How would YOU predict a QB's success?

[MHS831]

What's funny is how everyone seems to be dodging the obvious things--completion percentage, games started, yards per attempt, etc... Those have to mean something, right?

Completion percentage? To me, not if you are comparing a spread to a pro-style. I mean, in the spread, many of the passes are short and yardage is basically up to the wr. YPA could be misleading, I suppose. A weak-armed QB should be able to complete 65% of his passes.

Games started? Tom Brady, Matt Cassell, but there is something to be said about experience. I would say it should help the player, but a lack of starting experience may be related to circumstances beyond his control.

Still, these should count for something.

I think I forgot "Injury history" in my criteria. THat is huge.

[Cyberjag]

I know this won't be popular to say, but Real Deal has it right when he talks about looking for skills that translate into the NFL. That's a pretty good indicator.

You mean playing for a PAC-10 team, going undrafted, and having goofy hair? :)

[MHS831]

I agree with many comments about the intelligence part. However, even that should be broken down. Think of everything the QB has to do every pass play:

Gets the play and calls the play in the huddle. As he approaches the line, he makes sure everyone is lining up correctly. He checks the play clock. He identifies the Mike LB and makes sure the center does as well. He starts the cadence, remembering the snap count. He sees a CB tip his hand and reveal a possible blitz, so he audibles to a different pass play and oversees the formation changes. He barks out some dummy and some hot signals. He moves his foot to start motion. He provides a few hand signals to make sure all WRs are on the same page. Checks the play clock again and hurries the count, just beating it.

As he drops back, he looks first to the hot route and sees that the CB did not blitz and the out is not there. He looks back across the field for his second option, and a dropping LB and S take away the slant. Pressure from the right, so he steps up into the pocket. The TE drag is open for a second, but a DT leaps up to prevent the release of the ball. The RB swings into the flat but he would get hammered if he throws it to him, probably a loss or a turnover. So he throws it out of bounds just before being hammered himself. A lineman helps him back to his feet.

Elapsed time from snap of ball: 4 seconds.

In 10 seconds, the next play enters your helmet. It starts all over again.

[panthers55]

I think when picking a quarterback you have two levels of decisions. The first is narrowing down the guys who have the physical skill sets you wants such as a good motion, accuracy, elusiveness in the pocket, footwork, experience in the shotgun or drop back, etc.

You end up with a group of guys who potentially have the skills necessary to run your offense. For example Newton, Gabbert, Mallett, Locker, Ponder, Dalton could all be in that group to varying degrees.

Then you have to differentiate between these guys to decide who is the best to run your offense. Factors include things like when do they have to be ready to star? What is the learning curve involved? What unique skills do they bring to the table? How will they mesh with the locker room and be received by the players? How is his work ethic and willingness to start at the bottom and work their way up? How quickly can they learn from film work and implement it in their game? What red flags do I have going in? What is their potential ceiling? How good is their decision making??

In the end it isn't a mathmatical formula at all but an evaluation of a kids character, desire to excel, previous work history, previious coaches evaluations, film work etc. it is imprecise as is human nature. But when you see it you know it. And if a player doesn't have it, they aren't going to be that successful especially when things get tough. And they will.

Seems to me the physical aspects take you so far and most of the things like scheme, reading defense, etc are easily learned. What can't be learned is the desire to excel. To work harder than everyone else because you know they are working hard also. To want to be the best and will your team and everyone else to be better. To not accept excuses by anyone including yourself. To demonstrate to the team that you will do whatevr it takes to win and exspect them to do the same. For example Newton playing hurt the second half in the Auburn game. That shows more than all the canned interviews and proday workouts which are highly contrived. You can't teach desire and a burning passion to win. All the great quarterbacks have it and the Vince Youngs, Matt Leinert's, Russell's don't.

You have to decide whho is the best quarterback for you in your circumstances which could vary. For example if you need a guy ready today, you might skip on a Newton for example. If you have time to develop them, then perhaps you do draft him.

If you have to identify one skill which would be most important I think it is this.

Mental toughness is the number 1 key to a quarterback. It sustains you when things go wrong which is more important than when things go right.

[TheRealDeal]

Looks - 150%

Looks has to play a major role, there is no doubt about it. It's nearly a perfect positive correlation between success and good looks.

I know this won't be popular to say, but Real Deal has it right when he talks about looking for skills that translate into the NFL. That's a pretty good indicator.

What's funny is how everyone seems to be dodging the obvious things--completion percentage, games started, yards per attempt, etc... Those have to mean something, right?

Those things don't matter. Sure they can be looked at and be impressive but honestly who gives a fug? If you look at completion %, you have to look at YPA to make sure they aren't dumping the ball off and even then, you have to be wary of YAC that inflate the YPA and so on. You have to pass the "eyeball test" (see Mavs post) then you have to have certain skills that translate well in the NFL. It doesn't matter if you throw for 60 TDs in college with 2 interceptions if you aren't good size, don't have a good arm, can't throw the deep out, and can't understand an offense, you won't make it.

You mean playing for a PAC-10 team, going undrafted, and having goofy hair? :)

Ignoring stats and looking deeper, Moore has a 100% better resume than Clausen and it's not even close. Moore played in big games and won them. Won his last 8-9. Beat a top 5 team. Dominated his bowl game. Set records for most passes without an INT. Moore is loved in Corvallis.

What did Jimmy do?

Moore's agent just didn't want to foot the bill to get Kiper to prop him up. Moore was 5a for QBs after he beat USC but after that he dropped out. Why?

It's fair to say that Moore has been the best QB out of that class as well.

[teeray]

Moore's agent just didn't want to foot the bill to get Kiper to prop him up. Moore was 5a for QBs after he beat USC but after that he dropped out. Why?

It's fair to say that Moore has been the best QB out of that class as well.

If Moore played on the east coast I guarantee you he would have been drafted. I don't know what round but he definitely would not have slipped between the cracks the way he did. Still don't think he is the long term solution here but I won't be shocked if he is starting here to start next season. There is a reason he was tendered.

[riddel]

I was looking at Alex Smith's and Jason Campbell's stats in college, and it seems to me that each one has been doomed by having a new offensive coordinator every year. That almost has to be included in a success criteria somehow, doesn't it?

I think this is the key. A QB given the opportunity to grow in a system and become a leader (Rodgers) is going to succeed over a guy that is thrown in more times than not. I think big "Ben" even though he was thrown in, was thrown into a great situation where the team only required him to check down to one WR on one side of the field and gave him great run support. Today Ben is able to check down and make plays, but he wasn't asked to do this his first couple seasons.

The fact that Clausen couldn't succeed in Davidson's system baffles me though. This guy was groomed by Weiss and should have been perfect for Davidson's system.....I simply don't get it.

[TheRealDeal]

I hate when I kill threads with facts and reason.

[teeray]

I hate when I kill threads with facts and reason.

Or are you saying something so ridiculous it is simply unrespondable (new word)??

[TheRealDeal]

Or are you saying something so ridiculous it is simply unrespondable (new word)??

Mostly facts in there with some opinion sprinkled in. Opinions that aren't ridiculous I don't think.

Do you feel it is unrespondable?

[Cyberjag]

I hate when I kill threads with facts and reason.

You've done that recently? :)

I think that you need to look at production, or you miss on a Brees. You need to look at the basic physical package, of course. You need to look at who he beats, and you need to adjust for the offense. I like a lot of the approach that the guy in the other thread took, where he equalizes the output.

And you also need to look at intangibles. Leadership, intelligence, presence, maturity, etc...

Then there's the situation that they're entering. Face it, our environment last year would have been toxic for any rookie. Even the great Matt Moore struggled! In the case of Aaron Rodgers vs. Alex Smith, there's cause to argue that had they switched draft spots, Smith would be the star and Rodgers the disappointment.

You take those three, and find an accurate way to measure them, and you've got a system.

[TheRealDeal]

You just said a whole lot of nothing. Basically this thread is how YOU predict a QBs success and your post said "Well you take physical ability and production, intangibles, and situations then figure out how to predict success"

So basically I should consider everything and figure out how to use that to predict success? LOL gee thanks!

Most of that stuff doesn't matter. You need to not be an idiot and be able to make all the throws. Not how everyone can always make all the throws but legit make every throw. Throw it from the left hash to the right sideline on a 18 yd comeback or 15 yard out. Things like that. Production is such a product of team, system, and opponents that it skews everything. Clausen is one of the biggest examples of how he benefited from his teammates. 3 NFL receivers playing against 4 NFL DBs (1 first round and 3 7th round). Throw it up and go get it or dump it off and let them run.

I'd prefer a guy that had less than overwhelming talent around him in college but still got it done compared to a guy that had a dominant team in college.

It's really hard to narrow down criteria because sometimes guys just have it but I would start with what I've mentioned in the past.

[Cyberjag]

Well that's the challenge, right? What do you measure that will work without tons of personal observations? After all, there's only one TRD, and you have 32 teams evaluating at least a dozen QBs every year. So absent mass cloning, what sort of formula can you put together that really narrows the field down effectively?

[Cyberjag]

Let's approach it this way. Clausen had great stats in college, and they weren't just because he had good receivers or a crappy line. From stats alone, he should be successful.

So on to other things. Wonderlic? There's a red flag. Hand size? Red flag. Intangibles? Potential red flag, depending on who you talk to.

Situation? Red flag.

So maybe you say, "potentially good, but has to be in a good situation while you work out the intangibles" and pass on him in Carolina. While a Matt Moore would come out with no red flags anywhere except for the situation, so you take the chance and be patient. :)

It doesn't have to be about the individuals, does it?