Andrew Luck for Patrick Willis trade?

[Mozart'sGhost]

Geez, "The Great One"!?!...Yeah, no pressure there...

Interesting story and just more evidence that this hype machine has been around for decades. The only difference between today and 'back then' is the number of media outlets and the mass volume of it.

WOn the Heisman, the Maxwell and just about every college award but never completed a pass in the pros. My old man hated him for knocking off SC in 1966 and taking UCLA to the Rose Bowl.

 

[imac_21]

Its fun for old guys like MW and me.

But with how much technology has changed the scouting game teams know so much more about prospects as they did then.

What were the reasons that guys like Schuler, Leaf and George busted? Was it their on field skills, or was it their off field skills?

Or could there be other factors as I suggested earlier such as the coaches they played for in the NFL. . .

 

[sayheykid1]

It's hard to predict the Peyton Mannings, Drew Brees', Tom Bradys, and Aaron Rodgers'. These guy are elite QBs that really you can't gauge coming out. You can tell, however, who can be, at least, a good QB. I'm fairly confident that Andrew Luck will be, at least, a top-5 or 7 QB in the NFL when he's in his prime. I'd trade the #1 LB for the #5 or #6 QB.

People thought Leaf, Drukenmiller, Alex Smith, Leinert, Schuler, Russell and Akili Smith would be at least good QBs, no?

 

[sayheykid1]

But with how much technology has changed the scouting game teams know so much more about prospects as they did then.

What were the reasons that guys like Schuler, Leaf and George busted? Was it their on field skills, or was it their off field skills?

Or could there be other factors as I suggested earlier such as the coaches they played for in the NFL. . .

Technology has eliminated the chances of QBs being busts? I disagree. See A Smith and J Russell.

 

[MW49ers5]

WOn the Heisman, the Maxwell and just about every college award but never completed a pass in the pros. My old man hated him for knocking off SC in 1966 and taking UCLA to the Rose Bowl.

There is no doubt I watched that Rose Bowl as doing so was tradition in our home.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

But with how much technology has changed the scouting game teams know so much more about prospects as they did then.

What were the reasons that guys like Schuler, Leaf and George busted? Was it their on field skills, or was it their off field skills?

Or could there be other factors as I suggested earlier such as the coaches they played for in the NFL. . .

probably a combination of a lot of those things. Leaf and George didn't want to do what was necessary to get better and Shuler, I think, got into drugs and naturally progreessed on to a career in congress.

 

[imac_21]

Technology has eliminated the chances of QBs being busts? I disagree. See A Smith and J Russell.

I said it's changed the odds.

If you think drafting Andew Luck to the 2012 49ers would be similar to drafting Alex Smith to the 2005 Niners, I don't know what to tell you.

Why is Alex Smith a bust?

Why is Jamarcus Russell a bust?

What about them made them busts?

 

[NinerSickness]

Why is Jamarcus Russell a bust?

Purple drank.

 

[imac_21]

probably a combination of a lot of those things. Leaf and George didn't want to do what was necessary to get better and Shuler, I think, got into drugs and naturally progreessed on to a career in congress.

These are things that are much easier to dig out now before drafting a guy than it was in the 90s. Google Andrew Luck and see how much information you can dig up. Could you do that in 1998 with Ryan Leaf? Could you find out about Leaf's work ethic or personality through Google?

Technology and the media have made it much easier to scout an entire prospect rather than simply scouting his game tape and taking his coaches' words at face value. Of course coaches will promote their players to NFL guys because getting guys drafted is a fantastic recruiting tool.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

I said it's changed the odds.

If you think drafting Andew Luck to the 2012 49ers would be similar to drafting Alex Smith to the 2005 Niners, I don't know what to tell you.

Why is Alex Smith a bust?

Why is Jamarcus Russell a bust?

What about them made them busts?

Russell is a bust because he's no good. Al Davis foolishly fell in love with that big arm and the one good bowl game he had at LSU.

Smith played for some or the worst teams and head coaches in the history of the NFL and understandably lost his confidence.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

These are things that are much easier to dig out now before drafting a guy than it was in the 90s. Google Andrew Luck and see how much information you can dig up. Could you do that in 1998 with Ryan Leaf? Could you find out about Leaf's work ethic or personality through Google?
Technology and the media have made it much easier to scout an entire prospect rather than simply scouting his game tape and taking his coaches' words at face value. Of course coaches will promote their players to NFL guys because getting guys drafted is a fantastic recruiting tool.

True, but I don't think I would base my assessment of Luck's work ethic or personality on anything I read in Google. I'd still have to do it the old fashioned way in face to face interviews after extensive checking with coaches and people he lived and worked with.

 

[MW49ers5]

But with how much technology has changed the scouting teams know so much more about prospects as they did then.

What were the reasons that guys like Schuler, Leaf and George busted? Was it their on field skills, or was it their off field skills?

Or could there be other factors as I suggested earlier such as the coaches they played for in the NFL. . .

True, Imac, but keep in mind that the game they are scouting for has also improved and become much more scientific and technically advanced thanks to the same technology.

Thus there is little relative difference between the scouting methods used in the 60's & 70's to pick players to play in that era and the scouting methods used today to pick players to play in the current era of football - make sense?

I would bet if you created a statistic to show the percentage of players that busted between 1960-1985 vs. 1986-2011(08) my guess is those percentages would be very similar - all other factors being equal of course.

 

[imac_21]

True, but I don't think I would base my assessment of Luck's work ethic or personality on anything I read in Google. I'd still have to do it the old fashioned way in face to face interviews after extensive checking with coaches and people he lived and worked with.

But you don't have to evaluate it. Scouts have so much more access simply because of technological advancements (twitter and facebook in particular). It's much easier to gather information. Everyone knows the story about Walsh seeing Rice on TV in a hotel and making up his mind.

Someone like Rice would have been so well known in 2011 around the country.

To suggest that work ethic issues with guys like George, or personality issues with guys like Leaf, would go unnoticed today is crazy.

As for Russell, I think a case can be made for his coaches crippling him much as Smith's did. He played for Lane Kiffin in Kiffin's first year as a HC ever, and I believe, Kiffin's first NFL job. Was he ready to bring along a young QB in the NFL? That was followed up with Tom Cable. Again, not exactly a QB guy.

Put Al Davis hovering over the situation and it's not an easy environment for a QB to develop in.

 

[imac_21]

True, Imac, but keep in mind that the game they are scouting for has also improved and become much more scientific and technically advanced thanks to the same technology.

Thus there is little relative difference between the scouting methods used in the 60's & 70's to pick players to play in that era and the scouting methods used today to pick players to play in the current era of football - make sense?

I would bet if you created a statistic to show the percentage of players that busted between 1960-1985 vs. 1986-2011(08) my guess is those percentages would be very similar - all other factors being equal of course.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it makes sense at all.

Technology has advanced the game (playbooks on ipads etc), but in many cases with busts, their lack of success is related more to off field issues than on field issues. It's easier to check for skeletons now than it was even 6 or 7 years ago.

I also find it very interesting that the line you chose to draw was the mid 80s. I would argue that the scouting world has revolutionized multiple times between 1986 and 2011. As I said, even Ryan Leaf, in 1998, is a dinosaur of a comparison to today's world.

If you don't believe in Andrew Luck as a football talent between the lines, based on what you've seen (using "you" generally to apply to all) that's one thing. But to suggest he could be a Jeff George or Ryan Leaf, who never had their on-field abilities questioned but had off-field issues is borderline irresponsible. If Luck had off-field issues there would be plenty of press about it with all the media outlets that cover college football and the NFL draft now.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

But you don't have to evaluate it. Scouts have so much more access simply because of technological advancements (twitter and facebook in particular). It's much easier to gather information. Everyone knows the story about Walsh seeing Rice on TV in a hotel and making up his mind.

Someone like Rice would have been so well known in 2011 around the country.

To suggest that work ethic issues with guys like George, or personality issues with guys like Leaf, would go unnoticed today is crazy.

As for Russell, I think a case can be made for his coaches crippling him much as Smith's did. He played for Lane Kiffin in Kiffin's first year as a HC ever, and I believe, Kiffin's first NFL job. Was he ready to bring along a young QB in the NFL? That was followed up with Tom Cable. Again, not exactly a QB guy.

Put Al Davis hovering over the situation and it's not an easy environment for a QB to develop in.

Agree on the Russell issue. It was not a secret that Kiffin did not want Russell and the pick was forced upon him by Davis. But I think the teams that Smith played on early in his career were worse than what Russell had.

As far as work ethic and personality issues going unnoticed these days, what about Russell?

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

A good comparison is drug testing.......while drug testing improves daily, in terms of both wider and more accurate testing of chemicals, on the flip side the tools and methods for fooling those tests get better - maybe even at a better rate.

Guys are going into the NFL draft knowing exactly what they have to say and how to act to "beat the test" so to speak, and look good to NFL teams - regardless if its true. Rashuan Woods was a really hard worker and dedicated guy for a year or two.

 

[imac_21]

Agree on the Russell issue. It was not a secret that Kiffin did not want Russell and the pick was forced upon him by Davis. But I think the teams that Smith played on early in his career were worse than what Russell had.

As far as work ethic and personality issues going unnoticed these days, what about Russell?

Smith definitely had a worse situation.

With Russell's personality and work ethic, I think the first thing you have to consider is Al Davis was calling the shots and would likely overlook them for the raw physical talent. It wouldn't be the first time the Raiders took a guy with questionable intangibles because of off the charts physical skills. As you said, the coach had the player forced on him. Russell also came on the scene quite late. The year before all the talk was about Leinart, Bush and Young. Russell was very under the radar. In the 05 college year when discussing the top QB for the 06 year/07 draft Brady Quinn was the one everyone talked about. Russell was a late arrival on the scene so not as much homework was done.

Luck has been on the scene for close to 3 years and there have been no reports of attitude, personality or work ethic concerns.

 

[Mozart'sGhost]

Smith definitely had a worse situation.

With Russell's personality and work ethic, I think the first thing you have to consider is Al Davis was calling the shots and would likely overlook them for the raw physical talent. It wouldn't be the first time the Raiders took a guy with questionable intangibles because of off the charts physical skills. As you said, the coach had the player forced on him. Russell also came on the scene quite late. The year before all the talk was about Leinart, Bush and Young. Russell was very under the radar. In the 05 college year when discussing the top QB for the 06 year/07 draft Brady Quinn was the one everyone talked about. Russell was a late arrival on the scene so not as much homework was done.

Luck has been on the scene for close to 3 years and there have been no reports of attitude, personality or work ethic concerns.

Knowing Davis and the Raiders, I think that is probably closer to what really happened. I don't question that Luck has any personality issues but from what little I saw of him this year in the SC, Oregon and Cal games, I saw a very good college quarterback, but nothing that made me stand up and shout. I'm not convinced he's a "can't miss guy" who would be worth trading Willis for; at least I think that's what we were originally talking about before this thread went all over the place.

 

[imac_21]

Knowing Davis and the Raiders, I think that is probably closer to what really happened. I don't question that Luck has any personality issues but from what little I saw of him this year in the SC, Oregon and Cal games, I saw a very good college quarterback, but nothing that made me stand up and shout. I'm not convinced he's a "can't miss guy" who would be worth trading Willis for; at least I think that's what we were originally talking about before this thread went all over the place.

It is.

 

[MW49ers5]

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it makes sense at all.

Technology has advanced the game (playbooks on ipads etc), but in many cases with busts, their lack of success is related more to off field issues than on field issues. It's easier to check for skeletons now than it was even 6 or 7 years ago.

I also find it very interesting that the line you chose to draw was the mid 80s. I would argue that the scouting world has revolutionized multiple times between 1986 and 2011. As I said, even Ryan Leaf, in 1998, is a dinosaur of a comparison to today's world.

If you don't believe in Andrew Luck as a football talent between the lines, based on what you've seen (using "you" generally to apply to all) that's one thing. But to suggest he could be a Jeff George or Ryan Leaf, who never had their on-field abilities questioned but had off-field issues is borderline irresponsible. If Luck had off-field issues there would be plenty of press about it with all the media outlets that cover college football and the NFL draft now.

Imac, I make perfect sense...

First the technological advances I'm referring to are things like the Combine which has only been around since the early '80's; advances in medicine to determine preliminary conditions, advances in equipment to prevent (or promote depending on your perspective) injuries; advances in coaching techniques; advances in nutrition, health & fitness; advances sports science measurement technology which can measure everything from how fast you release a football to how fast you take a dump.

Every player in football today has been in some way vetted, prepared or repaired by these advances. A 12 year starter from the 60's might not even make the 53 in today’s game. So, that is what I mean when I say that these technological advances that you are trying to sell as the reason we should trust scouts today as opposed to even 10 years ago doesn't hold water. Yes the methods are better but so are the players thus the error rate is similar.

I understand your point about facebook and ipads and how much easier it is to gather information and how much more and how quickly that information can be gathered. However, every bit of that information is validated the old fashioned way. Furthermore, I completely disagree that most busts are because of off field issues.

As for the line in the sand you are seeing something that simply isn't there. I chose that point because it provided an equal # of years on both sides of what I consider to be the most relevant era of football to this discussion.