Post by spreadattack on Feb 26, 2009 15:55:02 GMT -6
Can someone help me out here. I read this article, with analysis from a guy who is supposed to be some knid of scout and expert (where do these guys come from). Here's some bits of what he said about Graham Harrell. For the record, I am not sure what kind of NFL QB he will make, but here goes:
"Greg Cosell of NFL Films and ESPN's State Farm NFL Matchup remains unconvinced that Harrell, or any other straight spread quarterback, can break through the barriers. Cosell watches more coaches' tape than just about anyone who doesn't actually work for a team, and I have talked to him before about the difficulties in transitioning players from the spread to the NFL. At the Combine, I asked Cosell specifically about Harrell and what he said about the fact that the NFL might be implementing more spread-style formations, allowing players like Harrell to have a legitimate chance.
...
But what about Harrell, who insists that the players make the system as much as the system makes the players, no matter what that system may be? How does he fit in to this debate? It's been said before, by Cosell and others -- those college players who believe the transition is possible don't understand the speed and quality of the standard NFL defense until they have actually experienced it. From there, it's all downhill.
"The problem with spread quarterbacks is that they don't do two things which are part and parcel of NFL offenses -- three-step drops, and play action," Cosell said. "Play action, in particular, is critical in the NFL." Example: Alex Smith, the first overall draft pick in 2005, enjoyed great success with the shotgun under Urban Meyer at Utah, but struggled mightily with more traditional mechanics with the San Francisco 49ers.
Cosell hadn't studied film on Harrell yet -- he had only seen him on TV, and he wanted me to make that clear -- but the initial findings are not good. "There are two things, just from TV, that would bother me about Harrell. I think arm strength is an issue. The benefit I have when I watch tape is that I see what's required for the NFL. We've heard for years that arm strength is overrated, but it's not in the NFL. Do you have to have a cannon for an arm? No, but Harrell looks to me like he has an average arm -- maybe above-average at best. Also, in the NFL, there are times when you're going to have to make stick throws into tight windows -- 15 to 22 yards. And you're going to have to make those throws with bodies around you.
"The other thing I noticed with Harrell when I watched him on TV was that in response to pressure, he had a tendency to back up, and that's problematic. Then, you end up falling away from the rush, and falling away from the football. That is a definite negative for a quarterback. Until I watch 400 dropbacks, I don't want to paint him with that broad stroke and say, 'Okay, he's done,' but to me, that's an instinct. That won't cut it in the NFL."
One player who did find instant success in the NFL after running a lot of shotgun in college was Joe Flacco, who came from Delaware and hit his mark right away with the Baltimore Ravens, Flacco was astoundingly comfortable and proficient with play action from his first preseason, though he didn't use it much in college, and I asked Cosell how Flacco found the password.
"That's why you have to watch each player individually before you make a projection," he said. "Flacco had a couple things going for him when I watched him on film. The arm strength was obvious, and that's a big difference between Flacco and Harrell. What Flacco showed at Delaware, and I know this because I saw it on film, was the ability to throw with timing and anticipation. What that means in simple terms is the ability to throw the ball before receivers come out of breaks. If you can't do that, you can't play quarterback in the NFL. If I don't see that on film (from Harrell), it becomes a significant projection. And I'm not sure you can teach that -- I think it's an instinct. After watching game tape for 20 years, I think that if you don't have the instinct to throw with timing and anticipation, you can't learn it at the NFL level."
----------
A few thoughts:
(1) Is it really that big of an issue for a QB whether they did play action in college? That strikes me as quintessentially the kind of thing that can be taught. It's not quite the same with a lineman who never gets in a 3 point stance
(2) So the difference between Flacco and all these other QBs is . . . arm strenth and anticipation? So in other words, he would have been good in any system? How is that a knock on the spread? Saying that Graham Harrell has less arm strength than some other QB is one thing, but to (explicitly or implicitly) lay it at the feet of the "spread" strikes me as a bit bizarre.
(3) "That's why you have to watch each player individually before you make a projection" -- Doesn't this fall into the category of "no kidding"? I mean, I understand the scout's dilemma here: massive statistics, doesn't translate into NFL talent. That's fine. That just means that the system was doing its job (some NFL guys -- and fans -- act like the college team ought to take one for the good of all talent evaluators everywhere and go 5-7 to give a representative analysis of their QB, rather than put him in position to win). Evaluating players is difficult. Many scouts are not very good at their job when it comes to evaluating quarterbacks (as Pete Carroll would say, the numbers are not good). In that 1998 draft with Tim Couch, Culpepper, Akili Smith, McNabb, and Cade McNown, only Couch played in a true spread and he lasted longer than Smith and McNown (who played in "pro-style" offenses). McNabb used to run the triple option at Syracuse some, and Culpepper played in a kind of pro-style 3 wide/TE set. Was the failure to evaluate McNown or others tied to the spread? Lots of other examples.
I get that scouts would like the raw statistics to tell them everything they needed to know. There's no such thing as a "can't-miss" QB anymore. But I find the argument that because a spread QB hasn't done a lot of play-action that he can't learn it a little bizarre. Am I off base here?
"Greg Cosell of NFL Films and ESPN's State Farm NFL Matchup remains unconvinced that Harrell, or any other straight spread quarterback, can break through the barriers. Cosell watches more coaches' tape than just about anyone who doesn't actually work for a team, and I have talked to him before about the difficulties in transitioning players from the spread to the NFL. At the Combine, I asked Cosell specifically about Harrell and what he said about the fact that the NFL might be implementing more spread-style formations, allowing players like Harrell to have a legitimate chance.
...
But what about Harrell, who insists that the players make the system as much as the system makes the players, no matter what that system may be? How does he fit in to this debate? It's been said before, by Cosell and others -- those college players who believe the transition is possible don't understand the speed and quality of the standard NFL defense until they have actually experienced it. From there, it's all downhill.
"The problem with spread quarterbacks is that they don't do two things which are part and parcel of NFL offenses -- three-step drops, and play action," Cosell said. "Play action, in particular, is critical in the NFL." Example: Alex Smith, the first overall draft pick in 2005, enjoyed great success with the shotgun under Urban Meyer at Utah, but struggled mightily with more traditional mechanics with the San Francisco 49ers.
Cosell hadn't studied film on Harrell yet -- he had only seen him on TV, and he wanted me to make that clear -- but the initial findings are not good. "There are two things, just from TV, that would bother me about Harrell. I think arm strength is an issue. The benefit I have when I watch tape is that I see what's required for the NFL. We've heard for years that arm strength is overrated, but it's not in the NFL. Do you have to have a cannon for an arm? No, but Harrell looks to me like he has an average arm -- maybe above-average at best. Also, in the NFL, there are times when you're going to have to make stick throws into tight windows -- 15 to 22 yards. And you're going to have to make those throws with bodies around you.
"The other thing I noticed with Harrell when I watched him on TV was that in response to pressure, he had a tendency to back up, and that's problematic. Then, you end up falling away from the rush, and falling away from the football. That is a definite negative for a quarterback. Until I watch 400 dropbacks, I don't want to paint him with that broad stroke and say, 'Okay, he's done,' but to me, that's an instinct. That won't cut it in the NFL."
One player who did find instant success in the NFL after running a lot of shotgun in college was Joe Flacco, who came from Delaware and hit his mark right away with the Baltimore Ravens, Flacco was astoundingly comfortable and proficient with play action from his first preseason, though he didn't use it much in college, and I asked Cosell how Flacco found the password.
"That's why you have to watch each player individually before you make a projection," he said. "Flacco had a couple things going for him when I watched him on film. The arm strength was obvious, and that's a big difference between Flacco and Harrell. What Flacco showed at Delaware, and I know this because I saw it on film, was the ability to throw with timing and anticipation. What that means in simple terms is the ability to throw the ball before receivers come out of breaks. If you can't do that, you can't play quarterback in the NFL. If I don't see that on film (from Harrell), it becomes a significant projection. And I'm not sure you can teach that -- I think it's an instinct. After watching game tape for 20 years, I think that if you don't have the instinct to throw with timing and anticipation, you can't learn it at the NFL level."
----------
A few thoughts:
(1) Is it really that big of an issue for a QB whether they did play action in college? That strikes me as quintessentially the kind of thing that can be taught. It's not quite the same with a lineman who never gets in a 3 point stance
(2) So the difference between Flacco and all these other QBs is . . . arm strenth and anticipation? So in other words, he would have been good in any system? How is that a knock on the spread? Saying that Graham Harrell has less arm strength than some other QB is one thing, but to (explicitly or implicitly) lay it at the feet of the "spread" strikes me as a bit bizarre.
(3) "That's why you have to watch each player individually before you make a projection" -- Doesn't this fall into the category of "no kidding"? I mean, I understand the scout's dilemma here: massive statistics, doesn't translate into NFL talent. That's fine. That just means that the system was doing its job (some NFL guys -- and fans -- act like the college team ought to take one for the good of all talent evaluators everywhere and go 5-7 to give a representative analysis of their QB, rather than put him in position to win). Evaluating players is difficult. Many scouts are not very good at their job when it comes to evaluating quarterbacks (as Pete Carroll would say, the numbers are not good). In that 1998 draft with Tim Couch, Culpepper, Akili Smith, McNabb, and Cade McNown, only Couch played in a true spread and he lasted longer than Smith and McNown (who played in "pro-style" offenses). McNabb used to run the triple option at Syracuse some, and Culpepper played in a kind of pro-style 3 wide/TE set. Was the failure to evaluate McNown or others tied to the spread? Lots of other examples.
I get that scouts would like the raw statistics to tell them everything they needed to know. There's no such thing as a "can't-miss" QB anymore. But I find the argument that because a spread QB hasn't done a lot of play-action that he can't learn it a little bizarre. Am I off base here?