http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tom-brady-2.html

Or, better yet, this guy:

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tom-brady-1.html

It's an ongoing debate whether a rookie learns more playing or watching... but when a kid's as young as Manziel, I think I'd be just fine with the latter.

@shep said:

Right, Gip. He was only three years out of high school, no redshirt. Turned 21 late in his Junior year and declared. 21 for most of his rookie year, also true of Alex Smith and, likely, Johnny Manziel. A lot of rookies are 23.

Manziel is completing 73% of his passes for more TDs and fewer sacks than his Heisman year. I think he has a solid chance to be a two-time winner. Man, I really think the guy would be a blast. Would have no problem with him watching Hoyer for a year.

He has to learn to slide instead of dropping his shoulder and trying to run over defenders, that shit won't fly in the NFL. Regardless of how anyone feels about him "personally" the guy is exciting to watch.

Manziel is completing 73% of his passes for more TDs and fewer sacks than his Heisman year. I think he has a solid chance to be a two-time winner. Man, I really think the guy would be a blast. Would have no problem with him watching Hoyer for a year.

@shep said:

OK, here are his college stats;

http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/aaron-rodgers-1.html

But, he was born on 12/2/1983, and was taken in the 2005 draft. So he was 21 when drafted, turned 22 later that year.

What this does not say is if he had a redshirt year....and was actually a 4th year junior....or a true junior in his final year.

I had heard this "trivia" question on TV somewhere....that no SB winning QB ever came out after only 3 years. Given that he was only 21, it is highly possible that that statement was wrong.

EDIT: He played one year of Juco and two years at Cal. Did NOT exhaust his eligibility. Was a Junior. Think Alex Smith was 20 his last year, too.

I don't think there are many set rules that make it easy to predict the best player over the course of a career, but PFO came into existence on its excellent stat about QBs with at least 30 starts, at least 60% completion, and drafted by the 40th pick: They're gonna succeed.

If you want a guy to play early, you look for someone with a lot of starts and production. Playing creates muscle memory and instinctive play that can't really be replicated. The production speaks to having the "clay."

But man, you can find examples of guys who succeeded from every which kind of background. Favre played on a shitty team. Brady was a 6th round pick. Rodgers was 20 and a faller. Brees is 6' tall and never won anything. Flacco played for Delaware and Ben for Miami of Ohio. Cam Newton only started one year and allegedly needed lots of time to "get it."

You want arm talent. You want a quick release and consistent accuracy. You wanna see film of the kid making NFL throws with zip, deep outs. You want intelligence and inherent leadership qualities. You want a guy who's gonna put points on the board for you. You want a guy who either fits your offense... or a guy you'd mold an offense around.

In the end, you do your homework and you have the strength of your convictions. If you believe Hundley is gonna be a superstar after a year or two of NFL coaching, you might take him over someone who seems more Day One Ready because you like Brian Hoyer an awful lot.