How would YOU predict a QB's success?

[panthers55]

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?

If you are taking a Qb high in the draft and expect him to start in a year you look for different criteria then you do for a project further down in the draft.

You have to make the assumption that every guy you look at has the physical skills and college passing stats or what the heck are you doing looking at him in the first place??

So the real question becomes how do you distinguish the potential stars from the Vince Youngs who have great physical skills or Brady Quinns who had good size, intelligence, came from a pro system and were supposed to be well prepared for the pro game. Very similar to Clausen actually.

There has to be more to it and for me that is where you have to see the intangibles, the work ethic and leadership skills. They have to be there in spades no matter what else is missing.

In mathmatical formulas, even weighed ones, the assumption is that being great in one area can make up for being average or below in another. But I don't think you can be low in areas such as leadership, hard work and being able to quickly analyze situations and think on their feet.

So for me analyzing things and feeding them into a formula can easily land you a Jimmy Clausen or a Jamarcus Russell versus a Peyton Manning.

[TheRealDeal]

Let's approach it this way. Clausen had great stats in college, and they weren't just because he had good receivers

Uhhh, yes they were. Coupled with a cupcake schedule and a friendly offense.

[Cyberjag]

Uhhh, yes they were. Coupled with a cupcake schedule and a friendly offense.

He had one of the worst lines in college football, played seven teams with winning records his senior year, and none of the receivers he had have looked to be worth a damn in the pros.

Overall speed of the college game is a lot slower than it is in the pros. Why not just take the approach that the pro game is too fast for him? You'll be able to back that up a lot easier than attributing his success to receivers.

[TheRealDeal]

He had one of the worst lines in college football, played seven teams with winning records his senior year, and none of the receivers he had have looked to be worth a damn in the pros.

Overall speed of the college game is a lot slower than it is in the pros. Why not just take the approach that the pro game is too fast for him? You'll be able to back that up a lot easier than attributing his success to receivers.

You are basing the NFL success of his receivers off of one guy that played one year. His three receivers will have all gone higher than him in the draft. Picture that for a second. A WR, another WR, and a TE all going before him in their respective draft classes. Scary right?

I don't care how many teams he played with winning records. He played against 4 DBs that were playing on Sundays. 4. One of them a safety in that went in the 1st or 2nd (mays) and the other 3 were 7th rounders.

You don't think he had a slight advantage that way? No?

[Cyberjag]

YI don't care how many teams he played with winning records. He played against 4 DBs that were playing on Sundays. 4. One of them a safety in that went in the 1st or 2nd (mays) and the other 3 were 7th rounders.

See? That's what I was talking about! :)

It's a lot better to pick at that than sit there and tell us all how he just heaved it up to his all-world receivers and let them make him look good. At least that's believable.

[TheRealDeal]

See? That's what I was talking about! :)

It's a lot better to pick at that than sit there and tell us all how he just heaved it up to his all-world receivers and let them make him look good. At least that's believable.

I understand you love you some Jimmy but if you don't see that as a real issue you are more blind than the Cam huggers. You can have all the hope in the world for him if you want. Facts are facts. He sucked last year no matter how much blame you want to deflect.

In my observation, he wasn't anything special in college so his performance was to be expected. His play was the same style since he was in HS. Others view it different. Others will make excuses at each level for a kid or praise him when he doesn't deserve it and others will call it like it is.

Now that you've made this a Clausen thread, let's get back on track.

The MOST important thing to me is what tools does a player bring with him to the next level to help him be successful.

Completion % is not a tool. YPA is not a tool. Clausen has almost no discernible NFL tools. After physical tools you have to get it. You have to understand what it means being an NFL QB.

Stats mean nothing to me, but others may choose to go solely on stats and ignore NFL tools.

[Cyberjag]

Actually, I feel fairly ambivalent about Clausen personally, but I'm certainly optimistic about his chances for improvement. Placed next to your scorn, I can see where you might feel like I'm his number one fan though. :)

There's got to be a fairly simple rule that gets you most of the way there. I think Parcells' is too simple. This guys isn't really explained. It will be an interesting exercise to try and come up with a good one.

BTW, think if Rodgers and Smith have switched draft positions their careers would have been roughly the same? Or would they have followed each others paths?

[TheRealDeal]

Actually, I feel fairly ambivalent about Clausen personally, but I'm certainly optimistic about his chances for improvement. Placed next to your scorn, I can see where you might feel like I'm his number one fan though. :)

There's got to be a fairly simple rule that gets you most of the way there. I think Parcells' is too simple. This guys isn't really explained. It will be an interesting exercise to try and come up with a good one.

BTW, think if Rodgers and Smith have switched draft positions their careers would have been roughly the same? Or would they have followed each others paths?

There isn't going to be any such thing though. There is always going to be some kind of eyeball test.

With Rodgers and Smith, are you trying to use NFL situations combined with college stats to predict success? Are you allowing each player to have 32 different answers depending on which team they end up with? Who's going to say which team has a better situation? Many believe playing early is better while others don't. Many believe the Rams had a better situation than ours this year (mostly to defend Clausen) and others don't. Waaaay too many variables.

I like my own test and I know I judge QBs way different than everyone else and it's fine. My way isn't better or worse, it's just how I look at the QB position.

[Cyberjag]

There isn't going to be any such thing though. There is always going to be some kind of eyeball test.

With Rodgers and Smith, are you trying to use NFL situations combined with college stats to predict success? Are you allowing each player to have 32 different answers depending on which team they end up with? Who's going to say which team has a better situation? Many believe playing early is better while others don't. Many believe the Rams had a better situation than ours this year (mostly to defend Clausen) and others don't. Waaaay too many variables.

I like my own test and I know I judge QBs way different than everyone else and it's fine. My way isn't better or worse, it's just how I look at the QB position.

No, the Rodgers and Smith thing is more of a situational test. I'm in the camp that thinks Rodgers would have failed in SF and Smith would have thrived in Green Bay, but others think it's more about the QB. That's why I raised the point of the environment earlier in this thread.

I really don't think anyone could have done well at QB last year, particularly not a rookie. Look at how poorly Moore played as an example. You think he suddenly forgot how to play? Or did the pressure get to him? Or did he suffer the effects of a makeshift offensive line, rookie receivers, and a lame duck coaching staff?

That's what I was wondering, which camp you were in.

[TheRealDeal]

No, the Rodgers and Smith thing is more of a situational test. I'm in the camp that thinks Rodgers would have failed in SF and Smith would have thrived in Green Bay, but others think it's more about the QB. That's why I raised the point of the environment earlier in this thread.

I really don't think anyone could have done well at QB last year, particularly not a rookie. Look at how poorly Moore played as an example. You think he suddenly forgot how to play? Or did the pressure get to him? Or did he suffer the effects of a makeshift offensive line, rookie receivers, and a lame duck coaching staff?

That's what I was wondering, which camp you were in.

I think with Moore and any QB for the Panthers the past few years, the running game is very key and he didn't have it one bit. The difference is later in the year we had it and Clausen still sucked.

[Cyberjag]

Meh, spin it how you want. Moore was a turnover machine last year, had a terrible year, and the only test he would pass is your personal eyeball one. But we probably agree that he's way better than what he showed, which just goes to show how toxic the environment was (unless you were a rookie, in which case you should have thrived).

Moore gives rise to an interesting question too. Mike McCoy was a good QB coach, and Vinny T was the ideal veteran presence when Moore was a rookie. How much did that set the table for his future success?

[TheRealDeal]

You are looking really really hard to find excuses for Jimmy.

You don't think Moore has better arm strength, size, better experience, etc than Clausen? You are crazy.

[dimbee]

Height and intelligence would be my top two priorities. After that, it's a crapshoot.

[Cyberjag]

You are looking really really hard to find excuses for Jimmy.

You don't think Moore has better arm strength, size, better experience, etc than Clausen? You are crazy.

You're the one who keeps bringing him up