What Does it Take for a College Player to Have Success at the NFL Level?

HD MM

SatelliteGuys Master
Original poster
Nov 2, 2006
15,837
2
Believeland, Ohio
Here's an honest question...

What really separates a QB like Mark Sanchez from an undrafted QB like Graham Harrell? Is it God given ability, is it a skill set learned in college and how does this translate to success on the NFL level?

Looking at two of the most successful QB's from last year, I'd like to compare Mark Sanchez from USC to Graham Harrell of Texas Tech.

Mark was drafted #5 overall and Graham was not drafted at all. Looking at their collegiate career, you wouldn't have thought there would be such a disparity in their projected abilities at the next level.

Both are 6'3" tall and 200+ lbs. Both have the body to take a blow at the NFL level.

Both Mark and Graham had an amazingly similar QB passer rating of 160.00+. Both also had a completion percentage of at least 65%.

Graham is a year older (23) and has had over 3 years worth of starting experience. Mark is a year younger (22) and has had only 1 year worth of starting experience.

Where do the talent levels of these two become so vastly different? Is it because USC had a more traditional offense that resembled schemes in the NFL? Is it because the Big 12 is like playing against the computer on easy mode?

If both of these QB's have basically the same body type, arm strength and ability to throw the ball with precise acuracy, is it just a difference of one being more educated on X's and O's? If that's the case, why can't Graham Harrell sit on an NFL bench for a few years and be taught the pro-system just as all the other "pro-ready" college QB's have done during their collegiate career? Why are these "system" type QB's written off as a lost cause and not even being drafted?

I want answers people. Help me figure this out....
 
I really don't understand why Harrell wasn't drafted. I mean I was actually shocked that he didn't get drafted by someone at some point in the draft.
 
There seems to be a little bit of prejudice against spread QB's. I don't understand it. It can't be that hard to learn how to drop back instead of throwing from the shotgun. Spread QB's are generally pretty durable if they survived all the hits they took in college, I would call that a plus. I don't get it.
 
The spread offense is just not used in the NFL, just like the option never was. NFL teams don't want to waste their time with guys who put up huge numbers in college throwing 60 times a game. What NFL teams look for are specific skills that work in the NFL. Harrell has no business playing in the NFL, although neither does Josh Freeman but he got taken in the 1st round. Go figure. I'm not sure how good Sanchez will be but I'd take a Matt Ryan, who played in a pro offense in college, any day of the week over these guys who play in gimmicky offenses.
 
Look at the Starting QB's in the NFL right now.....there are quite a few who where not 1st round picks:

NFC:
Seattle-Hasselbeck
Arizona-Warner
San Fran-Hill
St. Louis-Bulger
Minnesota-Jackson
Dallas-Romo
New Orleans-Brees
Carolina-Delhomme

AFC:
Denver-Orton
Kansas City-Cassel
Houston-Schaub
Jacksonville-Gerard
Miami-Pennington
New England-Brady
Cleveland-Anderson


That's half the league...and if you factor in Tampa with Garcia and Detroit with Kitna from last year it's even higher.

The NFL is just as guilty as the NBA in drafting players purely on "Potential" or "Skillset" rather on what they actually accomplished on the field and translating that in the NFL.
 
The spread offense is just not used in the NFL, just like the option never was. NFL teams don't want to waste their time with guys who put up huge numbers in college throwing 60 times a game. What NFL teams look for are specific skills that work in the NFL. Harrell has no business playing in the NFL, although neither does Josh Freeman but he got taken in the 1st round. Go figure. I'm not sure how good Sanchez will be but I'd take a Matt Ryan, who played in a pro offense in college, any day of the week over these guys who play in gimmicky offenses.

Not to mention the fact that you somewhat cheat the defense a bit by playing in the spread. I read somewhere that some defensive coaches and QB coaches have said you almost get an additional 2 seconds of throwing time with that spread defense....that is an eternity! You will not see that in the NFL much and the defenses are so much more faster there, I think the coaches just refuse to use it much. Last time this spread was done alot was the Buffallo Bills of the early 90s with Jim Kelly. I was VERY surprised the league did not go that route after all the success they had with it. Especially, since the NFL is the most copycat league of all the professional sports leagues.
 
The NFL is just as guilty as the NBA in drafting players purely on "Potential" or "Skillset" rather on what they actually accomplished on the field and translating that in the NFL.
Which is why the NFL needs to implement the Rookie Salary Scale the way the NBA did.
That way the player can prove themselves those 1st two years before negotiating a bigger salary based on their skills.
 
The spread offense is just not used in the NFL, just like the option never was. NFL teams don't want to waste their time with guys who put up huge numbers in college throwing 60 times a game. What NFL teams look for are specific skills that work in the NFL. Harrell has no business playing in the NFL, although neither does Josh Freeman but he got taken in the 1st round. Go figure. I'm not sure how good Sanchez will be but I'd take a Matt Ryan, who played in a pro offense in college, any day of the week over these guys who play in gimmicky offenses.

So, because certain QB's are part of a system that is different from the Pro-Level, then that QB will never have success? Sounds a bit extreme. If it's just an X's & O's thing, why can't the player be taught the system?

If the QB already has the other intangibles, such as arm strength, the ability to make defensive reads, the ability to throw the ball accurately and the ability to take a hit, it seems as if learning a new playbook doesn't seem like such an insurmountable obstacle to overcome.
 
Which is why the NFL needs to implement the Rookie Salary Scale the way the NBA did.
That way the player can prove themselves those 1st two years before negotiating a bigger salary based on their skills.

The Lion's are proof of that. I can't believe what they are paying Stafford. This is more indication that the Lion's are idiots. All that pre-draft posturing with Curry, trying to get a lower financial agreement, and they make this kid the highest paid player in NFL history (guaranteed money). How did they F*%K that up?
 
So, because certain QB's are part of a system that is different from the Pro-Level, then that QB will never have success? Sounds a bit extreme. If it's just an X's & O's thing, why can't the player be taught the system?

If the QB already has the other intangibles, such as arm strength, the ability to make defensive reads, the ability to throw the ball accurately and the ability to take a hit, it seems as if learning a new playbook doesn't seem like such an insurmountable obstacle to overcome.
It's more than X's and O's. I heard Ron Jaworski talking about it. He said that most QB's in spread offenses play out of the shotgun most of the time while most NFL teams play under center. It doesn't sound like a big difference, but it is. The spread QB's lack the footwork to drop back properly and they don't know how to read a defense right. That spells disaster. Plus a lot of these guys don't have strong arms. Spread QB's can lollipop the ball downfield because receivers are usually wide open. In the NFL you have to be able to throw it on a rope every time. NFL teams want guys who already have the ability to do that. That's why so many guys from small, obscure schools make it in the NFL. As long as you have the right skills NFL teams don't care if you never played in the BCS.
 
What is so hard about "dropping back?" I think Ander's argument about arm strength is the most valid.

Back to my original 2 subjects.

Graham Harrell and Mark Sanchez have the exact same build. Both 6'3". Both 200+ lbs. Both have shown that they can sling the ball down field with ease.

I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just curious as to what the big deciding factor is that separates the two.
 
What is so hard about "dropping back?" I think Ander's argument about arm strength is the most valid.
You wouldn't think it's that complicated, but it is. In the shotgun the QB has the luxury of being able to see the whole field immediately. When you drop back you can't see the whole field while you're moving and you only have a few seconds before the pass rush gets to you. This means you have to read a defense quicker and make quicker decisions. If guys aren't used to that they're more likely to panic and run or just chuck it downfield where it'll get intercepted. It takes some balls to be able to stand in the pocket and step into a throw while Ray Lewis is bearing down on you. Spread QB's generally don't face much in the way of a pass rush so they are more likely to make bad decisions.
 
Back to my original 2 subjects.

Graham Harrell and Mark Sanchez have the exact same build. Both 6'3". Both 200+ lbs. Both have shown that they can sling the ball down field with ease.

I'm not arguing for or against. I'm just curious as to what the big deciding factor is that separates the two.
Sanchez played in a pro offense at USC. Harrell played a flag football offense at Texas Tech. Their size and build are irrelevant.
 
Sanchez played in a pro offense at USC. Harrell played a flag football offense at Texas Tech. Their size and build are irrelevant.

But Sanchez was at USC for only 3 years. He started only 1 year.

A lot of NFL teams like to groom their young QB's by easing them into the pro game by having them sit the bench, learn and absorb everything for a few years anyways. Couldn't this be the time that a lesser experienced college QB learn too?
 
But Sanchez was at USC for only 3 years. He started only 1 year.

A lot of NFL teams like to groom their young QB's by easing them into the pro game by having them sit the bench, learn and absorb everything for a few years anyways. Couldn't this be the time that a lesser experienced college QB learn too?
I guess you could do that, but you'd have to really believe in a guy. If a QB has a weak arm no amount of grooming will do. There's more than enough bad QB's in the NFL as it is. I have no idea why the Vikings keep grooming Tavaris Jackson or why people keep saying that Kellen Clemmens is supposed to be good.
 
You wouldn't think it's that complicated, but it is. In the shotgun the QB has the luxury of being able to see the whole field immediately. When you drop back you can't see the whole field while you're moving and you only have a few seconds before the pass rush gets to you. This means you have to read a defense quicker and make quicker decisions. If guys aren't used to that they're more likely to panic and run or just chuck it downfield where it'll get intercepted. It takes some balls to be able to stand in the pocket and step into a throw while Ray Lewis is bearing down on you. Spread QB's generally don't face much in the way of a pass rush so they are more likely to make bad decisions.

You didn't see MICHIGAN last season.:(
 
You didn't see MICHIGAN last season.:(
LOL. I was referring to good spread offenses. Obviously when you try to run the spread with 3 yards and a cloud of dust players you're gonna struggle. Imagine what that offense would be like with a basketball player at QB. :D
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 0, Members: 0, Guests: 0)

Who Read This Thread (Total Members: 1)

Top