Scrambling QBs
 

So, I'm looking at this QB who ran a 4.53 dash and has a scramble rating of around 95. Thats his "desire to scramble". I'm guessing his "hole recognition" or actual scrambling skill might not be all that as I've seen QBs quicker than that. (dash = desire to scramble/hole recognition).

Anyone have any experience of how a guy like this will perform in real terms? Does he run when theres nothing on (positive), or do you get the feeling he just runs when he feels like it when he could of passed downfield successfully? (negative)

My other concern is fumbles. I've seen a lot of fumbles on QB scrambles. Am I right to be concerned?

Obviously it's tough to say. We don't really get that kind of feedback from the engine. To be honest though, it's not something I give much thought to if everything else looks solid. If this is still in regard to one of those superstud QBs in the NAFL (?) that were posted about, I wouldn't bother getting nitpicky at this level.

Looks like it just might be one of those NAFL guys...and he's going to kill himself over-analyzing it...LOL!!!!

Yes, its Escalada or whatever his name is. If he is going to be our guy for the next 15 years or so, I could see his scrambling hacking me off a bit possibily. Saying that, I still think he is favourite at this point as I doubt the Colts take him.

If your league rules allow it, in a MP league you can "preview" a QB who is already on your roster at RB with a position switch, and at least get a feel for what his RB-centered ratings (like hole recognition, etc) look like. My sense is that there's a pretty wide swath, even among confirmed high frequency scramblers, in what they can do with the carries they decide to take.

Interesting. What if Giles is there at 1.2...what then?? In my eyes, I don't think you can go wrong with either Giles, Brinsfield, or Escalante but could be rolling the dice with Mount and his volatility.

Totally agree Johnny. Mount is out of the question. The other 3 are very even, hence me taking so much time over it.

Escalante's combine is deceptional. He is fairly low in timing, screen and intelligence, which works in his favour as far as I'm concerned as it boosts the other ratings concerned.

I'm not sure how far Giles 99 intelligence will pull his avoid interception bar down, that and his V/O impression from various scouts apparently, bothers me a little.

I'm going to try to find an exact replica of those ratings and see how far he gets up Greta's board. Well in an ideal world, doubt I will have the time.

Ah, I suppose I don't have the whole picture as I haven't bothered to waste an interview on any of them...therefore I don't have a scout's opinion or their intelligence ratings. Coming from somebody who had to pick first overall two years in a row, I understand the concerns...it's very stressful trying to make sure such a high pick isn't wasted.

The best running QB I've ever had didn't have a high scramble frequency, so I'm guessing that, like you said, scramble frequency is just how often a QB runs, not how well he does it.

I think that you are misrepresenting the work that's been done on this. Given that Giles' sole score is 50 (max?) I don't think 99 intelligence will mean a lower avoid ints. If I remember correctly when you get near the "max" score then you can expect both to be very high. It isn't a simple of case of (intelligence + avoid interceptions = x) where x is always constant. I think the conclusions you're drawing about Escalante's lacking attributes are a bit dubious as well. All this is further clouded by the fact that quarterbacks seem to vary hard to pin down in drafts anyway.

Then again I presume you've tested the hell out of this, so what do I know. :)

Bah. This thread is useless without screen shots. :D

Yes, I have actually :) It appears Escalante is more likely to have a higher avoid interception that Giles. I am going off of Greta though, so for all I know the top 8 or so are all maxed out.

I tested around a dozen QBs that were as close as possible to the 2 guys concerned. Typically both made Greta's top 10 list, although the guy with 44-46 solecismic and 50 or so intelligence almost always beat the 50ish solecismic, high 90's intelligence QB. Very unscientific, but good enough for me.

I think solecismic max is around 57 or 58 for a QB?




Could you expand? High screen is effectively taking away from the sense rush bar. My testing has confirmed this, again to my satisfaction only. In this scenario a 7.20 agility guy will have a better sense rush than a 7.00 guy if the screen bar is very low and very high respectively.

I prefer Escalante to Giles, although I'm still concerned about his scrambling frequency which pretty much evens them up in my eyes. Peter whatshisname is also very much in their league.

Alright, we've had two of the best drafters in the NAFL chime in...timmy, where for art thou??

This thread and another one gave me the idea to try something. In the FFL I have a QB by the name of Joel Tapscott. He's currently in his 11th season, and a former 1.14 draft pick (he was picked by the pervious owner of the Saints). The past several seasons his rating has gone up to the 83/83 he is now. He has always been very good at running the ball, having 709 rushes over his career for 4026 yards (a 5.91 YPC). So, I decided to move him to RB to see what his bars came up as.... if I were to move him, he'd be a 42/60...and here are his bars:


His scrambling frequency is an 82.

Oddly enough his longest run 38 yards.

I wonder how much of those ratings hold up after a sim??

I could test it, being the asst commish of the league, but I feel I would need to get the commish's approval if not general league approval before doing something like that. Or could ask him to.

You could.

I actually do agree with a lot of what Hammer says, and if the combines were a little closer I may favor Escalante for those reasons. That said, my understanding is that the game creates players on a 1-9 or a 1-10 scale, so I sometimes try to boil it down to that. Based on the combines, I basically think there's a chance that Giles and Brinsfield are 9s (or 10s, whichever one is the "once per generation" type talent or whatever) - meaning that they'd be pretty much awesome at both sense rush/screen passing and intelligence/avoid INTs. They'd be close to maxed across the board. Escalante looks like an 8 with the bars in the places you want, so he will probably be really good as well.

I haven't done any interviews or really looked into that closely myself, but I just don't think I'd be able to pass on one of those top two.

Ask and you shall receive.

Now all we have to do is wait 5 seasons to see who's right...or more right...or whatever.

Escalante certainly does have the strengths where you want them. His weaknesses are his development, screen, timing and deep passing. His strengths are where you want them, everywhere else basically.

Giles, Brinsfield and Mount probably all end up higher rated QB's I think.

I agree with what Timmy is saying, but had not thought of it in terms of the 1-10 scale.

This is all getting a bit NAFL-centric. I don't think me posting screen shots of what my pretty rubbish scout sees is going to effect the result of the draft (more than this discussion has already done) so for everyone else's benefit.




Giles



Brinsfield



Mount



Escalante

What? No interviews? Pfft...

My scout is excellent with QBs, and I feel I'm giving too much away posting the screen shots. It throws a different light on things.

getting Mounts profile under Escalantes name

Well, the QBs have now been drafted.

1.1 Brinsfield
1.2 Giles
1.3 Mount
1.4 Escalante

Boy, hammer, you're a photobucket whore now, aren't you?!?!

I'd interested to hear from experienced players on how they think those 4 QBs will compare to each other at the end of the day, now you can see them interviewed.

Myself I love Giles, Mount and Escalante. I think they will be well into the 80's. Mount's volatility is a worry. As is Escalante's scrambling and Giles 99 intelligence to lesser degrees.

I had Brinsfield a touch lower, high 70's, as I think his medium and deep passing bars will drop. While the others appear they are going to be close to 100 on sense rush, his screen looks like it will pull his down a bit.

I think Giles is the best of the bunch. Though, it's close with Brinsfield. I'm interested to see how they turn out myself. I think Giles will be the highest... 80's. Brinsfield should be just as close. Mount just doesn't have the bars in the right places, however, I'm unsure of his rating. And Escalante will come out and bust. ;)

1. Giles
2. Brinsfield
3. Mount
4. Escalante

But damn, they are close. I will keep an eye on the NAFL this season.

Giles would be my #1 pick and it's not even close.

How did Al An pan out in that league? I take full credit for lighting a fire under Narcizo to trade up for him if he turned into a megastud like I envisioned.

I think all four guys will finish development (sans VSOD or Injury) at 85/85+. Therefore, any difference between how each player's career turns out will be determined by how each individual owner uses their QB. Will the owner get that QB two very solid WR's and a strong TE? Will they run an offense which maximizes passing opportunities? That is what well tell the difference.

When players have such great combines as this, the only thing I use to differentiate is where their bars lay. Because I like to run the short pass offense (and need high accuracy/timing bars), I'd probably go with Brinsfield or Escalante with 1.1.

However, I wouldn't be losing sleep if I ended up with either of the two QB's. I'd bet each is capable of being the next psuedo-Peyton Manning. What a crazy talented draft.

Yes, and the truth is that NAFL has a lot of QB talent overall, probably more than a lot of leagues, I'd guess. Add these 4 to the equation (and there's actually another pretty decent looking prospect in this draft), and we're really deep.

Yeah Giles would've been my first pick, too.

Hallman... the WR I think looks insane.

That's a pretty sick top 5 and you're probably talking about another prospect too...

Hammer, you didn't interview Walters by any chance, did you??

Yes.

I don't think he will be as good as Lake to be honest. Starting material though probably.

Thanks, Hammer. I was figuring he would approach Lake's abilities, but I would say in your scout's eyes, I'd be wrong.

12% developed looks more like a Capoccia than a Lake to me.

Hey, Narcizo, quit piling on, OK...we don't take kindly to that up here!!! :)