Former Bills OC has Final Exam grades for top 6 QBs

[racketmaster]

8 minutes ago, elroy16 said:

 

 

There's a bunch of red flags in Fairchild's analysis of Jackson, that's for sure.

 

 

It's curious to see different sides though. Matt Waldman did a breakdown of Jackson versus Allen's in the pocket and had good things to say about Jackson in the pocket.

 

https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/12/30/rsp-film-room-no-119-qbs-lamar-jackson-and-josh-allen-in-the-pocket/

 

 

 

This looks like one of the more positive evaluations on Rudolph. I particularly like Rudolph's ability to hit the intermediate throws. 

 

 

Cian Fahey and Chris Trapasso are also really high on Rudolph. 

[Seanbillsfan2206]

I stopped reading when he said Mayfield was a second rd pick and then said Rudolph was a first rd pick. The only thing I can think of is he somehow confused the two...

[PIZ]

If the Bills scouts / front office think the same as Steve Fairchild, then they are going to draft Mason Rudolph at #12.

[17 Josh Allen]

19 minutes ago, PIZ said:

If the Bills scouts / front office think the same as Steve Fairchild, then they are going to draft Mason Rudolph at #12.

please let this happen. Then we get to use our 5 other pics and not give them away. 

 

 

what I like about Rudolph is this 

 

Timing/Vision-Processing/Anticipation

He proved able to throw the timing routes with good accuracy and shows a natural feel for these types of throws. Rudolph doesn’t always have to see a receiver break or be in the open window to throw the ball. He sees the field well and can make throws with anticipation, in addition to being able to throw receivers open. He throws an excellent seam route; his size and stature helps him in these areas. GRADE: 8.5

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY/DRAFT PROJECTION

The South Carolina native is a quarterback who possesses a NFL frame, an above average arm and a mechanically sound delivery. His arm talent is good but not great. Rudolph is balanced and compact in his setup when dropping back and was a very productive player all four years in college, showcasing some characteristics that translate well to playing quarterback in the NFL. His pocket presence and ability to operate/process with defenders around him is outstanding; he shows the toughness to stand tall and execute. Rudolph isn’t very mobile in the pocket and there will be an adjustment period for him to play under center. Overall, he has a very big upside and may be as good as any quarterback in this draft class, as he develops over the next few years. Mason Rudolph should be a first-round pick in the 2018 draft. OVERALL GRADE: 119

Edited April 12, 2018 by Thurmanator 12074

[LabattBlue]

I thought posting entire articles was against board rules??

[racketmaster]

Here is link to the Sam Darnold scouting report. 

http://nfldraftbible.com/sam-darnold-final-exam-with-steve-fairchild/ 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

OK, it's an interesting find and obviously someone who has worked in the NFL should know more than we fans (I say should because, y'know, Maybin and TJ Graham and stuff)

 

 I have to say someone who lists "high profile QB he has worked with" as JP Losman and Dan McGuire, doesn't exactly build a thrill for his chops as the "QB Whisperer", KWIM?

 

 

On 4/12/2018 at 11:50 AM, LabattBlue said:

I thought posting entire articles was against board rules??

 

It is

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 4/12/2018 at 8:51 AM, C.Biscuit97 said:

This is a great breakdown.  I trust this information a lot more than Kiper or McShay.  

Also, hot take:  Fairchild was one of the better OCs of the drought. The fact he made JP Losman look like something like a nfl qb for a year is amazing.

 

OK, I will take that endorsement into account.  Made Losman look like a real QB, check.

 

Overall, I think I can't interpret it without understanding more what went into each of his grades.

 

For example, he has Josh Rosen and Lamar Jackson both graded the same for "size and athletic ability", 8.0

Now I like Josh Rosen, and he is 2" taller than Lamar Jackson.  But Jackson does pass the height threshhold of "tall enough", and to me, one of these things is remarkably not like the other, and that is Jackson's athletic ability vs Rosen's .  Jackson is an athletic freak, who can have LB hanging off his so-called toothpick legs and break their grip to move, reset, and throw.  So I look at them grading the same and say WTF?

 

It makes me wonder how much it is really his work, and how much someone came up with a framework of categories and initial grades that he tweeked and agreed to put his name on.

 

[racketmaster]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

OK, it's an interesting find and obviously someone who has worked in the NFL should know more than we fans (I say should because, y'know, Maybin and TJ Graham and stuff)

 

 I have to say someone who lists "high profile QB he has worked with" as JP Losman and Dan McGuire, doesn't exactly build a thrill for his chops as the "QB Whisperer", KWIM?

 

 

 

It is

I corrected the original post by removing the copied portions. Does anyone know if we are permitted to post parts of an article? Not sure where the line is drawn. 

[Sky Diver]

So is the difference between 117.5 to 120.5 statistically significant? I hardly think so.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Sky Diver

[racketmaster]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, I will take that endorsement into account.  Made Losman look like a real QB, check.

 

Overall, I think I can't interpret it without understanding more what went into each of his grades.

 

For example, he has Josh Rosen and Lamar Jackson both graded the same for "size and athletic ability", 8.0

Now I like Josh Rosen, and he is 2" taller than Lamar Jackson.  But Jackson does pass the height threshhold of "tall enough", and to me, one of these things is remarkably not like the other, and that is Jackson's athletic ability vs Rosen's .  Jackson is an athletic freak, who can have LB hanging off his so-called toothpick legs and break their grip to move, reset, and throw.  So I look at them grading the same and say WTF?

 

It makes me wonder how much it is really his work, and how much someone came up with a framework of categories and initial grades that he tweeked and agreed to put his name on.

 

Scouting is subjective. It seems Fairchild values prototypical qb size in a qb which is pretty common. It is odd that he lumped the two categories together considering how many other categories he scores in his analysis. So Rosen had high marks for prototypical size and decent athleticism while Jackson was seen as a tremendous athlete who has less than ideal size and tends to play small from within the pocket. Fairchild appears to put more value in the pocket size as opposed to overall athleticism. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

11 minutes ago, racketmaster said:

I corrected the original post by removing the copied portions. Does anyone know if we are permitted to post parts of an article? Not sure where the line is drawn. 

 

If you're interested, here's a good write up on Fair Use copyright issues.  Lawyers spend years debating this stuff.

I think common sense is a reasonable guideline for a  BB forum  - a couple paragraphs of a long article, or a key summary from each review, or a few sentences - just not the whole thing.

[racketmaster]

6 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

So is the difference between 117.5 to 120.5 statistically significant? I hardly think so.

That is interesting. His analysis is very detailed and appears to be a solid assessment of each of the prospects (as you would expect from someone with his experience). But the grading system does seem odd. A small point difference leaves one prospect as a second rounder while another is seen as a top 5 pick. Overall, what I like about it is that it gives us some idea of what NFL coaches would be seeing when evaluating these guys. Again, it is subjective and just one person's evaluation. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, racketmaster said:

Scouting is subjective. It seems Fairchild values prototypical qb size in a qb which is pretty common. It is odd that he lumped the two categories together considering how many other categories he scores in his analysis. So Rosen had high marks for prototypical size and decent athleticism while Jackson was seen as a tremendous athlete who has less than ideal size and tends to play small from within the pocket. Fairchild appears to put more value in the pocket size as opposed to overall athleticism. 

 

Fair points.  I agree it was strange to lump those two categories together but break out so many others, especially when many of the QB in this draft don't really make the prototypical 3,5,7, step drops so I'm not sure how he grades them so granularly.

 

Anyway, interesting read.

[racketmaster]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

If you're interested, here's a good write up on Fair Use copyright issues.  Lawyers spend years debating this stuff.

I think common sense is a reasonable guideline for a  BB forum  - a couple paragraphs of a long article, or a key summary from each review, or a few sentences - just not the whole thing.

Makes sense, summaries probably would have been the way to go. I know in past years (on the previous message board) I would get some grief from posters if I did not copy the article because they did not want to open up the links at work. Good to know for the future. 

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Fair points.  I agree it was strange to lump those two categories together but break out so many others, especially when many of the QB in this draft don't really make the prototypical 3,5,7, step drops so I'm not sure how he grades them so granularly.

 

Anyway, interesting read.

If I was to ever do such a detailed report, I would definitely separate size from athleticism. They are important enough qualities to have their own categories. It seems clear that Fairchild puts more emphasis on what goes on in the pocket than the ability to run. 

[racketmaster]

Here is the final scouting report on Allen who was rated #1.

http://nfldraftbible.com/josh-allen-final-exam-with-steve-fairchild/

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 4/12/2018 at 9:51 AM, Shotgunner said:

 

I have been paying attention to all the Rudolph hype lately, and I must adm8t to being sucked in. I was fully on board with taking him at 12 thinking we couod keep all of our picks...

 

Then I read the analysis from before prodays and the combine. Now I don't want him in the first at all. I am EXTREMELY leery of guys who get moved up the draft board significantly long after they play their last game. Tape should drive draft position, not hype from the talking heads.

 

Sure, he could end up being the best of the bunch, and I'm still "ok" with him later on, but I see warning flags based on his clausen-esque post combine rise.

 

That is what I belive will happen 

[racketmaster]

Final rankings:

1) Allen - (122) A top pick in the draft

2) Darnold (121) A top 5 pick

3) Rosen (120.5) Early first round

4) Rudolph (119) First round 

5) Mayfield (117.5) 2nd round

6) Jackson (112.5) 2nd round

[Domdab99]

LOL Fairchild? And he puts Allen at the top of his board?  What is going on?

 

I'm so confused. Metrics say that Allen is a bust. But pro scouts love him. 

Edited April 19, 2018 by Domdab99

[OldTimer1960]

On 4/12/2018 at 10:45 AM, aceman_16 said:

Is this why he has the title of "former"?

You understand that even the mighty Bill Belichick is “former Browns’ head coach”...

24 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

LOL Fairchild? And he puts Allen at the top of his board?  What is going on?

 

I'm so confused. Metrics say that Allen is a bust. But pro scouts love him. 

What “metrics”?  

 

I am am not a fan of drafting Allen, especially if it involves trading up.  BUT, in >30 years of following the draft, I’ve learned to check myself and realize that sometimes the pros know more than the draft pundits, media and fans.  That doesn’t mean that they are always right  and the pundits wrong, but by my recollection a lot of times the pundits/media have criticized an NFL executive for a move it hasn’t panned out the way that the media thought it would.