Useful method of QB assessment?

[Lab]

I recently read an article from Football Outsiders (http://www.footballoutsiders.com/200...fl-draft/5082/). It argues that one very good indicator of pro success for college QBs drafted in rounds 1-2 is whether or not they (1) started lots of games in college, and (2) have a high sustained completion percentage in college. Here is the key paragraph:

"Here is the complete list of players drafted in first two rounds over the past ten years who started at least 35 games and completed at least 57 percent of their passes: Peyton Manning, Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Drew Brees, Carson Palmer, Byron Leftwich, Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger, Jason Campbell, Matt Leinart and Jay Cutler."

I took a quick look at stats on Yahoo for the three likely contenders in 2008: Ryan, Woodson, Brohm. Here are the stats: Ryan (40 games, 59.7%), Woodson 44 games, 61.5%), Brohm (44 games, 66.1%). All look pretty good (although I suspect the Yahoo list of "games" reflects games played and not games started, so it might be inflated).

What do you think? No doubt these guys will be drafted high, but what do you think of pro success?

[Matt McGuire]

No in today's game where the spread offense has taken over college football. If the % thing was true then wouldn't Josh Johnson and Colt Brennan be the first QBs taken in the draft?

Experience? If that were true, then Brandon Cox would be a very high draft pick. Bruce Gradkowski is a poster child...wouldn't he be performing much better in Tampa with a lot of experience and high % in college?

Fact of the matter here are a few factors I look at when evaluating college QBs:

*How polished are they passing the football? (i.e. looking off safeties, executing the pump fake, mechanics, etc.)

Top QBs in 2007 that fit this:
Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, Andre Woodson

*How poised are they in the pocket? Not many NFL QBs bust that are poised.

Top QBs in 2007 that fit this:
Andre Woodson, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan

*Accuracy in a pro style offense. This is something really hard to project to the next level, but the best way to project accuracy in my opinion is to look at mechanics (i.e. FOOTWORK).
Flags: Matt Flynn, Dennis Dixon, Colt Brennan (system QB), Josh Johnson (system QB)

*Size is very important, but it isn't everything.
Flags: Colt Brennan (lacks bulk), Dennis Dixon (lacks bulk), Brandon Cox

*Character...can the player be a leader on the field and OFF it.
Flags: Colt Brennan, Sam Keller, Blake Mitchell

[Matt McGuire]

Forgot to add in John David Booty, he is the most polished QB in college football and the most NFL ready in my opinion.

[Lab]

I think one of the FO criteria is that the QB must be chosen in rounds 1-2. Otherwise, you might be correct that some weak-sister QB chosen in round 5 might meet the other two criteria. I think this round 1-2 element excludes people like Cox, Gradkowski, Dixon, Brennan, etc. For 2008 at least, it likely will limit the choices to Ryan, Woodson, and Brohm.

I also don't think the FO article is trying to say it's criteria are the ONLY way to look at QBs, but are just the best objective stats-driven approach. Your critieria are good ones, but they are all subjective, which leads to a concern that the scout might let subjective elements (e.g., love of Kentucky players) cloud his vision.

[Also, note the at FO analysis was from just last year, so don't think that this is "old" analysis that has been rendered moot by the "new" use of spread offenses in college.]

[animal52]

I agree with much of what you have said here Matt. When this discussion comes up, I always tend to think about Tom Brady and how unusual his situation is compared to the norm.

I don't have his college stats in front of me, but I remember him starting only about half of his college games, splitting time with Drew Henson in a classic 2 QB situation where the coach couldn't decide on a definite starter.

His scouting report coming out of college questioned his durability, arm strength, and mobility and was therefore drafted in the 6th round.

My question...what have we learned from all of this on how we judge QB prospects in the future?

[Matt McGuire]

My question...what have we learned from all of this on how we judge QB prospects in the future?

Great question animal, but let me get back to Lab for a second.

He said, "Your critieria are good ones, but they are all subjective, which leads to a concern that the scout might let subjective elements (e.g., love of Kentucky players) cloud his vision."

That's right it is subjective...but scouting is subjective. When you evaluate and project talent it isn't black and white. It is important to be subjective on some things and objective on others (such as a love for a certain coach, school, etc.).

Now back to animal. I think what I have learned most from evaluating QB prospects is to take every piece of the puzzle and not be enthralled with one piece...such as Vince Young's national championship game. Just because he beat USC, doesn't mean he all of a sudden is a great pocket QB. That's another debate, but I say it in relation to being objective.

Colt Brennan looked horrible vs. Georgia, and it was an important game for him because, "How would he look versus very good talent?" But I wasn't surprised by his performance, but at the same time I am not going to say I wouldn't draft him at all either based on that game.

I hope some of us have learned (i.e. WALTER) to respect the label of a system QB. I mean just look at the history of the QB in the NFL and the system QB from college does bad a very large majority of the time when transitioning to an NFL offense.

Among other things it is important to learn about character. So many players have busted due to character. Michael Vick. Lawrence Phillips. Ryan Leaf. Todd Marinovich. Jeff George, etc.

[animal52]

System, character, and then the rest. Got it.

Another thing, and this is not a question or a disagreement, when I think of the importance of character............. do you think OJ Simpson would have been drafted if people knew he was capable of being a double murderer?

Just something I think about.

[Matt McGuire]

System, character, and then the rest. Got it.

Another thing, and this is not a question or a disagreement, when I think of the importance of character............. do you think OJ Simpson would have been drafted if people knew he was capable of being a double murderer?

Just something I think about.

I would draft him based on his NFL career. I would still draft Ray Lewis based on his NFL career.

Look, it is important to be PRECAUTIOUS but we aren't drafting Boy Scouts..we are drafting a football player.

I mean David Carr and Joey Harrington have great character, but they aren't good players. There have been many a football player in the Draft that fell because they didn't have good chemistry in the locker room. Chad Johnson had the talent of a first round pick, but scouts relayed to their GMs that his coaches didn't like his attitude. Same with Chris Henry. Pacman Jones...look at these guys.

It is important that character becomes a flag, but it should never ever raise the draft stock of a football player. So what if he buys groceries for needy widows every other tuesday? Can he throw a 20 yard out route?

I mean look at Phillip Rivers talking trash a few weeks ago...but he made a lot of really good plays to win in the playoffs.

[animal52]

I would draft him based on his NFL career. I would still draft Ray Lewis based on his NFL career.

Look, it is important to be PRECAUTIOUS but we aren't drafting Boy Scouts..we are drafting a football player.

I mean David Carr and Joey Harrington have great character, but they aren't good players.

It is important that character becomes a flag, but it should never ever raise the draft stock of a football player. So what if he buys groceries for needy widows every other tuesday? Can he throw a 20 yard out route?

I mean look at Phillip Rivers talking trash a few weeks ago...but he made a lot of really good plays to win in the playoffs.

I agree....in fact I think some of the lesser human qualities that some people possess actually can make someone a better football player, high tempered emotion, willingness to inflict pain, wanting to win at ALL cost, etc.

[Matt McGuire]

Look, I know I am playing good cop bad cop and contradicting myself a bit when discussing character...BUT THIS IS THE WORLD OF SCOUTING!!!!

[Matt McGuire]

I agree....in fact I think some of the lesser human qualities that some people possess actually can make someone a better football player, high tempered emotion, willingness to inflict pain, wanting to win at ALL cost, etc.

lol yeah I agree...I read an article in ESPN Mag about Ken Hamlin...the article made me not like him at all. Very stubborn person that looks for trouble (initiating fights at strip clubs for example). But when he got seriously injured no one gave him advice. Not teammates, coaches, team execs, etc. They knew he was set in his ways, that is his anger problem. But it is why he is such a hard hitter and a good football player.

[animal52]

Hey Matt, I 'm not arguing with you. I'm agreeing with you.

[Matt McGuire]

Hey Matt, I 'm not arguing with you. I'm agreeing with you.

oh yes I know...just having a discussion.

[animal52]

Ok saw your last post

[EL Guapo]

I would have the quarterbacks play chicken against each other and see who moves first.

I'm revolutionary.

Can't the scouts look at film and say this is what the coverage was, this is what his read should have been, and this is where he should have thrown it. I assume that is what goes on, because in college you can succeed because your players are better athletes than the others. Numbers don't mean anything. I agree with Matt's qualities to look at, especalliy poise. They need a way to figure out how nervous somebody gets and how fast they think under pressure.