Love the passion will eventually read My humble suggestion lead with a summary so we are compelled to read seeing 299 lines of text from a JAG poster like me is eye wash. love you pal
First of all it is the latter part of the first round and the first few picks of the 2nd that seem, after the #1 overall, to have the best value in terms of what you spend vs what you get for QB's. If you look at picks 24-36 there are just too many hits to make this a random thing although we have nowhere near a large enough sample to say anything with absolute certainty. The argument that it takes a good team to make the most of any QB picked is clearly a strong argument. That said the #1 picks do very well and the 33 to 36 picks do really well also and those picks are mostly made by bad teams not good ones. Drew Brees was picked on the #32, which was the first pick of the 2nd round in the draft he was taken. However it took San Diego 4 years to get anything really good out of him. Brett Favre was taken on the #33 by Atlanta and it took a trade to Paul Holmgren's Packers for him to develop. The point about bad teams putting their young QB's under a lot of immediate pressure is also a good one. However it's not just the top few picks where they do this. Bad teams routinely expect their 1st round QB's to hit the field right away. If they get lucky they drafted a fairly mature older QB with a lot of experience at grabbing a job and holding it, like Baker Mayfield. If they get unlucky their extremely talented young QB can't handle the pressure of being thrown into the fire on day one and fails, like Johnny Manziel. Same team, different player maturity levels, different results. Really good teams have mechanisms in place to make sure their young QB gets the best shot when he hits the field. When the Steelers drafted Ben Roethlisberger they realized early on that being a big fish in a small pond at Miami of Ohio hadn't done him any favors. He came into the NFL determined to take big shots down the field and lead the action. The problem was that he hadn't played against strong competition in college and too often he was just throwing the ball up for grabs counting on his receivers to beat the defensive backs to the ball. That works when the receivers are fast guys who can catch the ball and the defensive backs are fast guys who can't, which is often the situation in lower tier college play. The solution the Steelers came up with was very old-fashioned and very effective. They put Roethlisberger in a rookie bubble and limited his throws to only favorable down and distance situations. They relied on the offensive vets to keep Roethlisberger grounded on the field. They pushed ground and pound really hard and made it a team focus. When the Chiefs drafted Patrick Mahomes they knew he had rough edges that needed to be smoothed over. He was coming out of a Spread Option offense and had not had to make a lot of reads after the snap. He was clearly the most talented QB on the roster but Andy Reid sat him down his rookie season and made him work on learning an NFL offense. By season two he was ready to go. They did this despite trading up to get Mahomes, a move that would have resulted in many teams prioritizing getting him on the field at all costs. Not the Chiefs, they didn't want to spoil their chance at a great QB by trying for fast early returns.
Two somewhat random reactions one, i'd like to see success correlated to the NFL teams/coach and that team's prior success with QBs. Some organizations seem to cultivate and develop QBs better than other. Whether its QB school (which at least was a thing), sitting a year to just watch and learn at an NFL level or whatever. might help illustrate whether the great ones are developed (and supported) or drafted two, what is meant by success and are they measuring that? Boiled down, a QB is asked to try and implement a predesigned play and failing that to the best he can under the circumstances. A lot of stats however muddle certain things and hide others. For example, was the initial play call any good in the first place and were the receivers open. Was the ball catchable etc. There are stats that attempt to address this but the big ones like TD, Int, and yards are as much team statistics (and reflections on the opponent) as anything else. ultimately i think the good evaluators use art as much as science if not more so, asking themselves whether this candidate can do what he's going to be asked to do, and expect to see in the NFL. I'd be very curious on stats against commensurate or better competition (would help me know if he's processing the game well) stats on third and long against competition (how does he perform when people are expecting a throw) stats on well covered receivers (filter out the wide open stats that seem more prevalent in college than the pros and which can pad statistics) interviewing helps, but so too does having a relationship with the college and getting the inside skinny on prospects
This is well written and I agree with most. To make a long story short if a QB has more time to develop and learn the game from the sideline it seems they have a better chance to succeed. When your a top 5 pick I think teams /front office/fan base want to have immediate return on investment. Most College offences are so different and in the pros its another level of speed and intelligence on the field. So, to have a 21-22 year old kid come in and lead men to victory while learning a new system, new city, new everything is a lot to ask. Most of the greats QBs that were steals in the draft sat for a season Brady, Brees, ARod, Farve, Mahomes and learned the game. Great QBs that were picked high and started right away had rough first years like Aikman, Young, Peyton and adapted to the system, adapted to a new city on the fly but there were some serious growing pains. It’s very Rare for a FQB to get drafted in the top 5 and be awesome from day one, Luck, Herbert, Kyler (maybe) it’s even more rare to get a QB outside the first round to start right away and be awesome, can only think of Russ Wilson... Look how many busts there are from first rounders who got thrown in right away with all the aforementioned obstacles as a rookie Jamarcus Russel, Ryan Leaf, Rosen, Haskins etc etc. Sam could easily be on this list next year too. My point to all this is it comes down to coaching, depth and patience at the QB position. You can get one all over the map but once you do it’s how you develop him that matters. It’s also who you surround this FQB with. Competition at the QB position is vital to success. All of these factors is the GMs job to put together and the coaches job to educate.
Well, believe it or not, I tried - sort of - to sum it up, but there's a lot in these articles and I wanted to get across the point that the way QBs (and really all positions) are evaluated is at a minimum out-dated, and failing to look at some key elements of performance, especially the mental aspect. I hope you take the time to read them an d pass along your thoughts. I know you've been watching/following the Jets and football for a long time so you must have some ideas on how to address this problem.
Yes, and this is exactly the opposite of what the Jets did for Darnold Still, the track record of most teams correctly identifying QBs who will succeed is terrible. That said, there are some teams/GMs/HCs who have had pretty consistent success. They don't advertise their methods though, so it's left to everyone else to try and figure out for themselves how to do it.
Good questions. These touch on what I'm trying to find out myself. While I believe that player evaluations are something of an art form beyond mere stats and measurables, as a former systems analyst I also believe that things that can be repeated can also be "systemized" to some degree. That said, the "art form" aspect will never go away. As you noted, there are a lot of variables that affect QB performance beyond their own abilities. I think the Jets and their handling of Darnold - and the corresponding Bills handling of Allen - is clear proof of this. I do think there's enough data out there that could be compiled to develop ways to measure and/or correlate these. But even with hard numbers, teams ought to really look honestly at the CS and system they employ when weighing any QB they're thinking of acquiring, whether by draft, trade, or FA. I think there's a "teacher's (coach's) bias" that makes teams believe they can simply plug any QB into their system and he'll perform well, when the evidence shows otherwise. Again, the Darnold/Gase marriage is a prime example of this fallacy. But even if teams don't want to accrue and calculate all that other data, they can still do a much better job of evaluating the individual QB, and the Wonderlic test doesn't do it. This article: https://www.insidehook.com/article/..., the last 10,average Wonderlic score of 29.6. shows that Wonderlic is almost useless in determining whether a QB will succeed or fail. Clearly, they need to be measuring other things. I'm going to continue looking for these other things because I really believe that evaluating talent isn't really "magic".
Physical measurements, such as height not playing a role at all, just don't pass the eye test. There are just not too many QBs below 6-2 who are very successful. This is not to say that there aren't exceptions, with Murray being the most recent Pro Bowler at just 5-10, but I think it helps check another box when you are at least 6-2, 6-3. Taller than that may not make a difference. I can definitely also see where ball velocity is a factor. So, I do think 6-2/6-3 height checks the box, ball velocity checks the box, speed checks the box. Fantasy points and other categories mentioned are basically overall college production, that seems to make some sense too. The interception not mattering as much I think is a product of QBs with a lot of interceptions just not being drafted at all for the most part, and whether someone has less or more is not as relevant as long as overall production is good. And again, things to keep in mind the correlation that was found on any of this was slight. Another indicator I found on pff: https://www.pff.com/news/draft-pff-critical-factors-most-important-numbers-for-2020-nfl-draft-class Basically, they came up with the so called "stable rankings" which they correlated to being translated to NFL. With the key one throwing from the clean pocket. There are other as well, but the basic point is, it's kind of establishing a baseline, how good can you throw when situation is a perfect as can be. Clean pocket, not a 3d down, etc... And they measure negatively graded throws too, where your pass may have been caught, but it was really a bad throw or wasn't caught, but was a good throw. That makes a lot of sense too. Now, of course all of this is measured within the framework of your team. Meaning if you have a clean pocket and you throw to two best College WRs or playing against weak competition all year, it certainly helps as well. But at least you can break this down a little bit more with the above metrics in mind.
My take wasn't that they said physical measurements don't matter, but that SOME do and some don't, and a few that are heavily weighted by convention may not really matter much at all (in today's game). Height would be an example of the latter. We have several good examples of sub-6'2" QBs who have succeeded, so that shows that metric shouldn't be weighted as much as some others. However, ball velocity was a physical trait that has a high impact on success. And yeah, I'm not saying all of their conclusions are correct, but I just think they present some other valid ways to evaluate QBs that aren't being used. In reading the PFF article it's unclear what they mean by "stable/unstable metrics", especially the "unstable" part. Does this mean they're hard to quantify? Even so, I think it's possible to measure things like Passing grade under pressure Passing grade from outside the pocket Passing grade on third/fourth down Passing grade with play action Percentage of positively graded throws and indeed is important to measure them. These represent a significant number of the situations a QB - especially a young QB - will find himself in and it would be good to have some idea of how he'll perform. This is even more important since many drafted QBs wind up on bad teams and are in these situations a lot. But thanks for posting that article, and if you have any further clarification on what they mean by the above I'd love to hear it.
The physical attributes are clearly important. Adjusted stats based on film review equally so. Where does temperament and football intelligence appear in these evaluations and how are they currently tested? In additional to physical capabilities I would place a higher value on a quarterback who is demonstrably capable of reading defences, understanding motion and coverage and how that affects the designed play to a very high level of success. I've heard that Brady could read our defense as if he were in on the call. I also want someone who is calm and measured rather than emotional, does not show happy feet in the pocket and is able to progress through check-downs. These traits can all be measured, I suspect are under-valued and are factors in separating the great ones.
Big reasons why I liked Josh Allen coming out. Lance is staring to tick more and more boxes for me this year. That pocket poise combined with athleticism when needed...doesn’t get rattled .I’m seeing some Russell Wilson with taller frame.
Love the discussion. Thanks to all participants. I think there are combinations of factors which make sense for outliers. If you are shorter, you have to have quickness/roll out ability. Many have touched on it but the things that are absolutely required are hard to quantify. We all have worked with people who can conceptually answer questions yet don't see the situation when it is right in front of them. You can draw/explain plays on the white board but can you see that on the field and process it quickly. Having a development plan makes sense. I'm sure every team has one yet some work some don't. I would bet, like tailoring your schemes to talent, you better be able to tailor your development plan to the individual. Draft slots: Maybe later qb picks go to better teams/systems/coaching. Yet sometimes that successful #1 is going to a new coaching staff(bad fired) or just the player is so talented he overcomes the teams development limitations. Colorado: You mentioned Mac Jones. Obviously, I am die hard Alabama fan yet I have no idea how he will do in the pros. His story and intangibles make me think he will succeed in the proper system. He processes really well, very accurate at all levels, has touch, almost always hits in stride, loved by teammates yet so much talent around him. I think in a more run first play action system his mobility issues could be minimized. Perhaps a more old school type system. I hate it if he goes to Pats LOL.
Up until now, most NFL teams have relied much more on physical attributes, but I agree that the mental ones are at least important, but they aren't really measured.
Thanks for adding to the discussion. Yeah, I'm really curious about Jones. Is he just another product of the Alabama machine like McElroy and McCarron? Or is he an exception due to his really high IQ and processing speed? I suspect the latter, but we won't know until he plays in the NFL.
I don't think interceptions should be summarily dismissed. Yes, QBs can improve mechanics and learn to read Ds better and cut down on interceptions, but let's face it in many college football conferences DB play isn't great. WRs pretty much can have their way, so if a QB is throwing a lot of interceptions, then imo it is a signal that something is very wrong with that QB, either accuracy (which may be able to be fixed with adjusting mechanics), lack of arm strength, locking onto/staring down receivers, inability to read Ds, etc. One then needs to look at those interceptions and the situations/circumstances in which they occurred, work with the QB in the filmroom and whiteboard, thoroughly check out his mechanics, etc. I think the mental thing/football IQ/Instincts are huge. Then Jameis Winston was said to have an off the charts football IQ (I never bought it, but supposedly he did). Poise is key, not panicking or pressing/forcing throws just because his team is behind. I think looking at the level of coaching he received in college is big. IMO QBs who exhibit poise, polish, accuracy, show that they can go through their progressions, can look off safeties/not stare down their receivers have a big advantage over others.
It is my understanding that BB helped him by analyzing defenses in the film room. The article I read, a few years ago essentially said that they spent a lot of time analyzing defenses, what they were trying to do and how to beat them... Brady maybe smart, but BB is a master DC and schemer so he knows exactly what a formation is and what they plan to do...
I think he could be a perfect example of the kind of guy who if developed or given a year or two to adjust to the pro level could succeed. If expected to start day one, I could see a bad outcome. He isn't in the top 2-3 QB prospects right now so he could fall to the range being discussed. I confess that I don't know exactly what attributes our offense will value most in a QB . If the coaching staff thinks they can fix Darnold I say ok, but if Jones is there at our second rounder or a second round slot after trading back from 2, could you take Jones and develop in case after a year Darnold is still broken? He came to school with Hurts on campus and in the same class as Tua so he isn't afraid to compete. Teammates loved his humbleness and hard work but running scout team he kept completing bombs to a tall receiver. Saban got pissed and said "can't you throw it to someone else?" and he replied "tell them to stop it" LOL. He has a quiet cockiness. He has proven he can be a back up and not be an attitude problem. I just haven't seen him in situations where things are going to hell repeatedly because he is at Alabama. He didn't melt at Auburn in 2019 after two pick sixes(one definitely not his fault) in his first start rallying with 4 TD passes. I will leave it to others as I fear I have crimson glasses on when looking at him but about the only thing I don't see is him winning a lot of foot races. He slides in the pocket well and seems to have excellent pocket presence but he is not a gazelle when forced to run. Is there still a place for more cerebral QBs or are systems making mobility a premium or absolute requirement?
It wasn't that many years ago black QBs were avoided, even though they had (by far) the better physical features. So much of what makes a QB 'good' is between the ears, even before they throw the ball. Deciphering defenses in a split second every time. It was believed black athletes can't think quick enough to be good QBs (boy were they wrong). Or maybe that was just the excuse so the face of the franchise could still be a white dude? I'm so glad we've gotten beyond that now. (have we?) Anyway, like ColoradoContrails pointed out (remind me to ask ColoradoContrials how he came up with that handle), the mental aspect of a QB is equally important to his physical measurements (maybe even more so) but almost impossible to measure. About the only way you know how quick a QBs brain works is to SEE it work on the field in tough situations. That's why teams are never sure about RPO QBs, or QBs who only throw to his first read which was usually wide open. College QBs who played against top defenses are usually graded higher b/c GMs have tape of how quickly they processed defenses in close-to-NFL conditions. I guess the Wonderlic (my college nickname!) was the best they could come up with for testing how good a player's brains works. You'd think that with how important is is for a QB to have a top 1% ability to quickly process visual info that they'd have a better way of measuring it. You'd think. Anyhow, last thought: I think QBs coming out of college in the last 15-20 years are better prepared for the quick mental demands on a QB due solely to the thousands of hours they've spent playing high speed video games throughout their entire lives. They've already trained their brains from the age of 3 to quickly process visual stimuli at a very high rate of speed. Mark that down.
