Why all the sudden reliance on this QB "RULE"?

[THATHURMANATOR]

I am sure there are tons of QBs that are good that didn't follow it. Just another useless thing if you ask me.

[Nighthawk]

I am sure there are tons of QBs that are good that didn't follow it. Just another useless thing if you ask me.

It's just another way for people to try and act like that have some way of predicting if a QB will be successful in the NFL, when there is absolutely no way to tell for sure.

[DraftBoy]

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.

[Nighthawk]

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.

Still doesn't make it correct or nearly a great predictor of success. Scouts are like Weathermen...sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

[BuffaloBlitz83]

The rule is as important as the hand size

[THATHURMANATOR]

It's just another way for people to try and act like that have some way of predicting if a QB will be successful in the NFL, when there is absolutely no way to tell for sure.
I agree. WORTHLESS.

[Dr. Lecter]

The rule is an idicator of who will NOT work out much more than it is an indicator of who WILL work out.

It is not hard and fast, but its historical data is pretty solid.

[ddaryl]

I am sure there are tons of QBs that are good that didn't follow it. Just another useless thing if you ask me.
Name all the 1st rd drafted QB successes that did not pass the rule

compare that list to those that did...


now look a that percentage for success


It's not a guarantee, but it is a way of reducing the odds of failure.

but before you discount the rule research for yourself and then post your findings.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.
What math is there to be done? How would I "do the math"?

[THATHURMANATOR]

I also am not saying that it isn't a somewhat helpful tool to use as a guide but people are acting like it is gospel....

[Dr. Lecter]

I agree. WORTHLESS.



I also am not saying that it isn't a somewhat helpful tool to use as a guide but people are acting like it is gospel....


Ok.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Name all the 1st rd drafted QB successes that did not pass the rule

compare that list to those that did...


now look a that percentage for success


It's not a guarantee, but it is a way of reducing the odds of failure.

but before you discount the rule research for yourself and then post your findings.
Name all the failures.... How could I? How do I obtain college win loss records? Who has that time to waste?

[jamze132]

There should be a rule about how worthless someones post is.

[ddaryl]

Name all the failures.... How could I? How do I obtain college win loss records? Who has that time to waste?


Then how do you know the rule is unreliable ?

there are some links to some info in my sig. That's a good place to start

[Nighthawk]

I also am not saying that it isn't a somewhat helpful tool to use as a guide but people are acting like it is gospel....

And therein is the issue...

[THATHURMANATOR]

Ok.
Just saying that people who probably didn't know the rule existed 2 weeks ago are using it like gospel!.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Then how do you know the rule is unreliable ?

there are some links to some info in my sig. That's a good place to start
IT ISN'T GOSPEL!!!

[Dr. Lecter]

There should be a rule about how worthless someones post is.


I use this rule (http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/search.php?searchid=1517176) when deciding a post is worthless.

[Nighthawk]

The major reason people use is it is to justify why they don't want a guy drafted, just so that the guy they do want makes more "sense".

[THATHURMANATOR]

There should be a rule about how worthless someones post is.
Don't get bent out of shape because you live by the "rule"

[Prov401]

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.

Half the league that starts in the NFL right now wouldn't pass the 'rule'

There is no rule. Stop saying there's a rule. It's a bunch of silly talk. Roethlisberger and Brady could have 6 rings between them this weekend. Flacco and Sanchez have both been the the title game already. I can care less how good their teams were, Sanchez had a QB rating over 100 in the playoffs this year. And there was talk of Vick being an MVP this year. Bledsoe threw for 45,000 yards in his career, and won 2 AFC Championships. Those are just QB's off the top of my head that don't pass the 'rule'. And a couple more 'exceptions' were playing in the playoffs this year, (Cassell, Hassellbeck).

[THATHURMANATOR]

Half the league that starts in the NFL right now wouldn't pass the 'rule'

There is no rule. Stop saying there's a rule. It's a bunch of silly talk. Roethlisberger and Brady could have 6 rings between them this weekend. Flacco and Sanchez have both been the the title game already. I can care less how good their teams were, Sanchez had a QB rating over 100 in the playoffs this year. And there was talk of Vick being an MVP this year. Bledsoe threw for 45,000 yards in his career, and won 2 AFC Championships. Those are just QB's off the top of my head that don't pass the 'rule'. And a couple more 'exceptions' were playing in the playoffs this year, (Cassell, Hassellbeck).
AMEN BROTHER!

[Prov401]

Throw Jay Cutler in there too.

[Beebe's Kid]

I am sure there are tons of QBs that are good that didn't follow it. Just another useless thing if you ask me.

I don't think there is a sudden reliance on the "rule."

It seems more like there is a direct correlation to the rule, and success in the NFL.

The number of high draft picks that didn't fall within the parameters of the "rule" that turned out to be busts, is evidence enough for me that there a lot of people that think it is just another useless tool to predict something that cannot be predicted.

Obviously people try to prove the "rule" wrong, almost every year. It doesn't seem to be working too well. I don't think it is really as much of a "rule" as people are trying to make it seem. What it is, however, is pretty ****ing accurate.

If people don't want to think there is any correlation, because they want a QB that bad...they aren't alone. Of course, they aren't correct either, but that is secondary if you really, really want a QB.

The best statistic associated with the "rule," is that Fitzy meets all of the criteria....and we all "know" he is just a backup.

I would rather draft some guy and wait for him to stink it up for 3 years while adapting the the league/our system, then hopefully prove to be the exception to the "rule," instead of see if Fitzy shows drastic improvement this year. He is definitely trending upward, and our offensive line went from the worst ever to serviceable between weeks 2 and 3. All of this stuff is only important if you don't "know" we need a new QB. If you "know" that, there is not a whole lot of convincing to be done.

The problem is that teams that have "Franchise QB's" all had to show patience. That is something that our team and fanbase has lacked. Many still want the "next Jim Kelly." I think it is time to come to terms with the fact there was only one. We will have another QB that will be a strong leader, in fact we might have him now, but if you want him to be Jim, you'll miss him when he shows up.

Everyday, I read, or hear that "We all know Fitzpatrick isn't the answer..." Well, I don't know that. I am slower than most, but I don't know that, and I won't pretend I do so I fit into the conversation.

I'm glad that we will have at least one more year for him to prove himself. If he flames out, he flames out, but I'm not going to bet against him. If you want to bet against the "rule," go ahead...you're not alone, there are a lot of people that think they outsmarted the rule.

[ddaryl]

IT ISN'T GOSPEL!!!

no it is not, but I wouldn't bet against it. That's the whole concept of reducing the odds of failure. The rule proves to be right much more then wrong

and when you consider how a wrong 1st rd pick can set a franchise back do you want to roll those dice.... or do you place your bets on a pick that fits the rule and has a much higher chance at success?

[ddaryl]

Half the league that starts in the NFL right now wouldn't pass the 'rule'

There is no rule. Stop saying there's a rule. It's a bunch of silly talk. Roethlisberger and Brady could have 6 rings between them this weekend. Flacco and Sanchez have both been the the title game already. I can care less how good their teams were, Sanchez had a QB rating over 100 in the playoffs this year. And there was talk of Vick being an MVP this year. Bledsoe threw for 45,000 yards in his career, and won 2 AFC Championships. Those are just QB's off the top of my head that don't pass the 'rule'. And a couple more 'exceptions' were playing in the playoffs this year, (Cassell, Hassellbeck).

in regards to 1st rd QB;'s the rule is damn close to golden !!!

Brady was not a 1st rd draft pick

and Ben missed the rule by 1 wonderlic point.. Arguably close enough .


I have no problems with picking up a latter rd QB to groom... just not reaching for a QB in this draft @ #3

[THATHURMANATOR]

I don't think there is a sudden reliance on the "rule."

It seems more like there is a direct correlation to the rule, and success in the NFL.

The number of high draft picks that didn't fall within the parameters of the "rule" that turned out to be busts, is evidence enough for me that there a lot of people that think it is just another useless tool to predict something that cannot be predicted.

Obviously people try to prove the "rule" wrong, almost every year. It doesn't seem to be working too well. I don't think it is really as much of a "rule" as people are trying to make it seem. What it is, however, is pretty ****ing accurate.

If people don't want to think there is any correlation, because they want a QB that bad...they aren't alone. Of course, they aren't correct either, but that is secondary if you really, really want a QB.

The best statistic associated with the "rule," is that Fitzy meets all of the criteria....and we all "know" he is just a backup.

I would rather draft some guy and wait for him to stink it up for 3 years while adapting the the league/our system, then hopefully prove to be the exception to the "rule," instead of see if Fitzy shows drastic improvement this year. He is definitely trending upward, and our offensive line went from the worst ever to serviceable between weeks 2 and 3. All of this stuff is only important if you don't "know" we need a new QB. If you "know" that, there is not a whole lot of convincing to be done.

The problem is that teams that have "Franchise QB's" all had to show patience. That is something that our team and fanbase has lacked. Many still want the "next Jim Kelly." I think it is time to come to terms with the fact there was only one. We will have another QB that will be a strong leader, in fact we might have him now, but if you want him to be Jim, you'll miss him when he shows up.

Everyday, I read, or hear that "We all know Fitzpatrick isn't the answer..." Well, I don't know that. I am slower than most, but I don't know that, and I won't pretend I do so I fit into the conversation.

I'm glad that we will have at least one more year for him to prove himself. If he flames out, he flames out, but I'm not going to bet against him. If you want to bet against the "rule," go ahead...you're not alone, there are a lot of people that think they outsmarted the rule.
Its not that it is a new rule, it is that people have recently found out about it and are overusing it....

[Dr. Lecter]

in regards to 1st rd QB;'s the rule is damn close to golden !!!

Brady was not a 1st rd draft pick

and Ben missed the rule by 1 wonderlic point.. Arguably close enough .
And Ponder by one win.

[X-Era]

It's fine, both Gabbert and Newton pass the "rule".

[Nighthawk]

Doesn't the rule include having a 60% completion percentage? If so, Fitz fails...

And I'm going by his most recent body of work...you know, the NFL stuff!

[THATHURMANATOR]

It's fine, both Gabbert and Newton pass the "rule".
How could they?

[X-Era]

How could they?Both have over 25 starts and over 60% completion percentages for their careers.

[Prov401]

in regards to 1st rd QB;'s the rule is damn close to golden !!!

Brady was not a 1st rd draft pick

and Ben missed the rule by 1 wonderlic point.. Arguably close enough .

Bledsoe, Vick, Ben, Cutler, Flacco, and Sanchez are all 1st round QB's.

All started in the post season this year (obviously except Drew).

If there is talent in any QB entering the draft, it will be seen.

I have no f'ng idea why guys like Russell, Young, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington etc. were picked so high. I wouldn't say O!, they didn't pass the rule! Don't draft those guys!.. I would just say the teams that took these guys were absolutely desperate, and carelessly added to the legacy of this stupid 'rule'.

Because I definitely wouldn't of drafted those bums.

Oh, throw Favre and Mcnabb in there as well. And if they had the wonderlic back then, I'm damn sure Terry Bradshaw wouldn't of passed, so throw him in there too.

It's simple. If you recognize talent, and draft talent, the 'it' factor will be there.

[Prov401]

Both have over 25 starts and over 60% completion percentages for their careers.

They haven't taken the wonderlic yet. They haven't passed the 'rule' yet.

[X-Era]

They haven't taken the wonderlic yet. They haven't passed the 'rule' yet.OK, so far. Then none of the prospects have either.

[ddaryl]

It's fine, both Gabbert and Newton pass the "rule".

actually Newton does not even come close. He started way less then 27 games in college.

Gabbert does so far we need to see his wonderlic score

[BuffaloBlitz83]

Spiller scored a 10 on wonderlic

Marino and Bradshaw had brutal 15 wonderlic's too. It is all BS

[Prov401]

OK, so far. Then none of the prospects have either.

I never said any of them did.

[X-Era]

actually Newton does not even come close. He started way less then 27 games in college.

Gabbert does so far we need to see his wonderlic scoreNot if you include Blinn.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Not if you include Blinn.
As you clearly should.

[ddaryl]

Bledsoe, Vick, Ben, Cutler, Flacco, and Sanchez are all 1st round QB's.

All started in the post season this year (obviously except Drew).

If there is talent in any QB entering the draft, it will be seen.

I have no f'ng idea why guys like Russell, Young, Akili Smith, Joey Harrington etc. were picked so high. I wouldn't say O!, they didn't pass the rule! Don't draft those guys!.. I would just say the teams that took these guys were absolutely desperate, and carelessly added to the legacy of this stupid 'rule'.

Because I definitely wouldn't of drafted those bums.

Oh, throw Favre and Mcnabb in there as well. And if they had the wonderlic back then, I'm damn sure Terry Bradshaw wouldn't of passed, so throw him in there too.

It's simple. If you recognize talent, and draft talent, the 'it' factor will be there.



are we looking for a functioning QB or are we looking for a future HOF'er, SB leader QB stud at #3.

I sure hope we wouldn't be wasting our #3 pick on a mere functioning QB.

Because if we are only looking for a functioning QB I think we already have one and need to look no further.

recognize talent ? You mean all those 1st rd QB busts by a multitude of teams over the years was a mere case of not being able to recognize talent ?

The rule is a way to reduce the odds of a 1st rd bust at QB, and yes there are exceptions but the exceptions are a very small percentage compared to the flops.

I just do not see any reason to reach for a QB in this draft at #3.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Also What is the "RULE" exactly? Is it WINS or just GAMES STARTED.....?

[ddaryl]

Also What is the "RULE" exactly? Is it WINS or just GAMES STARTED.....?
Games started

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/john_lopez/07/08/qb.rule/index.html

[Prov401]

are we looking for a functioning QB or are we looking for a future HOF'er, SB leader QB stud at #3.

I sure hope we wouldn't be wasting our #3 pick on a mere functioning QB.

Because if we are only looking for a functioning QB I think we already have one and need to look no further.

recognize talent ? You mean all those 1st rd QB busts by a multitude of teams over the years was a mere case of not being able to recognize talent ?

The rule is a way to reduce the odds of a 1st rd bust at QB, and yes there are exceptions but the exceptions are a very small percentage compared to the flops.

I just do not see any reason to reach for a QB in this draft at #3.

Of course you look for the franchise guy. But how many times are those guys around? Not often.

At our pick last year, there was no franchise QB available, and I was heavy set against drafting Clausen or McCoy. The only guy that was franchise material last year was Bradford, and we couldn't get him.

The last franchise QB to come out where we had a realistic shot at drafting him was Ben. And I was begging for us to get him, and was pissed when Pitt took him. I wasn't at home checking wonderlic scores going,.. Oh.. oh,.... damn.. he doesn't pass the 'rule', can't draft him. I saw he was a big, strong, talented QB with great pocket awareness. That's why I wanted him.

It's not hard to recognize talent, it really isn't. People should stop breaking it down into a science because it's ridiculous. There is not one QB this year I would take a chance on at #3. And next year, we aren't going to get Luck. So we are probably going to end up taking a serviceable guy, which is why I'm fine with Fitz.

Franchise QB's come around once every 4-5 years. If your team sucks bad, and drafts number 1 or 2, you get him. If not, your stuck with the serviceable guys, unless you get lucky and find a crop of 2004 QB's which isn't happening anytime soon.

[trapezeus]

for us fans, it's all we got. we don't get to do the interview and see what kind of person they are. we have the games we've watched and the stats sheets.

i'm guessing getting to know someone and figuring out what is BS vs what is the truth for guys who are going to be thrown a lot of money early is the major reason to see if guys will suck or not. in the back rounds, they all want to play. it's their dream. they just don't necessarily have the talent. it's easier for scouts to find a position and a late round guy who just needs to adapt to a couple things. they aren't paid crazy money, they aren't guaranteed to make the team, and if they do, one stupid play will get them kicked off.

the early 2 rounds is all mental make up of the applicant, i think.

[ddaryl]

It's not hard to recognize talent, it really isn't.
.


Well I agree with a lot you said accept the quote above.

If this was true then why are there so many 1st rd misses drafted.


People should stop breaking it down into a science because it's ridiculous. There is not one QB this year I would take a chance on at #3. And next year, we aren't going to get Luck. So we are probably going to end up taking a serviceable guy, which is why I'm fine with Fitz.


It is a science... There are always anomalies but the science of reducing the odds of failure is justified in all fields. Especially when 10's of million sand an entire franchises future depends upon you selecting correctly.


and I'm OK with drafting a QB in latter rounds but I very much agree reaching for one at #3 is ludicrous.

I would be very OK with trading back a few slots getting that extra pick and taking a chance on one of the top QB's if it leaves us extra picks to fill some of the holes in the rest of the team, but to just reach at #3 doesn't make much sense to me.

[DraftBoy]

Still doesn't make it correct or nearly a great predictor of success. Scouts are like Weathermen...sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong.

Have you done the math/research to see if actually works or doesnt?

And before you even ask, yes I have.

[DraftBoy]

Half the league that starts in the NFL right now wouldn't pass the 'rule'

There is no rule. Stop saying there's a rule. It's a bunch of silly talk. Roethlisberger and Brady could have 6 rings between them this weekend. Flacco and Sanchez have both been the the title game already. I can care less how good their teams were, Sanchez had a QB rating over 100 in the playoffs this year. And there was talk of Vick being an MVP this year. Bledsoe threw for 45,000 yards in his career, and won 2 AFC Championships. Those are just QB's off the top of my head that don't pass the 'rule'. And a couple more 'exceptions' were playing in the playoffs this year, (Cassell, Hassellbeck).

Did I say there was a rule?

[DraftBoy]

What math is there to be done? How would I "do the math"?

Poor choice of words, I meant research.

[Prov401]

Did I say there was a rule?

Yes you did.

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.


Your implying a presence of the 'rule' right there. And your certainly on the side of the 'rule'.

[Prov401]

Well I agree with a lot you said accept the quote above.

If this was true then why are there so many 1st rd misses drafted.




It is a science... There are always anomalies but the science of reducing the odds of failure is justified in all fields. Especially when 10's of million sand an entire franchises future depends upon you selecting correctly.


and I'm OK with drafting a QB in latter rounds but I very much agree reaching for one at #3 is ludicrous.

I would be very OK with trading back a few slots getting that extra pick and taking a chance on one of the top QB's if it leaves us extra picks to fill some of the holes in the rest of the team, but to just reach at #3 doesn't make much sense to me.

I'll clarify a little bit. When I said it wasn't hard to recognize talent, I meant QB's in the first round. I agree that it is a difficult task in the draft overall, and busts prove that.

But I mean, when was the last time you saw a highly touted QB come out of college that was supposed to be a franchise QB and didn't deliver? It's easy to pick a QB because it's a need on a team. But really. Did anybody think Tim Couch was really going to tear it up in the NFL? And I'm positive that everybody laughed their ass off when the Raiders drafted Russell.

You knew you had something with Manning, Bledsoe, Rivers, E. Manning, Ben, Palmer, etc. These guys had 'it'. Some teams just reach because it's a need.

For the record, the only QB's I can see making a major impact on a team in this year's draft are Newton and Mallett. Mallett needs a bit more polishing, and is not a 1st round talent IMO, but a team will reach for him anyways. I think the sky's the limit for Newton, but too risky at 3. JMO

[DraftBoy]

Yes you did.

Do the math on the rule and see what you come up with. I know NFL scouts who follow it without exception.


Your implying a presence of the 'rule' right there. And your certainly on the side of the 'rule'.

No I used the wording the thread author did, to change it would be stupid since nobody would know what I was talking about.

You could ask if I buy the rule or not, before jumping to such broad conclusions.

[mikemac2001]

Steve brule says it it must be true

Also if u haven't seen it might not make sense YouTube it

http://www.freepresshouston.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/brule-11.jpg

[ddaryl]

You knew you had something with Manning, Bledsoe, Rivers, E. Manning, Ben, Palmer, etc. These guys had 'it'. Some teams just reach because it's a need.



Still Indianapolis gave serious thought to Leaf before picking.


Both Mannings, Rivers, were rule tested. Ben missed the rule by 1 woderlic point.

Palmer has marginal success but barely missed the 60% comp mark

Bledsoe was an underclassmen who had marginal success. He missed the 60 % completion mark.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Poor choice of words, I meant research.
Got you.

[THATHURMANATOR]

Steve brule says it it must be true

Also if u haven't seen it might not make sense YouTube it

http://www.freepresshouston.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/brule-11.jpg
This made me LOL

[Prov401]

Still Indianapolis gave serious thought to Leaf before picking.


Both Mannings, Rivers, were rule tested. Ben missed the rule by 1 woderlic point.

Palmer has marginal success but barely missed the 60% comp mark

Bledsoe was an underclassmen who had marginal success. He missed the 60 % completion mark.

My point is, I wouldn't even need to know about a 'rule' to draft those guys. Franchise QB's have 'it' regardless.

[X-Era]

Anybody else notice in the link that 3 of the 4 starting QB's in the championship games this year don't fit the rule and Aaron Rogers isn't even mentioned?

Roeth, Sanchez, Cutler.

[Nighthawk]

Anybody else notice in the link that 3 of the 4 starting QB's in the championship games this year don't fit the rule and Aaron Rogers isn't even mentioned?

Roeth, Sanchez, Cutler.

Yeah...but, but, but...the rule states....

[X-Era]

Yeah...but, but, but...the rule states....Aaron only started for two years at Cal and before that played at a junior college, Butte community, but that doesn't apparently count.

So Rodgers had a total of 28 starts, and had 63.8% completion, and had a 35.6 wonderlic score. He was also drafted as a junior in 05.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Rodgers#College_career_statistics
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/wonderlic-scores-of-2010-nfl-starting-quarterbacks-and-339905.html

[Nighthawk]

Aaron only started for two years at Cal and before that played at a junior college, Butte community, but that doesn't apparently count.

So Rodgers had a total of 28 starts, and had 63.8% completion, and had a 35.6 wonderlic score. He was also drafted as a junior in 05.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Rodgers#College_career_statistics
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/sports/wonderlic-scores-of-2010-nfl-starting-quarterbacks-and-339905.html

Like I said, it's a silly system that proves nothing...

[X-Era]

14% that don't meet the rule have been successfull in the NFL.

Since Brady was drafted in 2000, only 3% of the QB's outside of round 1 have taken their team to the playoffs as a starter (more than 8 starts in the regular season)... It's Drew Brees (taken at 32 overall which is a 1st rounder now), David Garrard, and this years Matt Cassel.

To me that's a much more significant number.

[mrbojanglezs]

the results are quite telling, sure there are always outliers but generally its a good theory def not worthless