Scouts Inc (McShay): First time in 15 years that 4 QBs had a grade of 90+

[ColoradoBills]

18 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The list doesn't really show anything positive or negative on this year's class but if I were Scouts Inc I would stop publishing it.

 

Matt Leinart > Matt Stafford does not scream out "Trust my process".

 

Let's not forget that Matt Leinart was rated very high in the draft.

Here is an example of a pre draft write-up.

 

What can you say about Matt Leinart? He will go down as one of the greatest college quarterbacks of all time. In three seasons as a starter at USC, he had a combined record of 37-2, including 34 straight victories. He took over the helm as a sophomore in 2003 for Heisman Trophy Winner Carson Palmer, and exceeded all expectations. On the year, Leinart completed just over 63% of his passes for 3,556 yards, and an amazing 38/9 TD/INT ratio. USC earned a share of the National Title in 2003, thanks in large part to Leinart's success. As a junior, he was even better. The eventual Heisman Trophy winner finished the year with 3,322 yards and 33 TD's to just six interceptions, while completing 65% of his passes. USC this time won the National Title outright. Leinart turned down the NFL and returned for his senior year with a shot to become just the second person to win two Heismans and be a part of the first 3-time National Champions. As it turned out, his backfield mate Reggie Bush stole the show on his way to the Heisman, and USC lost to Texas in the title game 41-38. But Leinart had another great season. He became a 3-time All American after completing 65.7% of his passes for 3,815 yards and 28 touchdowns to just eight interceptions. 3-time AA, one Heisman, Two National Titles, and a 37-2 career record. That's not a bad three year stretch.

 

Leinart is one of the most polished passers to come out of the college ranks since Peyton Manning. His ability to read defenses is second to none at the college level. USC even gave him the opportunity to call audibles at the line of scrimmage any time he wanted because of his ability to see what was developing. He has excellent timing with his receivers, and can put the ball on the money in any situation. His career completion percentage is just under 65%. Leinart has excellent touch and can float it in, or sling it into coverage if needed. He is also a good athlete for a player his size, and shows solid mobility inside the pocket. He is not a threat to run it, though he did run for six touchdowns this year, but he can avoid the rush and throw on the run once outside the pocket. What sets Leinart apart though is his leadership ability. He's played in big games every year, and more often than not, he came out on top. He will not make mistakes to cost you the game, and comes through when the game is on the line.

 

There is nothing physically that stands out about Leinart. He can make any throw needed, but he does not have a cannon. He is mobile, but he's not a standout athlete and is not a threat to tuck it. There were some times this year where he let his passes sail, and he won't be allowed to do that in the NFL. He has the arm strength to get the ball into coverage, he just needs to do it more often. In the NFL, a lot of the touch passes he throws will not be completed. Also, as a marked man this year, Leinart took a couple late hits to the head, and came up a little foggy at times. Just as a precaution, those slight concussions will be checked out.

 

Matt Leinart is the Tom Brady of college football. He just wins. He does not wow you with his physical talent and may not lead the league in any statistical category, but he puts you in position to win, and comes out on top. He has a very bright future in the NFL. He had the chance to go #1 overall last year but chose to return to school. Now, he's a top three lock, but does not look like the #1 pick because his teammate Reggie Bush is in the draft. No matter where he goes, Leinart should have an excellent NFL career.

 

 

To put things in some sort of perspective, what would some members want to be trading for this guy?

[RochesterRob]

8 minutes ago, horned dogs said:

Yes! Thank you for putting a little bit of sanity. People work their butts of to get to 2/3 right, when you can flip a coin an expect 50. That is what we're dealing with, raising the bar a few degrees. 

Yep this is a year where you take your shot at excellent prospects. After that is done, alot of it will be somewhat luck dependent (injuries etc.). Surround him with coaches, weapons and anything else you can and then hope it works. But, I'm taking my chances on this years prospects.

  OK, counting rookies there are 32 names on that list.  Can somebody give 22 names that they consider franchise QB's.  I would argue that somebody such as Mariotta grades incomplete at this point but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt on a couple of names.  Again, I would say that the rookies should not be considered franchise QB's even thought they are on the list.  Can somebody give me 18 or 19 names to make 67 percent of 28?

[Mikey152]

4 hours ago, Chicken Boo said:

 

You must not remember Boller too well then.  While he may not have been the colossal bust Leaf or Jamarcus were, he was a bust just the same.

 

He was terrible!

I think you and I just have very different ideas of what a bust is, I guess.  The truth is, he never really got a chance.  He was replaced by McNair, Flacco and Palmer at various points in his career and only got one full season to prove himself, where it's not like he was a complete tire fire...he was just on a good, veteran team that didn't want to wait for him to develop.

 

This is what I don't like about football fans, media, etc.  Everything is so black and white, when the reality is the game itself is far more gray and nuanced.  Great prospects who become poor players aren't always on the scouts...and vice versa.  Things like fit, heart, luck, injuries, etc...all of those have huge impacts on a players career, and they are almost impossible to scout.  The best you can do is project best and worst case scenarios and make an educated guess.  

 

Take this draft for example.  There is no "best quarterback".  Each team may value different traits.  Tom Brady might not be Tom Brady on the Bills.  Aaron Rodgers night have been garbage and out of the NFL if he didn't get to sit for three years.  But nobody wants to look at nuance.  They just say boom or bust and put it all on the draft.  That's just stupid.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Mikey152

[ColoradoBills]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  OK, counting rookies there are 32 names on that list.  Can somebody give 22 names that they consider franchise QB's.  I would argue that somebody such as Mariotta grades incomplete at this point but I would be willing to give the benefit of the doubt on a couple of names.  Again, I would say that the rookies should not be considered franchise QB's even thought they are on the list.  Can somebody give me 18 or 19 names to make 67 percent of 28?

 

I don't even know what people mean by "Franchise QB".

To me you got 4 different types of results when drafting QB's in the 1st Round.

 

1.  Elite:  Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, etc.

2.  Solid Starter:  Cam Newton, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, etc.

3.  Low Level Starter:  Blake Bortles, Vince Young, Mark Sanchez, etc.

4.  Bust:  JaMarcus Russell,  Matt Leinart, EJ Manuel, etc.

 

Is Ryan Tannehill a "Franchise QB"?  If people think he is, that is their choice, but I surely would not use 2 1st Round and 2 2nd Round picks on him.

Even dividing into 4 categories is tough.

Is Matt Stafford "Elite" or the top of "Solid Starter"?  FTR, I would use those above mentioned picks on him.

 

IMO, I see the chance for a lot of this year's QB's capable of being "Solid Starters" to "Low Level Starters" but I don't see any "Elite".

FWIW.

Edited April 5, 2018 by ColoradoBills

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 hours ago, JohnC said:

The different assessments on Allen is baffling. There is a camp that believes he is the next Roethlisberger and there is a camp that believes he is going to be a Kyle Boller type bust. I have seen projections where he could be the first qb off the board or a qb that teams are vying to get him. 

 

Can't Gunner, Bandit and Bloke get together and come up with a consensus? Just hash it out and come to an agreement. I need to warn Gunner and Bloke that Bandito is pugnacious and that he will forcefully hold to his position that Allen is worth being the apple of one's eye. If you continue to disagree you will be in a bloody battle until you relent. 

 

What would be the point of hashing out an agreement?

 

The fundamental problem (and the base cause of the different assessments) is that Allen is a high ceiling/low floor kind of guy.  He has the prototypical physique and big arm of some successful NFL QB, but the low completion percentage linked with lack of NFL success.  On his film, you can see inaccuracy then the question is “why?”.  He clearly didn’t have a lot of talent around him, and he also didn’t play against a high level of talent.

 

So he’s a dark horse, and people can (and will) project what they like onto him.

[Chicken Boo]

1 hour ago, Mikey152 said:

I think you and I just have very different ideas of what a bust is, I guess.  The truth is, he never really got a chance.  He was replaced by McNair, Flacco and Palmer at various points in his career and only got one full season to prove himself, where it's not like he was a complete tire fire...he was just on a good, veteran team that didn't want to wait for him to develop.

 

This is what I don't like about football fans, media, etc.  Everything is so black and white, when the reality is the game itself is far more gray and nuanced.  

 

So are Akili Smith, David Carr and Joey Harrington busts or nah?

[Boca BIlls]

2 hours ago, Elite Poster said:

 

Yes so 66% of the time it works. That is a good statistic. Nothing in this world is 100%.

Exactly can't be 100% when it come to judging the human ability.

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

What would be the point of hashing out an agreement?

 

The fundamental problem (and the base cause of the different assessments) is that Allen is a high ceiling/low floor kind of guy.  He has the prototypical physique and big arm of some successful NFL QB, but the low completion percentage linked with lack of NFL success.  On his film, you can see inaccuracy then the question is “why?”.  He clearly didn’t have a lot of talent around him, and he also didn’t play against a high level of talent.

 

So he’s a dark horse, and people can (and will) project what they like onto him.

There are some analysts (not necessarily team evaluators) who are going so far as to say that Allen may be the first player taken in the draft. And there are analysts (not necessarily team evaluators) who say they wouldn't take him at least until the third round or even later. That's quite a disparity of opinion. 

 

Bandit has repeatedly stated that he believes that his completion percentage doesn't reflect his accuracy level. His position is that he is forcing plays that bring down his stats. On the other hand Bloke is more resistant to him because he believes that his completion percentages are very telling when evaluating him. 

 

What makes me more interested in this player and the conflicting reviews is that he is often linked to Buffalo. If the Bills move up the board to select him then it is evident that the staff believes that whatever deficiency he has as a passer can be corrected.

 

With respect to what is the purpose of hashing out an agreement there is nothing unusual for a team's scouting department to have conflicting views on a prospect. Each perspective surely has its own merit but that doesn't mean that there can't be give and take melding of opinion that results in a final decision. That's simply part of the evaluating process.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 hours ago, JohnC said:

With respect to what is the purpose of hashing out an agreement there is nothing unusual for a team's scouting department to have conflicting views on a prospect. Each perspective surely has its own merit but that doesn't mean that there can't be give and take melding of opinion that results in a final decision. That's simply part of the evaluating process.  

 

By professional scouts, sure.  They should also have access to materials we do not - to throws requested during a private workout, to all-22 of every game, conversations with coaches, tape evaluation with Allen about certain throws.  It's their job to reach a consensus and make a decision.

 

But what would be the point of trying to force a consensus on message board posters based on the limited info we have?  It is what it is.  He's a high ceiling, low floor guy.  He hasn't shown he can produce a high completion percentage in college, that's a fact.  Why that is, is a matter for debate.

 

IMHO you don't trade up to the top of the draft for a high ceiling/low floor guy, but that's just my opinion.  My guess is that because he's been strongly linked to the Bills, it's just like Nassib and we probably aren't really interested but that's just a guess.

Edited April 6, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Lurker]

22 hours ago, JohnC said:

 I have seen projections

 

Projection seems to be the operative word between the two camps.   

 

Those that say Allen's the next Big Ben are projecting, because Rothlisberger had way better production in college and was much more NFL ready.   They're assuming Allen will improve his accuracy once he has a more accomplished team around him.    Those that say he'll bust are more apt to look at his production and say he is what he is.

 

Flip a coin.    Although Polian, Butler and Modrak always put production ahead of potential, so the red flags appear warranted...

[JohnC]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

 

Projection seems to be the operative word between the two camps.   

 

Those that say Allen's the next Big Ben are projecting, because Rothlisberger had way better production in college and was much more NFL ready.   They're assuming Allen will improve his accuracy once he has a more accomplished team around him.    Those that say he'll bust are more apt to look at his production and say he is what he is.

 

Flip a coin.    Although Polian, Butler and Modrak always put production ahead of potential, so the red flags appear warranted...

We have heard plenty of speculation that Buffalo is targeting Allen. We have also heard that other teams are targeting Allen. However, we really don't know if that is true. You will get no argument from me that the people who favor Allen are doing it based on physical attributes more than performance. My position is I prefer the other top three over him but I'm open to all the high candidates. 

[ComradeKayAdams]

19 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Rob Johnson wasn't in the '98 draft, so there seems to be some discrepancy between your opinion and the facts. Anyway, the rankings are simply that: high probability prospects that have measurables. Most will not live up to their draft ranking. If all that mattered were the " measurables" there would be no busts. A high percentage of these college QBs will flame out as pros , because there is still no way to tell if they have the all important processing speed when the real bullets are flying at the faster NFL speed. Your guess is as good- and bad as anyone else's. Since so few of these QBs will become stars, saying player X will bust is a higher probability prediction than saying that same player X is a can't miss all-pro. 

This is definitely true. What's clear is that this year looks like the target year to draft one. 4 highly ranked ranked possibles don't fall in the same draft class all that often. 

 

Nothing wrong with my facts. RJ was traded to the Bills during the 1998 offseason. I was against that trade in 1998. I didn't know anything about RJ during his draft year. I was too focused on Todd Collins at that time. Don't ever try to embarrass me again on this message board. Believe me, I know my Buffalo Bills history. I've got ranch dressing stains on my size XXXL Zubaz pants that are older than you, son.

 

Can someone give me historical examples of modern NFL QB prospects from small college programs who had below a 60% career completion percentage, started less than 30 games, won less than 20 games, and yet still had successful NFL careers? I'll leave the definitions of "modern NFL," "small college program," and "successful NFL career" ambiguous because I'm just looking for a working list at the moment. Thank you for doing this on-line research for me. I'm too busy working at my generic blue-collar factory job right now to do it myself.

 

[MJS]

Looks like their system needed a tweak if they had some of those guys from past years rated so high.

[What a Tuel]

On ‎4‎/‎5‎/‎2018 at 10:39 AM, TheTruthHurts said:

And we cried when the Bills didn't draft them. Same will happen this year. 

 

The point is to get it right. If you don't think our GM can get this right, then we already lost.

[RochesterRob]

19 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

The point is to get it right. If you don't think our GM can get this right, then we already lost.

  There is certainly nothing in the way of being foolproof when it comes to the QB's in this class.  As was said yesterday there are probably twenty organizations looking for QB's this spring and the fact that most will miss on such a prospect is testimony to how hard it is when there are no clear cut leaders.  If there were a consensus number 1 then the Brown's would have been flooded with trade offers for the number one overall pick.  If it is worth giving up the farm to those here on those board to go to one then many competitors would have the same notion with substituting players for picks where an organization does not have a wheelbarrow full of selections to trade.

[metzelaars_lives]

21 hours ago, Buffalo Boy said:

I’m saying 1/3 are out immediately.

The remaining 2/3 TDs arent “ Franchise” QBs but good enough to garner multiple year starting status. That is probably a reflection of the general lack of good QB play the league has suffered through.

What is interesting to me is the disparity of opinion on who we should take( and whether we should move up to do so).

Wait, WHAT?  What in God's name are you talking about??  We have been in, far and away, the greatest era of QB play in NFL history for the last 15-20 years!!  We're at the end of an era that saw four of the top ten QB's to ever play the game of football all in their prime at the same time (Brady, Manning, Brees and Rodgers), not to mention, Roethlisberger, who is a top 15 all time QB.  But more importantly, we're in a time where a guy like Kirk Cousins is like an average NFL QB.  A guy like Matthew Stafford is like MAYBE a top ten QB!  Please, PLEASE, tell me the golden era of QB play when the average QB was better than Kirk Cousins.  Please tell me the golden era of QB play when a guy like Tyrod Taylor was a below average starting QB, yet was actually pretty efficient.  I am dying to hear your response.  

[What a Tuel]

6 minutes ago, RochesterRob said:

  There is certainly nothing in the way of being foolproof when it comes to the QB's in this class.  As was said yesterday there are probably twenty organizations looking for QB's this spring and the fact that most will miss on such a prospect is testimony to how hard it is when there are no clear cut leaders.  If there were a consensus number 1 then the Brown's would have been flooded with trade offers for the number one overall pick.  If it is worth giving up the farm to those here on those board to go to one then many competitors would have the same notion with substituting players for picks where an organization does not have a wheelbarrow full of selections to trade.

 

This logic defies the fact that Goff and Wentz weren't a consensus number 1 "go get em" QBs. Their teams found the guy they wanted and went out and got him. Mahomes wasn't either. Trubisky wasn't either. Watson wasn't either.

 

And yet all 5 of those QBs had teams trading up to get them and all 5 of those teams are in arguably better positions than the Bills right now. You don't need to get the "consensus number 1 guy", you just have to get it right. Time will tell with those QBs, and some will likely not work out, but you have to try. You will be waiting a long time relying on finding a Tom Brady in the castaway pile.

 

 

[NewEraBills]

On 4/5/2018 at 10:02 AM, Seanbillsfan2206 said:

You’re basing this off of hypothetical situations. In most scouts opinions, Rudolph is the 5th or 6th best QB in the draft. That tells me that he’s not very likely to have the best career out of this class. It’s possible, just not likely

 

We don't know this as a fact.  We know what the draft media guys say, but we don't have access to team boards and how they grade these guys.  I'm all aboard the Rosen or Mayfield trains but those two are my preference for the Bills.  I don't know how BB and McDermott grades the QBs.  I know how Kiper, Mayock, Brooks, Jeremiah so on and so forth do, but I don't know how the Bills, Jets, Browns you get the picture.

[RochesterRob]

9 minutes ago, What a Tuel said:

 

This logic defies the fact that Goff and Wentz weren't a consensus number 1 "go get em" QBs. Their teams found the guy they wanted and went out and got him. Mahomes wasn't either. Trubisky wasn't either. Watson wasn't either.

 

And yet all 5 of those QBs had teams trading up to get them and all 5 of those teams are in arguably better positions than the Bills right now. You don't need to get the "consensus number 1 guy", you just have to get it right. Time will tell with those QBs, and some will likely not work out, but you have to try. You will be waiting a long time relying on finding a Tom Brady in the castaway pile.

 

 

  I am failing to see your "logic" as none of the names you have listed have several years of stats to analyze in terms of the NFL.  Get back to me when they have faced a multitude of defensive players and coordinators and maintain elite statistics.  When they have a few offensive teammates go down and they have to carry a team.  Do you have a system "to get it right" in terms of selecting a QB?  If you do you need to be E mailing your resume to all 32 NFL teams pronto.  Honestly, your argument boils down to "if it is new and shiny then it has to be better."   If you are really concerned about the Bills not getting it right then you might as well undertake a new home improvement project or see what needs doing with the lawn as it will be time better spent and stress saved versus agonizing over what Beane will do or not do.

[What a Tuel]

Just now, RochesterRob said:

  I am failing to see your "logic" as none of the names you have listed have several years of stats to analyze in terms of the NFL.  Get back to me when they have faced a multitude of defensive players and coordinators and maintain elite statistics.  When they have a few offensive teammates go down and they have to carry a team.  Do you have a system "to get it right" in terms of selecting a QB?  If you do you need to be E mailing your resume to all 32 NFL teams pronto.  Honestly, your argument boils down to "if it is new and shiny then it has to be better."   If you are really concerned about the Bills not getting it right then you might as well undertake a new home improvement project or see what needs doing with the lawn as it will be time better spent and stress saved versus agonizing over what Beane will do or not do.

 

I was talking about your logic that none of these QBs are worth trading up for because no one is calling offering a multitude of picks. You don't know that they aren't being given trade offers for the first overall pick. Your argument boils down to "because no one has already traded up, then it obviously isn't worth trading up for"

 

 "If there were a consensus number 1 then the Brown's would have been flooded with trade offers for the number one overall pick."