with the No. 1 overall pick in terms of selecting Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford or another player.

Mel Kiper Jr. was campaigning for Stafford, implying how a quarterback's positional value is so important in football. Since Stafford is worthy of a No. 1 pick talent-wise, he should be taken.

Here was McShay's argument against Stafford, "If you don't love a guy and think he is going to be the No. 1 quarterback and can lead your franchise, you don't draft him at No. 1 (overall). History tells you that's the biggest mistake you can make."

The debate basically boiled down to McShay not thinking Stafford has enough value to be taken No. 1. McShay doesn't think being a quarterback increases your value on Draft Day.

Meanwhile, I have always maintained, "If you do not know where you have been, you have no clue where you are going."

In this article, I am going to break down why quarterbacks bust and how to spot future busts. We will then analyze Matthew Stafford and determine if he is worthy of being a No. 1 overall pick.

Basically, there are three reasons a quarterback will bust, two of which can be avoided in foresight:

1. System Quarterback

2. Lacks Intangibles

3. Lacks Offensive Line

1. System Quarterback

Let's take a look at the first way a quarterbacks can bust, and this is being a system quarterback. There are a few offenses that can make a quarterback produce better numbers than his talent level indicates.

Keep in mind that this does not mean every quarterback coming out of a spread option or run n' shoot will bust in the NFL. It just means you have to do your homework on the prospect.

Being in a gimmick offense in college can hinder a prospect's chances in the NFL. The terminology is much easier in a gimmick offense. You do not have to understand pass protection schemes, you are forced to learn a bigger playbook, and the familiarity level is very low compared to an NFL spread or West Coast offense.

These offenses generally always are shotgun-oriented, so a quarterback's vision is greatly decreased when he gets to the NFL. He has to learn how to work his progression reads under center while dropping back. He has to be able to see over the line of scrimmage and identify hot routes.

In the shotgun, you are not moving very much and your head and eyes are still. This makes your quarterback vision look better than what it really is. Also in the shotgun in college, pass protection becomes easier. Your offensive line has more time to anticipate the rush in the two point stance, and in a gimmick offense you get rid of the ball much more quickly, decreasing the odds of getting sacked or hurried.

Also in a gimmick offense, the routes are shorter and your arm strength is not exposed. Arm strength must be evaluated heavily by NFL scouts and personnel. Arm strength is not everything (like any other skill), but it is very important.

Based on my research, here is a list of quarterbacks who busted that played in a spread option, run n' shoot, etc. and were taken relatively high in the first round:

Jerry Tagge (1972)

Rich Campbell (1981)

Todd Blackledge (1982)

Kelly Stouffer (1987)

Andre Ware (1990)

David Klinger (1992)

Heath Shuler (1994)

Tim Couch (1999)

Akili Smith (1999)

Cade McNown (1999)

Alex Smith (2005)

Vince Young (2006) is potentially a bust

If you can really do your homework on these gimmick-offense quarterbacks in college and ensure they have the proper arm strength, talent level, and football intelligence to play the position, then you will not end up with a bust for this reason.

2. Lacks Intangibles

To be a capable starting quarterback in the NFL, you must have the appropriate mental makeup and work ethic to play the position. If you have a bad attitude, the coaching staff and locker room will not respect you. You need to be able to overcome adversity and be somewhat of a leader. You do not have to be a lights-out intangible guy such as a Peyton Manning or Ben Roethlisberger to be successful in the NFL.

However, if you do not have the work ethic or leadership skills necessary to play the position, you will bust. Here is my list of quarterbacks who busted in the NFL because they simply lacked the intangibles even an average quarterback has:

Art Schlichter (1982)

Jeff George (1990)

Andre Ware (1990)

Dan McGwire (1991)

Todd Marinovich (1991)

Tommy Maddox (1992)

Rick Mirer (1993)

Jim Druckenmiller (1997)

Ryan Leaf (1998)

Tim Couch (1999)

Cade McNown (1999)

Joey Harrington (2002)

J.P. Losman (2004)

Vince Young (2006) is potentially a bust

Matt Leinart (2006) is potentially a bust

JaMarcus Russell (2007) is potentially a bust

You must find out if your quarterback prospect has the work ethic, poise and leadership to be a successful NFL quarterback. If you do not and you draft him high, he will end up on the above list.

3. Lacks Offensive Line

I went on the Tulsa Sports Animal in January for an interview. I made this statement and stand by it, "You could put together the prototype for the position at quarterback, and if he doesn't have people blocking for him, then he is going to bust - period."

If you do not have time in the pocket to make your progression reads and get the pass off, you will struggle in the NFL. Not only this, but if you get pressured too much, your confidence will drop like a rock, and in some cases it'll never recover.

Here is a list of quarterbacks who busted in the NFL because they were not given they offensive line they needed at the next level, and as a result their confidence was shot:

David Klinger (1992)

Tim Couch (1999)

David Carr (2002)

Joey Harrington (2002)

Alex Smith (2005)

Now, we have discussed just about every quarterback bust in NFL history, and as you can see, they all fall under one or more of the three factors as to why a quarterback prospect could bust in the NFL.

As an extension of the epic Kiper vs. McShay debate, I will investigate Stafford into these three categories and determine his probability of busting in the NFL, since that is what McShay and Lions fans are so scared of.

1. System Quarterback: This does not apply to Stafford in any shape or form. He ran a very pro-style West Coast offense at the University of Georgia. Stafford also has elite arm strength and physical tools. He is not a product of the talent around him. He is said to have high football intelligence and can pick up an NFL playbook as well as learn the extensive playbook terminology.

2. Lacks Intangibles: From everything I have heard about Stafford, he has very high intangibles. He is a leader for the Georgia offense and willed the Bulldogs to a few wins last season in the SEC. He can overcome adversity and he's tough in the pocket.

3. Lacks an Offensive Line: The Detroit Lions are not limited to just the No. 1 overall pick. They can invest in a left tackle such as Michael Oher or William Beatty at No. 20 and solidify their offensive line. Jeff Backus will kick inside to left guard. The Lions re-signed Stephen Peterman. They invested a first-round pick last year in Gosder Cherilus. They can acquire a center in the draft or free agency.

Also, keep in mind Stafford will only be a 21 year-old rookie. He might not be ready to go early on, which is fine. You can develop the offensive line in the draft and free agency. If you have to sit Stafford for one season like the Bengals did with Carson Palmer, then that is OK. If Detroit drafts a left tackle at No. 20, the offensive line should not be an issue with Stafford's development.

Based on my research, Stafford has an extremely low probability of busting if Detroit gives him an offensive line. This would not be the first team drafting No. 1 overall who eventually put the offensive line in place for their quarterback to succeed, and it will not be the last.

There is more to a quarterback busting than just being drafted high. We can see there are three factors that go into a quarterback's bust factor, and Stafford simply does not fall into the typical bust mold.

I don't know. Maybe McShay will get the memo soon, but as for now, history tells me the biggest mistake you can make is not actually studying NFL Draft history.

 

[puckalicious]

I believe SI or ESPN had a similar "college QB bust predictor" type of evaluation. I can't remember what it said about Stafford.

The Lions taking Stafford has bust written all over it. Inconsistent, low completion%, bad OL. Disaster.

 

[Bob Magaw]

with the lions repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot by taking skill position players that failed to pan out (except for incendiary talent calvin johnson) at the expense of building a solid foundation around the OL, it would be a bit of a surprise for me if they pass on jason smith or monroe...

though they aren't exactly bullet proof for #1 overall selections... smith, in addition to playing in an offense in which he was in a two point stance, may lack lower body explosion, sheer mass & bulk, as well as having sub-optimal arm length...

monroe hurt his knee in '07 (?), after having it dislocated the previous year... charlie casserly said some teams may red flag him based on his injury history & checkered medical file...

if they feel confident stafford is the real deal, i agree that is one of the hardest & most expensive positions to fill, if not the most (they could use ATL in '08 as a template, getting ryan with 1.2 & than trading up from high 2nd to get into 2nd half of the 1st, to secure LT of the future baker)... i just haven't seen stafford enougth to make that call...

i thought carson palmer was can't miss... i wasn't as sure about matt ryan, but that turned out pretty good... the scouting buzz i'm getting is that he is not thought to be as good a prospect as ryan... i have also heard comparisons with cutler, mayock said on the deep outs he guns it with maybe as much authority as he has seen at the college level...

so much of QB is related to unmeasurable mental traits & intangible attributes that don't necessarily show up on tests...

how do you extrapolate from college how a QB with adjust to a rush from players that are stronger, faster & quicker, & avoid CBs that are faster, quicker, more agile, athletic, smarter, better coverage ability & ball skills...

less time to throw through smaller windows?

 

[TwinTurbo]

Do any teams still subscribe to the theory of brain-typing analysis for Quarterbacks and other athletes? Because Stafford does appear to have the ESTP brain type which is the ideal type for Quarterbacks.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Do any teams still subscribe to the theory of brain-typing analysis for Quarterbacks and other athletes? Because Stafford does appear to have the ESTP brain type which is the ideal type for Quarterbacks.

good info there... & that is coming from an INTP (INTJ on alternating weeks )...i never saw an exhaustive analysis of its merits...but anecdotally, i think it predicted success for manning, & disaster for leaf, as i recall? the first time it came to my attention, that was the classic hit & miss that was referenced...

 

[Bob Magaw]

no doubt each team will have the courage of their own convictions, based on internal scouting evaluations (maybe not such a good thing with the lions, we shall see if they can turn over a new leaf in the post-millen era)...

its possible in the media & at the casual fan level, there is an intimidation factor in going against mayock... he has been a very high profile voice of dissent in the pre-draft buildup mix for stafford...

mayock positively skewered the first 10 picks of the '08 draft, & is obviously wired into the league...

even he would probably say that at SOME POINT he will represent value & possibly even great value... but for him, too much risk at #1 overall...

although imo mayock is right more often than he is wrong, & i appreciate the fact that his educated opinions & informed judgements are shaped by film study, & he will point out the strengths & weaknesses of prospects, he could of course be wrong in this instance (or overly cautious)...

but barring medical red flag on monroe, or scheme mismatch with smith (may never be 330 & ideally suited for smashmouth running attack, if that is what new front office/HC/OC want to do), personally i would go with one of the LTs...

i'm definitely in the minority, but would like to see what stanton can do if given a chance... they missed an opportunity to evaluate him when they stubbornly kept him on the bench, despite a lost season... guess nobody wanted to increase the possibility of a historically inept 0-16 season, but it is hard to see how he could have done any worse (obviously not than the record they had, in retrospect)...

 

[Chase Stuart]

with the lions repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot by taking skill position players that failed to pan out (except for incendiary talent calvin johnson) at the expense of building a solid foundation around the OL, it would be a bit of a surprise for me if they pass on jason smith or monroe...

though they aren't exactly bullet proof for #1 overall selections... smith, in addition to playing in an offense in which he was in a two point stance, may lack lower body explosion, sheer mass & bulk, as well as having sub-optimal arm length...

monroe hurt his knee in '07 (?), after having it dislocated the previous year... charlie casserly said some teams may red flag him based on his injury history & checkered medical file...

if they feel confident stafford is the real deal, i agree that is one of the hardest & most expensive positions to fill, if not the most (they could use ATL in '08 as a template, getting ryan with 1.2 & than trading up from high 2nd to get into 2nd half of the 1st, to secure LT of the future baker)... i just haven't seen stafford enougth to make that call...

i thought carson palmer was can't miss... i wasn't as sure about matt ryan, but that turned out pretty good... the scouting buzz i'm getting is that he is not thought to be as good a prospect as ryan... i have also heard comparisons with cutler, mayock said on the deep outs he guns it with maybe as much authority as he has seen at the college level...

so much of QB is related to unmeasurable mental traits & intangible attributes that don't necessarily show up on tests...

how do you extrapolate from college how a QB with adjust to a rush from players that are stronger, faster & quicker, & avoid CBs that are faster, quicker, more agile, athletic, smarter, better coverage ability & ball skills...

less time to throw through smaller windows?

Trivia: Name the last NFL team to draft an OL in three straight drafts. The article you linked to doesn't seem to reveal much of anything. It's pretty classic hindsight thinking.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Do any teams still subscribe to the theory of brain-typing analysis for Quarterbacks and other athletes? Because Stafford does appear to have the ESTP brain type which is the ideal type for Quarterbacks.

good info there... & that is coming from an INTP (INTJ on alternating weeks )...i never saw an exhaustive analysis of its merits...but anecdotally, i think it predicted success for manning, & disaster for leaf, as i recall? the first time it came to my attention, that was the classic hit & miss that was referenced...

IMO, the most important charateristic to determine success as an NFL QB is the mental makeup. There have been so many busts that had all the physical skills but their brain was just not wired to play the position at the NFL level. You can't draft a QB that locks up, can't see the field under pressure, deer-in-the-headlights meltdowns, dwells too long on mistakes, and is prone to confidence problems. You need a confident, cognitive guy that is an opportunist, adaptable, energetic, tactical, and fine motor skilled. Stafford seems like he fits the bill although he is no lock to be successful.

 

[TwinTurbo]

with the lions repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot by taking skill position players that failed to pan out (except for incendiary talent calvin johnson) at the expense of building a solid foundation around the OL, it would be a bit of a surprise for me if they pass on jason smith or monroe...

though they aren't exactly bullet proof for #1 overall selections... smith, in addition to playing in an offense in which he was in a two point stance, may lack lower body explosion, sheer mass & bulk, as well as having sub-optimal arm length...

monroe hurt his knee in '07 (?), after having it dislocated the previous year... charlie casserly said some teams may red flag him based on his injury history & checkered medical file...

if they feel confident stafford is the real deal, i agree that is one of the hardest & most expensive positions to fill, if not the most (they could use ATL in '08 as a template, getting ryan with 1.2 & than trading up from high 2nd to get into 2nd half of the 1st, to secure LT of the future baker)... i just haven't seen stafford enougth to make that call...

i thought carson palmer was can't miss... i wasn't as sure about matt ryan, but that turned out pretty good... the scouting buzz i'm getting is that he is not thought to be as good a prospect as ryan... i have also heard comparisons with cutler, mayock said on the deep outs he guns it with maybe as much authority as he has seen at the college level...

so much of QB is related to unmeasurable mental traits & intangible attributes that don't necessarily show up on tests...

how do you extrapolate from college how a QB with adjust to a rush from players that are stronger, faster & quicker, & avoid CBs that are faster, quicker, more agile, athletic, smarter, better coverage ability & ball skills...

less time to throw through smaller windows?

Trivia: Name the last NFL team to draft an OL in three straight drafts. The article you linked to doesn't seem to reveal much of anything. It's pretty classic hindsight thinking.

Great post Chase. I've posted the same factoid in other threads, since folks seem to think the Lions only draft WR busts in the first round. There are plenty of first round OL busts and the Lions found 3 in a row: Gibson, McDougal, and Backus. And although one could argue that Backus was not a bust, I think he's the most overpaid player in the league. So while Jason Smith might seem like a safer pick, there is nothing guaranteed about drafting a LT from Baylor.

 

[Bob Magaw]

The article you linked to doesn't seem to reveal much of anything. It's pretty classic hindsight thinking.

not sure if i understand...is it hindsight thinking to recommend avoiding system QBs (ware & klingler) or QBs with perceived bad intangibles (losman)?the authors point seems to be that stqafford shouldn't be ruled out on that basis... i realize that it was easier in retrospect to state the obvious that leaf had bad intangibles... those concerns didn't seem to be as prevalent before leaf started blowing up & melting down in the locker room on TV...looking at sanchez through this lens, he should score pretty high on both his intangibles & running a pro style offense at USC that should translate to the NFL...* also, historically, when was the last time a team took four top 10 WRs in an approx 5 year window (& had just one to show for it... well, & a relatively low 1st & 3rd, to be fair... this also doesn't factor in the high pick bust of harrington)? i really don't know the answer, but i'm guessing it would have to be unprecedented... if this were the jets & the OL was broken down, would you endorse taking four top 10 WRs in a 5-6 year stretch (they did take cherilus last year, though he seems to be the easier to find right side variant of OT)...** i do get it that busts can come from any position, & focusing on an area positionally is no guarantee of success... i don't like positional reaches, & look for better alignment of that with BPA...while 1st round OL aren't guarantees obviously, by not even attempting using a high pick on one for a long stretch, they guaranteed having to rely on lower picks & free agency (some teams like NE are great at finding logan mankins late in 1st & matt light later, & bully for them, but not all teams are equally able to find OL gems in this way)... while the occasional great interior OL becomes avail in free agency, rarely do good tackles become avail... it just seems that if a QB is on their back, it is hard to fully exploit all the WR firepower? like they got their blueprint upside down?also, it is important to separate out the idea or strategy of building a team in the trenches (arguably a good one), with the scouting resources & wherewithal to execute such a strategy... sounds like DET botched it badly a decade ago...*** good points twin turbo... i did acknowledge jason smith may have some questions that need to be worked through... but if he is vetted & passed by the lions, imo, it will be tough to pass on him (or monroe)...

 

[texasbirdfan]

Great post

Harrington is still an anomaly for me in the #2 category. High IQ, positive outlook, good self esteem, clean nose,

HORRIBLE Coaching. The big turn around in Atlanta imo was more to do with team attitude as it reflected in the best overall coaching staff Atlanta ever assembled than the magic of Matty Ice. The O line only jelled in the final 3 games of 2007 (Petrino exit)- too late for Joey

 

[CalBear]

Do any teams still subscribe to the theory of brain-typing analysis for Quarterbacks and other athletes? Because Stafford does appear to have the ESTP brain type which is the ideal type for Quarterbacks.

It's complete hogwash, so the Lions might subscribe to it.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Great postHarrington is still an anomaly for me in the #2 category. High IQ, positive outlook, good self esteem, clean nose, HORRIBLE Coaching. The big turn around in Atlanta imo was more to do with team attitude as it reflected in the best overall coaching staff Atlanta ever assembled than the magic of Matty Ice. The O line only jelled in the final 3 games of 2007 (Petrino exit)- too late for Joey

It's not just high IQ. Harrington just wasn't a smooth operator in the pocket. Under pressure, he locked up. He could never process the game at the speed it required. The best game I ever saw Joey play for the Lions was when he had the flu. I think everything slowed down for him and his happy feet and deer in the headlights look were gone. Although the Lions lost that game to the Vikes in a 28-27 heartbreaker on a bad PAT snap, I think it was the best game he ever played. His entire demeanor and decision making was different that day. Maybe the flu played a role and the anxiety and pressure was diminished. Who knows.

 

[texasbirdfan]

Great post

Harrington is still an anomaly for me in the #2 category. High IQ, positive outlook, good self esteem, clean nose,

HORRIBLE Coaching. The big turn around in Atlanta imo was more to do with team attitude as it reflected in the best overall coaching staff Atlanta ever assembled than the magic of Matty Ice. The O line only jelled in the final 3 games of 2007 (Petrino exit)- too late for Joey

It's not just high IQ. Harrington just wasn't a smooth operator in the pocket. Under pressure, he locked up. He could never process the game at the speed it required. The best game I ever saw Joey play for the Lions was when he had the flu. I think everything slowed down for him and his happy feet and deer in the headlights look were gone. Although the Lions lost that game to the Vikes in a 28-27 heartbreaker on a bad PAT snap, I think it was the best game he ever played. His entire demeanor and decision making was different that day. Maybe the flu played a role and the anxiety and pressure was diminished. Who knows.

I know it is an over exaggeration, but he never had an o line. The games I saw he had in Atlanta- when he had the protection time- he performed above average

 

[TwinTurbo]

Great post

Harrington is still an anomaly for me in the #2 category. High IQ, positive outlook, good self esteem, clean nose,

HORRIBLE Coaching. The big turn around in Atlanta imo was more to do with team attitude as it reflected in the best overall coaching staff Atlanta ever assembled than the magic of Matty Ice. The O line only jelled in the final 3 games of 2007 (Petrino exit)- too late for Joey

It's not just high IQ. Harrington just wasn't a smooth operator in the pocket. Under pressure, he locked up. He could never process the game at the speed it required. The best game I ever saw Joey play for the Lions was when he had the flu. I think everything slowed down for him and his happy feet and deer in the headlights look were gone. Although the Lions lost that game to the Vikes in a 28-27 heartbreaker on a bad PAT snap, I think it was the best game he ever played. His entire demeanor and decision making was different that day. Maybe the flu played a role and the anxiety and pressure was diminished. Who knows.

I know it is an over exaggeration, but he never had an o line. The games I saw he had in Atlanta- when he had the protection time- he performed above average

Yes the Lions O-Line was and still is terrible but Harrington was not sacked very often. I don't have the data but I think he was one of the least sacked QB's in the league at the time. His main problem was that he was inaccurate even though his YPA was the lowest in the league. At least David Carr padded his accuracy percentage with short throws, but Joey couldn't even do that much.

 

[Bob Magaw]

not sure if it is the case, but if a bad OL led to harrington hurrying his throws, that could correlate with a reduced completion percentage*...

BTW, i don't want to come off like i'm picking on the lions (at least, no more than they deserve )... i follow the rams, & there are other teams to do a post-mortem on & dissect... it is also possible my seeming harping on the importance of a strong OL is colored by my history & associations... when i look around the league, a lot of the better teams (NE, IND, SD, NYG, PHI, DAL) have had pretty good OLs recently... the rams have been in serious disarray for a few years, in part due to standing idly by while the OL deteriorated (also, having maybe the worst defense in franchise history hasn't helped)...

* its pretty much of a cliche that most QBs will look better if given a lot of time, & worse if not... i'm pretty sure brady would have done better than harrington in DET... but not as good as he did in NE... & harrington might have looked a lot better behind the '07 iteration pats OL?

 

[stevegamer]

I find a couple things about the original article a bit odd.

1. It doesn't mention amount of time starting in college. If I remember correctly, some studies were done (Football Outsiders, maybe?) & # of college starts was actually a decent predictor of things. I definitely look harder at guys with just one big year, like Sanchez.

2. How did I miss Joe Paterno's Run & Shoot/Spread Option at Penn State under Todd Blackledge? Did that really happen? I remeber a good dynamic offense, but not a whole lot of gimmickry.

 

[Bob Magaw]

I find a couple things about the original article a bit odd.1. It doesn't mention amount of time starting in college. If I remember correctly, some studies were done (Football Outsiders, maybe?) & # of college starts was actually a decent predictor of things. I definitely look harder at guys with just one big year, like Sanchez.2. How did I miss Joe Paterno's Run & Shoot/Spread Option at Penn State under Todd Blackledge? Did that really happen? I remeber a good dynamic offense, but not a whole lot of gimmickry.

after looking at the categories again, it is possible they might be useful, especially when used with other factors (like completion percentage, number of career starts), but not sure all the examples chosen serve to illustrate & populate them... some appear arbitrary, with no reasons given why they fell in a certain category (did akili smith & heath shuler really run gimmick offenses... did tim couch have intangibles problems?)... so in that sense, i agree with chase that some of the examples do seem to be chosen in hindsight, to an extent (i do think ware & klingler good examples of system QBs, & losman of intangibles questions)...

 

[Chase Stuart]

I find a couple things about the original article a bit odd.1. It doesn't mention amount of time starting in college. If I remember correctly, some studies were done (Football Outsiders, maybe?) & # of college starts was actually a decent predictor of things. I definitely look harder at guys with just one big year, like Sanchez.

You're remembering the study, but it did not prove that college starts and completion percentage was a good predictor of future success. It was an interesting study from a trivia perspective, but now from a predictive standpoint.

 

[Bob Magaw]

some visual evidence... stafford's youtube highlights...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2nVLO39wB4

 

[Tanner9919]

"and now for something completely different.."

would it be better for the Lions to draft a stud LB like Curry rather than a QB like Stafford ?

or, if you're not sure that Stafford is going to become another Matt Ryan-type, i.e., immediate starter, then trade down, aquire a boatload of picks and restock the bar with top-shelf items..

They need to fill a lot of positions, much more than just one guy with a bloated rookie ( #1 pick) salary...

I'd consider talking with Denver and offering the #1 overall for Cutler, straight up..

at least we know Cutler can play in the NFL..

if I'm not mistaken, Cutler is cheaper than the going rate for the #1 pick in an NFL draft, right?

Lions cannot afford to blow another high, first round pick on subpar talent...they need to nail this pick.

 

[puckalicious]

"and now for something completely different.."would it be better for the Lions to draft a stud LB like Curry rather than a QB like Stafford ?or, if you're not sure that Stafford is going to become another Matt Ryan-type, i.e., immediate starter, then trade down, aquire a boatload of picks and restock the bar with top-shelf items..They need to fill a lot of positions, much more than just one guy with a bloated rookie ( #1 pick) salary... I'd consider talking with Denver and offering the #1 overall for Cutler, straight up..at least we know Cutler can play in the NFL..if I'm not mistaken, Cutler is cheaper than the going rate for the #1 pick in an NFL draft, right?Lions cannot afford to blow another high, first round pick on subpar talent...they need to nail this pick.

I don't think the Lions should go QB with the first pick, but if they are dead set on doing that then it is an absolute no brainer to trade it for Cutler than draft Stafford. This essentially makes it a trade of Stafford for Cutler since Denver needs a QB. I don't think Denver would like to do this, they appear to be looking to swap veteran QB's.

 

[Faust]

I find a couple things about the original article a bit odd.1. It doesn't mention amount of time starting in college. If I remember correctly, some studies were done (Football Outsiders, maybe?) & # of college starts was actually a decent predictor of things. I definitely look harder at guys with just one big year, like Sanchez.

You're remembering the study, but it did not prove that college starts and completion percentage was a good predictor of future success. It was an interesting study from a trivia perspective, but now from a predictive standpoint.

Does anybody have a link to that study? I remember reading it, and while it concluded that the criteria that they looked at was not a guaranteed predictor of NFL success it seemed to leave the impression that it was more likely a QB would be successful if they had a high number of college starts combined with a solid completion %, as well as a few other criteria.

 

[GoFishTN]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-9-44...ord-debate.html

This ESPN formula looks pretty good at determining if a QB will be a bust. And it doesn't look good for Stafford.

 

[stevegamer]

http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-9-44...ord-debate.html

This ESPN formula looks pretty good badat determining if a QB will be a bust. And it doesn't look good for Stafford.

Fixed. To me that formula is a joke.

Here are the top 4 guys:

Matt Leinart - way ahead of everyone else in the study, 33% better than Rivers

Philip Rivers

Tim Couch

Alex Smith

Here are the 4 guys closest to Stafford:

Jay Cutler

Akili Smith

Cade McNown

Joey Harrington

Not much difference. And they count Leinart & David Carr as successes.

The formula weight the entire college career equally, from freshman to senior. Being good enough to play as a freshman is a positive, but generally players play worse as a freshman, and improve. That's true with Stafford. Quoting from the article:

Stafford's numbers were dragged down by a freshman season in which Stafford completed 52.7 percent of his passes and threw 13 interceptions against seven touchdowns.

Sanchez, has a good score, but playing as a 1-year senior at USC is about the best scenario one can hope for - you have relatively weak competition, and are surrounded by elite college talent. I wonder if that would inflate your stats.

 

[GoFishTN]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I guess it's an interesting read but anyone can make up 3 categories and then go cherry pick players that fit those categories and "prove" the point.

 

[stevegamer]

I guess, but I am pretty sure they arbitrarily picked the cutoffs for grouping after they saw the results. Vick is in that lower group, and he's had success in the NFL - admittedly not in the stereotypical way.

Breakdowns are at: 0 or less, 1-19, and 20 or more. That sounds funky when scores run from -50.67 to +64.04. The groups contain 7, 9, and 15, respectively.

It might get some guys to absoltuley avoid right, but we also don't see anyone past the 1st round evaluated.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

So the college stats of the busts changed once they were in the NFL?

 

[Chase Stuart]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

So the college stats of the busts changed once they were in the NFL?

It talked about what happened over the past 10 years. It didn't talk about what's going to happen in 2009, or 2010, or any of the other future seasons.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

So the college stats of the busts changed once they were in the NFL?

It talked about what happened over the past 10 years. It didn't talk about what's going to happen in 2009, or 2010, or any of the other future seasons.

Didn't it give predictions for Stafford, Sanchez and Freeman? Sanchez would be good, Freeman unlikely to be good and Stafford a bust? That's how I read it.

 

[Chase Stuart]

To me, it looks like if this says you will be a bust, you almost certainly will be. If not, it's up in the air.

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

So the college stats of the busts changed once they were in the NFL?

It talked about what happened over the past 10 years. It didn't talk about what's going to happen in 2009, or 2010, or any of the other future seasons.

Didn't it give predictions for Stafford, Sanchez and Freeman? Sanchez would be good, Freeman unlikely to be good and Stafford a bust? That's how I read it.

Yes, it did, but the predictions are bunk. The article stands alone as a piece of trivia on success of QBs from 1997 to now. The article is junk science to the extent that it makes predictions about the future. It's data snooping.http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2007/0...ay_curse370.php

Such hypotheses are typically formed using all the data currently available - which means that there are no fresh data left to test them on. It is a fundamental rule of hypothesis-testing that, whenever possible, you should not use the same data to both formulate and test your hypothesis. A short example will illustrate why this is so.

Suppose I roll a six-sided die 100 times and analyze the results. I will be able to find many patterns in the results of those 100 rolls. I may find, for example, that a three was followed by a six 40% of the time, or that a one was never followed by a six.

Would you trust any such patterns to hold true over the next hundred rolls? You shouldn’t. If they do, it would just be coincidence. It is easy to find patterns by looking for them in a given set of data; but the test of whether those patterns are meaningful is whether they hold true in data that have not yet been examined.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

You've got your tense wrong. It said if this formula said you were going to be a bust, you became one. When it said you woudn't be a bust, it was up in the air. It says nothing about the future.

So the college stats of the busts changed once they were in the NFL?

It talked about what happened over the past 10 years. It didn't talk about what's going to happen in 2009, or 2010, or any of the other future seasons.

Didn't it give predictions for Stafford, Sanchez and Freeman? Sanchez would be good, Freeman unlikely to be good and Stafford a bust? That's how I read it.

Yes, it did, but the predictions are bunk. The article stands alone as a piece of trivia on success of QBs from 1997 to now. The article is junk science to the extent that it makes predictions about the future. It's data snooping.

If you say so.

 

[puckalicious]

Didn't it give predictions for Stafford, Sanchez and Freeman? Sanchez would be good, Freeman unlikely to be good and Stafford a bust? That's how I read it.

Yes, it did, but the predictions are bunk. The article stands alone as a piece of trivia on success of QBs from 1997 to now. The article is junk science to the extent that it makes predictions about the future. It's data snooping.

If you say so.

Repeat after me: Correlation does not equate Causation.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you say so.

It would be like saying after studying the last 10 years of NFL history and stating that the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants won one Super Bowl, the Steelers won two and the Patriots won three. Then saying that in 2009, the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants have a 10% chance of winning the SB this year, Pittsburgh has a 20% chance, New England has a 30% chance and no other team has a chance.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If you say so.

It would be like saying after studying the last 10 years of NFL history and stating that the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants won one Super Bowl, the Steelers won two and the Patriots won three. Then saying that in 2009, the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants have a 10% chance of winning the SB this year, Pittsburgh has a 20% chance, New England has a 30% chance and no other team has a chance.

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

 

[stevegamer]

If you say so.

It would be like saying after studying the last 10 years of NFL history and stating that the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants won one Super Bowl, the Steelers won two and the Patriots won three. Then saying that in 2009, the Rams, Ravens, Bucs, Colts and Giants have a 10% chance of winning the SB this year, Pittsburgh has a 20% chance, New England has a 30% chance and no other team has a chance.

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

I think it makes things grayer, since it's not really helping evaluate good players, but only eliminating a very small percentage of those drafted in round one.If the assumptions hold true going forward, then we should get somewhere. One thing that could be done is to back-test this on older QB's(who've had their story completely written) not in the survey, and see how it grades them.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

I think it makes things grayer, since it's not really helping evaluate good players, but only eliminating a very small percentage of those drafted in round one.If the assumptions hold true going forward, then we should get somewhere. One thing that could be done is to back-test this on older QB's(who've had their story completely written) not in the survey, and see how it grades them.

But see, I think the bold is very important. ANY piece of information or history or trend that I can use to help narrow down my list of players to draft is very valuable. It seems like some people want a tool that will spit out which of the top 15 QBs in a given draft class will be successful and to what extent they will be successful. That's crazy. There's just too many data points and intangible uncertainties. But if I can find things like this that will make me look harder or more diligently at some guys, especially a QB that most people think is the top of the class, then I welcome it. If you were to believe this stat is the end all, be all, then you would be drafting Graham Harrell in the first round: 44 games, 70% completion, ridiculous 4% TD/INT ratio.

 

[scoobygang]

The "lacks intangibles" category appears to be completely bogus.

At the time they were drafted, it's unlikely that many of the QBs on that list would have been identified as lacking the intangible leadership qualities needed at the QB position. Hell, we all thought Vince Young epitomized those qualities coming out of college. Nobody thought Harrington lacked intangibles coming out either. I don't see any predictive value in using hindsight bias to highlight players who we NOW know "lacked intangibles" after they've already failed in the NFL. What does that tell us about Stafford? Nothing. It's just an ex post rationalization.

 

[stevegamer]

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

I think it makes things grayer, since it's not really helping evaluate good players, but only eliminating a very small percentage of those drafted in round one.If the assumptions hold true going forward, then we should get somewhere. One thing that could be done is to back-test this on older QB's(who've had their story completely written) not in the survey, and see how it grades them.

But see, I think the bold is very important. ANY piece of information or history or trend that I can use to help narrow down my list of players to draft is very valuable. It seems like some people want a tool that will spit out which of the top 15 QBs in a given draft class will be successful and to what extent they will be successful. That's crazy. There's just too many data points and intangible uncertainties. But if I can find things like this that will make me look harder or more diligently at some guys, especially a QB that most people think is the top of the class, then I welcome it. If you were to believe this stat is the end all, be all, then you would be drafting Graham Harrell in the first round: 44 games, 70% completion, ridiculous 4% TD/INT ratio.

I guess, but it doesn't work for me, since Vick is in that bottom tier, and the guy directly above the clearly arbitrary bottom tier cutoff is Jay Cutler. So while it eliminates 7 guys - only one of whom could play, and almost eliminates a couple more who who could play, the top guys from this formula also cannot play.It also is utterly untested against other rounds past the 1st, so it's useful for 2-3 QB's a year, on average - since you don't draft a 1st round QB every year, it's of limited value. I guess I can accept that it' a non-zero value, but it's pretty beaver structure low.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

I think it makes things grayer, since it's not really helping evaluate good players, but only eliminating a very small percentage of those drafted in round one.If the assumptions hold true going forward, then we should get somewhere. One thing that could be done is to back-test this on older QB's(who've had their story completely written) not in the survey, and see how it grades them.

But see, I think the bold is very important. ANY piece of information or history or trend that I can use to help narrow down my list of players to draft is very valuable. It seems like some people want a tool that will spit out which of the top 15 QBs in a given draft class will be successful and to what extent they will be successful. That's crazy. There's just too many data points and intangible uncertainties. But if I can find things like this that will make me look harder or more diligently at some guys, especially a QB that most people think is the top of the class, then I welcome it. If you were to believe this stat is the end all, be all, then you would be drafting Graham Harrell in the first round: 44 games, 70% completion, ridiculous 4% TD/INT ratio.

I guess, but it doesn't work for me, since Vick is in that bottom tier, and the guy directly above the clearly arbitrary bottom tier cutoff is Jay Cutler. So while it eliminates 7 guys - only one of whom could play, and almost eliminates a couple more who who could play, the top guys from this formula also cannot play.It also is utterly untested against other rounds past the 1st, so it's useful for 2-3 QB's a year, on average - since you don't draft a 1st round QB every year, it's of limited value. I guess I can accept that it' a non-zero value, but it's pretty beaver structure low.

Understand your points, but what is wrong with trying it for a couple of years to see how the results are as predictive formula? Maybe it turns out to be useless, maybe not.

 

[puckalicious]

If you're into stats, than I guess you're right. But I'm more interested in finding out what qualities can lead to a successful NFL QB and college starts, completion percentage and TD/INT percentage seem to work pretty well to help flesh out that question. I understand that it's not black and white and I understand that you like black and white. But I like gray and this seems to help.

I think it makes things grayer, since it's not really helping evaluate good players, but only eliminating a very small percentage of those drafted in round one.If the assumptions hold true going forward, then we should get somewhere. One thing that could be done is to back-test this on older QB's(who've had their story completely written) not in the survey, and see how it grades them.

But see, I think the bold is very important. ANY piece of information or history or trend that I can use to help narrow down my list of players to draft is very valuable. It seems like some people want a tool that will spit out which of the top 15 QBs in a given draft class will be successful and to what extent they will be successful. That's crazy. There's just too many data points and intangible uncertainties. But if I can find things like this that will make me look harder or more diligently at some guys, especially a QB that most people think is the top of the class, then I welcome it. If you were to believe this stat is the end all, be all, then you would be drafting Graham Harrell in the first round: 44 games, 70% completion, ridiculous 4% TD/INT ratio.

I guess, but it doesn't work for me, since Vick is in that bottom tier, and the guy directly above the clearly arbitrary bottom tier cutoff is Jay Cutler. So while it eliminates 7 guys - only one of whom could play, and almost eliminates a couple more who who could play, the top guys from this formula also cannot play.It also is utterly untested against other rounds past the 1st, so it's useful for 2-3 QB's a year, on average - since you don't draft a 1st round QB every year, it's of limited value. I guess I can accept that it' a non-zero value, but it's pretty beaver structure low.

Understand your points, but what is wrong with trying it for a couple of years to see how the results are as predictive formula? Maybe it turns out to be useless, maybe not.

No need to wait. Go back a few years. My guess is this "study" also decided on the sample set to use to fit what they wanted.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Understand your points, but what is wrong with trying it for a couple of years to see how the results are as predictive formula? Maybe it turns out to be useless, maybe not.

No need to wait. Go back a few years. My guess is this "study" also decided on the sample set to use to fit what they wanted.

Maybe.

 

[puckalicious]

The only proof I need that Stafford is a bust in the making is how hard Kiper is pushing him as the #1 pick. The louder Kiper gets, the more likely they'll be a bust. When he gets a man-crush on a QB or WR he is usually wrong.

1989 - Tony Mandarich

1990 - Andre Ware (picked by Lions)

1993 - Rick Mirer

1995 - JJ Stokes

1998 - Ryan Leaf

1999 - Akili Smith

2005 - Mike Williams

2006 - Matt Leinert

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I guess it's an interesting read but anyone can make up 3 categories and then go cherry pick players that fit those categories and "prove" the point.

That's the way I read it as well, especillay the "intagibles" category. How exactly do you measure intangibles. It seems easy and quite lazy after the fact to say those that busted lacked the "intangibles" to be a franchise QB.

 

[Native]

some visual evidence... stafford's youtube highlights...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2nVLO39wB4

I simply don't see what people dont like about Stafford. IMO hes easily the best QB prospect to come out of college since Carson Palmer, and I believe hes even ahead of Palmer at this stage of his career. The big negative people mention with Stafford is his accuracy but I think hes actually quite precise with the ball. Ive watched him numerous times and hes very good on the short to intermediate routes and has the arm strength to zip balls in between defenders. And of course he has a good deep ball as well. IMO he has it all - He doesnt make a lot of mistakes, has improved his accuracy and TD's every year, shows great athleticism on the run, possesses three years of starting experience in the SEC and has the strongest arm this side of Jamarcus Russell. I'm just a guy on an internet board but to me hes an elite once-in-five-years QB prospect and I wish my team was in a position to draft him.The only area of concern IMO is his drive- if the Lions feel he can develop into a reliable team leader that puts in the requisite work to lead, improve and motivate, Id say this guy should be a slam dunk first overall pick. Calvin Johnson should be on his kneed praying that the Lions dont screw this up.

 

[Bob Magaw]

some scouts are saying stafford is not an elite prospect like ryan last year...

interestingly, they were both questioned for inaccuracy... i think ryan got a pass because he didn't have a great supporting cast, & the thinking was that he was trying to do too much...

with stafford being at georgia, that wouldn't apply... one scout said that when a great physical talent had bouts of inconsistency inexplicably, it was worrisome...

but yes, at his best, he is an impressive passer who can make all the throws & really drive the ball...

another complaint, which is common with QBs with cannon arms like elway & favre, is that he has TOO much confidence in his arm sometimes, & shouldn't try & squeeze it in between defenders... i forget if it was noted above, but that is the kind of issue that he could seemingly be coached up on...

* other factors he has going for him... he is a very bright guy (wonderlic of 35 or 38?), & reportedly the coaches were raving about his ability to break down plays on the board, & looks like he will be very coachable... any homers hear if he has work ethic issues, or questions about how much he loves the game... i find they can be indicators of success...

i don't know of any magic formulas for "prediction"... i try & look at as many things as i can in a prospect's constellation of traits & attributes... physical, athletic, skill set, & also character, intangibles, mental (to the extent possible)... starts & completion % could also be a piece of the puzzle, though it is understandable that there would be some debate on how important they are & how much they should be weighed...

another homer question (& one of the things hardest about projecting prospects of a college QB, even an elite one, to pro)... when he was rushed hard, did he show good composure, or did he hurry the throw inaccurately? how is his mobility, can he elude the rush, & is he proficient throwing on the run... & lastly, & hugely important, does he have pocket sense, can he FEEL the rush... that seems to be very primary & foundational, because if missing, it sort of renders the preceding few traits irrelevant & moot...

more questionos... does he appear to see the field well... is he adept at looking off the primary WR, or does he telegraph his intent & lock on (common problem with young QBs)... does he get it to his second & third receiving options... does he take the checkdown... did the georgia offense give him many checkdown options... i saw moreno catch the ball some on HIS highlight package, but presumably some of those were designed plays...

we can all look at the highlights, but by their nature, they may convey little or nothing about his capabilities when things are breakind down & not going well...