Project QB's who DID reach potential

[corta765]

Carson Palmer wasn't a project but he did sit a full season which did wonders IMO for him. Good question and topic.

[GunnerBill]

Transie and Thurman definitely have some homoerotic love hate thing where they shout angrily at each other all night and then wake up in the morning in bed together.  

[TigerJ]

On 4/17/2018 at 1:55 AM, Zerovotlz said:

Been reading through the recent Josh Allen threads and as has been hashed over and over....many think of him as a "project".  It got me thinking....how many "project" QB's ever have really made it in the NFL?  

 

Steve McNair was the first one who came to my mind....he was drafted more or less as a project from a small school who was considered physically gifted but needed time to develop...and in his case...he actually did become a very good NFL QB after coming on pretty slow to start out....just as he was projected to do.  

 

Some would say Brett Favre was a project, but I can't really recall if that is what he was projected as, or just difficult to coach and tended to go off script to much as opposed to needing to work on becoming a better QB....(I am sure someone here can remind me/us)

 

On the opposite side of that...the most recent disaster of a guy who pretty much everyone declared as a project is Paxton Lynch.......not being a Denver fan or close to that situation, I can't say I'd seen enough to declare him a bust, but they have....Case Keenum isn't there because they believe Lynch is about to be ready.  

 

Anyhow...post some examples of success and failures....identify what went right or wrong...might provide some insight into the draft class this year and maybe cause a few of us to reflect further or take a second look (I know just from visiting this site alone, I have wavered all over on Lamar Jackson based on peoples thoughts here)

Actually, it is believed by some at least that John Elway is still high on Paxton Lynch.  Case Keenum was signed because they realize he's still not ready, but they apparently still believe he could still develop.  Sorry, no link.  It was a tidbit in a mock draft I read recently, but I can't recall which one.  Take it for what it's worth.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 4/17/2018 at 8:14 AM, matter2003 said:

 

Uh...Tom Brady? 6th round draft pick...only picked over Tim Rattay allegedly because he was taller...

Pretty much any QB who wasnt drafted in the first round that succeeds can be viewed as a project QB who made it...

 

 

OK, you think of or define "project QB" a little differently than I do.

 

I would call a QB undrafted or drafted on Day 3 a "developmental prospect".  You don't expect much out of him, and if he develops into a competent backup you're good.

If he develops into a starter, you've won the frickin' lottery.

 

Tom Brady was a winning lottery ticket.  So was Romo.

 

To me a "project QB" is a guy with known developmental needs, that you draft in the 1st round or high 2nd round when you lack a starting QB and have expectations that this guy will be The Man for you.  Others are right, Mahomes is the current developmental test case for this. 

 

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, you think of or define "project QB" a little differently than I do.

 

I would call a QB undrafted or drafted on Day 3 a "developmental prospect".  You don't expect much out of him, and if he develops into a competent backup you're good.

If he develops into a starter, you've won the frickin' lottery.

 

Tom Brady was a winning lottery ticket.  So was Romo.

 

To me a "project QB" is a guy with known developmental needs, that you draft in the 1st round or high 2nd round when you lack a starting QB and have expectations that this guy will be The Man for you.  Others are right, Mahomes is the current developmental test case for this. 

 

 

Agreed.

Warren moon, Romo, Warner were all lottery tickets.

I think a project would be somebody taken with the expectation to develop him into a reliable starter versus a guy taken in the late rounds who you don't expect much of.

 

Developmental QBs:

Rodgers

Carr

Dalton

Wilson

Mahomes

Jimmy G

 

Project /unexpected lottery:

Moon

Romo

Brady

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Agreed.

Warren moon, Romo, Warner were all lottery tickets.

I think a project would be somebody taken with the expectation to develop him into a reliable starter versus a guy taken in the late rounds who you don't expect much of.

 

Developmental QBs:

Rodgers

Carr

Dalton

Wilson

Mahomes

Jimmy G

 

Project /unexpected lottery:

Moon

Romo

Brady

 

 

 

I guess, to my point, that defining the terms is key here: while I agree with your classification, I flip-flop the terms "project QB" and "developmental/unexpected lottery ticket"

Could just be me though.

 

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I guess, to my point, that defining the terms is key here: while I agree with your classification, I flip-flop the terms "project QB" and "developmental/unexpected lottery ticket"

Could just be me though.

 

 

Hmmm...

 

So for you project expects to be "the guy with some work"

Developmental is basically a "we need a backup, but if we are lucky, he will start" ?

 

I guess I could view the word "project" as an implication of a "lot of work, but I expect it to turn into something useful" vs "developmental" as guess that it night grow up to be a big boy

 

I could agree even you flipping them

We do agree on the fact that there are two distinct classifications that should have different expectations

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

I think that this question determines the results of the general question about "project QBs who DID reach potential".  If you define a "developmental QB" as a QB who was an UDFA or QBs drafted after the first round, then you'll get a lot of examples compared to limiting your definition to "first round QBs who were projects".

 

I think you would have to go back thirty or forty years to find any examples of first round "projects" who were actually successful because there simply aren't any in the last twenty.  Pretty much,  first round "projects" in the last 20 years have all failed.  I also don't think that going to a "small school" = "project".  Ben Roethlisberger was not a "project" despite going to Miami of Ohio (not the U!).  Neither was Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco or Carson Wentz.  All of these QBs were impressive QBs even if they played in lower regarded Div 1 (or even Div II schools in Flacco's case) programs.  JP Losman wasn't nearly as impressive at Tulane as Roethlisberger, Ryan, Flacco or Wentz, and Josh Allen wasn't at Wyoming, either.

 

Thank you... hopefully a new messenger gets this across better

[Hapless Bills Fan]

27 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Hmmm...

 

So for you project expects to be "the guy with some work"

Developmental is basically a "we need a backup, but if we are lucky, he will start" ?

 

I guess I could view the word "project" as an implication of a "lot of work, but I expect it to turn into something useful" vs "developmental" as guess that it night grow up to be a big boy

 

I could agree even you flipping them

We do agree on the fact that there are two distinct classifications that should have different expectations

 

Yep!  And I have no worries about flipping them either.

 

The point is that to have a meaningful discussion, we all need to be working off the same understanding of the same words

[Sky Diver]

Dave Krieg, Milton College. UDFA.

Edited April 18, 2018 by Sky Diver

[SouthNYfan]

7 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yep!  And I have no worries about flipping them either.

 

The point is that to have a meaningful discussion, we all need to be working off the same understanding of the same words

 

Def agree.

I think Mayfield and Rosen are expected to be ready and good very very soon if not ASAP.

I think Allen and darnold are guys who you expect to be "the man" and elite after 1-2 years of learning.

I think Rudolph is a guy you expect to be at best "league average starter" with some learning.

I think white, lauletta, Ferguson are "lottery tickets".

 

I think Jackson is with Rudolph as far as expectations, but has lottery ticket potential.

Edited April 18, 2018 by SouthNYfan

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, you think of or define "project QB" a little differently than I do.

 

I would call a QB undrafted or drafted on Day 3 a "developmental prospect".  You don't expect much out of him, and if he develops into a competent backup you're good.

If he develops into a starter, you've won the frickin' lottery.

 

Tom Brady was a winning lottery ticket.  So was Romo.

 

To me a "project QB" is a guy with known developmental needs, that you draft in the 1st round or high 2nd round when you lack a starting QB and have expectations that this guy will be The Man for you.  Others are right, Mahomes is the current developmental test case for this. 

 

 

I think those are good definitions, although, like in almost everything, there are exceptions.   I can think of two recent QBs who are exceptions: Andy Dalton in 2011 and Russell Wilson in 2012.  Both were good enough to start from the get-go so they definitely weren't "projects" although their draft positions put them there.  For Dalton, you really have to wonder how the geniuses that are supposed to be NFL scouts and GMs could have picked Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, and Christian Ponder ahead of him.  Of course, Wilson's problem was that he's short, less than 6' and maybe not even 5'11", and NFL GMs are notoriously prejudiced against height-impaired QBs.

 

Aside from Brett Favre, Drew Brees, Dalton, Wilson, and Derek Carr (whom I forgot originally) there haven't been too many Day 2 "projects" who've made the grade, although they've been more successful, as a group, than the first round "projects".  Garoppolo might be one, but fewer than 10 starts is simply not enough games to judge him. I can't think of any others from rounds 2 or 3 who proved themselves decent starting QBs for multiple seasons.  All the other non-first round QBs to succeed in the NFL in the last 20 years were "winning lottery tickets" -- from Brady and Romo to Cousins and Keenum.

 

Edited April 18, 2018 by SoTier

[Big Turk]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, you think of or define "project QB" a little differently than I do.

 

I would call a QB undrafted or drafted on Day 3 a "developmental prospect".  You don't expect much out of him, and if he develops into a competent backup you're good.

If he develops into a starter, you've won the frickin' lottery.

 

Tom Brady was a winning lottery ticket.  So was Romo.

 

To me a "project QB" is a guy with known developmental needs, that you draft in the 1st round or high 2nd round when you lack a starting QB and have expectations that this guy will be The Man for you.  Others are right, Mahomes is the current developmental test case for this. 

 

 

But aren't a lot of guys drafted in the first round even "Project QB's" that get drafted early becuse of elite physical tools?

Edited April 18, 2018 by matter2003

[transplantbillsfan]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:33 PM, Doc Brown said:

Just looking at your avatar, Mahomes is the perfect test case for a project QB drafted in the top half of the 1st round.

 

How is Mahomes a project QB in remotely the same way Allen will be a project QB?

 

Mahomes was fantastic in college and was pretty sound in terms of accuracy and general fundamentals.

 

The only real question about Mahomes related to the college system he was coming from. 

[transplantbillsfan]

On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 12:49 AM, Zerovotlz said:

 

Yeah....good point...the knock on Mahomes was that his mechanics needed work and he'd need some time to learn taking snaps under center...

 

 

So, yes, this is kind of hard to define.  I'd almost try and separate these into two categories...Project...and developmental.  When I hear project, it seems like that is always associated with some QB who posses physical talents/traits but lacks experience in a certain offense, or needs mechanics work, but who scouts have identified as someone with a very high ceiling if the project to fix those issues succeeds.   The developmental QB would be someone identified as a 3rd round pick or later, who lacks something physically usually, but who has exhibited proficient play in college and could become a servicable backup or starter if surrounded by a strong roster etc someday......so to that end....you could see Mahomes as a "project" although, I still tihnk of that term as something reserved for VERY RAW prospects that need alot of work...more than Mahomes....by this defintion..jsut about eveyrone in this 1st round is a project...and I don't really think that term fits Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield...like it fits Allen.....where as Peterman would be developmental....over time he could be serviceable starter but never expected to be a "star"  .....does that make sense?  If so....Allen would surely be a "project".   Paxton Lynch would be a project.  Bryce Petty would have been considered developmental.  

 

So, to me..project should apply to someone just like Allen or Lynch....physical traits are there, height, arm, etc, but have some serious work to fix major flaws....so that if fixed you have a star...that is a project.

 

Yeah, "project" and "developmental" are connotatively 2 very different things when it comes to QBs. 

 

 

Project QBs are those balls of clay supposedly ready to be molded into whatever you want.  Guys who are raw but so physically talented that he (supposedly) just needs to be shaped into whatever you want with time.

 

Developmental QBs are Day 3 guys in the draft.

 

 

When you asked the question in the OP, I assumed you were talking about the former, not the latter. 

 

10 hours ago, billspro said:

 

Mahommes was a project QB. I would put Stafford in that category as well. 

 

How was Stafford a project?

 

[transplantbillsfan]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Transie and Thurman definitely have some homoerotic love hate thing where they shout angrily at each other all night and then wake up in the morning in bed together.  

 

Actually, he's never there when I wake up in the morning... I think he leaves in shame in the middle of the night, which would explain his overcompensation with his homophobic comments on here.

 

One of these mornings he'll surprise me by coming back with coffee in the morning, though.  I'm sure of it 

[Bangarang]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

How is Mahomes a project QB in remotely the same way Allen will be a project QB?

 

Mahomes was fantastic in college and was pretty sound in terms of accuracy and general fundamentals.

 

The only real question about Mahomes related to the college system he was coming from. 

 

Mahomes had some of the sloppiest footwork coming out of college and the system he played in is also why he is very much a project. Both him and Allen need some serious fine tuning.

[Rochesterfan]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

Transie and Thurman definitely have some homoerotic love hate thing where they shout angrily at each other all night and then wake up in the morning in bed together.  

 

 

They have been doing this dance fo years and as usually it comes down to communication and definition of what they are looking for:

 

we have seen what is the middle of the field arguments - where you break that down,

 

deep middle versus middle versus passes just across the line of scrimmage,

 

accuracy and and ability to run after catch,

 

now QBs that fit a certain profile.

 

 

Based on What Transplant originally asked - I think Thurm better understood the question than Transplant who actually asked it, but they will eventually agree to disagree an it will come up again.

 

Ahhhhh Good Times.

[Buffalo716]

EJ Manuel certainly DID NOT reach his potential 

 

Project QBs are like living in the projects... 

 

it may be exciting at first but then you realize it’s a ******* handful

[mjt328]

On 4/17/2018 at 7:16 AM, K-9 said:

They’re all projects in some way, shape, or form. 

 

That's exactly what I was going to say.  Virtually every QB prospect is a "project" when they get drafted.  The jump from college to the pros is way too big.  Almost nobody enters the league as a finished product, ready to set the league on fire.

 

Very few NCAA programs are based primarily in NFL offensive concepts.  That's a major hurdle.

Very few players compete frequently with high-quality defenses.  That's major hurdle.

Very few quarterbacks have perfected their throwing mechanics at this point.  That's a major hurdle.

 

That's one of the reasons NFL scouts focus so heavily on physical traits.  It's a lot easier to measure.  You may not know how well a QB will adapt to an NFL scheme or mentally process an NFL defense.  But you can determine whether a guy has the arm strength to make all the required throws.  You can get out a yard stick and determine whether he's tall enough to see over an O-Line without problems. 

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

My idea of a "Project QB" for this discussion would be specifically a 1st round pick. Teams risk nothing on UDFAs like Romo and Warner (or even later round picks). If they develop, great. If not, whatever. I also dont think they'd have the same attention (good and bad) and pressures. So it isnt fair to lump them all together when some were just "underdogs".

 

So if we're talking "1st Round Project QBs". Guys who had enough potential to draw attention and get a team to risk serious investment, but not obvious NFL skills which would need care and development...

 

McNabb is the name that comes to mind. He was a major project and a huge task for Andy Reid. But McNabb did it, with help from Reid and staff and funny enough the vet QB they brought in to help, Doug Pederson.

 

So it would seem Mahommes is in good hands with someone who has done this before in Reid.

 

Now, to wrap this into the Bills and the possibility of drafting and developing a QB as well as Andy Reid... I'll admit I've been skeptical. McD is a defensive coach. Has anyone else on the staff been around developing a QB?... Then I looked at the Reid's staff for McNabb's early years:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Philadelphia_Eagles_season#Staff

Quote

Head coaches

• Head Coach – Andy Reid
• Assistant to the Head Coach – Sean McDermott

 

Along with David Culley, who has been a WR coach, but part of Reid's staff for almost 20 years. So he knows coaching and offense and the QB position, and I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. And we'll see what Daboll can do too.

 

Now Im not saying we should draft Allen. He's probably almost last on my list (and definitely 4th of the big 4). But I'd like to see what this staff can do with a young QB prospect.

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

They have been doing this dance fo years and as usually it comes down to communication and definition of what they are looking for:

 

we have seen what is the middle of the field arguments - where you break that down,

 

deep middle versus middle versus passes just across the line of scrimmage,

 

accuracy and and ability to run after catch,

 

now QBs that fit a certain profile.

 

 

Based on What Transplant originally asked - I think Thurm better understood the question than Transplant who actually asked it, but they will eventually agree to disagree an it will come up again.

 

Ahhhhh Good Times.

 

I understood what I asked okay, but even loosening up a little to be more inclusive so that they aren't just "top 10" guys,, since 2000 there have been 45 QBs drafted in the first round... and I'd say at least 10 of them were "projects" in the spirit of what the OP was asking.

 

But back to my own criteria you think I'm confused about, I think Blaine Gabbert, Josh Freeman, JP Losman, Patrick Ramsey are all guys generally fit that criteria since 2000.  All were busts. 

 

Loosening up more, Jake Locker was in a bigger conference but was utterly blah in college and pretty clearly drafted for potential.  Bust.

 

Jay Cutler played in the SEC but at one of the small schools and was mediocre.  I think he's probably the closest thing a success story in the vein of what I was asking and what the OP asked.

 

But if you then want to just expand it to the obvious projects despite college success you include guys like JaMarcus Russell, Tim Tebow, Ryan Tannehill, Paxton Lynch.  Blake Bortles and Tannehill has have had some success, but the rest sure look like busts. Those guys might already be busting, too, particularly Bortles, who was just kinda oddly signed to a fairly lucrative extension. It's what comes with being overdrafted, though.

 

 

Hap brought up the 2nd round as another place these project QBs are drafted.  In terms of those project QBs... and again, these I at least (and I think the OP, too) define as guys who, to put it simply, are drafted because of their physical traits (height, arm strength, speed, etc) not in spite of them.  Andy Dalton was drafted in spite of being a little short and having a little bit of a weaker arm.  Russell Wilson was drafted, obviously, in spite of his height.  Drew Brees was drafted in spite of his height.  Those guys weren't viewed as projects.  Projects need a ton of work, hence the "project" moniker. Those guys were viewed as developmental in the sense that there was hope that they'd develop into starting NFL QBs. I think the end of Blake Bortles scouting reports is almost precisely the definition of what a Project QB is:

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/blake-bortles-1.html

Possesses ideal size, athletic ability, intangibles and enough arm strength to develop into an upper-echelon quarterback. Is not yet a franchise quarterback, but has all the physical ingredients to become an outstanding NFL starter

 

I feel like that could be simply cut and pasted into the definition of "Project QB," don't you?

 

I realize that people are going to bring Big Ben, Carson Wentz and Flacco into the fold here, and while all of those guys had the physical gifts, they were also largely ahead of the game in terms of their footwork and mechanics for the NFL. They weren't project QBs in the spirit of that term. They were question marks in terms of level of competition and production in college translating to NFL success.

 

Include them if you want. The success rate still doesn't look good for these guys.

 

If we're going intothe 2nd round, Christian Hackenberg, Colin Kaepernick, Brock Osweiler, maybe even a guy like Brian Brohm were all projects who were drafted almost purely for that ball of clay physical potential.  Kaep was almost a success story.  Maybe he was. Went to a Super Bowl. Out of the league now.

 

 

So since 2000 we've had 18 or 21 project QBs taken in the 1st or 2nd round (if you are or are not including Big Ben, Flacco and Wentz) and we've had maybe 3-6 success stories, optimistically with Cutler, Tannehill, Kaep and Big Ben, Wentz and Flacco if you stretch that definition a bit.

 

3 Franchise QBs, 3 starters who flashed at moments, 15 busts.

 

Not exactly models of success.

 

If we want to keep going back, we could find more examples, I'm sure. I only went back to 2000 and we still averaged more than 1 project QB per year. And on average, once every 6 years you're going to find a Franchise QB drafting a project QB. 

 

And Allen's background and history and production in college is notably worse than a lot of these other guys. And he regressed rather than progressed through college.

 

Hence, my belief Allen's got about a 5% chance to go on in the NFL to be a Franchise QB.  It's a chance.  Not a very good one, but it's a chance. But it's sure one I hope Buffalo doesn't take.

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[billspro]

3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah, "project" and "developmental" are connotatively 2 very different things when it comes to QBs. 

 

 

Project QBs are those balls of clay supposedly ready to be molded into whatever you want.  Guys who are raw but so physically talented that he (supposedly) just needs to be shaped into whatever you want with time.

 

Developmental QBs are Day 3 guys in the draft.

 

 

When you asked the question in the OP, I assumed you were talking about the former, not the latter. 

 

 

How was Stafford a project?

 

 

Stafford was a huge project. He had a low completion percentage in college and took four years of grooming in the NFL before he was good.

[MJS]

Alex Smith.

[reddogblitz]

12 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yep!  And I have no worries about flipping them either.

 

The point is that to have a meaningful discussion, we all need to be working off the same understanding of the same words

 

defining "developmental QB" is just as hard as defining "franchise QB"

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, billspro said:

 

Stafford was a huge project. He had a low completion percentage in college and took four years of grooming in the NFL before he was good.

 

No. Revisionist history. And an incomplete Revisionist history at that.

 

Yeah, Stafford had a low completion percentage overall in college, but he improved on it every year and in his last year he had a 61.5% completion %, threw for almost 3500 yards at 9 YPA at Georgia against serious competition and was the consensus 1st overall pick by nearly everyone.

 

4 years of grooming? In his 3rd year he threw for over 5000 yards and 40 TDs. He missed the vast majority of his 2nd year due to a shoulder injury. His rookie year he won the job from Daunte Culpepper and struggled mightily... probably because the Lions were just one year removed from being 0-16 and absolutely sucked as a team.

 

Stafford certainly does NOT qualify as Project QB.

[Rochesterfan]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I understood what I asked okay, but even loosening up a little to be more inclusive so that they aren't just "top 10" guys,, since 2000 there have been 45 QBs drafted in the first round... and I'd say at least 10 of them were "projects" in the spirit of what the OP was asking.

 

But back to my own criteria you think I'm confused about, I think Blaine Gabbert, Josh Freeman, JP Losman, Patrick Ramsey are all guys generally fit that criteria since 2000.  All were busts. 

 

Loosening up more, Jake Locker was in a bigger conference but was utterly blah in college and pretty clearly drafted for potential.  Bust.

 

Jay Cutler played in the SEC but at one of the small schools and was mediocre.  I think he's probably the closest thing a success story in the vein of what I was asking and what the OP asked.

 

But if you then want to just expand it to the obvious projects despite college success you include guys like JaMarcus Russell, Tim Tebow, Ryan Tannehill, Paxton Lynch.  Blake Bortles and Tannehill has have had some success, but the rest sure look like busts. Those guys might already be busting, too, particularly Bortles, who was just kinda oddly signed to a fairly lucrative extension. It's what comes with being overdrafted, though.

 

 

Hap brought up the 2nd round as another place these project QBs are drafted.  In terms of those project QBs... and again, these I at least (and I think the OP, too) define as guys who, to put it simply, are drafted because of their physical traits (height, arm strength, speed, etc) not in spite of them.  Andy Dalton was drafted in spite of being a little short and having a little bit of a weaker arm.  Russell Wilson was drafted, obviously, in spite of his height.  Drew Brees was drafted in spite of his height.  Those guys weren't viewed as projects.  Projects need a ton of work, hence the "project" moniker. Those guys were viewed as developmental in the sense that there was hope that they'd develop into starting NFL QBs. I think the end of Blake Bortles scouting reports is almost precisely the definition of what a Project QB is:

 

https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/blake-bortles-1.html

Possesses ideal size, athletic ability, intangibles and enough arm strength to develop into an upper-echelon quarterback. Is not yet a franchise quarterback, but has all the physical ingredients to become an outstanding NFL starter

 

I feel like that could be simply cut and pasted into the definition of "Project QB," don't you?

 

I realize that people are going to bring Big Ben, Carson Wentz and Flacco into the fold here, and while all of those guys had the physical gifts, they were also largely ahead of the game in terms of their footwork and mechanics for the NFL. They weren't project QBs in the spirit of that term. They were question marks in terms of level of competition and production in college translating to NFL success.

 

Include them if you want. The success rate still doesn't look good for these guys.

 

If we're going intothe 2nd round, Christian Hackenberg, Colin Kaepernick, Brock Osweiler, maybe even a guy like Brian Brohm were all projects who were drafted almost purely for that ball of clay physical potential.  Kaep was almost a success story.  Maybe he was. Went to a Super Bowl. Out of the league now.

 

 

So since 2000 we've had 18 or 21 project QBs taken in the 1st or 2nd round (if you are or are not including Big Ben, Flacco and Wentz) and we've had maybe 3-6 success stories, optimistically with Cutler, Tannehill, Kaep and Big Ben, Wentz and Flacco if you stretch that definition a bit.

 

3 Franchise QBs, 3 starters who flashed at moments, 15 busts.

 

Not exactly models of success.

 

If we want to keep going back, we could find more examples, I'm sure. I only went back to 2000 and we still averaged more than 1 project QB per year. And on average, once every 6 years you're going to find a Franchise QB drafting a project QB. 

 

And Allen's background and history and production in college is notably worse than a lot of these other guys. And he regressed rather than progressed through college.

 

Hence, my belief Allen's got about a 5% chance to go on in the NFL to be a Franchise QB.  It's a chance.  Not a very good one, but it's a chance. But it's sure one I hope Buffalo doesn't take.

 

 

 

See but here here is the issue - most of the guys you mention do not fall into you original question - so I stand by the fact that you have trouble defying your parameters and sticking to it.

 

The original question you asked was projects, from small schools, drafted in the top 10, since 1979 were successful?

 

So that gives you guys like:

Carson Wentz

Blake Bortles 

Alex Smith

Philip Rivers

Byron Leftwich 

David Carr

 

since 2000 as potential fits for you and even then some are from smaller sized D1 schools and some were not projects in the same regard, and some the jury is still out on.

 

If Allen hits this group - your success rate is pretty good, you chance to be an average QB is pretty good, and your bust rate is fairly low.

 

Now to try and get across the point you were trying to make which is you do not like Allen and you think he will bust - you expand it and start adding guys later in the draft or guys from bigger main D1 schools, or other projects to find a pool that fits what you want.  

 

In the end - just like most of your arguments - step away from the small picture and look at the overall.  The bust rates an QBs and draft position have been given many times - each player is unique and instead of trying to find his pool and decide that understand there is bust potential and franchise level play in all of these round 1 QBs - where they go - the teaching they get - the offense they run - the Offensive consistency they have - will all factor into whether they succeed or fail.  

 

I do not disagree with your conclusions- it is just your method of trying to find and fit him into a group that is the problem and then expanded the group to include guys like Tannehill, Cutler, Locker, but questioning better fits like Big Ben or Flacco is just strange.  I mean when you expand it why not include Eli Manning or Stafford or Aaron Rodgers - all went to Div 1 schools, but all needed work coming out.  A guy like Rodgers fell to mid 20s - a perfect example of a developmental QB that is a success.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

defining "developmental QB" is just as hard as defining "franchise QB"

 

Apparently so, and add "project QB" to the list.

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, Rochesterfan said:

 

 

See but here here is the issue - most of the guys you mention do not fall into you original question - so I stand by the fact that you have trouble defying your parameters and sticking to it.

 

The original question you asked was projects, from small schools, drafted in the top 10, since 1979 were successful?

 

So that gives you guys like:

Carson Wentz

Blake Bortles 

Alex Smith

Philip Rivers

Byron Leftwich 

David Carr

 

since 2000 as potential fits for you and even then some are from smaller sized D1 schools and some were not projects in the same regard, and some the jury is still out on.

 

If Allen hits this group - your success rate is pretty good, you chance to be an average QB is pretty good, and your bust rate is fairly low.

 

Now to try and get across the point you were trying to make which is you do not like Allen and you think he will bust - you expand it and start adding guys later in the draft or guys from bigger main D1 schools, or other projects to find a pool that fits what you want.  

 

In the end - just like most of your arguments - step away from the small picture and look at the overall.  The bust rates an QBs and draft position have been given many times - each player is unique and instead of trying to find his pool and decide that understand there is bust potential and franchise level play in all of these round 1 QBs - where they go - the teaching they get - the offense they run - the Offensive consistency they have - will all factor into whether they succeed or fail.  

 

I do not disagree with your conclusions- it is just your method of trying to find and fit him into a group that is the problem and then expanded the group to include guys like Tannehill, Cutler, Locker, but questioning better fits like Big Ben or Flacco is just strange.  I mean when you expand it why not include Eli Manning or Stafford or Aaron Rodgers - all went to Div 1 schools, but all needed work coming out.  A guy like Rodgers fell to mid 20s - a perfect example of a developmental QB that is a success.

 

I know what I originally asked. And that's not what I originally asked.

 

The argument that ensued with Thurm (inevitably) pertained to the fact that there's such a small sample size, which somehow nullifies the point, which completely misses the fact that that actually is the point.

 

Project QBs from big schools drafted for physical potential despite bleh college careers particularly on a sliding scale down rarely succeed the way Jay Cutler or Ryan Tannehill did.

 

Project QBs from smaller schools with really good to spectacular college careers typically trending up has been the relative model for success if you want to include Kaep, Big Ben, Flacco and Wentz.

 

But since Phil Simms was drafted in the 1st round in 1979, where are the QBs from small schools with bleh college careers who went onto even solid NFL careers? That was my original question. Blaine Gabbert and Josh Freeman certainly aren't recent examples and these are the only recent ones I can think of in the 1st round. Anyone else? Brett Favre was drafted in the 2nd, meets all the other criteria and went onto a HOF career, so expand the parameters to the 2nd. Brock Osweiler and Christian Hackenberg don't look like they're heading down that road.

 

I know exactly what I asked. The fact that these guys haven't been drafted means something and, as one poster put it in another thread, is Josh Allen really this incredible exception to the rule or is some GM going to draft him because of hubris? If it's the former, awesome... maybe Allen is great and breaks the trend. If it's the latter, it's more of the same and seemed obvious.

 

And I expanded the question outward to show that project QBs overwhelmingly don't work out, anyway. I think it's being generous including Big Ben, Flacco and Wentz in the criteria for Project QB since the questions for them was all about level of competition rather than accuracy, footwork, mechanics, etc. You can criticize me including them, but as far as "projects" go (and again, I think that summary I posted from Bortles's scouting report at nfl.com captured that definition perfectly), Wentz and Big Ben really weren't, but Flacco might have been. That was my logic for not including them.

 

But even including them, you end up with maybe 10% of these guys being Franchise QBs this millennium.

 

Not so good.

 

 

Edited April 19, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Apparently so, and add "project QB" to the list.

 

Project QB= Possesses ideal size, athletic ability, intangibles and enough arm strength to develop into an upper-echelon quarterback. Is not yet a franchise quarterback, but has all the physical ingredients to become an outstanding NFL starter

[reddogblitz]

What about David Gerrard? 

 

He had a decent run as starter for Jacksonville.  Only problem was he was saddled with Leftwitch whom he finally did beat out.  Got to AFC Championship one year iirc.  Out of East Carolina Status University Pirates.  89 TDs 54 picks.  61.6 %.  Not bad,

 

Matt Hasselbeck too.

 

He is out of Boston College which might blow it.  rode the pine n GB for 2 years behind Favre.  6th round pick.  Got to SB one year and at lest one other NFC Championship game.

Edited April 19, 2018 by reddogblitz