The NFL draft is next weekend. Generally, I think, the scouting and drafting process is very good at ranking the talent by position, except one: quarterback.
Am I off base on this? Is the scouting process markedly worse at evaluating QB talent?
Look at the last Super Bowl. Any team could've had Kurt Warner. Any team could've had low draft pick Tom Brady. Brett Favre wasn't a first rounder either. Those are probably your three top QB's in the NFL right now.
David Carr and Joey Harrington are sure-thing lottery picks ... but isn't one of them doomed to be Ryan Leaf to the others' Peyton Manning? One's going to be Rick Mirer to the others' Drew Bledsoe?And 10 years from now, isn't the star QB of the Class of 2002 just as likely to be some undrafted stud from East Carolina or Western Washingon?
In other words, why can't teams judge and draft QB's with the same effectiveness as they do other positions on the field? What's the problem? Or is it that we notice the bust QB's more than a bust defensive lineman?

maybe it's just a numbers thing. a linebacker who runs a 4.5 and does 25 reps at 225 is probably gonna' have a successful career. they add this into his college performance and have a pretty complete picture.

forty times and bench presses and things that are easily quantifiable are not as relevant in judging qb's...and once the scouts have to go on opinion and stuff, they are more apt to make mistakes, i think.

[quote]Originally posted by Charlie in the Trees:
.... why can't teams judge and draft QB's with the same effectiveness as they do other positions on the field? What's the problem?

---

I honestly don't think it's the scouting and evaluation. As an example, I heard an NFL scout being interviewed about the first time he watched David Carr as a sophomore - evaluating his mechanics and overall skills, the scout wrote in his notebook something like "barring injury, this is a first-rounf draft pick". Scouts are omnipresent and, with easy access to video of pretty much every play the QB will ever be involved in, comprehensive analysis is almost a given.

I'd point to a intangible factor: the propensity of a team owner to take a hands-on approach when a quarterback pick is involved.

The huge size of the eventual contract is a big part of it. The owner probably feels better able (in his/her mind) to judge a QB's pro potential than he would, say, a strong safety or defensive end (too technical, that's why he pays the scouts and the boys in the War Room). After all, a rifle arm and fitting the NFL 6'4,220 "prototype" are pretty easy for even the less intellectual owners to figure out.

Moreover, the QB is, in many ways, going to be the "face" of the team (from PR and community works standpoints). With personal chemistry so important, judgments based purely on football/athletic issues can easily slide down the evaluation priority list.

Taken at its worst, an owner "smitten" by the charms of a personable prospect can choose to ignore glaring or hidden problems and overrule his GM and head coach (and even a team psychologist)!

I'd mention Alex Spanos by name, but he was double-bamboozled by BOTH Cryin' Leaf AND Beathard.

And the other exception is Jerry Jones, for obvious reasons.

Edited for clarity and typos

[ April 13, 2002: Message edited by: Wurm ]