10 Years of Rookie Preseason Passing Brilliance

[percyhoward]

It was also the same thing people would say about Steve Young, Roger S., and Russell Wilson.

Exactly.

 

[Plankton]

I think that those qualities trump physical skill, but only when you have reached a certain threshold of ability. You can have all of those skills, but if you simply can't throw the football or you are too small or any one of a million other things you won't be an NFL QB. Tebow can have all of the characteristics of Dak, but he has horrible accuracy - he doesn't meet the minimum requirement regarding throwing ability. So he'll never be a QB.

Meanwhile you can have a guy like Jeff George, who had an all-time great arm and lacked all of the other characteristics. The difference is that if you have an all-time great arm you are a lot more likely to keep getting jobs in the NFL because the coaches think they can teach you the other aspects - leadership, anticipation, read progressions. For the most part they are wrong, because those things are as a part of a person as the ability to throw a football 70 yards. They can be improved, but not so dramatically that a guy like George would ever be a franchise QB.

I also believe that preseason games are perfect for sorting out who does and does not have the physical or mental skillset necessary. Because if you can't throw in preseason you just can't throw. If you can't make the simple reads required when facing a vanilla defense you are going to feel like a person who can't swim dropped into the ocean when DCs start scheming for you. Dak can throw, he can make the simple reads, he has shown a good feel for when to run.

We have heard about the intangibles, we now have some evidence of the physical/mental skillset transferring to the NFL level. Now comes the hard part. We'll have to wait and see how he develops, but he has at least met the minimum criteria and passed his first two tests with flying colors.

This is all true, and is the reason why the QB position is the most difficult to evaluate, project and acquire.

The intangibles really cannot be measured - for leadership, there are many layers and types of leadership. Many times you are relying on the word of someone else to quantify this, and some of those people have a vested interest in pumping up their guy even when it isn't 100% truthful. Other qualities are just as subjective, and two sets of evaluators can view the same player and characteristics completely differently.

I had written this post previously when there was a discussion of why quarterbacks are frequently misevaluated:

The majority of times that a QB is drafted near the top of the draft, it's being done by a team with far many more holes than just the QB position. If the team didn't trade up for the pick, then they "earned" the selection by being awful on the field. Take Sam Bradford. He was taken by the Rams, who never surrounded him with a good enough supporting cast, between the offensive line and his receivers. He was injured, and is now regarded as a bust.

Today, there are other variables involved as well - the advent of spread offenses that don't huddle, use shotgun or pistol snaps almost exclusively, and give the QB no ability to check out of plays. These QBs enter the league deficient in a number of skills necessary to succeed in the NFL. If they are thrown to the wolves out of the gate, they are instantly set up to fail.

Also, not to be minimized, the QB can be selected by a coaching staff that may have their jobs on the line, and if things don't go well (and they very well may not, because the team that selected the QB is not very good), the staff can change, and the learning process has to begin again in some form (new offense, adapting to a new coach and new demands). Stability does have a big impact on a young, developing player.

It can ultimately be hard to immediately quantify the reasons for failure, but some of what is listed above is on the list. The position is the most difficult to assess, because taking a guy who succeeded in one offense or environment, and projecting their success in a completely different offense or environment is not that simple.

For me, here's what I would view as critical to selecting the right guy as a QB (and, this is being bereft of a lot of info in regards to intangibles):

• Leadership - The QB must be able to command a group of players, and get them to follow his lead. There are very few QBs who can succeed without being a true leader. Some don't have the personality to do it. I don't think Romo's personality naturally lends itself to being a leader, and he had to work to develop these skills (he's a good leader now). Aikman and Staubach were exemplary leaders.
• Production - Projecting players is difficult. If they don't have production to back their rating, then the rating is not based off of tangibles. Production shows that a player is capable of executing a specific task or discipline. In Goff vs. Wentz, Goff's numbers are a bit inflated due to playing in a run/shoot type of spread offense, as opposed to Wentz playing in a multiple, pro-style type of offense. But, and this is important, Goff started 37 games at Cal - Wentz started only 23 at NDSU. That extra season of live reps against defenses is huge in terms of development. Another top 10 QB bust, Mark Sanchez, only started 16 games at USC. This was a factor in his failure.
• Accuracy - Moreso than arm strength, a QB needs to be able to consistently put the ball where he wants to, and give his receiver a chance to make a play. A QB who lacks accuracy cannot succeed in the NFL of today.
• Work Ethic - Two types of leadership - external/overt leadership and by example. The QB must have excellent study skills in reviewing tape, and must be able to galvanize his teammates by demanding more work from them. The phrase, "first one in the building, last one to leave" applies here.
• Intelligence - The QB must be the smartest guy in the huddle. He has to make split second assessments at the line of scrimmage, and know when to check into the correct play.
• Mental Toughness - This is hard to measure, but, due in large part to a rookie QB selected in the first round likely going to a team that is not very good, he needs to be mentally tough. He needs to be able to withstand taking a physical beating, being overwhelmed by the speed and athleticism of NFL defenses, learning verbiage and different sets in his offense and dealing with a media that in many cases will not be his champion. Easier said than done.

If you notice, I don't include height/weight/speed/hand size in this list. If a guy is going to succeed, it isn't because of those values. You may have a preference, but the QB's size isn't going to be the key to turning out as either Tom Brady or JaMarcus Russell.

Now, with Prescott, he definitely had the desired number of starts (he started 33 games at Mississippi State), and was unquestionably a good leader, taking his team to heights that they hadn't seen before. He has already demonstrated an excellent work ethic (his work in learning to take a direct snap a prime example). His accuracy in college was decent - he finished with an over 62% completion percentage, but many of his throws were short throws. His mental toughness was good on the college level, but remains to be seen on the pro level. To me, the biggest knock coming out for him was the offense he played in - a zone read offense with half field reads, and run options built into many of the pass plays may be one of the worst offenses for a player going into the NFL to have come from. It prepares a player poorly for the pro game, and puts him at an immediate disadvantage. Prescott appears to be succeeding in spite of this, but much more needs to be seen.

Percy provided very good perspective and context on what we have seen to this point. Like anything else, it's a data point to consider. The rest is up to Prescott.

 

[MSCowboyFan]

I'm giddy as the next Cowboys fan with Dak's play in the preseason, but I'm not going to go overboard. However, why I'm encouraged by his play is because we're not starting him. We will let him take this experience and then give him a clipboard and let him learn behind Romo.
We won't rush him, and we don't have to (assuming Romo doesn't get hurt). And hopefully with the extra time on the bench, he can learn and discuss situations with Romo so that when it's his turn (maybe in two years), he can pick up where he left off.

Agree...we talkin' about PRACTICE for crying out loud

 

[DFWJC]

Dak is way more many things. I know asking a guy who just bases evaluations on stats will end with a reference like this. I don't know anyone who watches Prescott play and says he looks promising just based off his stat line. It's his poise, presence, decision making ect that doesn't show up on a stat line that impresses people so far.

If we just cared about Stats we wouldn't have signed Alfred Morris or drafted Zeke. McFadden had good enough stats.

I don't think Percy looks only at stats. He's just good at applying them with logic.

Also, regarding Tebow and Dak...you said anyone that watched them both before the NFL would not seen the similarities (leadership, toughness, winning, record-breaking two-way stats, TDs, SEC competition).
But really, most scouts were saying that and, I know hind site is 20-20 now that Tebow has played in the NFL, but he was actually rated HIGHER than Dak.
He ended up getting drafted that way....wrong as it was.

As it turns out, although their stats were very similar in the SEC, Tebow's mechanics were a bit tougher to fix than Dak's. Even though Tebow had a higher completion % and total numbers, his game--it appears so far in practice games--was not as malleable.

In the end, I think people compared them TOO MUCH pre draft and Tebow's failures are part of the reason Dak got unfairly scrutinized.
In other words, without Tebow, I think Dak goes in the 2nd round.

 

[superonyx]

I don't think Percy looks only at stats. He's just good at applying them with logic.

Also, regarding Tebow and Dak...you said anyone that watched them both before the NFL would not seen the similarities (leadership, toughness, winning, record-breaking two-way stats, TDs, SEC competition).
But really, most scouts were saying that and, I know hind site is 20-20 now that Tebow has played in the NFL, but he was actually rated HIGHER than Dak.
He ended up getting drafted that way....wrong as it was.

As it turns out, although their stats were very similar in the SEC, Tebow's mechanics were a bit tougher to fix than Dak's. Even though Tebow had a higher completion % and total numbers, his game--it appears so far in practice games--was not as malleable.

In the end, I think people compared them TOO MUCH pre draft and Tebow's failures are part of the reason Dak got unfairly scrutinized.
In other words, without Tebow, I think Dak goes in the 2nd round.

I don't believe I said "before the NFL" in regards to Tebow and Dak.
College is only relevant in determining where you are drafted. What I am talking about is watching Dak and Tebow in the NFL and seeing how one had happy feet and a bad arm while the other is calm, poised, and scans the field like a vet.
I haven't seen too many write ups on Dak where they said his arm wasn't accurate enough.
Bringing up Tebow when someone is talking about Daks field command, leadership ect. Is someone choosing to compare Dak to a negative player for a reason. Why Tebow and not Russell Wilson, Steve Young, ect...?

Stats can be used to support any cause one wants them to. The reality is Tebow, Leaf, Jamarcus Russell, or any other QB's stats compared to Dak don't actually have any impact on whether Prescott becomes a flash in the pan player or a future hall of famer.

That said I do appreciate and love Percy's stats and work he puts into it.

 

[percyhoward]

Stats can be used to support any cause one wants them to.

So can prose. That doesn't mean either one of us is doing that, however.

 

[superonyx]

So can prose. That doesn't mean either one of us is doing that, however.

Agreed

I do appreciate the stats and your contributions.

 

[Macnalty]

Yeah, not sure that I've very seen a more impressive start to a career, still way too early to get excited though.

The reality of Dak is that he would be the starter on the superbowl winning team this year in game 1. Let that sink in. Denver would love to have our problem.

 

[birdwells1]

That his performance so far doesn't give us any real insight into his chances of success or failure.

But it's sure fun to watch.

This is where I'm at.