NFL scouts on Brady and Romo

Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
286
Location
Illinois
Once ignored, now stars
Why NFL scouts thought so little of Romo, Brady

October 14, 2007

As they prepare to play one another Sunday in Dallas, neither the Patriots nor the Cowboys would be 5-0 if each had not benefited from the mistakes of other teams.

NFL teams made 198 selections in the 2000 draft before the Patriots chose Tom Brady in the sixth round.

No team picked Tony Romo three years later. He signed with Dallas as a free agent.

Now that Brady and Romo have become arguably two of the three best quarterbacks in football, it seems hard to believe so many skilled evaluators whiffed on them. The Tribune asked three front-office men where they had gone wrong.

The first mistake scouts made -- and it's a mistake they have made over and over again and probably will continue to make as long as they put their eyes to binoculars -- was overrating arm strength. Neither player was judged to have a strong enough arm. Neither was a "prototype" quarterback.

"You don't need a cannon, but the arm strength has to be at the 'enough' level," one NFC general manager said. "I didn't think Brady was at the 'enough' level."

But both players make up for whatever they lack in arm strength with their deliveries.

"What both guys had and still have is a tremendously quick release, and that's more important," an AFC college scouting director said. "They can throw from different body positions and get rid of the ball quickly and accurately."

In Brady's case, he developed arm strength after the Patriots drafted him. At Michigan, he was a skinny 205 pounds at 6 feet 4 inches. Now he's listed at 225. Most scouts failed to see his potential to develop physically.

Michigan did not help Brady. Coaches there wanted Drew Henson to beat him out, and they played both quarterbacks for most of Brady's senior season. Michigan allows NFL scouts to visit their campus only one week of the year. In 2000, the week came early in the season, and Brady didn't come on until later. As a result, many NFL scouts wrote their evaluations of Brady before he had played his best football.

Romo was productive, but scouts didn't trust his statistics because he played at Division I-AA Eastern Illinois. They also questioned his unorthodox mechanics, his reliance on his feet and his unusual release.

Both players showed the instincts in college that have defined their NFL careers. But instincts alone won't get a quarterback drafted.

The other part of the story with Romo and Brady is both landed with the right teams to bring out their abilities.

"If Romo goes to 31 other teams," the general manager says, "he probably gets cut."
Copyright © 2007, The Chicago Tribune

It seems to me that the scouts sometimes overlook one important factor, the ability to do the job better than other guys.
 

Don Wassall

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,411
Location
Pennsylvania
highschoolcoach said:
In Brady's case, he developed arm strength after the Patriots drafted him. At Michigan, he was a skinny 205 pounds at 6 feet 4 inches. Now he's listed at 225. Most scouts failed to see his potential to develop physically.


That's a point we make here a lot -- white players often develop physically later than blacks. Logically, scouts and college recruiters should be more eager to take chances on white players knowing many bloom later than affletes who look older than some of their high school teachers, but of course it doesn't work that way.
 

Jimmy Chitwood

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
8,975
Location
Arkansas
i hear over and over that some guy "looks like a player."

what exactly does that mean? i'll tell you what it means, absolutely nothing. or rather, all it means is that a guy looks pretty with his shirt off.

the football, the stat sheet, the win-loss column doesn't give a crap about what a guy looks like. all it cares about is if a guy can play.

too many (read that as almost all) coaches look for guys who look good rather than ARE good. that is why so many gifted players are cut, and why so many turds are playing on Sundays.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
2,953
It is hardest to predict how a college QB will do in the NFL than with most other positions. The best bet is to draft a QB who has the physical skills, and has played against top competion in college. Further, he should have a good head on his shoulders. Peyton Manning is the classic example of this type of quarterback.

If you draft a QB who didn't meet top competion, or was inconsistent, you never know how he will turn out. Joe Montana was an example of a player who became more consistent as a pro than he was in college. The QB to stay away from is a player with a cannon arm who lacks a good touch on his passes. This type will be streaky at best, usually a failure.
 

GWTJ

Mentor
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
796
Location
New Jersey
highschoolcoach said:
Once ignored, now stars

Romo was productive, but scouts didn't trust his statistics because he played at Division I-AA Eastern Illinois. They also questioned his unorthodox mechanics, his reliance on his feet and his unusual release.
"his reliance on his feet "

It's always a plus for black college QB's who rely on their feet.
smiley5.gif
Edited by: GWTJ
 

Colonel_Reb

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
13,987
Location
The Deep South
GWTJ, I was thinking the same thing when I first read that.
 

White Shogun

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 2, 2005
Messages
6,285
That's odd.. when Brady hit Moss on that 60+ yard touchdown pass that was called back, he didn't seem to lack any arm strength to me...
 

voice

Guru
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
327
I have a son that is a young quarterback of Junior High Age. One thing I thing I have noticed, other than very few coaches understanding the qb position, is most coaches want the quarterback to throw it as hard as he can on every type of throw.

This is completely wrong!!! While it is a good idea to have a decent level of velocity, it makes the ball much harder to catch on many types of throws. Joe Montana was the master at throwing a catchable ball as was another all-time great-Fran Tarkenton.

Brady has developed a strong arm , but his underneath throws aren't Favre like but more thrown with an adequate amount of velocity to reach the receiver and not bounce off his hands for a probable interception.

This is probably why Favre leads the History of the NFL in interceptions because his underneath throws are sometimes thrown too hard and subject to being tipped and then picked off-not too mention he takes a lot of chances.

I don't think Payton Manning has a rocket either he is just the most efficient and accurate thrower in the history of the NFL. It is scary the amount of "different" types of throws he can make.
 

Seahawker71

Newbie
Joined
Oct 25, 2007
Messages
37
Location
Washington
sport historian said:
It is hardest to predict how a college QB will do
in the NFL than with most other positions. The best bet is to draft a QB
who has the physical skills, and has played against top competion in
college. Further, he should have a good head on his shoulders. Peyton
Manning is the classic example of this type of quarterback.

If you draft a QB who didn't meet top competion, or was inconsistent, you
never know how he will turn out. Joe Montana was an example of a player
who became more consistent as a pro than he was in college. The QB to
stay away from is a player with a cannon arm who lacks a good touch on
his passes. This type will be streaky at best, usually a failure.

+1

Brady played in the Big 10 and I remember him as college player. I always
thought he looked good. Better than a lot of Michigan QB's that were
more heralded that came after.
 

voice

Guru
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
327
Tom Iron said:
voice,

What you're talking about is known as [touch].

Tom Iron...

Yes, thats true but many think touch is throwing the ball over the shoulder on a long pass.

My definition would be to manage velocity on a variety of throws from a 10 yarder with no defenders on the receiver to dropping a throw over the shoulder on a bomb. Semantics maybe, but the fools that man the sidelines don't understand the difference-nor do many of the new generation of announcers!
 

jaxvid

Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 15, 2004
Messages
7,247
Location
Michigan
Seahawker71 said:
sport historian said:
It is hardest to predict how a college QB will do
in the NFL than with most other positions. The best bet is to draft a QB
who has the physical skills, and has played against top competion in
college. Further, he should have a good head on his shoulders. Peyton
Manning is the classic example of this type of quarterback.

If you draft a QB who didn't meet top competion, or was inconsistent, you
never know how he will turn out. Joe Montana was an example of a player
who became more consistent as a pro than he was in college. The QB to
stay away from is a player with a cannon arm who lacks a good touch on
his passes. This type will be streaky at best, usually a failure.

+1

Brady played in the Big 10 and I remember him as college player. I always
thought he looked good. Better than a lot of Michigan QB's that were
more heralded that came after.

I was at Tom Brady's last game in the Big House against OSU, Michigan was trailing by a couple of scores in the 2nd half. I knew Brady was going to bring them back to win. He had gotten so good at running the offense by his senior year that you just knew he was going to pull close games out. I was amazed he wasn't drafted higher then he was, even though a lot of other UM QB's had put up gaudier numbers.
 

Oldscool

Newbie
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
11
Location
Alabama
Voice - You make an excellent point. I remember an interview with Elwayin which he saidthat one of the biggest challenges he had was to resist the urge to throw every pass at top velocity. He just loved doing it. It took him a number of years to adjust to softer passes where called for. I also remember reading about Bill Walsh teaching Montana the intricacies of the pass. He got into the most minute details of arc, speed and rotation. But that was the way he was and Montana was bright enough and athletic enough to put Walsh's instructions into practice. It was a thing of beauty! I see this in Brady and Manning too. Romo, on the other hand, seems to play a more instinctive type of football but he's got a ways to go in his development.
 

voice

Guru
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
327
Oldscool said:
Voice - You make an excellent point. I remember an interview with Elway in which he said that one of the biggest challenges he had was to resist the urge to throw every pass at top velocity. He just loved doing it. It took him a number of years to adjust to softer passes where called for. I also remember reading about Bill Walsh teaching Montana the intricacies of the pass. He got into the most minute details of arc, speed and rotation. But that was the way he was and Montana was bright enough and athletic enough to put Walsh's instructions into practice. It was a thing of beauty! I see this in Brady and Manning too. Romo, on the other hand, seems to play a more instinctive type of football but  he's got a ways to go in his development.

Oldscool. Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about. Walsh was very specific about velocity and throwing the catchable ball.

Brady and Manny throw with velocity but not as hard as they can on the 10 yard slant!
 
Top