I don't care if JaMarcus Russell signs

[Schmidty]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care at all either way, but as vociferous as you are in most discussions like this, will you come back and admit you're wrong if you are?

I'm just asking. I actually agree with you for the most part.

Originally Posted by TroyF

1) With all due respect, this is more than just "gut" instinct. It's my opinion based on watching him play. I'm not an NFL scout so I could be full of crap, but I don't like what I've seen.

2) Russell could be Mother Theresa, I'm not trying to debate his merit as a human. I'm sure he's a good guy. I know lots of good guys, that doesn't mean I think they'll succeed in the NFL.

3) I understand why #2 means we should wish he succeeds. I hope he does, even though he plays for the Raiders. (assuming he signs) Saying I think he's going to fail is far different from saying I hope he's going to fail. Again, this is not a discussion about being a special person, it's a discussion about him being a special QB.

4) No matter how good of a person OR QB he is, sitting out all of camp will stunt his development. Sitting out the full year is likely to make his career a washout. Guys just don't come back well after a full year away from the game. I'm not sure Russell will ever recover if he continues on his current path.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care at all either way, but as vociferous as you are in most discussions like this, will you come back and admit you're wrong if you are?

I'm just asking. I actually agree with you for the most part.

It's in print. Everyone can see it. I've never really understood the point of having a discussion and not being strong in what my opinion is. What's the point of having an opinion if you are scared it might be proven wrong at a later point? What's the point of having a belief if you are scared to share it?

I was wrong on Leftwich. I thought he'd be better than Palmer. So far I've been right on Eli Manning vs. Phillip Rivers and Big Ben. (both of whom I thought would be far better overall) I'll be wrong again. I'll be right again. Hopefully the latter more than the former. I also respect guys like Tigersfan. He's sticking up for his guy and he thinks I'm being a moron. Good for him. That's how you should be in a debate. We'll see who is right as we move forward.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by TroyF

It's in print. Everyone can see it. I've never really understood the point of having a discussion and not being strong in what my opinion is. What's the point of having an opinion if you are scared it might be proven wrong at a later point? What's the point of having a belief if you are scared to share it?

I was wrong on Leftwich. I thought he'd be better than Palmer. So far I've been right on Eli Manning vs. Phillip Rivers and Big Ben. (both of whom I thought would be far better overall) I'll be wrong again. I'll be right again. Hopefully the latter more than the former. I also respect guys like Tigersfan. He's sticking up for his guy and he thinks I'm being a moron. Good for him. That's how you should be in a debate. We'll see who is right as we move forward.

My point was, will you bring it up on your own if it happens. It's not like anyone else will remember that you said it unless they resurrect this thread. I was just checking. No biggie.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

My point was, will you bring it up on your own if it happens. It's not like anyone else will remember that you said it unless they resurrect this thread. I was just checking. No biggie.

Probably not in a specific thread, no. I'll certainly say I was wrong though. (just like I brought up the Leftwich/Palmer comarison just now) The problem is, by the time I'm proven wrong on something like this, it's 3 to 5 years down the road. I'm not digging up the old Leftwich/Palmer threads to announce I was an idiot. But if it comes up in conversation, I'll certainly admit I blew it.

This will be the same way.

[k0ruptr]

Boy I can't wait for all the "Colt Brennan will be a bust" threads next year....

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Probably not in a specific thread, no. I'll certainly say I was wrong though. (just like I brought up the Leftwich/Palmer comarison just now) The problem is, by the time I'm proven wrong on something like this, it's 3 to 5 years down the road. I'm not digging up the old Leftwich/Palmer threads to announce I was an idiot. But if it comes up in conversation, I'll certainly admit I blew it.

This will be the same way.

Sorry if it seemed like I was picking on you. You just put yourself out there on occassion (I do too), and my first reaction is to pounce. In a good-natured way most of the time, especially with regard to sports stuff.

[stevew]

signed for 6 years/60 million.

Looking good in regular season.

His agents should be strung up, as this is not some kind of groundbreaking deal moneywise. AKA it could have been done back around draft time.

I strongly doubt another potential #1 is going to sign with the same firm as Russell had, as he's lost quite a bit of money by letting this thing stretch out like it did.

[BishopMVP]

While I would love to see Russell succeed due to his phenomenal physical gifts, I think out of this draft it will go Kevin Kolb>Quinn>Russell. Then again, I had Chris Leak up above Quinn and Russell until I found out he scored an 8 on his Wonderlic, so who knows.

Only watching him in Hawaii's offense, I don't feel like I could predict Colt Brennan to ever be a franchise QB, but I feel like at worst he'll have a Jeff Garcia-type career where no team is ever satisfied with him as long-term starter, but he always comes in and does a decent job when he's in there.

[Doug5984]

Honestly, this may help Russel in the long run- It pretty much keeps him out this season, there is now no rush to make him the starter, if the Raiders lose a lot of games they can add another great player at the top of next years draft, Russell will have a year under his belt and then he can come in with more talent around him, and who knows...maybe he will be a good player.

[Raiders Army]

I wish he wouldn't have signed. Then again, I also hope that I will eat these words in the future.

[bulletsponge]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

I wish he wouldn't have signed. Then again, I also hope that I will eat these words in the future.

i have a feeling you will wish he didnt sign in 3 years time

[Danny]

I think he'll be a very good player, the two biggest indications of success from college just from a statistical standpoint is 30 games played and a 60% completion rate. He did just miss 30 games played with 29, but had a completion percentage a good deal over, including 67% this last year. He also did not turn the ball over with 17 total INT and 0 fumbles in college. He also has all of the physical tools you want, and was a good leader and teammate in college. I like Quinn also, but at the time of the draft I preferred Russell and still do long term. With quarterbacks, who really knows, but most #'1 turn out to be above average quarterbacks at least.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by bulletsponge

i have a feeling you will wish he didnt sign in 3 years time

booyah.

[hhiipp]

Poor Tigercat.

[Logan]

It's been 3 years. Looks like Troy was right on JaMarcus/Quinn vs Kolb.

[MikeVic]

I'm looking at the 2007 draft, and it seems like a pretty crappy draft for the top selections so far. It also appears like no good QBs were drafted (Kolb being the best one).

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

I have little doubt that I will get to bump this thread and brag on his behalf one day though.

X

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by hhiipp

Poor Tigercat.

I stand by his credentials, and still think there is little substantial real evidence that he would bust out from his college repertoire.

If Oakland didn't draft him #1, someone else would have drafted him in the top 5. He reminds me of Aaron Brooks, both showed the mental ability to be successful QBs. Once both got big contracts they just didn't play or prepare with a chip on their shoulder. And in both cases, the pre-suckage detractors (and some that were detractors beforehand) do revisionist history saying they never showed signs they were any good.

If another QB comes along from college with the talent to have the best arm strength and accuracy in the game, after having improved well every year in college, and then having thrown for nearly 70% completion percentage and one of the best QB ratings in college football, I am sure he will be picked high as well. If he doesn't fit the outward personality of the prototypical QB, and if he didn't get the mainstream media's draft watch attention throughout his final year, I am sure he will get plenty of detractors too.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by MikeVic

I'm looking at the 2007 draft, and it seems like a pretty crappy draft for the top selections so far. It also appears like no good QBs were drafted (Kolb being the best one).

Jury's still out on Kolb IMHO.

[MikeVic]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Jury's still out on Kolb IMHO.

lol yeah I think so too. I just said the "best" out of the ones drafted, which is saying something.

[Tigercat]

To kinda expand on what I see as JR's downfall, it is two key things in my mind. Pocket presence and personality. Now JR's outward personality out of college has little difference from Eli Manning in my mind. Both were laid back, neither were vocal leaders. No one could have known for sure that JR wouldn't care about football after he got his money, and that Eli would do what he had to do within his personality to be a Super Bowl winning QB.

The problem that could have been seen, but I see little evidence that anyone anywhere referenced it back in 2007, is pocket presence. This is something that could have been seen at LSU, as JR rarely made his biggest plays from behind center, stepping up into the pocket. His best plays were made out of the spread shotgun, rarely with pressure from multiple defenders. Watching him in the NFL, he never looks confident in the pocket, and his footwork looks horrible. IMO, this is the leading cause of his poor accuracy downfield and the fact that he makes his living completing short passes.

Now unproven pocket presence from first round QBs is nothing new. Spread QBs have been picked in the first round for years now going back to Tim Crouch. But most of them have failed. The best the Raiders could have asked themselves is, "Does he still have a lot of work to become a consistent pocket passer? Did we ask the right questions to know if he will put in that work after he is a multi-millionaire?"

[albionmoonlight]

So who signs Russell when he gets cut?

[TroyF]

Tiger,

Sorry, but you never were able to address the guy's limitations. He has a long, slow delivery of the football. That's something that just can't be fixed easily, even if he had a great work ethic. (which he doesn't)

As for being right, I'm not sure. There will be three QB's from the 2007 draft class to be assured of starting jobs this year. Kevin Kolb, Trent Edwards, Matt Moore (undrafted FA)

Quinn has an outside shot.

Of the four, I think Kolb certainly is in the best position to succeed. Stud WR, solid running game, good defense, good offensive minded coach. He has a shot. Edwards gets one more chance and Moore/Quinn are already looking over their shoulder at the hot shot young draft pick.

If Kolb bombs out, I think it's safe to say there won't be a pro bowl QB from the entire class.

Last thing on Russell. . . with how technical this league is becoming, there are very, very few players who can miss mini camp/training camp and part of the regular season and ever succeed. I don't think Russell ever had much of a chance, but missing all of that time (no matter who was at fault) killed his chances of ever reaching his potential.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Tiger,

Sorry, but you never were able to address the guy's limitations. He has a long, slow delivery of the football. That's something that just can't be fixed easily, even if he had a great work ethic. (which he doesn't)

His delivery is long, but don't agree with slow. He can whip the ball out there pretty fast when he wants too. And that isn't close to why he was so horrible last year. (And plenty of long delivery QBs have been successful in the NFL.)

[albionmoonlight]

Russell also provides another example of how we measure success for athletes so differently than any other walk-of-life.

If your college roommate had invented some social networking program in his dorm room and got paid $20 million dollars by Google after graduating to come work for them and develop his product and then spent the next three years coasting until Google decided to let him go, you would consider him a success.

There might be some sense of lost potential there. But the story would generally go "Did you hear about that guy who invented SuperTwitter? He got, like, $20 million dollars for it from Google and now he just hangs out on the beach all day and drinks beer. That's awesome."

Not a new point, but athletics is one of the only areas where a guy can become a multi-millionaire doing what he loves and be considered a "failure."

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Russell also provides another example of how we measure success for athletes so differently than any other walk-of-life.

If your college roommate had invented some social networking program in his dorm room and got paid $20 million dollars by Google after graduating to come work for them and develop his product and then spent the next three years coasting until Google decided to let him go, you would consider him a success.

There might be some sense of lost potential there. But the story would generally go "Did you hear about that guy who invented SuperTwitter? He got, like, $20 million dollars for it from Google and now he just hangs out on the beach all day and drinks beer. That's awesome."

Not a new point, but athletics is one of the only areas where a guy can become a multi-millionaire doing what he loves and be considered a "failure."

No one pays you more for being an unproven prospect than the NFL. Big money for unproven ideas in other fields? Sure. But unproven personal talent? The NFL wins in a landslide.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

His delivery is long, but don't agree with slow. He can whip the ball out there pretty fast when he wants too. And that isn't close to why he was so horrible last year. (And plenty of long delivery QBs have been successful in the NFL.)

By NFL standards, it's incredibly slow. (in actuality, you really can't be "long" and "fast" in the NFL. You'll have trouble naming QB's who are 75% as long as Russell. When there are 90 or so QB's in the league at one time and you have the longest delivery by far, it might just be that the other guys are right. A long delivery in the NFL not only means more sacks/fumbles, it means the loss of accuracy. You have a small window to throw the ball into in the NFL. You also have to make split second decisions. Well, combine those two and you see where the problems come in. You make a read, the ball needs to be out right NOW. Even if you throw the ball exactly where you want it, if the timing is off, you are toast. The only way to overcome that is to make decisions with more speed.

Unless you are Peyton Manning or Tom Brady, that causes a ton of problems. Again, there is a reason 95% of NFL QB's don't have long throwing motions like Russell does.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by TroyF

By NFL standards, it's incredibly slow. (in actuality, you really can't be "long" and "fast" in the NFL. You'll have trouble naming QB's who are 75% as long as Russell. When there are 90 or so QB's in the league at one time and you have the longest delivery by far, it might just be that the other guys are right. A long delivery in the NFL not only means more sacks/fumbles, it means the loss of accuracy.

Well let me put it this way, he can get the ball out of his hand 10x faster (exaggeration obviously) than Leftwich. I even remember the "draft experts" saying on draft day that he has a long delivery but he can rocket it fast for that delivery. But yea, I am sure it has lead to some accuracy problems and no doubt has lead to plenty of fumbles.

To me the biggest thing successful QBing comes down to is pocket presence. Manning and Brees do it better than anyone else right now, and that is a big part of what makes them the best QBs in the game. In the NFL Russell looks in permanent panic mode in the pocket, nothing can overcome that.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Russell also provides another example of how we measure success for athletes so differently than any other walk-of-life.

If your college roommate had invented some social networking program in his dorm room and got paid $20 million dollars by Google after graduating to come work for them and develop his product and then spent the next three years coasting until Google decided to let him go, you would consider him a success.

There might be some sense of lost potential there. But the story would generally go "Did you hear about that guy who invented SuperTwitter? He got, like, $20 million dollars for it from Google and now he just hangs out on the beach all day and drinks beer. That's awesome."

Not a new point, but athletics is one of the only areas where a guy can become a multi-millionaire doing what he loves and be considered a "failure."

But your roommate actually developed/invented something that has a recognizable value to a company. Like Troy said, athletes are being paid entirely based on the potential they can bring. And the most fucked up part about it is that, especially in the case of #1 pick QBs, they are being paid either more than, or at the same level as, QBs who have already proven themselves on the field, won Super Bowls, etc.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Russell also provides another example of how we measure success for athletes so differently than any other walk-of-life.

If your college roommate had invented some social networking program in his dorm room and got paid $20 million dollars by Google after graduating to come work for them and develop his product and then spent the next three years coasting until Google decided to let him go, you would consider him a success.

There might be some sense of lost potential there. But the story would generally go "Did you hear about that guy who invented SuperTwitter? He got, like, $20 million dollars for it from Google and now he just hangs out on the beach all day and drinks beer. That's awesome."

Not a new point, but athletics is one of the only areas where a guy can become a multi-millionaire doing what he loves and be considered a "failure."

Let's say the SuperTwitter guy you are talking about created something like that for his university, but made no money on it while he was at college (we'll say the NCAA owned the rights for all the work he did). He then signs with the highest bidder (we'll call it IBM for the hell of it) to head their R&D department. In 3 years, he has two designs which are monumental flops. He retires designing technology at the age of 25 and walks away with his 50 million in signing bonuses.

Is he going to be considered a success or a failure? Lets say you own IBM stock? Success or failure?

On a personal level, good for him. He took a great idea in college, signed a big deal and can waste the rest of his life away on the beach. Nobody is saying that means he's a failure as a person. As a professional technology professional? He's an abject disaster who cost IBM millions of dollars in both money spent out and time lost from the design departments total failure for three years.

I said it above in the thread when Tigercat was talking about how good of a guy Russell was. I don't think Danny Wurfall, Heath Schuler or Akili Smith are failures in life. I think they are failures as professional football players. There is a big difference.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Logan

But your roommate actually developed/invented something that has a recognizable value to a company.

Exactly. That's the flaw in the comparison. A better comparison would be Google hiring your roommate because he has a lot of programming knowledge and has this great idea for this "thing" he thought up last year and has been working on making into something useful.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Nobody is saying that means he's a failure as a person. As a professional technology professional? He's an abject disaster who cost IBM millions of dollars in both money spent out and time lost from the design departments total failure for three years. I said it above in the thread when Tigercat was talking about how good of a guy Russell was. I don't think Danny Wurfall, Heath Schuler or Akili Smith are failures in life. I think they are failures as professional football players. There is a big difference.

This, I think, better refines the idea I was getting at. Most people don't distinguish between the person and the athlete. When people hear Danny Wurfell, they think "failure" or "bust," even though--as a human being--he has actually done great things through his ministry.

Maybe the difference is simply that we are conditioned to view athletes almost entirely through what they do on the field. Almost every other job, because it is not so visible, does not inspire that reaction from us.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I said it above in the thread when Tigercat was talking about how good of a guy Russell was. I don't think Danny Wurfall, Heath Schuler or Akili Smith are failures in life. I think they are failures as professional football players. There is a big difference.

I don't think anybody is saying they are failures IN LIFE. I think we're all in pretty general agreement that they're just failures as professional football players in the NFL.

Huge difference.

As an aside, did anyone else watch the 30-for-30 on Ricky Williams last night? Man was that illuminating, and really a feel-good story (once he got himself figured-out, not with the "5 kids by 4 different women" thing or whatever it is). Glad the guy has his life back together (seemingly). My brother and I both found it amusing that he named the kid he had up here with the woman in Boston while he was at McLean "Blaze" though, given his pot-smoking history.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

This, I think, better refines the idea I was getting at. Most people don't distinguish between the person and the athlete. When people hear Danny Wurfell, they think "failure" or "bust," even though--as a human being--he has actually done great things through his ministry.

Maybe the difference is simply that we are conditioned to view athletes almost entirely through what they do on the field. Almost every other job, because it is not so visible, does not inspire that reaction from us.

Right, and it's also why most people view them as good guys, or look up to them in some way, despite not knowing a thing about them personally. Works both ways.

I'm pretty confident that if you were walking down the street wearing your Wuerfell jersey, and someone came up to you and said, "Why are you wearing the jersey of a failure?" and you responded with "Are you saying he's a failure as a football player or as a person?" they would say the former 99% of the time, with the remaining 1% asking who gives a shit.

[Kodos]

Actually, Leaf might be a failure at life too.

[hhiipp]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Actually, Leaf might be a failure at life too.

Bigger bust Ryan Leaf - NFL or Ryan Leaf - life?

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

So who signs Russell when he gets cut?

The Raiders. Al Davis won't resist a quarterback with this much potential sitting in free agency.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

The Raiders. Al Davis won't resist a quarterback with this much potential sitting in free agency.

That is the funniest thing I have read all week.

[Maple Leafs]

Hey, not to interrupt the fascinating discussion of fictional college roommates who work for high tech companies, but I have a football question.

I read somewhere that the Raiders are somewhat lucky to be cutting Russell this year since it's an uncapped season. Not sure how much cap hit is going to accelerate to this year, but it won't matter since without a cap it basically doesn't exist.

If that's true, then why aren't more teams cutting guys? It seems like a great opportunity to get out from under some bad contracts without destroying your short-term cap situation. Has there been more cutting and I just missed it? Or am I just thinking too FOF-ish for real life?

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Hey, not to interrupt the fascinating discussion of fictional college roommates who work for high tech companies, but I have a football question.

I read somewhere that the Raiders are somewhat lucky to be cutting Russell this year since it's an uncapped season. Not sure how much cap hit is going to accelerate to this year, but it won't matter since without a cap it basically doesn't exist.

If that's true, then why aren't more teams cutting guys? It seems like a great opportunity to get out from under some bad contracts without destroying your short-term cap situation. Has there been more cutting and I just missed it? Or am I just thinking too FOF-ish for real life?

Good question. I wonder if two things are at play. First, b/c NFL contracts are not guaranteed, you don't really have the "can't cut this guy b/c of cap acceleration" for a lot of players. Really only top-ten rookies or big-bonus FA guys near the beginning of their contract. It may be that teams are not willing to give up on those guys and admit the mistake unless it is just painfully obvious (i.e. JaMarcus).

Also, I get the sense that a lot of teams expect the cap to come back and seem to be managing their rosters as if it will. You would think that they would not do that when it came to cutting a guy, but maybe it is just a general mindset that the teams have.

[DaddyTorgo]

can we petition to officially change his name to JaBustus instead of JaMarcus now?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

If that's true, then why aren't more teams cutting guys? It seems like a great opportunity to get out from under some bad contracts without destroying your short-term cap situation. Has there been more cutting and I just missed it? Or am I just thinking too FOF-ish for real life?

There have been some examples, but I think the reality is that there aren't a ton of truly bad contracts out there to cut. We'd be talking about guys with massive contracts on whom teams have completely given up and are convinced won't play really well elsewhere.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Haynesworth is much easier to move because of the cap free year, but it doesn't look like it'll happen.

[stevew]

Jake Dellhomme(sp?) was an obvious "cut cause it's a cap free year" guy. They're still paying him like 12m to not play this year.

The under the radar thing is that a lot of guys who would normally be extended, will not be. For instance, Lamar Woodley, due to the 30% increase rule, cannot probably get a contract extension from the steelers.

And in 2011 there are no tags apparently, there almost has to be a lockout.

[TroyF]

With the salary cap in place for years, there aren't a ton of bad ones to cut. NFL teams have done a fairly good job of learning to manage cap space. Also, without a salary cap to worry about, what's the point in cutting an underperforming large contract player unless he simply isn't going to play. (ala Jemarcus)

You may as well keep the high priced guy and hope he turns it around.

[BishopMVP]

Plus, why bother cutting him now instead of waiting for training camp to see if he comes into camp motivated or something? Pats cut ties this week with Adalius Thomas after trying to trade him during the draft though.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Plus, why bother cutting him now instead of waiting for training camp to see if he comes into camp motivated or something?

They don't want to take the chance of him getting injured during OTAs.