QB
Where I rank and list all the Quarterback prospects I have scouted, who I expect will be taken in the 2009 NFL draft.
Matthew Stafford, University of Georgia, 6′3 236lbs, 6.9 I
Mark Sanchez, University of Southern California, 6′3 225, 6.6 CR
5 Comments »
Leave a comment
What I Do
How to Read These Scouting Reports
Chances are, if you’re reading this, you’re not an NFL Scout. And if you are an NFL Scout, that’s no guarantee that my ratings will make sense without translation. I use a slightly modified system of what Bucko Kilroy, an NFL scout with over 40 years experience, created and is used by about a dozen teams. Due to my limited financial resources, I have modified it slightly to place less emphasis on personal character (keeps his nose clean), football character (works hard), and body growth (can he add weight), with more emphasis on performance. This does not reflect a disinterest in those categories, as I believe they are important (Football character especially is a top concern of mine), but until I have the money and access to visit school and inquire about players, my ability to provide an accurate grade on these things is limited. My knowledge of this system comes from Russ Lande, who publishes GM JR which uses a scale that was the inspiration for my scale, though we have a few, mostly minor, differences.
The grading scale works on a basic 1-9 system. In general, a player with a 4 or lower in any rating has a lot to overcome to be an effective NFL player, and you will rarely see that in my grading. Again, I am focused more toward players with legitimate NFL careers because I don’t have the time to scout out every eligible player available. Those reading this without a blood relation to me are most likely interested in early-round picks, not undrafted free agents. Those reading this with a blood relation probably don’t care too much one way or another. That doesn’t mean I am going only after stars. Of the first four players graded, I’d be surprised if more than one of them went in the 1st round of the 2009 NFL Draft. What it does mean is that I only am interested in scouting players who stand a legitimate chance of playing in the National Football League.
How the grades work:
Overall player grades are a little different from individual skill grades. An 8 is the highest grade I can ever give, and it is doubtful I will give that grade to anyone anytime soon. Of course, there is a fair bit of projection with any draft choice. Some players end up in excellent situations that improve them in ways that were not expected before they were drafted. Other players might be rated highly and then be colossal busts. I am unaware of any scout who can see the future, the best we can do is project the most likely path for a player, but in no way does that mean a player cannot improve/regress in ways that were unforseen – a player assigned a “Good Starter” grade could turn out to be a HOF player if groomed by the right coach for the right system, and that same player could be a colossal bust if drafted by a defunct franchise that is a poor schematic fit. And, of course, it is possible that I am simply wrong.
8.0 = No doubt the #1 pick, no doubt a HOF player.
7.9-7.0 = Surefire multiple Pro-Bowl player. Legitimate HOF chances. Top-5 pick.
6.9-6.5 = Possible Pro-Bowler for several years. Very productive starter. Easily a first rounder.
6.4-6.3 = Good starter. Asset on the field. Late first, early second round selection.
6.2-6.1 = Above Average starter. Does a good job. Second or third round
6.0 = Acceptable starter, may be a quality backup early. Second or third round.
5.9 = Backup now. Has potential to become a starter. Third round.
5.8 = Probably a long-term backup or journeyman starter. Constantly replaced. Fourth round or lower.
5.7-5.5 = Fill out a roster types, long term project players, career special teams player. 5th round or lower.
5.4 or lower = Free Agents.
Throughout the reports, I will grade each player individually on several skills. All players will be graded based off of four factors.
Athleticism – Quickness, Balance, Flexibility, Body Control
Physical Talents – Strength, Explosiveness, Body Type
Polish – Understanding of Playbook, Proper Technique, Instincts
Competitiveness – Plays Through Pain, Consistency, Clutch Play, Effort
These are all graded on a slightly different scale. The numbers go 1-9, with 9 being the highest. Here is a general translation:
9.0 = Incredible. Rarely given out ever.
8.5 = Amazing. Rarely given out ever.
8.0 = Exceptional. Might find this a few times in my reports.
7.5 = Excellent. More easily obtainable, but still a huge plus.
7.0 = Great. Several players have this for a single attribute.
6.5 = Very good. Given out to players who have skills that are above-average.
6.0 = Good. Given out for skills that are average for a college player.
5.5 = Inconsistent. Can be improved, but needs work.
5.0 = Acceptable. It won’t ruin a career, but will hinder it unless improved.
4.5 – 3.0 = Very bad. Unlikely to success with this, but possible.
2.0 = Terrible. Rarely given out to players I grade, as these players will struggle to make it in the NFL.
1.0 = I’m out of bad adjectives to describe how bad this is. This would be the grade I would give my own NFL skills, if I scouted myself.
There are also position-specific skills. These will be graded the same way that general player attributes are graded. I don’t want to give a comprehensive list for every position because it would be boring for all involved, but things such as Hands, Concentration, Routes, After Catch Skills, are all examples of what a Wide Receiver prospect would be graded on in position-specific skills.
There are also a few symbols that I should explain.
E = Estimated – used for height/weight/40 speed primarily.
V = Verified – I have from a reliable source of information an exact number.
* = Junior (redshirt or not) who has declared for the NFL Draft.
** = Redshirt Sophomore who has declared for the NFL Draft.
CR = Character Risk – I’m liberal in applying this, though many of these guys may be fit to draft.
CP = Character Problem – I’m conservative in applying this, and I wouldn’t recommend drafting this guy early.
I = Injured – Player needs to prove his health before a team uses an early selection on him.
————————————————————————————
Welcome to my blog!
Essentially, I wanted a place to record my thoughts on the draft. I absolutely love scouting, but much of what I say is lost when wherever I say it cleans it’s archives. I’ll make sure not to clean the archives here.
My name is Kyle Rota, I’m a college student residing in Bellingham, Washington. I’m hoping to get into scouting someday, mainly because I already do it anyways and getting paid for it sounds like a good idea. That said, I have no doubt that my scouting is rudimentary at best. I’m currently working on improving my scouting, and will be doing some cool stuff by December, or so I hope.
Figuring out this site presented some difficulties. As far as the NFL goes, I try to follow all teams casually but the only team I really know in and out is the Seattle Seahawks. Because of that, both the players chosen to be scouted and what I look for is influenced. I consider this a natural extension of what real scouts do – look for the guys who fit the scheme that their team runs. So, things are presented with a Seattle slant. That said, while I may watch USC looking at Taylor Mays (given Seattle’s need for a good safety), it would be impossible for me not to notice, oh, half the defense that deserves to be drafted in the first day.
I hope that you enjoy what you read. I absolutely love discussing prospects, so by all means feel free to post responses, if I have the time (and short of this site gaining national prominence, I will eventually) I will likely reply. That said, there are a few basic things you should do if you don’t want me to delete it:
1.) Mild profanity at most. I don’t care if you swear, but if your post sounds like an Ozzie Guillen press conference it’ll be gone.
2.) Disagreements are great. It means you have an opinion you believe. Bickering and personal attacks are not. Keep it on the subject of players.
3.) No porn, no advertising, no spam. Duh.
I hope you enjoy,
Kyle Rota
Archives
Blogroll
-
Archives
- April 2009 (4)
- March 2009 (10)
- February 2009 (15)
- January 2009 (11)
- December 2008 (8)
- November 2008 (4)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (1)
-
Categories
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
As a wise man once said, “With the way the Seahawks in particular are playing… well… The draft is the only thing to look forward to!” Said sadness finds me here.
Good job so far, Kyle, lookin’ like ya got a future in it.
Keep ‘em comin’
Rick
Man, I’m torn. If Bradford does come out, and KC feels good about Thigpen, we have a chance at Stafford (if HE comes out).
That said, I’ve heard reports he is a crazy man… a hot head of sorts. But I have… God, I don’t know, intuition, that, if given two years to grow, he could be what Elway was… and what I see Cutler being.
That said, I would still rather have Bradford; although he feels like Kyle Boler to me.
Intuition is a fun and dangerous thing. I do better than average with it.
I wish you well, and love you following your passion.
Be well.
Michael
Michael – I’m not doubting you at all, but what do you mean by “crazy man”? Off the field or on sort of thing? On the field he does show a little of the “damn the odds, gotta make the play” mentality which doesn’t usually work, but earns the “gunslinger” tag. I noticed that this is only when he is down by a lot, which encourages me that he can still work things out. Cutler is a very good worst-case comparison, IMO.
Cutler, coming out, had the same throw-deep issue. He also struggled with his throwing mechanics which is where Stafford is better than anyone in NCAA that has an ounce of talent. Some of that may have been due to his having a terrible supporting cast as well. Cutler was, however, much better built, but Stafford is good enough and has room to improve and probably will. They’re actually great comparisons, with Brett Favre deserving an honorable mention as well. All are about the same height/weight, all SEC guys IIRC (can’t remember Favre… Ole Miss?), all have huge arms, quick releases, good accuracy, good mechanics, generally good reads, and a tendency to toss the ball into double coverage a few times a game. That said, Stafford is the only guy I can think of who compares so well to Cutler and Favre, so that skill-set may be an effective one to have.
If Cutler didn’t have the throw-deep issue, I’d be down to nitpicking that he doesn’t have the legs of Michael Vick. If a team feels they can coach him up even a little bit… serious, serious upside. The question is if he’s a 33/12 TD/INT guy or a 27/20 TD/INT guy.
Bradford I haven’t scouted closely. I noticed his feet don’t seem to do much when he throws, and that scares me. I used to be a huge Bradford fan but I’m a little tentative the more I see. I’ll scout him if he declares. I already have several OU games to look at, I just need to know it won’t be wasted scouting. His skillset is more of an ideal WCO fit, but my intuition really loves Stafford. We’ll see how the intuition stuff works out, I tend to trust mine but it has whiffed a few times.
Thanks for your support. Seriously, both Rick and Michael, it really does mean a lot to me.
Rotak,
Took me awhile, but I’m here to reply
.
There were rumors swirling earlier this year that Texas passed on Stafford because he was flat out ‘crazy’. In regards to his ‘crazy’ play on the field, I love it: it brings big bust potential… but it also brings huge confidence, and championship potential… do we just want to be ok, or do we want to dominate?
Bradford reminds me of a tall Montana. I’d take him grudgingly, then cheer his championships.
If Detroit takes Stafford, I can see him being a bust. He and Sanchez both need time. This is why I would love to see a Stafford/Britt combo.
Granted, both are HUGE bust potential… but, as a Seattle fan, I’m tired of the safe Tapp/Jackson plays (I realize where they were picked, but c’mon… no Philip Merling?).
So, I say, go for it! Arizona proved taking a iffy QB does not doom the team. Playing it safe does.
For some reason, your insights ring more true than most.
I wish you well… and will return.
Michael
Note: I am aware the Bradford is staying for at least another year… he is still a tall Montana.
Be well.
Michael