Big Blue Huddle

Let me first go on record saying I hate everything that Frank McCourt has done in baseball.  It was a HUGE mistake to sell him the Dodgers and I hope he sells them to a responsible owner. 

But removing my fan aspect and person prejudices against McCourt, man baseball better be careful.  It is walking on a VERY fine line.  If it tries to take the team from McCourt and sell it, it may wind up losing the thing its holds dearest, its tradition anti-trust exemption. 

The way I see it, if McCourt finally caves and agrees to sell the team, either Mark Cuban or Mikhail Prokhorov are going to make him some overwhelming offer that values the Dodgers at close to the Yankees.  No one else will come close.  But if MLB says we don;t want to sell to the highest bidder, we want this guy who is good for the game, well, the McCourts and their divroce judge may have something to say about it. 

We know that the Dodgers are the biggest asset in the divorce and both sides will be compelled by teh court to get the highest value for that asset so the court can divide it.  Frank McCourt can not sell it to his buddy for a discount, and neither can Bud Selig.  If MLB tries to illegally restrain free trade in the public market, it could be screwed.  The so-called anti-trust exemption would not apply to a team sale because baseball would be hard pressed to argue a legitimate business basis for excluding a certain person without libeling that person. 

Usually its not a problem because the "seller" of the team only agrees to sell to someone baseball wants, but here we can have a situation where the court orders the McCourts to sell to the highest bidder and Mark Cuban or Mikhail Prokhorov are happy to fill that role. 

Anyway, I'm not sure that Cuban would be any better than McCourt but I think Mikhail Prokhorov would be fine. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 22, 2011, 10:20:03 AM
Mike,

I think what Reese is saying supports what I have been saying.  The Spread offense is very different than NFL football and it makes it very difficult to evaluate people.  He also discussed the mental aspect of the game and that was the main point raised in this thread.

Whatever Rich.  If you want to claim victory because you think Reese agreed with you, feel free. 

Our discussion here started with my comment that I do not think the system a QB comes from, or the vocabulary he takes from that system, has any impact on whether he will succeed in the NFL or not.  That is all I have been saying.  Good NFL QBs can come from any system. 

I have always embraced the idea that  its harder to evaluate a spread/option QB.  But IMO its not all that much harder and I think most people make far more of it than it really is. But regardles of how hard it is to evaluate a guy, I frankly do not understand what the fact that it is harder to evaluate has on the point I raised.  Guys from either system can and will fail/succeed.  Thats its harder to evaluate a guy who has not dropped back from center just means the nfl guys have to do more work.  Once you do the evaluation, its all back to the guy though.  

I think what Reese said is that an individual might have certain skills and might not, but the individual's skills are all that matter, not where he came from.  If its harder on him and his scout team, so be it, but nothing I said differs from Reese.  I've always said that Cam Newton does not have the "mental aspect" to make it in the nfl, but that has nothing to do with where he went to school or his vocabulary of offensive terms.  Guys like Rodgers come from very simple offenses at Cal and translate well because they do have the "mental aspect" and guys like Newton do not because they lack it.  The school's system has nothing to do with eventual success.  

Quote from: vette on April 22, 2011, 09:49:56 AM
http://www.bigblueview.com/2011/4/21/2125433/jerry-reese-pre-draft-press-conference-transcript

Q:  Less decision-making in the spread?



A:  All offenses are different.  Sometimes .....as far as protections - sometimes the offensive line just calls the protection.  Sometimes the quarterback calls the protection.  Sometimes they just have pre-determined protections.  So everything is different.  In this league the quarterback has to be able to throw the ball; he has to get the ball out quickly.  He has to make quick decisions under duress all of the time.  He has to take care of the football; those kinds of things.  But you are going to see some of these quarterbacks - the Cam Newtons of the world - you are going to see more of these type quarterbacks coming into the League, and I think they are going to be successful as they come into the League.

The question before it was interesting too:

Q: RE: College quarterbacks and spread offense.

A: I think that is a hard position to evaluate more and more because most colleges now run the spread offense. Really it is a different animal than what we do in the NFL. I do think our league will start to evolve a little bit with some of that spread offense with some of these type players. So it is a hard position to evaluate in that respect. But you just have to see what the skill set is and what their mindset is. With quarterbacks - some guys can have a great skill set at quarterback, but they don't have the mindset that you would like for that position. The guy has to have the right mindset. He has to be the first guy to come in; he has to be the last guy to leave. But sometimes you can get a guy with a gigantic arm that can run and do those things but he doesn't have the mentality that you want your quarterback to have and the mindset you want - the mental makeup, I should say, instead of mind - the mental makeup that you would like for your quarterback to have. So each position - the puzzle you put together on them and things you like about them. Sometimes you can get a guy that you think is really kind of perfect - fits the puzzle perfectly - and then some guys can have part of the puzzle. But most of the time you don't get all of the pieces in the puzzle. And sometimes you get all of the pieces in the puzzle and he is still not what you really want.



I think what Reese is saying is similar to the point I was trying to make, but was far less articulate that Reese.  At the end of the day, I also agree with him that we will see more and more shotgun/pistol/spread/option quarterbacks coming into the nfl. I think they will be just as likely to be successful, and just as likely to fail, as those from a more traditional offense.  Its about seeing if the person has all the right pieces.  I still am not sold on Newton though.  With him, its the mindset I have a problem with.  I'm not sure he will be a good leader either. 

Quote from: finnref on April 21, 2011, 10:48:19 AM
I have been following the discussion on Newton and have nothing to add about these pros and cons. But let me throw out a possibly whacky thought. A team drafts him as QB and lets him sit as the third qb for several years, or if he is a complete flop at this position, use him as a RB. Let him be a third down back while he learns QB. He looks like a great runner as opposed to D. Russell.

Its tough to pay a guy 22+ million for the first year to sit on the bench with the cap where it was.  If the rookie cap is lowered, maybe that can work. But to sit the guy, you need to have another starter.  If you have another starter earning a starter's money, its tough to tie up all that money at the QB spot.  I think it depends on how far down he goes. If Carolina takes him, they have to start him because they will not be able to afford another decent QB. If its a team like the Vikes at 12, then I think your plan would work great.   

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2011, 10:08:07 AM
Brian Billick sums it up nicely:

QuoteIn all fairness to Cam Newton, he has better throwing action than both Young and Tim Tebow and he is much more NFL ready than both prospects were in their respective draft years.  As I mentioned when analyzing Blaine Gabbert, the college spread offense makes it very difficult to estimate how ones games with translate into the NFL, and with Newton it is even more difficult.  He has only 292 passing attempts on his resume, and as one quarterback coach recently told me, only about 10% of throws in a spread offense are comparable to NFL style routes.  That means that we are asking a club to play this young man almost 50 million dollars based off game analysis of just 30 throws.

Finally, as has been discussed over and over, Newton

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 21, 2011, 09:49:00 AM
Mike,

I think it's also important to mention that all college programs are constrained by the 20 hour a week rule.   Any college football program can only spend 20 hours a week practicing and preparing.

Thats funny Rich.  the 20 hour rule, ha.  

The so called 20 hour rule was adopted in 1991 after a horrific survey revealed basketball players were spending over 30 hours a week on basketball instead of classes.  But the rule is about as easy to get around as a Eli Manning block.  

The only things that count are mandatory meetings and not even all of them count.  Most teams have a captain, who is trained individually by coaches.  Then the coaches meet with teh team and that captain for video prep work, that counts.  then after the coaches leave, the homework session with just the captain and the team does nto count. So the 2-3 hours of captains practices per day don't count toward the 20 hour rule.  then the session with teh coaches ot make sure everyone gets it, that counts.  So a players can have 25 hours of tape review and only have 3-5 hours count toward the rule.

Also, game day, no matter how much work is done on game day, counts only as 3 hours.  

Also, time in the training room spent on "rehab" is not coaching.  So every player reports minor injuries each week that require several hours in the weight room that do not count.  

Finally, the weekly team compliance meetings don;t count, even though they last a couple of hours and is often the only time the entire team and head coach are in the same meeting room.  Also voluntary team activity, as long as there is no coach present, does not count.  

Anyway Rich, that 20 hours rule is laughable.  Its simply not an obstruction. A season or three ago the NCAA had another survey and the average player reported 45 hours a week on football.  And that was average, school like michigan and oregon were reportedly much higher than 50 hours per week.  

Quote from: dasher on April 21, 2011, 09:21:21 AM
Ed,
I understand your thoughts and also agree that Mike has made a very compelling argument concerning the pistol/spread QB's. But, it is based on repition and execution. I think the pro game at QB requires dedication and hours upon hours of playbook learning and film study.
Where I disagree is your Bradshaw comparison. It is infinitely easier to be an NFL RB than a QB. The QB has to know everything about everybody and then read the defense and make calls all in a few seconds. I don't think  a RB has to be particularly smart. A QB does.
Regarding Gruden- I love the guy and did watch and rewatch his segments. Do you think he could light a fire under somebody? Maybe a laid back Mississippi boy? He deserves another gig, whenever that season might be.

Dale,
I think I've done a terrible job of explaining what the Oregon offense does to prep.  while I can;t speak for Nevada or Auburn, which are the only other teams operating the speed offense that the Ducks run right now, I can tell you a lot about the Oregon offense.  The reason the offense is executed so simply is that Chip Kelly, head coach, estimates his offense spends 2-3 times more prep time in the "classroom" than other teams. the offense is incredibly complicated to run and in order to make it simple enough that four pictures can tell 11 people what they have to do, the amount of work everyone does inside looking at tapes and preparing for contingencies is massive compared to other schools.  Its not just the QB that has to do this, its all of them. Oregon runs extensive lineman classed, back classes, receiver classes and so one.  They coach that offense so well that it becomes second nature.  The way its run means an audible is almost never needed because the ball is snapped within 3 seconds of the ref putting it on the ground, but that does not mean the team does not spend the time inside. 

Granted, the pro game requires far more study than any college could ever do.  Its really night and day, similar to the argument I made about the best high school teams in NY and college teams.  Even the 10 teams in the BCS games last season, not a one of them is anything like a pro offense.  The pro game, especially at QB, requires far more dedication and exactly the hours upon hours of film, study and playbook work that you mentioned.  But its true for any QB, not just the guys from Stanford.  Jake Locker is known far and wide as a classroom guy. He works his ass off to be as good as he is.  Lets see how fast his transition is.  He has the physical tools and he is a very smart man, but even for him, its just a hard move to the pro-level. 

Next year the top QBs will probably be guys like Andrew Luck from Stanford and Matt Barkley out of USC because they are in pro-style offenses.  Though I think the best pro-style QB in the country is Kirk Cousins at Michigan State and I am interested to see what Charlie Weis can do with John Brantley, who is 6'4" and has a cannon, but is not accurate.  If Weis can do something with him, we will be talking about him next year in round 1. 

But I also think that next year we will be having the same conversation about guys like Oklahoma's Landry Jones, Oregon's Darron Thomas and Ohio State's Terrell Pryor.  Jones by the way is my early Heisman pick and IMO, the best overall QB in the nation, but he plays out of the option spread. He never takes snaps from under center and runs well, but also has a great arm, is huge and will contend for a title this year and should easily with the Big 12 (if thats what its called now).  Wait until next year and we will all be having this same conversation about one of these three guys, or someone similar. 

It happens every year, and some of them like Rivers and Brees make it, and some like Akili Smith don't.  But Akili Smith's failure at the pro-level had nothing to do with the spread offense he ran, the guy was lazy and could not throw the ball down the field accurately.  Its all about the guy. 

Quote from: Philosophers on April 20, 2011, 11:40:05 AM
There's also another factor.  The folks debating Cam are at the top of the board so that gamble has probably a $50+ million risk associated with it whereas JPP was less.  Also, risk on QB is that it is much, much more about mental decisionmaking which is much harder to assess.  For a DE, it is generally about motor and physical skills, much easier to figure out and predict.

Absolutely. I think the money risk will be lower with the new CBA (assuming we get one) but still its a great point. The risk at No 1 overall is HUGE.  I would never take Cam Newton with the No. 1 overall pick for that reason alone. I think the No. 1 overall pick should be a lock for NFL success.  I thught going into this that the Vikings would take Newton outside the top ten. I'm shocked teams are grading him above that level.  He is just too big a risk.  But if a team interviewed him enough, got his test scores and felt he could do it, its there money.  I hope he proves me wrong and rocks in the NFL. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 20, 2011, 10:21:38 AM
Mike,

You could also say from the QB's point of view Auburn's offense is also less complicated than the average college offense.  I also wouldn't say that the offense is "far more" complicated than the average high school offense.  

I also think you are taking a flawed approach by looking at the current roster, as that doesn't take into account the numbers of QBs coming from the various college systems.  If you want to convince me of your point, a good statistical study of the number of drafted QBs from simplified offenses like Auburns vs more complicated college offenses would be far more telling.

I will continue to voice my opinions and counter opinions and statements that I feel are wrong or I don't agree with.  

In the end college drafting is about three aspects:

1)  Physical ability
2) Mental makeup
3) On the field production


Now the thing with Cam Newton is that his on the field production is clearly not a good an indicator than what you see with your average college QB.   In fact while I haven't mentioned it, one of the after the fact reasons given for bust QBs is that their college coaches will often dummy down their offenses to take advantage of their QB's natural talents and ability.   Even in the pro style offenses, there have been many successful QBs who never had to look at more than one side of the field on a given play.   In the end the college game is different with much lower levels of competition and simpler defenses.  At the college level a player can out talent and ability his competition.  At the NFL level that simply doesn't happen.

In the end we have Cam Newton

1)  Great Physical ability
2) Questionable mental makeup
3) incomplete or unknown on the productivity indicator owing to the extreme simplicity of the offense he ran.  Compounding that problem was his single year at Auburn.

So you have a great number one and 2 question marks for the other 2.  That doesn't mean he will be a bust at the next level, but he is a huge gamble owing to the unknowns.  

In many ways Cam is like our own JPP in that he is long on ability short on experience and proven track record.  The difference is that JPP didn't have the character questions that Cam has.

I have absolutely no doubt that both Oregon's and Auburn's offenses are executed in a FAR less complicated way than most college offenses.  I think that is the very reason these teams were in the championship game last season and both will contend for their conference crowns again this season.  I think simple execution is better, not worse.  I also think "simple" in the execution has nothing whatsoever to do with pro-potential.  Simple is a relative term though.  If you watch the Oregon and Auburn offenses, they are not simple at all, but how they are executed allows them to be run at incredible speeds. The execution is what is simple, not the offenses themselves.  They are just run differently.  The offense run very simply, but yet is still incredibly complicated.   

As a former HS player and a current fan (though Lakeland, my local team, is not very good right now) I feel very comfortable saying the college game and the high school game are on different playing fields. Even at the amazing NYS high school teams, like Iona Prep or Bronxville, the offenses are so different than a decent FCS school, it barely bears talking about.  High school teams do not have athletic enough offensive lines to run plays like those at the college level.  Its a question of time to learn and be taught.  High school players have hours instead of days to learn and the economics makes a big difference. 

Anyway, that you want me to give you statistics from offenses like Auburns is impossible since Newton is the second qb from such an offense to be drafted. I think Dennis Dixon looked good when he played, but he was injured and did not get a chance to really see what he can do.  The offense has only existed on a handful of teams for the past few years, so no other athletes have been at the level newton ro dixon are at. So there is nothing to look at. 

But so I understand, now its not spread/pistol/shotgun QBs you think have a lower transition successrate, its really just the 2010 auburn offense that you think can not make the transition to the nfl QB level  If thats the case, I agree, but again it has nothing to do with the offense, but the man you are talking about. I don't think Cam Newton would be a good pro QB prospect no matter where he came from.  I don't like his head or his heart, not where he went to school.  He will be good in the nfl as a runner, but not as a startign QB imo. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 20, 2011, 09:10:05 AM
That was a weak article, in my opinion Mike.   The article was weak on fact and example and long on contrary opinion.   It did get me to look at Auburn's offensive coach's book and get this gem:

Even though we technically have 33 pass plays total, we only use eight base combination routes that can run to either side of the field on a regular basis

From a QB's point of view this offense is about as complicated as a high school offense.  

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1585186546?ie=UTF8&tag=chrisbrownsfo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1585186546

Well we obviously differ on that opinion Rich, at least with respect to the article.  I think its quite interesting, especially the concept of how a QB develops.  

As for Auburn's offense, I think from a QB's point of view, its far more complicated that the average high school offense and far less complicated than the average nfl offense.  But its clear you have a certain mind set on this and I have another mind set.  I have come to the conclusion that I will not be able to change your mind, and I've equally concluded that you are not going to change mine.  I respect your right to your view, even though I disagree with you. I hope you feel the same.  There are a lot of other posters on this board who I'm sure are as interested in the topic of how to evaluate QBs from college systems that mainly employ a shotgun or pistol snap, so I plan to continue to talk to others about this, and I hope that you do too.

I think a simple review of nfl rosters and the list of starting QBs makes it clear that the odds of a QB starting in the nfl has very little to do with whether they come from a shotgun snap or snap under center system.   There are plenty of starting quarterbacks who came from both types of systems.

If I ever have free time, I think I'll look at the starters and their systems.  Since until the last 5 years I think its fair to to say the vast majority of teams employed mostly nfl style offenses, proportionately, its possible more QBs have come from what I call modern systems than traditional systems, but I have no idea.  If I have time this weekend, I'll try to do that analysis.  

http://smartfootball.com/quarterbacking/did-cam-newton-play-in-a-one-read-passing-offense-at-auburn

This is a very good analysis of the progression of college QBing in general and in particular Cam Newton.  I watched both clips at the bottom of Cam. I think in it he makes all the throws, makes several good reads, but shows he makes mistakes when he relies too much on his athleticism. the same comments were made about Big Ben coming out of college.  Will Cam perform as well as Ben, I have no idea.  I don;t really like Cam as a QB, but I think its clear that every college QB has issues and a learning curve. Not all make it to the final level of progression, in fact few do.  My point remains that whether you come from a traditional pro-style offense or a more modern offense has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you can make that last step.  Sure it might take a few more months for one who needs to spend time learning to take snaps under center as well as adjust to the nfl speed, but by the second season, its all on the individual.  Some make it and some don;t.  If you are drafting a QB for one season, you are making a mistake anyway.  I think the folks in Indy were happy to trade Peyton's first season or so for the rest of his career. 

Quote from: bighitterdalama on April 20, 2011, 01:08:45 AM
Ed,

From the video, I saw only one pass that approached a deep throw. That was about thirty yards downfield against Alabama. The pass hung up and, if the rotating safety had looked up instead of playing the receiver, it would have been an easy pick. I also saw several outs that a quality corner could have easily picked off. Newton is a terrific running quarterback who would have fit in quite well with Earl "Greasie" Neale's Eagles but, relying on the video, I did not see a conventional NFL starting quarterback.

The comparison to Dononvan McNabb is poor. McNabb is a conventional strong-armed  "North-South" quarterback with the addition of good feet and (at least when younger) a real threat to run down field. I have always thought that he excelled in spite of, as opposed to being helped by, Andy Reid's West Coast Offense. And please do not fault him for the circus that Shanahan created this year in Washinton. The latest "Mr. Genius" hired by the god-owner of the Redskins laid another Washington egg in 2010. I had more than one occasion to talk with Donovan when he played at Syracuse. He is a very intelligent and articulate man. Putting him into the same discussion with Demarcus Russell is a bad fit. Both are big, strong, and black. Otherwise, no comparison exists. Although many Giant fans might disagree, McNabb's career to date may already qualify him for Canton. He certainly will merit consideration.

Big Hitter  

Very well said.  I also agree on McNabb with respect to the HOF.  Its already a close call, we will see what the next season or two holds for him. 

Quote from: MightyGiants on April 19, 2011, 06:13:32 PM
I think a good analogy Mike would be taking a student into a top notch difficult college.  Cam Newton and his no huddle one read and run offense would be like taking a gifted grade schooler.   The college players in more complex offenses would be like taking a high schooler.  The gifted grade schooler may succeed but it will take more time as they have to take some remedial classes.  In addition high school is a lot closer to college than grade school so a gifted high schooler would have better odds of success than the gifted grade schooler (who is also handicapped by the additional learning).

With all due respect, I think that is absolutely wrong.  Cam Newton is not the standard for the spread/option/read offense.  Maybe its like taking a kid with 3.8 GPA compared to a 3.5 GPA, but the notion that one is a child and the other is not is simply not accurate. These are the very top athletes at their position in the country that we are talking about.  I'm happy to say one has less to learn, but the notion that one is head and shoulders above the other is just flat out wrong.  The number of successful QBs (ones who do well in the NFL) who do not take snaps under center at college is pretty good compared to those that did over the past 10 years.  As the college offense evolves so that more QBs are playing in shotgun or pistol style offenses, it stands to reason that an equal percentage of the better QBs will be in those system as well.

I think every front office person has their own opinions on what makes a good QB. But most are wrong far more often than they are right.  The so called reduced "learning curve" for pocket passers taking snaps under center at college did not help Todd Blackledge, JP Losman, Alex Smith, Rick Mirer, Dave Klinger, Todd Marinovich, Heath Shuler or Jim Druckenmiller.  Hell they have had just as bad success with the guys with the big learning curve like Cade McNown, Andrew Ware, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, Matt Lienart and Tim Couch.  I think its unfair to target any college system with the failures of Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell, but I think those two are the real rule to consider.  Its the individual and not the system.  Ryan Leaf and Jamarcus Russell both ran incredibly successful modified pro-style offenses, yet both were head cases.  One was nuts and mean, the other nuts and lazy. Its really the person that matters. 

Most of the guys that get to the NFL draft combine have the skill set to toss it in the NFL and see the field, but not all have the brainpan to do it. 

As for anyone saying that its hard to learn how to play under center, I'd say to look at Brees, Rodgers and Rivers.  Its not that hard, if the player has the ability, the head and the work ethic.  Guys who have it, have it, guys that don't, don't.  Sure, consider if he can learn the mechanics, but if he can't learn the mechanics, I suspect there are far more problems, like his arm strength, his size and his ability to run any offense.   

I have lots of fears about Cam Newton, but a fear that he will not be able to take a snap under center and drop back a few steps is not one of them. 

Quote from: vette on April 18, 2011, 11:41:07 PM
Plenty of talent, don't know the wonderic score, don't know how hard he will work or I'd he'll be a student of the game. Is he worthy of a top three pick?

I think Phil and you have hit it.  I'm not sure if he has the head.  I do think he has the physical tools to carry the offense, but I have no idea if he can withstand the pressure, put in the work needed to stay on top of the fast paced defenses and make the mental checks as quickly as needed.  I still think he is too great a talent not to perform though, but I suspect it will be a Slash type of play, using his running more than his arm.