Orton's Arm

As one of those who's predicted Manuel's failure, I'll say this: I've been wrong before. Being wrong one additional time isn't likely to change how others see me. Nor would it change how I see myself. But I'll also say this: in the past when I've been wrong, it's almost always been because things turned out worse than expected. Never or almost never because they turned out better than I thought they would. I'm much more likely to be right about Manuel than I am to be wrong about him. But if I am wrong, I'll admit it like a man.

Matt Schaub had a horrible 2013 season. His QBR was an abysmal 37.3. But in 2012, his QBR was 64.0--good for 12th best in the NFL. He's 32 years old. There's a solid chance he'll bounce back from his horrendous 2013 season.

Good post; and well thought-out. I hope your optimism about the Bills' offensive line picks turns out to be justified. However, I do have one relatively minor quibble. Thad Lewis came into the league in 2010, with the St. Louis Rams. He spent 2011 and 2012 with the Browns; then moved to the Bills for the 2013 season. His first playing time in the regular season didn't occur until 2012; when he attempted 32 passes for the Browns. > The team obviously preferred to keep Jeff Tuel over a vet . . . I'm not a huge fan of the front office myself, and a certain number of their decisions have been head-scratchers. (Such as signing that OG from the Rams for pretty decent starter money.) But in fairness to the front office, they did sign Kolb. By the time they learned that concussion issues would put him on injured reserve, the market for veteran QBs was rather thin. You also have to be a little careful about which veteran QB you sign to be your player-coach. Suppose, for example, that the Bills had signed Trent Edwards to fill the role Kolb was supposed to fill. Suppose Edwards took Manuel aside and started giving him advice. (Which is what you want your veteran QB to do.) Do you really want Trent Edwards telling your rookie QB when to go for the intermediate or deep pass; and when to dump the ball off short? Once Kolb went on IR, it would have been very difficult to find a veteran QB who was that much better than Trent Edwards. The available QBs were available for a reason. The Bills eventually filled Kolb's void by signing Thad Lewis. Lewis might actually have been the best option available--not just from the standpoint of knowing the Bills' playbook; but as a long-term QB prospect.

Good link. Below is the completion + drop rate for the three QBs: Geno Smith: 67% Glennon: 56% Manuel: 56% Manuel's and Geno's receivers had more drops than Glennon's receivers. (Stevie dropped more than his share of passes.) Manuel's passes were less likely to be defensed than Geno's or Glennon's passes. (Johnson and Woods were good at getting open.) Below is the completion + drop rate when throwing inside the hash marks: Manuel: 91% Geno Smith: 70% Glennon: 67% Below is completion + drop percentage when throwing outside the hash marks: Geno Smith: 64% Glennon: 47% Manuel: 31% All three QBs are more accurate when throwing inside the hash marks. But Manuel in particular looks very accurate when throwing inside the hash marks, and completely inept when attempting to throw outside them.

> The team's record was 2-14 prior to him joining the team progressing to 12-4 with him as the starting qb. The Panthers released Jake Delhomme prior to the 2010 season. During 2010, they had no one at the QB position; which is a big reason why they went 2-14. Cam Newton played well as a rookie, and was the single most important reason why their record in 2011 improved to 6-10. But he didn't play any better as a third year player than as a rookie. The primary reason for the improvement from 6-10 to 12-4 was improvement at non-QB positions. > It wasn't conclusively evident that Losman was going to be a failure during his rookie year. He had encouraging moments . . . As a college QB, Losman did not demonstrate good information processing ability. His accuracy was nothing special. His failure at the NFL level was predictable; and I predicted it. As did a number of others. Based on the data available, could I have legitimately concluded, with 100% certainty, that Losman would fail? No. The failure probability was less than 100%. But it was extremely high. Having a QB like Losman or Manuel as your "plan for the future" is like buying a handful of lottery tickets and calling it a retirement plan. While it's nice when something like that works out, Manuel's presence on the roster should not preclude the Bills from taking other steps to address the quarterback position. Just as Losman's presence on the roster shouldn't have stopped the Bills from trading into the first round to draft Aaron Rodgers.

> If he wasn't the most instrumental player for the turn around then tell me who was? Newton's individual stats were no better his third year than his first. Yet the team's winning percentage was much better. This suggests that the Panthers added talent at other positions. > From a bandwith approach to evaluating qb prospects Ponder should be coming into his own as a starter. I'd wanted the Bills to draft Ponder, in large part because I felt he had the bandwidth necessary to be a good QB. This past season he had a QBR of 51.2--compared to 56.2 for Newton, and 55.1 for Fitzpatrick. While there's a chance Ponder will be the next Drew Brees story, it's much more likely that he'll never be more than a below average-starter/quality backup. The three traits I listed are not a guarantee of success. But if a first round QB is strong in those three areas, he's disproportionately likely to succeed. > From a bandwith approach to evaluating qb prospects Newton should be a dismal failure. Ryan Fitzpatrick is strong in two of the areas I mentioned (decision-making and passion for the game) and weak in a third (accuracy). Cam Newton seems reasonably strong in two of the three areas (accuracy and passion for the game) while being weak in the third (decision-making). This past season their QBRs were almost identical. The example of Cam Newton isn't going to convince me that good information processing is unimportant. I've read that it took over three seconds for Drew Bledsoe to see what Tom Brady could see in less than two. > Will [Manuel] develop into a good franchise qb? Although I think so I'm not willing to make a declarative judgment . . . Declarative judgement? I'm not willing to go that far with any of the three QBs on the roster. But the most likely scenario with any given young QB is that he'll be basically the same guy in the NFL that he was in college. Good coaching can help up to a point. But coaches can't create something out of nothing. Manuel's information processing at the college level has already been discussed extensively. His accuracy at the college level was nothing special. It seemed like the vast majority of the time, Manuel threw it to his #1 target; with said target being wide open enough that he didn't have to fit the ball into a tight space. That's the guy you're most likely to get at the NFL level. You could point out that Manuel has very good physical tools. My sense is that Manuel's very good physical tools are more like Losman's very good physical tools than they are like Cam Newton's freakishly good tools. As Losman himself discovered, the possession of Losman-like physical tools is not sufficient to compensate for Losman-like decision-making plus Losman-like accuracy.

> The Bills would have gladly taken him with their high first round pick if he were available. The fact that the Bills thought so highly of Newton--and that they later selected Manuel--demonstrated they may value good physical tools more than good information processing ability. Nor are they the only NFL team to have that preference. If you perform a retrospective analysis on any given ten year period of NFL drafting, you will encounter multiple first round busts who demonstrated that combination of good physical traits + poor information-processing ability. I am not suggesting that every player in this category is destined to be a bust. But a first round pick with great physical traits + limited demonstrated information processing ability is much more likely to be a bust than a first round QB with good decision-making ability and merely decent physical tools. Why do a number of NFL GMs continue to overvalue physical tools and undervalue information processing ability? Below are several possible reasons: 1) Physical tools are easy to measure. 2) GMs convince themselves that if the information processing issues could be fixed, the player could be truly elite. 3) Coaches are overconfident in their ability to fix information processing issues. 4) You can't take out a tape measure and measure information processing ability. It's less tangible than physical gifts; and to some GMs that might make it seem less real. > In his three years of play are you going to deny the fact that he has markedly improved? Yes. During his first two years at QB, Newton's YPA was very good. Consistent with being a franchise QB. During his third year, it sharply declined to well below franchise QB level. His QBR remained steady for all three years, in the 54 - 56 range. To put that into perspective, here are some other QBs' QBR numbers Ryan Fitzpatrick 2011: 50.5 2012: 44.9 2013: 55.4 Peyton Manning 2011: injured, did not play 2012: 82.4 2013: 92.9 When evaluating a QB's play, I pay more attention to a QB's individual stats than to the team's W/L record. The latter is driven by the team as a whole, not just one guy in particular. > I think that Manuel is going to be a legitimate franchise qb. This belief may be based more on hope than on dispassionate, rigorous analysis. In drafting Manuel, the Bills chose to bet that patterns which have typically held true in the past will not apply to him. It is typically safer to bet with the odds; then to bet against heavy odds hoping to get lucky.

> There isn't a serious football person in the pro ranks who wouldn't conclude . . . You do not speak for the serious football people of the NFL. If you've seen a survey about how Newton is regarded by NFL front office people, please provide a link. Neither Newton's YPA nor QBR from 2013 support the idea that he's a franchise QB. There are times when the talking heads label a guy "franchise" even though he doesn't have franchise-type stats. Sometimes the QB's stats improve until they catch up to his reputation. That's what happened with Donovan McNabb. Other times, the anointed QB's stats don't improve--witness Mark "Sanchise." > Both Drew Brees and Aaron Rodgers support my point that it is a mistake to make immediate judgments on qbs based on their early play. I'd be willing to invest several years of development time on the right college prospect. But before I pull the trigger on that kind of investment, I'd need to see the college QB excel in three areas: accuracy decision-making passion for the game As a college QB, Manuel didn't excel at accuracy--especially not when throwing to a moving target. Nothing about his college game remotely suggested better decision-making than an average college QB. So he's 1-for-3 as far as my list is concerned. Neither coaching nor development time are going to fix that.

In the 2013 season Cam Newton averaged a solid-but-not-franchise 7.1 yards per attempt. That puts him a step or two above Fitzpatrick, but a step or two below the franchise guys. However, his QBR for 2013 was 56.2--compared to 55.4 for Fitzpatrick; 82.9 for Peyton Manning; and 68.6 for Kaepernick. At least according to QBR, there is not a significant difference between Cam Newton and Ryan Fitzpatrick. Should I place more weight in yards per attempt (which shows a noticeable difference between the two QBs) or QBR? I don't know the answer to that question. QBR is a relatively new statistical measure. On the surface it seems much more reliable than the older (and highly flawed) quarterback rating. Matt Schaub had a high yards per attempt but a mediocre QBR. Considering his recent release by the Texans, it's at least possible that when the two indicators contradict, QBR may be the more valid of the two. But I'd obviously need to see more than just one data point before concluding that with certainty. I read some pre-draft scouting reports about Cam Newton and found the following: He ran a simplified college offense and did not make more than 1 - 2 reads Some sites praised his accuracy There were serious concerns about his character He was praised for how he handled adversity He had freakish physical gifts One site described him as just as good a scrambler as Vince Young, but with better passing accuracy. Another site provided this text ************ Very disingenuous — has a fake smile, comes off as very scripted and has a selfish, me-first makeup. Always knows where the cameras are and plays to them. Has an enormous ego with a sense of entitlement. . . . Does not command respect from teammates and always will struggle to win a locker room. *********** My sense of Cam Newton as a professional is that he may be using his freakish physical gifts and reasonably good throwing accuracy to partially compensate for his mental limitations. Just as he may be using his personality strengths (ability to push through adversity) to partially compensate for his personality shortcomings. The result is a guy who's playing at about the same level as Fitz (if you believe QBR) or a step up from Fitz (if you believe YPA). > On top of that when they do come along you have to be the first team drafting to acquire this dream boat prospect. This is not the case. Drew Brees was an accomplished pocket passer chosen with the 32nd overall pick. Aaron Rodgers was chosen in the 20s. Prior to the draft, a number of sites praised his ability to process information quickly.

I didn't have time to research all the QBs you mentioned, so I decided to focus on Kaepernick. Kaepernick's career is off to a very good start. His team came close to winning the Super Bowl. His yards per attempt stat is strong. The 49ers have every reason to see him as their long-term answer at QB. In looking at pre-draft evaluations of him, I saw that Mel Kiper and others raised concerns about his mechanics. They were also displeased by the fact he played in a pistol offense; and pointed out that the adjustment to the NFL would be bigger for him than for a QB in a pro-style offense. But I also found the following: ************ When his first and second options can’t get open, he does a good job of checking down to third and fourth receiving options. ************ The above is very important, because most college QBs lack the mental bandwidth necessary to excel at the NFL level. Good coaching cannot overcome such mental bandwidth limitations, any more than good coaching can cause a player to grow six inches taller. By throwing to his third and fourth receiving options, Kaepernick provided solid evidence of above-normal mental bandwidth. Kaepernick's flaws--the bad mechanics, the pistol offense in college--were correctable with good coaching. Did EJ Manuel do anything on a college football field to suggest he had more mental bandwidth than Losman? As far as I can tell, he did not. That puts him in a very different category from Kaepernick.

Yolo in Buffalo: > None of the people paid to assess EJ were involved in any of the items you mentioned. When the Denver Broncos used a first round pick on Tim Tebow, I didn't "trust the professionals" in Denver. Instead, I concluded--correctly--that Denver just squandered their first round pick. I think that most of the people on this site are often able to identify other teams' mistakes. The front office for the Bills isn't any more paid or any more professional than the front office of the Broncos, the Detroit Lions, or any other NFL team. Ralph Wilson didn't have a magic formula for picking good front office people, as demonstrated by the organization's losing record and string of post-Kelly failures at QB. If I don't automatically trust the Cardinals or Lions or Raiders to do the right thing--and I don't--there is no objective reason I should extend this trust to the Bills. The fact that I like the Bills more than these other teams does not boost the Bills' organizational competence. Unfortunately. Over 20 years of fanhood: > Drew Brees had a YPA of 6.2 year 2 and 5.9 year 3. Year one he played 1 game. Drew Brees was an accomplished pocket passer in college. He needed time--lots of it!--to become an accomplished pocket passer in the NFL. Manuel wasn't an accomplished pocket passer in college; which is what people generally mean when they describe him as "raw." QBs who don't show good pocket passing ability in college almost never develop it in the NFL, regardless of the quantity or quality of time, coaching, or opportunities they are given. Chris Heff: > Now that I think about I believe Bledsoe should be thrown out. He did take the Patriots to a Super Bowl, I don't think he can be labeled a failure. Drew Bledsoe gave the Bills eight fantastic games. After that he became mediocre. In 2003--his second year as a Bill--he averaged 6.1 yards per attempt. In 2004, it was 6.5 yards per attempt. To put these numbers into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. I personally would not trade away a first round pick for that. If you would make that trade, that's fine. You're entitled to your perspective.

> If Thad was a better or even as good of an NFL QB as EJ he would be competing for the starting job here, or somewhere else. Unless EJ improves substantially on his rookie performance, he won't be the long-term answer as a starter. Or probably even as a backup. The Bills' front office is obviously confident he will improve; which is why they didn't draft his replacement; and why they traded away next year's #1 pick. Whether this confidence is justified remains to be seen. I also think it's clear NFL GMs underestimated Thad Lewis. I'm not suggesting he's the long-term answer as starter. But he'd be a solid backup; and should have been more sought-after prior to the 2013 season. > it is that the people paid to make those assessments made it and I don't need to do my own assessment The people paid to make these assessments used a 2nd round pick on Todd Collins, a 3rd round pick on Billy Joe Hobart, a 1st round pick on Rob Johnson, a 1st round pick on an aging Drew Bledsoe, a 1st round pick on Losman, and a 3rd round pick on Trent Edwards. Then they awarded a starter-caliber contract to Ryan Fitzpatrick. I correctly predicted the failure of Hobart, Bledsoe, Losman, and Fitzpatrick. I incorrectly placed hope in Johnson, Holcomb, and Edwards. By no means am I perfect or close to perfect. But neither is the Bills' front office.

Yards per attempt is a good starting point for evaluating QB play. For example: Trent Edwards has a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt; Losman 6.6 yards per attempt. While he was here, Fitzpatrick typically averaged 6.7 - 6.8 yards per attempt. On the other hand, Tom Brady has a career average of 7.5 yards per attempt; Peyton Manning 7.6 yards per attempt, Drew Brees 7.5 yards per attempt; Jim Kelly 7.4 yards per attempt, and Kurt Warner 7.9 yards per attempt. Yards per attempt isn't an exact tool. You can't say, for example, that Peyton Manning was slightly better than Tom Brady due to the small difference in yards per attempt. In terms of the eyeball test, Thad Lewis looked to me like he was playing at a higher level than Manuel. The fact that Lewis also put up a higher yards per attempt than Manuel confirms my subjective assessment of the two QBs. But are there other important numbers I'm neglecting? Manuel threw 11 TDs to 9 INTs; for a 1.2 TD/INT ratio. Lewis threw 4 TDs to 3 INTs for a 1.3 TD/INT ratio. Not a huge difference there. Manuel took 28 sacks on 306 attempts, for a 9.1% sack rate. Lewis took 18 sacks on 157 attempts for an 11.4% sack rate. A slight advantage goes to Manuel on that one. Manuel averaged 3.5 yards per rush; compared to 2.2 yards per rush for Thad Lewis. That's another advantage for Manuel. But despite the difference in sack percentage and yards per rushing attempt; I think it's clear that during 2013 Thad Lewis outperformed Manuel by a substantial margin. 1.0 yards per attempt separates Trent Edwards from Tom Brady. 0.5 yards per attempt separates Manuel's performance in 2013 from Thad Lewis'. Manuel's edge over Lewis in sack avoidance and running the ball is worth something, but not 0.5 yards per attempt.

If you take away draft position, what about Manuel makes you believe he's a better football player than Thad Lewis? If I were to rank the four QBs based only on what they achieved last season, I'd put them in the following order: 1) Thad Lewis (6.9 yards per attempt last season) 2a) EJ Manuel (6.4 yards per attempt last season) 2b) Hoyer (6.4 yards per attempt last season) 4) Tuel (5.2 yards per attempt) In fairness to Tuel, I really liked what I saw during most of the KC game. But until he starts doing a lot better than 5.2 yards per attempt, he doesn't deserve better than last place on a list like this.

Valid question. 1) Going into the draft, I thought Locker was a much better pro prospect than either Manuel or Geno Smith. 2) He's averaged 6.9 yards per attempt the last two seasons. To put that number into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average was 6.5 yards per attempt; and Fitzpatrick usually averaged 6.7 yards per attempt while he was here. Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Locker's numbers put him closer to the Edwards/Fitzpatrick category than the Brady category. But he's still young, and there's a chance for improvement. Sometimes, a guy who was an accomplished pocket passer in college will eventually become a good pocket passer in the NFL. That was the case with Drew Brees. But if a guy didn't show certain things in college, odds are very heavily against his ever demonstrating those traits in the NFL.

Jets: Geno Smith is likely a bust. Vick gives them a decent stopgap; but is too old to be a long-term solution. Bills: Manuel is also likely a bust. But for now the Bills' front office seems committed to him. The Jets will probably draft a replacement for Geno before the Bills draft a replacement for EJ. This means the Jets may fix their QB problems before we fix ours. Cleveland: I've seen maturity and motivation concerns raised regarding Manziel. I personally would have been very cautious about using a first round pick on him. But if I had a 100% guarantee about his maturity and passion for the game, I'd be very intrigued by him as a QB prospect. Tennessee: Locker may develop into a decent starting QB. Houston: nobody in particular at QB. But at least Houston's front office is hopefully smart enough to realize that, and open to making a move at the first good opportunity. Jacksonville: a top-10 pick was recently used on Bortles. Time will tell if that was worthwhile. Raiders: Schaub may not be the player he once was, but should be good enough to get them by for now. Minnesota: Ponder has sometimes shown signs of being a Drew Brees story. For long periods he let his team down. But then, just when everyone was ready to give up on him, he'd show flashes of being the player they'd hoped he'd become. If he ultimately fails, they always have Bridgewater waiting in the wings. Tampa Bay: Glennon had a better rookie year than EJ; and seemed like a more polished player. I suspect he will go on to have the better overall career. Glennon isn't the next Manning or Brady, but he might be the next Neil O'Donnell.

Fixed.

The above is not necessarily true. Suppose that a businessman with Ballmer-level wealth buys the Bills. But suppose that businessman is from LA! Which West Coast city do you think the Bills would be moved to, once the current lease expires? That said, I think the team is more likely to stay than to move. The Bills are tightly locked into their current lease; making them less attractive to any owner who'd want to move the team. But that tight locking in does not make them less attractive to an owner who'd want to keep the team in Buffalo. The main point I'm making with this post is that we're dealing with probabilities, not guarantees.

The author's computed drop rate for Bills' receivers is higher than I've seen from other sources. He definitely erred on the side of blaming the receiver while giving the benefit of the doubt to EJ.

Agreed. Just to add to what you've written: I'd also like to see an analysis of poorly thrown passes which were nonetheless caught. Both for Manuel and other QBs. If we're counting the times that receivers make QBs look worse than they should (drops), we should also count the times they make QBs look better than they should (catching poorly thrown balls).

I found the article you mentioned. I also think it's an accurate assessment of Manuel's pro prospects. Below are some quotes. ********** His play on the field at Florida State was that of a third- or fourth-rounder. His team had a talent advantage over almost all opponents, and that helped to hide some of his flaws. He was a fine college quarterback whose numbers are better than his play. . . . I am considerably more likely to subscribe to the upside angle when a player is young or inexperienced. Manuel is 23. That's not at all young for a QB coming out of college. And he's not inexperienced. He's had almost 1,000 passing plays in his Florida State career. . . . He really doesn't have a good feel for the game. Manuel is very slow to recognize and react on the field. He doesn't recognize blitzes well, doesn't sense pressure (making it too late to use his athleticism to avoid it), is often slow to get through his reads, and struggles to read coverage in general, both pre and post-snap. FSU had to dumb down its offense a lot for Manuel. ************ Back in 2004, TD used a first round pick on a QB with great physical tools--a QB who'd done nothing to suggest he could handle the fast, complex decision-making required of an NFL QB. In part because the Bills took Losman in the first, they didn't take Schaub in the third. Losman's presence on the roster probably also contributed to the decision not to take Aaron Rodgers in 2005. As did their lack of a first round pick; which had been surrendered in the trade for Losman. As did their negative evaluation of Rodgers. These were, after all, the same people who gave Losman a glowing report. It makes sense that the same people who messed up the scouting report for Losman would also mess up the report for Rodgers. Once a team decides it has its QB of the future, it will generally eschew other potential QB prospects. The effect can be devastating, especially if you lose out on an Aaron Rodgers-type prospect. Before making that decision--before labeling some guy your QB of the future--a GM should have some reassurance he can handle the mental aspects of the game. College QBs with great physical gifts but no demonstrated mental acuity are easy to find. It's easy for an NFL GM to pick a guy like that and anoint him the QB of the present. To announce he's going all-in on this QB. To consider the drafting of this QB as a bold, risky move with high "upside" due to the QB's physical gifts. If the Bills are to win the Super Bowl, the Bills' GM should be at least as smart and competent as any competing GM. The kind of GM who'd make the above-described mistake isn't. If Whaley is indeed as on-board with the Manuel decision as he seems, the Bills are very unlikely to win the Super Bowl until he's replaced.

I was among those who voted no. Below are some Whaley decisions with which I disagree. 1) Overspending on lousy free agents. That OG we signed from the Rams is the sort of player teams look to replace, not make part of the long-term answer. 2) Failure to re-sign Byrd. Granted, Byrd would have been expensive. Maybe that salary cap space could have been put to better use elsewhere. But many of the free agents Whaley has signed represent far less efficient use of that salary cap space than a large Byrd contract would have been. 3) Being all-in on EJ Manuel. This mistake could end his career in Buffalo, even if he does a lot of other stuff right. Decisions I have mixed feelings about 1) Trading away Stevie Johnson for a fourth or potentially a third round pick. Johnson is a good player with plenty of gas left in the tank. I'm not sure we got adequate compensation for him. 2) Using this year's and next year's first round picks to draft Sammy Watkins. If Watkins has an A.J. Green-like career, this is a good move. But that's a very high bar to clear. There's a chance Watkins will have a good NFL career; but not a good enough career to justify the high draft pick price we paid for him. 3) Drafting that OT in round 2. I liked the call until Bill from NYC raised concerns. Decisions I like: 1) Some of the calculated risks Whaley took in later rounds. I like the fact he was swinging for the fences with a lot of those later round picks. Better to swing for the fences and miss, than to bunt. If you keep swinging for the fences, eventually you'll hit the occasional home run. 2) A few of his free agent signings. Not every signing was bad. The situation at LG is particularly disturbing to me because of what it suggests about Whaley's thought process. There are times when a GM embraces a happy illusion; because doing so is less painful than seeing reality. If he's fallen prey to this kind of soft thinking at the LG spot--as appears to be the case--then who knows what other happy illusions he may have embraced? One could argue that any confidence he has in the head coach, either coordinator, or his quarterback is the result of this kind of wishful thinking. On the bright side, he seems to have a plan in place; and has the confidence to make aggressive moves in support of that plan. I respect that. I also think that parts of the plan--the good parts--are based on reality. I'm not trying to paint a black and white picture here. But I think his flaws are serious enough to sink him.

I looked around for material written about Aaron Rodgers back in 2005. I found the following: Report 1 ************** He has . . . pinpoint accuracy. He's also a smart quarterback who makes great reads and few mistakes. . . . He doesn't possess great athletic ability, but has good awareness and moves around well in the pocket. He . . . makes quick decisions. Rogers has improved considerably at going through his progressions and does a good job of looking off the safety. . . . He should make a quick transition to the NFL. . . . He should be selected in the top five overall. ************** Report 2 ************* He has a compact quick delivery with sound mechanics that allows him to throw the ball very accurately on a game to game basis. . . . He has excellent pocket presence with keen awareness of his unit and the quick decision making to identify defensive coverage and get the ball to the hot receiver. . . . He shows rare field vision that has allowed him to make the proper read throughout the game. . . . [He identifies the] defensive coverage quicker [than any recent college passer] to make the quick decision and throw. . . . His accuracy is in a class by itself. . . . He has exceptional timing and accuracy to the point that he hits receivers in stride consistently. . . . He should be the 1st overall pick with the 49ers foolish not to take him there and begin a new era. ************* Report 3 **************** He's a little short. The thing you worry about is those [Jeff] Tedford guys. They don't do anything for a couple years and then they have a good year or two. Who of his quarterbacks has done what they're supposed to do? None of them. - Mark Ross, a scout for the Buffalo Bills back in 2005 *************** None of the pre-draft profiles I saw for Aaron Rodgers described him as "raw." He was praised for his quick, accurate decisions, ability to see the whole field, and his pocket awareness. There were concerns that he was a little shorter than you'd ideally like, and that he lacked great foot speed. There were also those who feared he might be a product of Tedford's system making QBs look better than they really were. > there are a number of QBs once called raw under center for Superbowl contenders. (Wilson, keap, Cam, Flacco, Ben, Eli, Romo, Cutler, Brady, stafford) The above didn't ring true to me; so I looked up several scouting reports for Tom Brady. None described him as "raw." The negatives I saw raised about him were generally about his physical traits, not his decision-making. For example: "Poor build, very skinny and narrow, lacks mobility and the ability to avoid the rush, lacks a really strong arm."

After the snap, an NFL QB has to process a lot of information in a short amount of time. Most people--including most college QBs--lack the information processing ability necessary to play at a high level in the NFL. When a college QB prospect is described as "raw," it typically means he's done nothing at the college level to indicate a high level of information processing ability. If a prospect does not demonstrate this ability in college, he's extremely unlikely to do so in the NFL. There are those who think that NFL coaches are grills: grills capable of turning "raw" prospects into finished products. This is illusory thinking. Most college QBs can never learn to process information anywhere near an Aaron Rodgers level, no matter how much coaching they receive.

For me personally, an insightful sportswriter, with a deep knowledge of his subject, is entertaining. A guy who knows little, but acts like he knows a lot, might seem entertaining at first. But after I've realized he's a hollow shell, I find no further purpose in listening to him. Maybe other people's preferences are different than mine. Maybe there are those who are perfectly content to read the same sportswriter for years, long after he's proved that he's full of hot air.