Which position is the toughest to evaluate?

[Mr. Scot]

27 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Not if it's being used as a criticism of the college game. College coaches get paid to win, not to develop NFL projects. They're bringing in 18 year old kids and most aren't ready to compete in the college game right away, they need a year or two. By the time they're ready to play, you're usually only getting 2-3 years out of them. You pretty much have no choice but to simplify the systems.

Honestly, the college game is where all the innovation in the is coming from. The "pro style offense" of today looks a helluva lot more like a college offense than it does the "pro style offense" of a decade plus ago and now we're seeing defenses having to adjust to that as well.

I agree that a college coach's job is to win college games, not prepare kids for the NFL. And no, you can't ask them to change what they do just to make it easier for somebody that doesn't pay their salary.

With that said, it's hard to deny that today's players, and especially the ones in gimmicky systems, are a lot less pro ready than they used to be.

If I were an NFL personnel man, I'd probably complain about that too. But I'd also recognize that there's not really a whole lot that can be done about it.

The NFL is likely just going to have to get used to the idea that there aren't as many "plug and play" rookies as there used to be. Thus, they're going to have to spend a couple of years developing some of these guys before they're really pro ready. Yes, even some of the first rounders.

Sure they could try adapting to the college systems, but the thing about that is that a lot of the time those systems work because in college you have many games where there are hilarious mismatches of talent (either at certain positions or sometimes across the board). That's not true in the NFL.

When success is dependent on unique conditions - like it was with Chip Kelly, for example - you're just now going to get the same results when those conditions no longer apply.

[Basbear]

Recruiting is what wins College football.

Having successful NFL players sure does help in recruiting the best players.  

[LinvilleGorge]

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I agree that a college coach's job is to win college games, not prepare kids for the NFL. And no, you can't ask them to change what they do just to make it easier for somebody that doesn't pay their salary.

With that said, it's hard to deny that today's players, and especially the ones in gimmicky systems, are a lot less pro ready than they used to be.

If I were an NFL personnel man, I'd probably complain about that too. But I'd also recognize that there's not really a whole lot that can be done about it.

The NFL is likely just going to have to get used to the idea that there aren't as many "plug and play" rookies as there used to be. Thus, they're going to have to spend a couple of years developing some of these guys before they're really pro ready. Yes, even some of the first rounders.

Sure they could try adapting to the college systems, but the thing about that is that a lot of the time those systems work because in college you have many games where there are hilarious mismatches of talent (either at certain positions or sometimes across the board). That's not true in the NFL.

When success is dependent on unique conditions - like it was with Chip Kelly, for example - you're just now going to get the same results when those conditions no longer apply.

I think we're simply seeing the NFL adapt more and more college concepts. Shotgun offenses are all over the NFL these days. Three WR sets have become the base offense. Same on D with the nickel essentially becoming the base defense. We see young WRs like Moore come in and be effective despite not being a polished WR yet. Scheme your playmakers open and get them the ball. All of those are staples of the college game. The NFL definitely adds depth and complexity to those concepts, but the base concepts are largely coming out of the college game.

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Basbear said:

Recruiting is what wins College football.

Having successful NFL players sure does help in recruiting the best players.  

To a degree, yes. But do all of the Alabama bust OLs hurt their OL recruiting? The bust USC WRs? The bust Big 10 RBs?

At the end of the day, pretty much every P5 program out there routinely puts players in the NFL. If you're a 3* prospect, you might be better off going to a non-powerhouse program where you're more likely to get more individual attention and playing time. You're going to get lost in the mix quickly at a perennial powerhouse if you don't stand out. 

[Mr. Scot]

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

I think we're simply seeing the NFL adapt more and more college concepts. Shotgun offenses are all over the NFL these days. Three WR sets have become the base offense. Same on D with the nickel essentially becoming the base defense. We see young WRs like Moore come in and be effective despite not being a polished WR yet. Scheme your playmakers open and get them the ball. All of those are staples of the college game. The NFL definitely adds depth and complexity to those concepts, but the base concepts are largely coming out of the college game.

I'd agree, though I don't necessarily think all of that is good. And yeah, there are some concepts that translate but there are also plenty that don't.

The bottom line though is that while patience may be a virtue everywhere else, it's not in the NFL.

Here, it's win now or get sh-tcanned. So rather than, say, teach a young receiver how to run pro-level routes, teams choose instead to just simplify the routes to what these guys are used to and do the best they can from there.

I probably sound like an old man when I say that the NFL isn't all that it used to be, but it really isn't.

[Mr. Scot]

Side Note: Is it really right to call Shotgun a college concept? It was popularized more in the pros first.

(I grant it was never as widely used before as it is now)

[Basbear]

2 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

To a degree, yes. But do all of the Alabama bust OLs hurt their OL recruiting? The bust USC WRs? The bust Big 10 RBs?

At the end of the day, pretty much every P5 program out there routinely puts players in the NFL. If you're a 3* prospect, you might be better off going to a non-powerhouse program where you're more likely to get more individual attention and playing time. You're going to get lost in the mix quickly at a perennial powerhouse if you don't stand out. 

It's a balancing act, between dumbed down college system and NFL system. Hell the NFL all run basically the same offenses now. If a "west coast" play is getting 8 yards a clip, the Cornell system will install that play this week.

My uncle was a successful high school, many moons ago he told me " All I do is try to run 3-4 plays the whole season, cause it was impossible to teach high schoolers more than that" 

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Basbear said:

It's a balancing act, between dumbed down college system and NFL system. Hell the NFL all run basically the same offenses now. If a "west coast" play is getting 8 yards a clip, the Cornell system will install that play this week.

My uncle was a successful high school, many moons ago he told me " All I do is try to run 3-4 plays the whole season, cause it was impossible to teach high schoolers more than that" 

I'd say that depends on the high school.

There are definitely some kids these days that are capable of a little more complexity.

(granted, probably not a whole team full of them)

[Raskle]

I'll say Fullback, since it's pretty much nonexistent in today's NFL... 

 

 

(Well, you did state not to say QB)

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, Raskle said:

I'll say Fullback, since it's pretty much nonexistent in today's NFL... 

 

 

(Well, you did state not to say QB)

I didn't say not to say QB. I just said if you do say QB, also mention something else.

That said, I was expecting QB to be a more popular choice than it's turned out to be

[Basbear]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I'd say that depends on the high school.

There are definitely some kids these days that are capable of a little more complexity.

(granted, probably not a whole team full of them)

True SOME kids are more than capable, BUT 11 LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL!!! Just perfect those 4 plays and pray. He nearly won state and always had a winning record for 20+ years

[Moorgan]

Aide from QB, the answer has to be OL doesn't it? Geoff Schwartz talked about this a year or two ago. He was talking specifically about the very big difference between a 2 and 3 point stance. That stood out to me as a glaring difference between college and the NFL. Additionally, you ever see the entire offense get set and then look, en masse, at the coaching staff on the side line? (I know you all have). To me that screams that the coaches are running everything and the offensive players don't have to think, they just have to execute. To me that is a horrid system to try and judge an NFL prospect. You literally have no idea if they're capable of thinking on their own because they've never been asked to do it.

College defenses do it too to some degree but defense is often more about reaction and gap filling than anything else so I think that defense is easier to evaluate. It can be harder to play but easier to evaluate, if that makes sense.

So in the end, offense is hard to evaluate and if they come from one of those prairie dog offenses (see above) then it's really hard to know if the guy can do it on his own.

[Mr. Scot]

9 minutes ago, Basbear said:

True SOME kids are more than capable, BUT 11 LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOL!!! Just perfect those 4 plays and pray. He nearly won state and always had a winning record for 20+ years

The kids I coach are a little younger than high school and only in a church league, but I have found a few who I've found were capable of understanding the concepts behind what they were doing.

Others take about ten minutes to fully grasp the idea of "run five steps and turn left"  

[Raskle]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I didn't say not to say QB. I just said if you do say QB, also mention something else.

That said, I was expecting QB to be a more popular choice than it's turned out to be

True, but then I couldn't get away with being a smart ass there without any ruffled feathers 

 

 

In all seriousness, I'd say it's all a crap shoot. Guy looks dominant in college, goes to the NFL, parties too hard/gets into trouble with the local law/isn't as good as he was showing in college because he didn't face the challenge of other elite players, etc., then will go on to disappear in three years or less on one hand. Whereas, the blue-collar hard working guy UDFA can also succeed, because he wants it much, much more a la Norwell. There's no such thing as a "safe pick" in the draft for any sport. There's less a probability of failure, such as a most LB spots, RBs, and OGs. But to say that there's remarkable difference between one spot or another is a fallacy, because as I said, it all boils down to that it's a crap shoot for any player picked.

 

If I had to say the easiest, it's LB.. the toughest would most likely be safety to me. You don't know if it's the system making him look good, with coverage help down the sides form really good CBs. You also don't know if it's the system and zero assistance making a guy look bad too. For me, at least, I think Safety is the toughest to evaluate, since there are so many moving parts to a backfield, and you can't really pin errors on just one guy.