The art of finding a quarterback fascinates me. Many positions have similar bust potentials, but quarterbacks seem to do so with a higher profile, as Pasquarelli points out. What's amazing is that quarterbacks will have more game film of them than any other position, simply because they're responsible for executing every play. You'd think that with such evidence of their skill NFL scouts would have a higher hit-rate.
But no, plenty of first-round quarterbacks bust within a few years. Some thoughts on why this happens:
- The money is so great with first round picks, especially top-10 picks, that coaches (and GMs) feel pressured to play their new franchise player immediately. Quarterbacks need time to learn their new offense as well as adjust to the speed of the NFL. Also, a team with a top-10 pick often has that pick because they didn't have a competent-enough quarterback to keep them from being so bad, thus the new QB has no veteran to learn from.
- Scouts pay too much attention to 'measurables' and don't bother taking the time (or at least enough time) to learn about supposed 'immeasurable intangibles', such as leadership, asperation, self-motivation, book-smarts, etc. I can't remember where I heard this, but a great way to measure such things would be to talk to a quarterback's teammates, both college and high school, and get their take on what kind of person their quarterback was. If the Chargers had done their homework, they would have found out that Ryan Leaf was largely disliked at his high school, and we all know how that turned out. I may not be being fair to NFL scouts - they probably average three hours of sleep in the months leading up to the draft - but I've got to believe they're doing something wrong. Maybe quarterbacks should be scouted differently than every other position on the team.
JaMarcus Russell - I know this guy is an amazing physical specimen, possibly the most athletically-gifted quarterback since, say, Elway. Russell has "Akili Smith 2" written all over his football card. He wasn't even in the discussion of 'best college QB' until the end of the season. He wasn't in the top 10 in the 2006 Heisman voting. How could he be unnoticed while playing at LSU, one of the top teams in the SEC, and possibly in the nation? His stock went up like crazy following his (admittedly impressive) 2007 Sugar Bowl performance. Actually, after looking at his college stats, I may have to back off the Akili Smith comment a little - he has a bit more of a record of success. Still, Russell's potential started out as a snowball and ended as an avalanche. I think the Raiders made a mistake in passing on Calvin Johnson.
Brady Quinn - I don't know about this guy. What's with the contract hold-out? From what I heard around draft day, maybe half of the teams had you as a mid-first-round pick at best. Just because it was your goal to be drafted first overall doesn't mean you proved yourself worthy. The biggest complaint I've heard about Quinn - poor accuracy. That will doom a quarterback (see: Rex Grossman). I don't care that he learned under Charlie Weiss for two years. Notre Dame plays a joke of a schedule, and their best 'win' of the last two years was a close loss to USC in '05. Sorry for the negativity, but I'm really turned off by this guy's hold-out. I'm not sure how I'd project him. I saw him manage some clutch drives (beating UCLA in '06) and stink up the field (Sugar Bowl '07). I think for Quinn his future is all about his coaching and how much he learns.
And on that point, I think most quarterback development will be more nurture than nature. If I were a coach/GM, I'd look for a quarterback with physical tools that also keeps a sleeping bag in the film room. I'd want a guy that is a good, quick, passionate learner, that passes on his knowledge to make teammates better, that has a history of leadership and performing under pressure (especially off the football field).
In short - I'd want Peyton Manning. Yeah, I'm a genius.
No comments:
Post a Comment