Golddust Man said:
Waldman's top 20 QB's chosen 2006-11, based on their upside:
No Flacco, Kaep, Dalton.. lots of Sanchez. Just opinions, everyone has one.
Link:
http://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2011/11/07/the-rsp-blogs-top-qbs-2006-2011/
I think the list is illustrative of the problems evaluating quarterbacks. We shouldn't dismiss Waldman's analysis entirely, but we can't take it too seriously either. But NFL teams don't have a great track record evaluating QBs on the whole - during the 2006-2011 span, JaMarcus Russell was a #1 overall pick, Vince Young and Mark Sanchez went in the top 5, Jake Locker, Matt Leinart, and Blaine Gabbert went in the top 10, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Brady Quinn, and Tim Tebow were first-rounders, and guys like John Beck, Pat White, and Brian Brohm went in the second round.
Waldman does a good job isolating factors he thinks are important and evaluating the skills and talents of QBs relative to those factors. Unfortunately, he only has tape of those players from college - he doesn't get to see into the future and see what those players are like as pros. The best QBs in the league were not good right away. Rodgers, Brady, Rivers, and Brees didn't start their rookie years (and Brees sucked his first two years as a starter). Uber-prospects Manning, Newton, and Luck were dynamic playmakers as rookies but were also mistake-prone turnover machines. The most effective rookies were game managers in run-first offensives - I'm thinking Wilson and Roethlisberger. The struggles of rookies suggests that where a player is at 21-22 (the only thing Waldman is in a position to evaluate) is only part of the picture of where that player is going to be at 25-26-27. No one entering the league has faced NFL defenses; they all need a ton of work reading and understanding coverages and protections, making the correct pre-snap and post-snap reads, and getting adjusted to the speed of the game. Almost everyone needs a ton of work on footwork and mechanics.
So if I'm evaluating quarterbacks, I'm looking for:
1) Does he have the requisite physical tools? The list of top QBs shows you don't need a cannon arm or incredible athleticism, but you need to look for a modicum of arm strength, accuracy, and athleticism.
2) The mental / psychological / "it" factors. Does he want to be great and has the confidence that he can and will be great? How hard is he willing to work? Is he already putting the time in in film study? Does he live for football? Can he take hard coaching? Is he working with a throwing coach already? Is he a sponge willing to learn from anyone and everyone? Is he intelligent enough to get learn everything he needs to? How is his recall? Does he grasp difficult concepts quickly? Once he understands it conceptually, is he willing to drill it over and over and over again until it's second nature? Is he honest with himself about his flaws and willing to put in the time to fix them? Is he a leader who pushes his teammates to be great as well?
Coming out of Michigan, Tom Brady didn't have a great arm, his college stats were fine but not remarkable, and he rated pretty poorly in conventional measures of athleticism. But he became a much better player at 24 than he was at 22 and a better player at 30 than at 24. He wanted to be great and was willing to put in the work. After a dozen years in the NFL and all his unbelievable success
he still literally wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about his mechanics.
Waldman can evaluate #1, and rates Garoppolo pretty well in these dimensions - but, as he points out, Gabbert and Ponder had these characteristics also. They also had some deficiencies and bad habits that he sees in Garoppolo. Waldman's not in any position to evaluate #2, however. It's arguable whether anyone is. From what I've read (stuff like
this and
this and
this), I can see where the Patriots feel that he's got the mental, psychological, and personal characteristics to make himself into a great quarterback, but only time will tell.