SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Citizens of TSW - a question. Do you believe that it's useful to assign prototypes to NFL prospects, or are the nuances of each player simply too variable? What prompts this question is Matt Barkley. From the little I've seen, he doesn't light the world on fire in any category and I don't think that I want him as the Bills' next QB. However, the logic around here is that we don't want him because he's a USC QB and the likes of Sanchez and Leinart haven't impressed. Granted, there are going to be similarities to players that were recruited by the same college coach. But other than that, does the argument "USC quarterbacks are disappointments" hold any water? Or is it hokum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAWNDO Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Citizens of TSW - a question. Do you believe that it's useful to assign prototypes to NFL prospects, or are the nuances of each player simply too variable? What prompts this question is Matt Barkley. From the little I've seen, he doesn't light the world on fire in any category and I don't think that I want him as the Bills' next QB. However, the logic around here is that we don't want him because he's a USC QB and the likes of Sanchez and Leinart haven't impressed. Granted, there are going to be similarities to players that were recruited by the same college coach. But other than that, does the argument "USC quarterbacks are disappointments" hold any water? Or is it hokum? Useful no, but it does make it easier for the casual football fan to compare skill sets of prospects to current players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Citizens of TSW - a question. Do you believe that it's useful to assign prototypes to NFL prospects, or are the nuances of each player simply too variable? What prompts this question is Matt Barkley. From the little I've seen, he doesn't light the world on fire in any category and I don't think that I want him as the Bills' next QB. However, the logic around here is that we don't want him because he's a USC QB and the likes of Sanchez and Leinart haven't impressed. Granted, there are going to be similarities to players that were recruited by the same college coach. But other than that, does the argument "USC quarterbacks are disappointments" hold any water? Or is it hokum? No...every player is a case study unto himself IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Well, if the system tends to pump the QB's stats and those stats make his case to be an NFL QB, and QB after QB from the same system fail in the NFL, then I think it's relevant. But it's not determinative. Sometimes the real deal plays in a QB friendly system. Don't know enough about Barkley at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AReed Deep For6 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Well, if the system tends to pump the QB's stats and those stats make his case to be an NFL QB, and QB after QB from the same system fail in the NFL, then I think it's relevant. But it's not determinative. Sometimes the real deal plays in a QB friendly system. Don't know enough about Barkley at this point. Good post. This is what I was thinking in my head, but didnt know how to explain it like you just did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Prototypes serve a purpose because in the absence of those prototypes, a player must have other attributes whose benefits outweigh the drawbacks of the lack of prototypical traits. Kyle Williams is a good example. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I get both sides of the argument. For the most part, it is really stupid to judge individual people on stereotypes. It's what the uninformed do. Each person should be judged individually. However, I do think a school where a player went to can tell a lot about that player, especially QBs. I'm not a fan of QBs from programs like USC or Oklahoma. They are blue chip programs that have all Americans at every position. Qbs are throwing to studs and never get touched because those teams have great olines. Most likely, these guys will go to a team that isn't very good. Some of these guys don't know how to handle pressure or being hit. As a result, the NFL is a huge wake up call. It's one of the reason I hate the thought of Landry Jones. He never wowed me at OU and the guy before him, Sam Bradford, is a dime a dozen QB. As a result, I really want no part on Jones. As for Barkley, I kinda like him. IMO, his USC teams weren't as talented as the ones Sanchez & Leinart were on. He has very good wrs but because of probation and lost of scholarships, they aren't as strong. Also, I think Kiffin is a daddy's boy who isn't really that good of a coach. Everything I have read on Barkley is that he is a great kid who goes on missions in the offseason. Guys like Leinart and Sanchez just seemed to want the perks of being a QB. IMO, it'd be very tough to see the Bills pass on Barkley if he is on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Well, if the system tends to pump the QB's stats and those stats make his case to be an NFL QB, and QB after QB from the same system fail in the NFL, then I think it's relevant. But it's not determinative. Sometimes the real deal plays in a QB friendly system. Don't know enough about Barkley at this point. i figured this would be the common answer but i think that ultimately a GM isnt looking at the net yardage on the year, hes looking at the spin and velocity on the ball coming out of the guys hand for instance. Less about completion percentage and more about hitting the right window at the right time. The stats are great for us armchair GMs but only tell a very small story. As to the school situation - I think theres some basis to "hes from texas, maybe dig a little deeper on his work ethic" but the "hes from texas, hes lazy" is just silly. schools certainly target certain types of guys, certain types of personalities, use consistent recruiting tricks - but that doesnt mean every guy there fits the same mold. it can be a flag to investigate more but outside of something really crazy going on at a school, i think you have to use it as tool to help ask the right questions (really any gm especially at the top of the draft with a qb should be asking ALL of those questions anyway). so in the example of USC - you look at how much is the qb vs talent around him, the level of competition faced, if he was a guy that chose LA for football or for fame, and if hes a guy that saw the success because he came in polished and close to his own ceiling already... but at qb in the first round your certainly doing that for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted January 3, 2013 Author Share Posted January 3, 2013 i figured this would be the common answer but i think that ultimately a GM isnt looking at the net yardage on the year, hes looking at the spin and velocity on the ball coming out of the guys hand for instance. Less about completion percentage and more about hitting the right window at the right time. The stats are great for us armchair GMs but only tell a very small story. As to the school situation - I think theres some basis to "hes from texas, maybe dig a little deeper on his work ethic" but the "hes from texas, hes lazy" is just silly. schools certainly target certain types of guys, certain types of personalities, use consistent recruiting tricks - but that doesnt mean every guy there fits the same mold. it can be a flag to investigate more but outside of something really crazy going on at a school, i think you have to use it as tool to help ask the right questions (really any gm especially at the top of the draft with a qb should be asking ALL of those questions anyway). so in the example of USC - you look at how much is the qb vs talent around him, the level of competition faced, if he was a guy that chose LA for football or for fame, and if hes a guy that saw the success because he came in polished and close to his own ceiling already... but at qb in the first round your certainly doing that for everyone. This is a good point. Southern California couldn't get much different from Buffalo culturally (within the US, that is) and I think there's a "One of us" mentality. We want to imagine a guy with a snow shovel in his hands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) This is a good point. Southern California couldn't get much different from Buffalo culturally (within the US, that is) and I think there's a "One of us" mentality. We want to imagine a guy with a snow shovel in his hands. and i know thats a questions that followed sanchez, and leinart a bit in their pro careers. i imagine selling hollywood is a big part of USCs recruitment, and they may be more prone to get that type of guy.... Edited January 3, 2013 by NoSaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonramz Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 (edited) I wouldn't say it is a huge thing... but knowing that players from certain programs at certain positions have trouble in the NFL is something that could be used to break ties in my opinion. I don't think it is totally useless information Edited January 3, 2013 by jonramz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Trooth Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 I would have to say avoid USC qbs. And, I'd say the same for ND qbs. as well. Both schools are media magnets... which inherently tends to lead to way too much hype and over rating. Matt Barkley gets so much pub. Why? What is exceptional about him? Pit him against other QBs and try to project him to the pros. I see him more as qb that, on the right team, might challenge for a number 2 spot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Prototypes? They're useful as a starting point. Then you delve deeper and identify those things which make each player unique. California QBs? That's not a prototype. That's a stereotype. Two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts