It's not complicated. Players with less experience have more potential room for growth. It's why Matt Jones was a first round pick. Players with more experience are a fairly known commodity. It doesn't always ring true, but a raw player should improve more quickly than an experienced one.


So in practice, in this instance for example, Aaron Murray is a miles better quarterback than Savage. Savage is likely to go higher because he has more physical talent and is relatively inexperienced. Or if you had two equal prospects and one has a lot of experience and the other is raw, you would likely take the raw player.

---

52 starts in college has nothing to do with what they are going to do in the pros. Andrew Luck had 38 starts in college, does that mean if he would have stayed for his senior year and had 50 starts - 52 starts he wouldn't be as good as a pro?


Come on now... Can someone please explain to me how starting more college games can hamper you in the pros? Is this some made up stat by Kyjaggy? I know no one takes him seriously, but geez, can he really be this much of a joke?


Russell Wilson--- 50 starts? Let me guess? Outlier????


Kyjaggy is a huge fan of Derek Carr, am I right? 44 career starts. Is there that much of a difference?


Teddy Bridgewater? 39 starts?


But yet, doesn't like Manziel and he has 26 starts? Does anyone see the missing link here?


Let me guess...


No reply

Easy big guy

---

52 starts in college has nothing to do with what they are going to do in the pros.  Andrew Luck had 38 starts in college, does that mean if he would have stayed for his senior year and had 50 starts - 52 starts he wouldn't be as good as a pro?

 

Come on now...  Can someone please explain to me how starting more college games can hamper you in the pros?  Is this some made up stat by Kyjaggy? I know no one takes him seriously, but geez, can he really be this much of a joke?

 

Russell Wilson--- 50 starts?  Let me guess?  Outlier???? 

 

Kyjaggy is a huge fan of Derek Carr, am I right?  44 career starts.  Is there that much of a difference?

 

Teddy Bridgewater?  39 starts?

 

But yet, doesn't like Manziel and he has 26 starts?  Does anyone see the missing link here?

 

Let me guess...

 

No reply

I am completely floored at how dense people here are. I already said career starts means very little as to whether they will be a good pro QB. The only point is that it is an indicator that there isn't as much room for growth as inexperienced or raw QBs. It's not the only one, but it is one...and a pretty good one at that. I really don't get what is so hard to understand. It wasn't supposed to be some huge deal that you all turned it in to, just get the friggin point and move on because there is a lot of truth behind it. 

 

And no, I have already said I wouldn't call Teddy a developmental QB, and no Russell Wilson wasn't a developmental QB. Derek Carr has developmental QB aspects because he is raw when it comes to pro offense/under center experience (2011 notwithstanding), so there is reasonable hope that with more experience and with his physical tools he could become significantly more than what he is. I would also call Manziel developmental because the offense he ran was so vanilla. He has a lot of room to grow when it comes to reading defenses, understanding audible and protection calls, recognizing coverages, etc.

 

Now please get it through your alls heads cause I really don't want to have to explain something so exceedingly simple again. 

---

It's not complicated. Players with less experience have more potential room for growth. It's why Matt Jones was a first round pick. Players with more experience are a fairly known commodity. It doesn't always ring true, but a raw player should improve more quickly than an experienced one.


So in practice, in this instance for example, Aaron Murray is a miles better quarterback than Savage. Savage is likely to go higher because he has more physical talent and is relatively inexperienced. Or if you had two equal prospects and one has a lot of experience and the other is raw, you would likely take the raw player.

It really is such an elementary concept. I don't understand how in the heck they aren't getting it. This is evaluation 101 guys, if you're struggling here then I don't know what to say. 

---

It really is such an elementary concept. I don't understand how in the heck they aren't getting it. This is evaluation 101 guys, if you're struggling here then I don't know what to say.

So.... What professional scouting service do you work for? Also, what is keeping from landing a with one of the thirty two teams? I can only imagine the offers you must be turning down by looking at your well thought out evaluations.


Good luck.

---

Signature goes here.

So.... What professional scouting service do you work for? Also, what is keeping from landing a with one of the thirty two teams? I can only imagine the offers you must be turning down by looking at your well thought out evaluations.


Good luck.

So if someone came on here and had the audacity to make some outrageously complicated claim like...I dunno...2 + 2 = 4, would you get all snarky and ask them to show your their degree from MIT? Because what I am explaining is literally the evaluation equivalent of that.

---

So if someone came on here and had the audacity to make some outrageously complicated claim like...I dunno...2 + 2 = 4, would you get all snarky and ask them to show your their degree from MIT? Because what I am explaining is literally the evaluation equivalent of that.

 

Except it's not anywhere close.  Nice try at an analogy, but it didn't work.  

Even professional scouts and GMs make a lot of mistakes, so excuse us while we laugh at you and your "evaluations"

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

Except it's not anywhere close.  Nice try at an analogy, but it didn't work.  

Even professional scouts and GMs make a lot of mistakes, so excuse us while we laugh at you and your "evaluations"

And stock brokers who use growth potential statistics to buy stocks (which is all of them) lose a ton of the time too. It's not an infallible science, but the theory itself is extremely basic and easy to understand.

---

And stock brokers who use growth potential statistics to buy stocks (which is all of them) lose a ton of the time too. It's not an infallible science, but the theory itself is extremely basic and easy to understand.

 

well that's a better example.  Your 2+2=4 analogy was terrible.  

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

well that's a better example.  Your 2+2=4 analogy was terrible.  

No, understanding how to use growth potential to evaluate players is the one of the very most basic concepts of being evaluating. It is the equivalent of basic arithmetic to the entire field of mathematics. 

 

And understanding growth potential doesn't make you any more of a GM than knowing how to add or do your multiplication tables makes you a physicist. 

---

I am completely floored at how dense people here are. I already said career starts means very little as to whether they will be a good pro QB. The only point is that it is an indicator that there isn't as much room for growth as inexperienced or raw QBs. It's not the only one, but it is one...and a pretty good one at that. I really don't get what is so hard to understand. It wasn't supposed to be some huge deal that you all turned it in to, just get the friggin point and move on because there is a lot of truth behind it. 

 

And no, I have already said I wouldn't call Teddy a developmental QB, and no Russell Wilson wasn't a developmental QB. Derek Carr has developmental QB aspects because he is raw when it comes to pro offense/under center experience (2011 notwithstanding), so there is reasonable hope that with more experience and with his physical tools he could become significantly more than what he is. I would also call Manziel developmental because the offense he ran was so vanilla. He has a lot of room to grow when it comes to reading defenses, understanding audible and protection calls, recognizing coverages, etc.

 

Now please get it through your alls heads cause I really don't want to have to explain something so exceedingly simple again.

Wilson was drafted as a developmental qb. He was third string following the draft.

---

Listen, I am a huge UGA fan. Murray is a good QB, but he's nothing more than a respectable back-up in the NFL. He doesn't have "it". He couldn't get it done in the big games throughout his career. Believe me, I know. Once we lost some of our more key players on defense, and Green went off to the Bengals, he was left with Gurley. Gurley is really the difference maker on our offense up there. When Gurley was out of the line-up or taking a play-off, we cringe. Normally the drive would stall emediately without him in the line-up. He's got the SEC passing records, good for him. But it still doesn't make up for the fact that he couldn't get it done in the more important games. I wouldn't mind seeing him in Jacksonville. But for you on here that think he'll be our next starter for ten some odd years, need to relax a little bit.

THANK YOU

---

Shock the world

No, understanding how to use growth potential to evaluate players is the one of the very most basic concepts of being evaluating. It is the equivalent of basic arithmetic to the entire field of mathematics. 

. 

 

You don't get it.  The field of mathematics is easy.  It's predictable with certainty.  You can't debate 2+2=4... You can assert it with confidence.  

 

You asserting or projecting a player's potential growth is nowhere near as accurate.  It's very much debatable.  You may say a certain player doesn't have high potential whereas someone else may disagree.  In your arrogance you think you are doing something, call it "evaluating".... that has some kind of foundation.  In reality even your foundation is very shaky.  Your "basic arithmetic" can be very wrong.  If someone knew how to quantify "growth potential" then you would have a lot more success.  Right now you're just GUESSING.  Call it what it is.

 

I'm not saying you SHOULD know better.  The point is, even a lot of teams don't.  

 

I'll leave you with a snippet from Jim Mora.  He's not talking about evaluating players, but the gist of the message still rings true to this day:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHipzGL4dwM

---

<FONT face="Comic Sans MS" size=3><B><FONT face=Verdana color=#ff6600 size=4></FONT></B></FONT>

You don't get it.  The field of mathematics is easy.  It's predictable with certainty.  You can't debate 2+2=4... You can assert it with confidence.  

I know what you are saying, and that is not the point that has been going on for the last several pages. You just jumped in and injected a somewhat related but distinctly different debate.

 

I am saying that among the fields of NFL draft evaluation and mathematics, growth potential theories and simple arithmetic are both entry level topics in regards to their respective fields. It has nothing to do with the accuracy or predictability of each field compared to another. 

 

Regardless, I've made my point a dozen times now and the people who have a solid grasp of logic understand my point perfectly...and I guess that's the best I can hope for. Not much more is being brought up about Murray so I will attempt to let this thread die its merciful death. 

---

It's not complicated. Players with less experience have more potential room for growth. It's why Matt Jones was a first round pick. Players with more experience are a fairly known commodity. It doesn't always ring true, but a raw player should improve more quickly than an experienced one.


So in practice, in this instance for example, Aaron Murray is a miles better quarterback than Savage. Savage is likely to go higher because he has more physical talent and is relatively inexperienced. Or if you had two equal prospects and one has a lot of experience and the other is raw, you would likely take the raw player.

 

I dont agree with your last statement.  If you had two Andrew Luck type prospects but the only difference being one had 3 years of starting experience while the other one only had one year, the guy with the 3 years experience would be drafted first.  You can feel safer that he isnt a flash in the pan or a one year wonder.  Matt Jones wasnt drafted in the first round because he was inexperienced.  He was drafted in the first round because he had rare elite measurables.  If you had the same prospect with the same measurables but 3 years of productive experience at the WR position, he would have gone much higher... heck he would have been Calvin Johnson.

 

Savage and Murray is a different case.  Even if Savage had the same, but less productive, experience as Murray, he'd probably go higher.  Why?  Because he has the required skillset necessary to be a pro QB while Murray does not.  

---

________________________________________________
Scouting well is all that matters.  Draft philosophy is all fluff.

No, understanding how to use growth potential to evaluate players is the one of the very most basic concepts of being evaluating. It is the equivalent of basic arithmetic to the entire field of mathematics. 

 

And understanding growth potential doesn't make you any more of a GM than knowing how to add or do your multiplication tables makes you a physicist.

You continu to use these big words to make yourself look smarter, yet when asked to give a breakdown you freeze. Why is that? I can give a detailed breakdown of my top ten qb's, how about you?2+2=4 will not cut it, neither will stock options! Details please, I'm sick of you treating people like idiots on here.

---

 overall team record for the talent UGA has had.

That's a coaching problem, not a qb problem.  

---

Fix the O-Line!

There's not a single QB in this draft I would say that about.  Finding our franchise QB is a process that's probably going to take longer than 2014.

No doubt.  The question for this year is: can we get better at the qb?   Yes we can.  I think as many as 8 of the top qbs this year will be better than what we currently have.

---

Fix the O-Line!

I dont agree with your last statement.  If you had two Andrew Luck type prospects but the only difference being one had 3 years of starting experience while the other one only had one year, the guy with the 3 years experience would be drafted first.  You can feel safer that he isnt a flash in the pan or a one year wonder.  Matt Jones wasnt drafted in the first round because he was inexperienced.  He was drafted in the first round because he had rare elite measurables.  If you had the same prospect with the same measurables but 3 years of productive experience at the WR position, he would have gone much higher... heck he would have been Calvin Johnson.

 

Savage and Murray is a different case.  Even if Savage had the same, but less productive, experience as Murray, he'd probably go higher.  Why?  Because he has the required skillset necessary to be a pro QB while Murray does not.  

 

I don't like your Andrew Luck example.  If you have 2 elite prospects then there isn't going to be a whole lot of improvement needed to be seen.  They are already at the top.  You'd probably go with the safer pick in that instance.

 

If you have 2 mid round pass rushers and they both have the same talent and both put up mediocre numbers at best.  One is a 5th year senior with 4 years of experience.  The other just walked on and has one year of college football experience.  Most would rather go with the upside of the less experienced player.

 

If Matt Jones had played receiver in college for 2 or 3 years and showed what he showed in his workouts then he wouldn't have been a 1st round pick.

---

That's a coaching problem, not a qb problem.  

 

I don't completely disagree.  It's a both problem.

---