Star College QB's who struggle in the Pros

[Gangrene]

This article is a couple of years old but takes a look up close at the differences in the college game compared to qb'ing in the pro's.

Trent Dilfer is interviewed and talks about Bryce Betty and how little of what they do at Baylor translates... in the light of how it applies to evaluating this year's draft class, I thought it was worth a read.

 

 

COLLEGE SPORTS

Why star college QBs are struggling in the pros

BY LAURA KEELEY

 

•  

October 16, 2015 05:09 PM

Updated October 17, 2015 03:46 PM

It is a hundred-million dollar question: Where are the next great NFL quarterbacks?

On the heels of the notable struggles of former college stars such as Washington’s Robert Griffin III and Cleveland’s Johnny Manziel, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Why the NFL Has a Quarterback Crisis”. Several NFL coaches and executives were quoted pushing a similar theory: the proliferation of the no-huddle, spread offenses at the college level is churning out quarterbacks unprepared for success at the next level. 

“They don’t coach anything,” Buffalo Bills coach Rex Ryan was quoted as saying about college coaches.

Duke coach David Cutcliffe, one of the more celebrated quarterbacks coaches in the game, saw the article and chuckled to himself. “I think that’s kind of nonsense talk, to be honest with you,” he said. 

Trent Dilfer, the 14-year NFL veteran who now oversees the Nike and ESPN-backed Elite 11 high school quarterback competition, also saw the article. He tweeted it out, along with a one-word commentary: interesting. 

There is no doubt that there are significant differences between the role of the quarterback at the college and NFL levels – “I could make a very strong argument that from a quarterback’s perspective, they are almost different sports,” Dilfer said. But he doesn’t buy the idea that all potentially great NFL signal callers have disappeared. 

“When I hear the term, there’s no good quarterbacks coming or they’re all bad, it’s so wrong. High school quarterbacking is better than it’s ever been. The talent pool for quarterbacks is off-the-hook good. It is ridiculous how many kids have NFL potential.

“I saw 50 kids this year – 50! – that were better than me when I was 18. They were better than me when I was 20. Better than me maybe when I was a junior all-American (at Fresno State). They can do more with the ball. They are better athletes. They’ve been exposed to more football.”

Somewhere along the quarterback pipeline, there is a disconnect. 

Uptempo pace slowing development

The NFL types are right about one thing: The version of the spread-option offense popular at the college level is markedly different from the offenses run in the pros. 

Take former Baylor quarterback Bryce Petty, who completed 62.2 percent of his passes and threw for 8,055 yards and 61 touchdowns against just 10 interceptions in his final two years in Waco, Texas. He had to wait until the third day of the 2015 NFL draft to hear the Jets call his name with the 103rd overall pick in the 4th round. 

“Honestly, when I did Bryce Petty’s film – and I love Bryce, he was my favorite quarterback in the whole draft, in terms of a project – but there were like 25 transferable snaps from the entire season,” Dilfer said. “I watched every snap, and there were, like, 25 times where he did something he was actually going to do in the NFL.”

Baylor is at the apex of the uptempo spread-offense trend, getting an offensive play off every 18 seconds in 2014, according to data from SB Nation’s Football Study Hall. In comparison, the fastest NFL team, the Philadelphia Eagles, ran an offensive play every 21.95 seconds, according to Football Outsiders – that would rank 29th in the FBS. 

Locally, North Carolina ranked fourth nationally in terms of tempo, running a play every 18.8 seconds. Duke ran one every 22.2 seconds, good for 32nd nationally, and N.C. State’s play every 24 seconds ranks 69th. Duke and UNC run no-huddle offenses with spread elements and quarterbacks who can run and throw. The Wolfpack huddle, but quarterback Jacoby Brissett certainly fits the dual-threat mode. 

Last season, UNC quarterback Marquise Williams ranked 11th in the ACC with an average of 60.23 rushing yards per game. Brissett had the next highest average for a quarterback with an average of 40.69 rushing yards per game, and he rushed for 167 yards in the Wolfpack’s best game of the year, a 35-7 win at UNC. Brissett is the best QB prospect out of the ACC for the 2016 NFL Draft, and he is projected by CBS Sports as a mid-to-late-round pick.

“He’s exactly what they want,” N.C. State coach Dave Doeren said of Brissett. “He’s big, he’s strong, he can make the throws, he’s intelligent, competitive, mobile, he puts in the time, mentally tough.”

No time to adjust

With college offenses moving at breakneck speed, a quarterback isn’t spending much time, if any, making pre-snap adjustments based on what the defense is showing, and he is probably taking less than 2.5 seconds after the ball is snapped to either throw it, hand it off, or tuck it and run himself. At the end of every play, as the referee spots the ball, college quarterbacks look to the sideline, where the play is signaled in either by a big sign held up or a staff member making various arm motions. And then it’s go time.

In the NFL, plays are radioed into the quarterback in complicated sentence-length strings, and then the quarterback evaluates the defense and makes any necessary adjustments before the snap.

“That’s the biggest thing that the pro guys are frustrated with, is that the college quarterback, for the most part, is managed from the sideline,” Dilfer said. “They are making very few dynamic decisions at the line of scrimmage or after the ball is snapped. Dynamic decision-making before the ball is snapped and after the ball is snapped is what separates the best pro quarterbacks from everybody else.

“I put no blame on the colleges – it has become so intense at the college level, winning and losing,” Dilfer said. “It is all about winning to generate revenue and filling the seats and paying for other programs, because football plays for the rest of your sports. So if you have to win, you’re going to find the easiest, most repeatable way of winning. For the quarterback, that’s going to more of a catch-and-throw offense.”

But just because a team runs an up-tempo, spread-option offense doesn’t mean a coach can’t teach his quarterback the finer points of the position. At Duke, for example, starting quarterback Thomas Sirk practices taking snaps from under center (even though Duke has lined up in the shotgun exclusively for years), and his day always begins around 7:05 with a 45-minute briefing with offensive coordinator Scottie Montgomery, who breaks down film with him and relays whatever observations Cutcliffe has made. 

“Regardless of what offense that we would run, I’m going to teach those guys defensive football,” Cutcliffe said. “If you understand defensive football and you have good fundamentals and good mechanics, then regardless of what style of offense you’re running, a guy can be fairly successful.”

Even the field is different

It’s more than just pace that differentiates the college from the pro game. The playing surface itself is different. In the NFL, the right and left hashmarks are 18 feet, 6 inches apart, in line with the goalposts. In college football, they are significantly wider at 40 feet apart. As all plays start either on or between the hashmarks, this meaningfully affects the set-up for offenses. 

At the college level, if a play starts on the left hashmark, the wide side of the field, from the left hashmark to the right sideline – called the field side – is quite wide, leaving defensive backs with much ground to cover. The spread offense is predicated on spreading the defense out, getting superior wide receivers and running backs in one-on-one matchups with less quick defenders. Tackling in space is quite difficult, especially at the college level, where the talent level varies from player to player. Get the desired matchup, and let the skill player beat his man and rack up big gains. 

With the narrower hashmarks, the field side never gets as wide as it does in the college game. This reduces the space the bigger, faster stronger, smarter and more prepared NFL defenders have to cover. And there aren’t large talent gaps from player to player to exploit – only the top 1.6 percent of college players make it to the NFL. 

“In the NFL, literally each defender can be two guys in one, almost,” Dilfer said. “They have the mentality to see the patterns ahead of time and physically are fast and strong enough to compensate for any bad position they might be in in alignment.

“The biggest thing you hear from young NFL quarterbacks, is, wait a second, he wasn’t supposed to be there. That one statement tells the big picture of the difference between college quarterbacks and pro quarterbacks. In college, they are where they’re supposed to be. You line them up, you spread them out, they’re there. In the NFL, you line them up, you spread them out and they’re totally in different spots.”

Evaluating quarterbacks 

Cutcliffe has a solution to the so-called quarterback crisis. 

“I don’t think the Xs and Os have anything to do with it,” he said. “It sounds like a pretty convenient way to say we’re struggling evaluating. 

“I’ve always thought most of the time, not all, their evaluation process of quarterbacks is very, very average, compared to how I would go about it myself,” he said of the NFL evaluation process. “So, I’m not surprised they miss as much as they do. Isn’t that what they’re really talking about?”

Cutcliffe declined to reveal all of his tricks of the trade for evaluating quarterbacks, but he did say, “There is a thoroughness, knowing who you are dealing with – there are so many things that you can probe besides just watching tape.”

Cutcliffe was front-and-center for one of the more misguided quarterback debates, as it turned out: In 1998, there was a spirited debate over whether Cutcliffe’s quarterback at Tennessee, Peyton Manning, or Washington State’s Ryan Leaf should be taken No. 1 in the NFL draft. Manning is one of the NFL’s all-time greatest quarterbacks. Leaf started just 21 career games and has almost spent as much time in prison as he did in the NFL. 

Dilfer agreed with Cutcliffe’s assessment of the NFL’s evaluating process.

“It is the worst-evaluated and worst-developed position in the NFL,” he said. “I have conversations with GMs and coaches about quarterbacks that literally I get off the phone and I go to my wife and I vent. And I say I cannot believe that this is a decision maker in the NFL, and he has no idea, none, zero, what it means to be the quarterback, what you’re looking for in a quarterback and how to develop a quarterback.

If I was an NFL general manager, I would pay David Cutcliffe whatever amount of money would get him away from Duke, and I would have him be my chief quarterback evaluator/consultant in my organization. That’s what I would do. And I trust myself a lot. There are a handful of people that truly understand all the layers of evaluating and developing quarterbacks.”

Cutcliffe wouldn’t attempt to wow any NFL types with fancy terminology in attempts to sound smart. To him, the answer to the question of what makes a great quarterback is quite simple. 

“Quarterbacks can play in any style of offense,” he said. “If they’re great quarterbacks – when people say pro-style, what you’re really saying is: Can a guy throw the football?”

Laura Keeley: 919-829-4556, @laurakeeley

MAJOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COLLEGE AND NFL OFFENSES

1) Hashmarks

▪ 18 feet, 6 inches apart in the NFL

▪ 40 feet apart in college

Significance: The “field” (or wide) side of the field isn’t as wide in the pros, making it harder to create 1-on-1 matchups for offensive skill players to exploit 

2) Pass blocking

▪ NFL offensive linemen can move forward one yard before a pass is thrown

▪ College linemen can move forward three yards – and the rule is rarely enforced

Significance: Offenses can better trick defenses into thinking it’s a run play – as the linemen move off the line of scrimmage in a run-block look – before unleashing a pass against an ill-positioned defense

3) Dynamic decision making

▪ NFL quarterbacks receive longer play calls, read defenses, make pre-snap protection adjustments and are more deliberate with throws after the snap

▪ College plays are signaled in via signs or hand motions, the ball is snapped quickly and throws are made quickly, too 

Significance: College quarterbacks must adjust to making more dynamic decisions once they reach the pros – easier said than done

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/article39484191.html#storylink=cpy

[T0mShane]

This was a really good article. Thanks for posting. This was my favorite part, because it does seem like a lot of really dumb dudes get GM jobs. 

9 minutes ago, Gangrene said:

“It is the worst-evaluated and worst-developed position in the NFL,” he said. “I have conversations with GMs and coaches about quarterbacks that literally I get off the phone and I go to my wife and I vent. And I say I cannot believe that this is a decision maker in the NFL, and he has no idea, none, zero, what it means to be the quarterback, what you’re looking for in a quarterback and how to develop a quarterback.

If I was an NFL general manager, I would pay David Cutcliffe whatever amount of money would get him away from Duke, and I would have him be my chief quarterback evaluator/consultant in my organization. That’s what I would do. And I trust myself a lot. There are a handful of people that truly understand all the layers of evaluating and developing quarterbacks.”

Cutcliffe wouldn’t attempt to wow any NFL types with fancy terminology in attempts to sound smart. To him, the answer to the question of what makes a great quarterback is quite simple. 

“Quarterbacks can play in any style of offense,” he said. “If they’re great quarterbacks – when people say pro-style, what you’re really saying is: Can a guy throw the football?”

 

[RutgersJetFan]

lol colt brennan threw for like 6k yards buddy, i'm sure he can manage half that and thats better than jets fans have had in a long time

- half the internet, circa 2008

[HessStation]

I think the best takeaway here is they have no time to develop anymore and are expected to be great too soon...a la instant gratification. I'd almost bet god money if the Giants take a QB whoever it is, he'll turn out the best given the circumstances 

[kdels62]

46 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

This was a really good article. Thanks for posting. This was my favorite part, because it does seem like a lot of really dumb dudes get GM jobs. 

 

Yeah except Dilfer has never brought up a guy and been like “this is the a guaranteed great quarterback,” and he’s been wrong in articles like this all the time. He also knows nothing. Jordan Palmer knows nothing but for some reason agents pay that dude to pimp their cash cows. 

I have a theory. There are no good or bad GMs. There are just portions in time when a GM gets lucky and if you have the GM when that occurs, your organization looks genius. 

[dbatesman]

2 hours ago, kdels62 said:

I have a theory. There are no good or bad GMs. There are just portions in time when a GM gets lucky and if you have the GM when that occurs, your organization looks genius. 

You definitely need some luck, but a lot of that is the residue of design. It’s not a coincidence that some teams seem to get lucky every year while the Jets consistently walk under ladders.

[RedBeardedSavage]

5 hours ago, kdels62 said:

Yeah except Dilfer has never brought up a guy and been like “this is the a guaranteed great quarterback,” and he’s been wrong in articles like this all the time. He also knows nothing. Jordan Palmer knows nothing but for some reason agents pay that dude to pimp their cash cows. 

I have a theory. There are no good or bad GMs. There are just portions in time when a GM gets lucky and if you have the GM when that occurs, your organization looks genius. 

I agree.  I think most of it, so long as you pick a player that has a baseline of talent and is willing to work, is luck and situation.  

To this day I think Kellen Clemens might have been a good one if McCariens held on to that TD pass in Baltimore; Clemens would have engineered a last second comeback win @ Baltimore against Ray Lewis, Ed Reed and Terrel Suggs in their prime - moments like that can make careers: a player builds self confidence, earns the belief of his teammates and the faith of the fan base.  This buys him the time and confidence to develop.  

But JMac let the ball slip right between his hands and it ended sailing directly into Ray Lewis’s chest for the easy pick. 

What could have been an amazing comeback win on the road by an upstart quarterback against a superior team became a game ending interception and the world shrugged it off because we weren’t supposed to win that game anyway. 

[Villain The Foe]

7 hours ago, HessStation said:

I think the best takeaway here is they have no time to develop anymore and are expected to be great too soon...a la instant gratification. I'd almost bet god money if the Giants take a QB whoever it is, he'll turn out the best given the circumstances 

Hack should be hitting mini camp guns blazing then. We had him on the slow cooker for 2 years.

Yet we're picking a qb 3rd overall this year. We didnt ask Hack to be great immediately, but for the jets to not just be picking a qb, but traded three 2nd rounders just to make sure they got any one of the top qbs says to me that Hack didnt develop.

Sure, you can get better with practice, but he was bad even in college. Giving him 2 years to develop along with paying veteran quarterbacks to be his mentor has done nothing but put us in a position to draft a quarterback. 

The Giants drafted QBs to sit behind Eli and those didn't work either, which is why they'll probably be picking a qb at 2 themselves. 

[kdels62]

6 hours ago, dbatesman said:

You definitely need some luck, but a lot of that is the residue of design. It’s not a coincidence that some teams seem to get lucky every year while the Jets consistently walk under ladders.

I think the impact of “design” is minimal and the only people to have somewhat crack the code are the Steelers and Pats. However, they both have had franchise QBs that fell into their laps, that also mask mistakes made by the people in charge. There was no skill in having Brady fall to them in the 6th round and there was no skill in having Roethlisberger fall to the 12th(?) pick.  New Orleans got lucky that Brees got rejected by the Dolphins. Newton was the only reasonable pick when Carolina had the number 1 overall pick. Polian made a legendary career after making a last minute decision to take Manning over Leaf and then proceeded to build a roster that was carried by Manning beyond its actual talent levels. It just feels like GMs throw sh*t at the wall and if something sticks, everyone tries to figure out how the GM made his “brilliant decision.” The best GMs then lie and claim they have a secret and parlay that into jobs until they’re 88 and completely incoherent.

 

[dbatesman]

21 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

I think the impact of “design” is minimal and the only people to have somewhat crack the code are the Steelers and Pats. However, they both have had franchise QBs that fell into their laps, that also mask mistakes made by the people in charge. There was no skill in having Brady fall to them in the 6th round and there was no skill in having Roethlisberger fall to the 12th(?) pick.  New Orleans got lucky that Brees got rejected by the Dolphins. Newton was the only reasonable pick when Carolina had the number 1 overall pick. Polian made a legendary career after making a last minute decision to take Manning over Leaf and then proceeded to build a roster that was carried by Manning beyond its actual talent levels. It just feels like GMs throw sh*t at the wall and if something sticks, everyone tries to figure out how the GM made his “brilliant decision.” The best GMs then lie and claim they have a secret and parlay that into jobs until they’re 88 and completely incoherent.

 

Yes, most GMs are dumb. But a few aren’t, and—crazy coincidence—those are the ones who get tagged by fans as “lucky.” It’s the same logic as calling the draft a crapshoot. It ignores process and handwaves results so as to absolve whatever mouth-breather currently warming the big seat for the Jets of any responsibility. It’s precisely the logic that allowed an incompetent like Mike Tannenbaum to burrow himself into this organization like a bot fly and stay there for a decade, and it’s precisely the logic that will allow an incompetent like Maccagnan to do the same.

[nyjunc]

22 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

Yes, most GMs are dumb. But a few aren’t, and—crazy coincidence—those are the ones who get tagged by fans as “lucky.” It’s the same logic as calling the draft a crapshoot. It ignores process and handwaves results so as to absolve whatever mouth-breather currently warming the big seat for the Jets of any responsibility. It’s precisely the logic that allowed an incompetent like Mike Tannenbaum to burrow himself into this organization like a bot fly and stay there for a decade, and it’s precisely the logic that will allow an incompetent like Maccagnan to do the same.

who are these GMs that are tagged as lucky?

[Philc1]

Everyone from the big 12

everyone who played in the air raid system

 

 

[HessStation]

3 hours ago, Villain The Foe said:

Hack should be hitting mini camp guns blazing then. We had him on the slow cooker for 2 years.

Yet we're picking a qb 3rd overall this year. We didnt ask Hack to be great immediately, but for the jets to not just be picking a qb, but traded three 2nd rounders just to make sure they got any one of the top qbs says to me that Hack didnt develop.

Sure, you can get better with practice, but he was bad even in college. Giving him 2 years to develop along with paying veteran quarterbacks to be his mentor has done nothing but put us in a position to draft a quarterback. 

The Giants drafted QBs to sit behind Eli and those didn't work either, which is why they'll probably be picking a qb at 2 themselves. 

I'm talking about first round quarterbacks who are expected to be great. 

[Gangrene]

Two things I took away from the article.

One is that rookie qbs in the NFL would benefit from sitting in on or at least seeing video recordings of defensive meetings. If you better understand how NFL defenses work, even your own team's...it is going to equip you somewhat in understanding the shifts and complexities in NFL defenses. 

Realising that pre-snap reads and post snap reads are so much more complex in the NFL, it probably why many of the top qbs in the league score high in the wonderlic. There are many exceptions of course but the Wentz, Manning, Rogers are all in the high 30's.

What is a fascinating study in this year's class is Josh Allen. He struggles with his pre and post snap reads yet he scored high in the intelligence test (37) . Will he have a career like Akiki Smith (37 on the Wonderlic)   or Matthew Stafford (38 on the Wonderlic) ?

[CanadaSteve]

Since college football is basically the ONLY funnel to the NFL for talent, would it not make sense to mirror the college game EXACTLY like the pro version?  Hashmarks, offensive line movement, QB development, etc...?

[Villain The Foe]

1 hour ago, HessStation said:

I'm talking about first round quarterbacks who are expected to be great. 

QB's drafted outside of the 1st round are still expected to be great. Macc drafted Hack with the intention of him becoming this teams starting QB. Every GM who has starting expectations for their drafted QB expects them to be great. 

The Raiders expect Derek Carr to be great. 

[dbatesman]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

who are these GMs that are tagged as lucky?

Belichick, Colbert, Loomis, Hurney, Polian in the post I quoted alone.

[Jet Nut]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Yes, most GMs are dumb. But a few aren’t, and—crazy coincidence—those are the ones who get tagged by fans as “lucky.” It’s the same logic as calling the draft a crapshoot. It ignores process and handwaves results so as to absolve whatever mouth-breather currently warming the big seat for the Jets of any responsibility. It’s precisely the logic that allowed an incompetent like Mike Tannenbaum to burrow himself into this organization like a bot fly and stay there for a decade, and it’s precisely the logic that will allow an incompetent like Maccagnan to do the same.

The draft is a crapshoot, for every GM.  Very few players come into the NFL ready to hit the ground running.  A player needs to continue developing in order to become a NFL player.  Many don't for a lot of different reasons. 

[kdels62]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Yes, most GMs are dumb. But a few aren’t, and—crazy coincidence—those are the ones who get tagged by fans as “lucky.” It’s the same logic as calling the draft a crapshoot. It ignores process and handwaves results so as to absolve whatever mouth-breather currently warming the big seat for the Jets of any responsibility. It’s precisely the logic that allowed an incompetent like Mike Tannenbaum to burrow himself into this organization like a bot fly and stay there for a decade, and it’s precisely the logic that will allow an incompetent like Maccagnan to do the same.

My point is that no one tags these GMs as lucky, when maybe the only difference between a good GM and a bad GM might be an unquantifiable hunch. I’m not saying everything is a total crapshoot and every GM has a reason for being elevated to that title, but rather those skills are less important than circumstance. Tannenbaum came in and had 2 great drafts that changed the franchise, we were competitive and had a real shot at the Super Bowl for a few years. Then Tannenbaum couldn’t hit on draft picks or free agents... what changed? 

[ZachEY]

24 minutes ago, CanadaSteve said:

Since college football is basically the ONLY funnel to the NFL for talent, would it not make sense to mirror the college game EXACTLY like the pro version?  Hashmarks, offensive line movement, QB development, etc...?

The goal of college football coaches and players is to win college football games, bowls, and national championships, not prepare their players for the NFL.

[dbatesman]

9 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

My point is that no one tags these GMs as lucky, when maybe the only difference between a good GM and a bad GM might be an unquantifiable hunch. I’m not saying everything is a total crapshoot and every GM has a reason for being elevated to that title, but rather those skills are less important than circumstance. Tannenbaum came in and had 2 great drafts that changed the franchise, we were competitive and had a real shot at the Super Bowl for a few years. Then Tannenbaum couldn’t hit on draft picks or free agents... what changed? 

Is this a rhetorical question?

[ZachEY]

8 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

My point is that no one tags these GMs as lucky, when maybe the only difference between a good GM and a bad GM might be an unquantifiable hunch. I’m not saying everything is a total crapshoot and every GM has a reason for being elevated to that title, but rather those skills are less important than circumstance. Tannenbaum came in and had 2 great drafts that changed the franchise, we were competitive and had a real shot at the Super Bowl for a few years. Then Tannenbaum couldn’t hit on draft picks or free agents... what changed? 

The point is, some GMs put themselves in far greater positions to be lucky.  Process matters.  If Macc drafted a multiple pro bowl strong safety last year, how much does that move the needle towards winning a super bowl?  Versus, had Macc drafted a multiple pro bowl quarterback?

[UntouchableCrew]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

Since college football is basically the ONLY funnel to the NFL for talent, would it not make sense to mirror the college game EXACTLY like the pro version?  Hashmarks, offensive line movement, QB development, etc...?

Make sense for who? It's not college football's problem that the NFL isn't evaluating QBs well.

[JustInFudge]

I have a hard time with articles like this excusing away the error of GM's like finding a Qb is just as challenging as spotting Big Foot or Aliens.  It's really not that hard.  The guys who are going to go high are typically pretty good and the guys that go low are typically pretty bad.  It's not confusing, it's not a crap shoot, it's about positioning yourself to take the player with the highest odds to succeed.

It was no shock to anyone that watched college Football that a terrible EJ Manuel or Christian Ponder would suck in the NFL and Jameis Winston would be good.  Desperation makes you do stupid sh*t.  And I honestly think it's the easy.  Is it fail proof?  **** no...but it's also not drawing numbers from a lotto machine either.  It's an educated guess and typically, those guys who go high are in deed, pretty good to great.

I also think a big factor into this is expectations.  The SB or bust = success mentality.  Only 1 QB wins the SB ever year and we're living in an era where the SB over of the last 15 years have seen a lot of the same faces; Brady, Manning/s, Big Ben, Wilson, etc. and all but Brady and Wilson werent top picks.  The rest were at the least 2nd rounders to 1st rounders.  Kaep and Brees (2nd), the rest?  1st round picks.  Ryan, Newton, Rodgers, Flacco, Manning/s, Big Ben.  etc.  So basically remove Brady, Warner and Wilson - and guess what?  The dudes everyone thought would be good, were in fact, good.

It's not this hard.  It takes balls.  It takes balls to do what the Jets refuse to do - risk playing someone who can potentially win 2 games instead of having some sh*tty vet win 5.  Have the balls to trade a lot of capital for a high draft pick.  Have the balls to take said player even when their maybe a little doubt (Adams > Watson/Mahomes).  Have the balls to cut ties with picks who are going to suck and everyone knows it, Hack, so it doesnt preclude you from doing something stupid ie: taking a safety over 2 QB's.  Have the balls to get it wrong and live with that mistake.

It looks like Mac found some balls this year, lets hope it works out.  If you remove the Jets name from #3 overall, the Odds are actually pretty high that the #3 pick will in fact, be pretty good.

[nyjunc]

2 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Belichick, Colbert, Loomis, Hurney, Polian in the post I quoted alone.

BB's draft record is very spotty, he did hit the ultimate lottery w/ Brady who resurrected that franchise and Bill's HC career.

even the good ones need to get lucky now and then but I agree w/ you that the good ones tend to have more "luck" on their side.

[southparkcpa]

14 hours ago, T0mShane said:

This was a really good article. Thanks for posting. This was my favorite part, because it does seem like a lot of really dumb dudes get GM jobs. 

 

I can't tell if he just spoke with Tanny or Idzik?

[southparkcpa]

2 hours ago, kdels62 said:

My point is that no one tags these GMs as lucky, when maybe the only difference between a good GM and a bad GM might be an unquantifiable hunch. I’m not saying everything is a total crapshoot and every GM has a reason for being elevated to that title, but rather those skills are less important than circumstance. Tannenbaum came in and had 2 great drafts that changed the franchise, we were competitive and had a real shot at the Super Bowl for a few years. Then Tannenbaum couldn’t hit on draft picks or free agents... what changed? 

Tanny, IMO, is heavily influenced by the HC.  He has no balls and REX probably pushed him around. Look at how timid he was in telling Clemmons he had to take league minimum.  

[CanadaSteve]

5 hours ago, TeddEY said:

The goal of college football coaches and players is to win college football games, bowls, and national championships, not prepare their players for the NFL.

But when the billion dollar league you are funneling players to needs better quality, maybe they should listen

[Beerfish]

I think a lot of what he says in that article is going to apply to Mayfield.  Despite the nice comp % gaudy stats and nice combine et all.

I keep going back to watching games the last couple of years.  Watching rosen and Darnold was like watching NFL games, the feel, the good things and bad things they did.

Mayfield and Oklahoma were very impressive but those games to me did not resemble nfl games vs nfl defenses.

We have a lot of Mayfield fans on this site which is great.  i just have him as a far bigger risk than the other two guys.

[ZachEY]

1 hour ago, CanadaSteve said:

But when the billion dollar league you are funneling players to needs better quality, maybe they should listen

Then, the NFL needs to contract them as a farm system, and pay for it as such.  Otherwise, these guys are just trying to win football games.  Some for pride and competitive nature, and some for their jobs, such as the coaches.  Are you going to tell a coach who doesn't have a quality pro-style QB but who can win games with the spread that he has to play pro-style, despite the fact that losing isn't good for his career?  Or, do we no longer consider wins and losses relevant in college?

[#27TheDominator]

6 hours ago, JiF said:

I have a hard time with articles like this excusing away the error of GM's like finding a Qb is just as challenging as spotting Big Foot or Aliens.  It's really not that hard.  The guys who are going to go high are typically pretty good and the guys that go low are typically pretty bad.  It's not confusing, it's not a crap shoot, it's about positioning yourself to take the player with the highest odds to succeed.

It was no shock to anyone that watched college Football that a terrible EJ Manuel or Christian Ponder would suck in the NFL and Jameis Winston would be good.  Desperation makes you do stupid sh*t.  And I honestly think it's the easy.  Is it fail proof?  **** no...but it's also not drawing numbers from a lotto machine either.  It's an educated guess and typically, those guys who go high are in deed, pretty good to great.

I also think a big factor into this is expectations.  The SB or bust = success mentality.  Only 1 QB wins the SB ever year and we're living in an era where the SB over of the last 15 years have seen a lot of the same faces; Brady, Manning/s, Big Ben, Wilson, etc. and all but Brady and Wilson werent top picks.  The rest were at the least 2nd rounders to 1st rounders.  Kaep and Brees (2nd), the rest?  1st round picks.  Ryan, Newton, Rodgers, Flacco, Manning/s, Big Ben.  etc.  So basically remove Brady, Warner and Wilson - and guess what?  The dudes everyone thought would be good, were in fact, good.

It's not this hard.  It takes balls.  It takes balls to do what the Jets refuse to do - risk playing someone who can potentially win 2 games instead of having some sh*tty vet win 5.  Have the balls to trade a lot of capital for a high draft pick.  Have the balls to take said player even when their maybe a little doubt (Adams > Watson/Mahomes).  Have the balls to cut ties with picks who are going to suck and everyone knows it, Hack, so it doesnt preclude you from doing something stupid ie: taking a safety over 2 QB's.  Have the balls to get it wrong and live with that mistake.

It looks like Mac found some balls this year, lets hope it works out.  If you remove the Jets name from #3 overall, the Odds are actually pretty high that the #3 pick will in fact, be pretty good.

Christian Ponder is an interesting case.  I think he hit almost every one of the QB tests.  All the markers were there.  He just wasn't very good.  OTOH, he probably deserved to start in SF in 2016.

[kdels62]

9 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Is this a rhetorical question?

No, I’m seriously asking, what happened to Tannenbaum? 

 

9 hours ago, TeddEY said:

The point is, some GMs put themselves in far greater positions to be lucky.  Process matters.  If Macc drafted a multiple pro bowl strong safety last year, how much does that move the needle towards winning a super bowl?  Versus, had Macc drafted a multiple pro bowl quarterback?

I agree that having a coherent plan is important but in this league of tiny margins sometimes nothing these elevated professionals do matters. Picking Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger or Wilson isn’t proof of a repeatable system of excellence but just dumb luck that a hunch worked out. Having a bad season because Peyton Manning has neck surgery the same year Andrew Luck becomes available is dumb luck. Taking the chance is all well and good - and there is something to be said for having the balls to make a pick that isn’t consensus - but if you can’t quantify why you want a certain quarterback other than “he was available” then the player panning out is just luck.

(I’m not taking coaching into account as that’s a different and incredibly important factor in all this.) 

[CanadaSteve]

3 hours ago, TeddEY said:

Then, the NFL needs to contract them as a farm system, and pay for it as such.  Otherwise, these guys are just trying to win football games.  Some for pride and competitive nature, and some for their jobs, such as the coaches.  Are you going to tell a coach who doesn't have a quality pro-style QB but who can win games with the spread that he has to play pro-style, despite the fact that losing isn't good for his career?  Or, do we no longer consider wins and losses relevant in college?

Not saying that; what I am saying is the college ranks should be overhauled so that the game more matches the NFL.  I am not talking about a 'pro-style' system, but all the rules/regulations should match that of the NFL.  

The pro-version will morph as the systems can be translated into the pro-game; but all the rules/regulations should be identical, as the differences were set out in the article.

 

[ZachEY]

3 hours ago, kdels62 said:

No, I’m seriously asking, what happened to Tannenbaum? 

 

I agree that having a coherent plan is important but in this league of tiny margins sometimes nothing these elevated professionals do matters. Picking Rodgers, Brady, Roethlisberger or Wilson isn’t proof of a repeatable system of excellence but just dumb luck that a hunch worked out. Having a bad season because Peyton Manning has neck surgery the same year Andrew Luck becomes available is dumb luck. Taking the chance is all well and good - and there is something to be said for having the balls to make a pick that isn’t consensus - but if you can’t quantify why you want a certain quarterback other than “he was available” then the player panning out is just luck.

(I’m not taking coaching into account as that’s a different and incredibly important factor in all this.) 

Rodgers... Packers draft a QB in the 1st round when they have a HoF QB on the roster.  Jets draft DE, ILB, SS when they haven’t had a QB on the roster since the moon landing.  It’s lucky that Rodgers is THAT good.  It’s not lucky that the Packers have a QB and the Jets don’t.