Pre-Draft Quarterback Ratings Since 2005 (Scout)

[DFWJC]

Just for some perspective, here are all the quarterbacks with an 85 or higher rating by Scouts Inc before the draft the last 10 years.

As expected, they overrated and underrated some.
it's just a pre-draft frame of reference.

99__Luck
99__Rodgers
98__Leinert
98__Russell
98__Ryan
98__A Smith
97__Quinn
97__Winston
97__V Young
96__Bradford
96__Cutler
96__Griffin
96__Stafford
95__Sanchez
94__Tannehill
93__Newton
93__Mariota
93__Brohm
92__Wentz
92__Goff
91__Bortles
90__Locker
90__Clausen
89__Bridgewater
89__S Smith
89__Flacco
89__Lynch
88__Nassib
87__Barkley
87__Stanton
86__Beck
86__Campbell
86__Dalton
86__Weeden
85__Freeman
85__Ponder
85__Edwards
85__Frye

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Brady Quinn a 97? Brian Brohm a 93? Those two rankings are especially bad. Don't get me wrong, Russell was a colossal bust, but he was considered an "elite" prospect, just too small a sample size, and no self discipline what so ever, but Quinn and Brohm were average prospects at best.

 

[LocimusPrime]

I wouldn't risk taking a qb from this years class. Wentz and golf will probably turn out to be Locker/ Bridgewater types. Pass please

 

[td4mvp2k]

about where I thought the top QBs this yr were rated and not high enough for a top 5 pick tbh

 

[Sydla]

Brady Quinn a 97? Brian Brohm a 93? Those two rankings are especially bad. Don't get me wrong, Russell was a colossal bust, but he was considered an "elite" prospect, just too small a sample size, and no self discipline what so ever, but Quinn and Brohm were average prospects at best.

Russell was an elite prospect in size and arm strength, which often overrules common sense in this scouting guides.

 

[Shinaoi]

Goes to show that qb is hard to find, and then hard to develop. Only about five of those guys are good(not counting this years three guys).

But I think a lousy team with no head coach, no offensive line can ruin a great prospect. Cleveland will probably ruin wentz. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't turn out better here sitting for a few years, and then come in with a great oline. Some situations are just much better than others.

 

[btcutter]

I wouldn't risk taking a qb from this years class. Wentz and golf will probably turn out to be Locker/ Bridgewater types. Pass please

Locker can't throw a stone into the ocean and he played in Seattle. Wentz and Goff are far better QBs.

 

[jnday]

I wouldn't risk taking a qb from this years class. Wentz and golf will probably turn out to be Locker/ Bridgewater types. Pass please

What year's class is it worth the risk? There has been one sure thing at QB in the last decade and that was Luck. Before him, it was a Manning. Isn't it a risk to wait every 15 years for a sure thing ? If you take that list seriously, I can't understand why . It proves nothing at all. It only shows the many failures with high scores.

 

[DFWJC]

I wouldn't risk taking a qb from this years class. Wentz and golf will probably turn out to be Locker/ Bridgewater types. Pass please

Easily could.
All these hind site gurus forget about the massive uncertainty.
Of course,there are misses on the downside too. There are also underrated QBs on that list.

My only thing is, p,ease do not trade our entire draft plus and early pick next year to move up for one of these guys.
If they are at 4 and you flat love them, okay, take them at 4. You better love one of them that high though.

 

[DFWJC]

Goes to show that qb is hard to find, and then hard to develop. Only about five of those guys are good(not counting this years three guys).

But I think a lousy team with no head coach, no offensive line can ruin a great prospect. Cleveland will probably ruin wentz. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't turn out better here sitting for a few years, and then come in with a great oline. Some situations are just much better than others.

Cleveland does not have a lousy coach

 

[AzorAhai]

It's interesting, but grading QBs is hard. Very hard. Theres so much that you can't diagnose without knowledge of each play that we don't have. At best these are educated guesses. QB is also without a doubt, the most important position to possess the intangibles. How does a QB process information, how quickly and accurately they can make pre and post snap reads, decision making, work ethic, football IQ, dedication, mental and physical fortitude along with numerous other things that are incredibly hard to accurately assess. You just have to trust your scouts, the process of interviews and conversations with those closest to the player to make the most informed decision possible. Even then they get it wrong as much as right.

 

[Shinaoi]

Cleveland does not have a lousy coach

That was meant more in a general sense of the history of the league, where dysfunctional teams ruin players. Cleveland isn't bad because every player they draft just happens to be a bust, and they are just unlucky. Some maybe, but the organization has the plague and ruins what it touches. Jackson may succeed there, and I'm not saying the next qb that busts there will be squarely his fault. It's just a losing battle culturally. Hard to develop when there is no system to allow players to grow and learn. And no I'm not saying the Cowboys are the shining example of what is right, but a player is more likely to succeed here than there. Pointing to the 10 qbs that have flopped there and the Titans isn't completely fair if the player is allowed to be groomed and actually has a good oline in place. Which is a big problem with these bad teams sending qbs to die behind horrible lines and a rotating door of coordinators.

 

[AbeBeta]

Just for some perspective, here are all the quarterbacks with an 85 or higher rating by Scouts Inc before the draft the last 10 years.

As expected, they overrated and underrated some.
it's just a pre-draft frame of reference.

99__Luck
99__Rodgers
98__Leinert
98__Russell
98__Ryan
98__A Smith
97__Quinn
97__Winston
97__V Young
96__Bradford
96__Cutler
96__Griffin
96__Stafford
95__Sanchez
94__Tannehill
93__Newton
93__Mariota
93__Brohm
92__Wentz
92__Goff
91__Bortles
90__Locker
90__Clausen
89__Bridgewater
89__S Smith
89__Flacco
89__Lynch
88__Nassib
87__Barkley
87__Stanton
86__Beck
86__Campbell
86__Dalton
86__Weeden
85__Freeman
85__Ponder
85__Edwards
85__Frye

This assumes that they have graded consistently. Also it assumes too much precision. Is there really a difference between 90 and 95? Likely those differences are just noise

 

[DFWJC]

This assumes that they have graded consistently. Also it assumes too much precision. Is there really a difference between 90 and 95? Likely those differences are just noise

There not my ratings. Just trying to give some pre-draft perspective and was sure to point out that they were flawed.

 

[Risen Star]

Easily could.
All these hind site gurus forget about the massive uncertainty.
Of course,there are misses on the downside too. There are also underrated QBs on that list.

My only thing is, p,ease do not trade our entire draft plus and early pick next year to move up for one of these guys.
If they are at 4 and you flat love them, okay, take them at 4. You better love one of them that high though.

Another one who wants to make special rules for taking a QB.

You better love him! And at 4 too! And if you love him so much and think he's a franchise QB you better not trade up for him! Risk losing him!

Otherwise we go, ya know, CB or DE. Where they never bust and it doesn't matter whether you love them or not.

 

[Idgit]

Easily could.
All these hind site gurus forget about the massive uncertainty.
Of course,there are misses on the downside too. There are also underrated QBs on that list.

My only thing is, p,ease do not trade our entire draft plus and early pick next year to move up for one of these guys.
If they are at 4 and you flat love them, okay, take them at 4. You better love one of them that high though.

The same arguments apply to players from any position, there's nothing special about QBs except that it's the hardest position to play, so it's the hardest position to fill as a result.

The thing about trading up from #4 is that it's really expensive to do so, so if you're doing it for a position that's inherently the toughest one to predict--maybe in all of pro sports--it's a huge risk. If you're doing it just to be certain of something that might be sitting there for you at #4 anyway, then you're paying for insurance for something that your own due diligence can help you get a pretty good handle on in the first place.

Fans like to see it, because they lock onto a guy, quickly become certain he's a can't-miss prospect, and they don't want to risk that player being lost. The reality is, though, there are lots of good players in the draft and teams have lots of needs. The smart move is to play the probabilities. Trade up when the costs are low and if a player you think is significantly undervalued is on the board in front of you. Trade down if you think there's a lot of value in the window you'd be trading into, or stay put and take the best guy you've got rated for your team at that point. It's a pretty rare situation where you're sitting at #4 and have a guy above you rated a significant value at the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd pick overall. And I don't see anybody in this draft anywhere near that level of obvious ability.

 

[DFWJC]

Another one who wants to make special rules for taking a QB.

You better love him! And at 4 too! And if you love him so much and think he's a franchise QB you better not trade up for him! Risk losing him!

Otherwise we go, ya know, CB or DE. Where they never bust and it doesn't matter whether you love them or not.

Except you got what I was saying backwards. No special rules for QBs.

You better love anyone you take at 4.
And if trade away your draft...good lord, you had best better really love the player.
Kind of goes without saying, I would think.

That was the point.
If they are really only worthy of a mid to late 1st, don't force them at 4th overall or 4th plus a ton more..