Poll: QB vs. OL vs. Trade Back vs. Up 4 Luck
by Copious 1 on Nov 23, 2011 6:45 PM EST
Email
PrintSo I was going to title the article "Polling the Haven of the Hogs" but thought better of it, knowing the depravity of minds on this site...lol. Instead...I decided to settle on a picture of @RVAparks to lead the article off:
There has been much debate about what the Redskins should do with their fist pick:
Argument #1 - Use the pick to draft the Redskins "QB of the future" (RGIII, Barkley, etc.). The Redskins will hopefully not be picking this high in the near future and there is talent worthy of being picked within the range that the Redskins will be drafting. Part of that argument suggests that you can pick up OL in free agency and later in the draft and that QB is the most important piece of the puzzle.
Argument #2 - Draft OL, the Redskins line has some/serious issues that need to be addressed that the 1st round pick is a good place to find a stud. Some even suggest using the first few picks ( and in one rare occasion, use ALL of the picks) on the OL. This argument sometimes also includes the suggestion of picking up a veteran QB in free agency and then a developmental guy in round 2 or 3 (i.e. Tannehill, Foles, etc.)
Argument #3 - Trade back with the 1st pick and secure more picks and address the OL and either draft a developmental QB (i.e. Tannehill, Foles, etc.) or wait until next year to draft a QB of the future.
Argument #4 - Trade up for Luck
While there may be other arguments or variations that I missed, these have been the main arguments that I have seen. What I wanted to do is see what the majority opinion is by way of a poll, so poll away!!!
310 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
The answer is easy we need a QB
Do you honestly believe we should take a Guard or a Tackle in the Top 10? The more and more we address our other needs (Defense and O-Line) the more it becomes obvious that QB will end up being the biggest need. It’s obvious next years QB class will not be nearly as good as this years and I know we’re only halfway through the rebuild, but we won’t be starting a Rookie next year. It’ll most likely be Rex under center with an upgraded offensive line. I vote for a Tackle in the 2nd.
Dear Passionate fan, I know you are passionate, but please reply with a logical answer or I will ignore you.
by TerpsAllTheWay on Nov 23, 2011 7:39 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Agreed
QB followed by OL then either take another OL in 3rd or maybe CB.
by The Red End on Nov 25, 2011 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
Dude, don't insult Parks.
That’s not him at ALL.
That’s his first girlfriend.
And you’re encroaching on my territory by throwing the insults his way… try going after Ken, instead.
As far as the article, QB. Period. Don’t care if we trade up for Luck, if that’s what Shanny feels we need, or down to get a couple extra picks and STILL get our guy, or draft at our natural position. I’ll trust in Shanny to get the guy he wants to make his system work.
No Danny, Nooooooo - Tom Landry, 1982., and Washington Redskins fans, 1999-
There is no doubt it's gotta be QB
and that QB has to be one of the top 3(4 if RG3 is in the mix). No Tannehill, No Foles, No Weeded, No Lindley.
The O-Line arguement in the 1st is a far fetched one to beging with. The ONLY O-linmen that SHOULD even be of any consideration is Kalil, and the only reason being is that he’s just that good. He’s the only linemen in the draft that I would move TW to RT for. There would be no reason to draft Martin or Reiff with a 1st round pick…………………that would be a waste, when you can wait till the 2nd and get a RT.
The people saw that our success as a team came when we had great lines, so they automatically think that we need the present dy version of the Hogs to be successful. These are probably the same people who would like to see Leather helmets and no facemasks make a comeback.
Crying Lion
by Tiller56 on Nov 24, 2011 6:53 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
even if you do develop a great line
is the plan then that a subpar, late-round qb can be groomed into a “don’t make mistakes, play well if everything around you is perfect” signal caller that leads you to a Championship? No thanks. We need a friggin PLAYMAKER at qb, anything less and there’s a ceiling on how high the team can rise. We need a qb that makes everyone else better, not one who needs everyone else to be good so he can get by. It’s up to Shanny to find that guy with our top pick (assuming we pick top5).
I've gone back and forth on this the past few weeks....
Yesterday’s game would have been completely different had Griffin, Barkley or Jones been the signal caller. I’m pretty sure, that even as rookies, those guys would have been able to put extra points on the board and we would have coasted to a win
They surely wouldn't have underthrown the ball like Rex does
Even o his TD to AA, he put everything he had into that throw(I mean everything), and it barely went 50 yards. I watched Barkley vs Oregon, and with the flick of his wrist, he sent the ball 55 yards, and he barely stepped into the throw.
I’ve seen Landry Jones hit a WR in stride at 65 yards with ease.
Griffin has that rainbow, but he can still stretch the field 60-65 yards no problem.
Luck can prob hit 70.
Crying Lion
with the speed that our receivers have...
if we had a more accurate QB, with a little arm strength….those crossing routes that rex was connecting on would have opened up the field for longer throws and maybe bigger running lanes. Plain and simple, teams don’t have to respect the long ball against us which makes running those long stretch plays next impossible
i'm sorry but the track record of rookie QB's shows that they probably wouldn't have put up better numbers than Rex
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
no it doesnt, not sure why you keep saying that.
Bradford put up better numbers in his rookie year than Rex is now. Cam and Dalton are outplaying Rex this year. Flacco played better in his rookie year than Rex is right now. Matt Ryan rookie year better than Rex right now. That’s off the top of my head and just over the past couple seasons which is much more relevant than 10 years ago let alone 15 season back.
We’re not that only team in the league that has had a bad oline and lousy receivers either, lots of rookies come into dire situations and play better than Rex has this season. The guy has 17 turnovers in 8 games, that’s absolutely horrific!
question?
why is this year’s numbers more relevant than 5, 10 or 15 years ago??
As for the rookie debate Stafford, Sanchez, Russell, Young, Leinart, Alex Smith, all had worse stats as rookies. Sam Bradford and Grossman are basically a wash.
And just so you don’t think I’m just looking at busts, check out Eli, and Josh Freeman’s rookie stats. Even Jay Cutler’s are medicore.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
so what if they had worse stats, the other guys didnt
which yet again points to the crux of the matter, sitting or playing as a rookie is basically irrelevant as to whether a guy can get the job done or not.
and what is wrong with medicore stats from a rookie qb? The kid is learning the game, out there making mistakes and making plays. And developing chemistry with his skill players and line, being the new leader of the team. Nothing wrong with that, in fact it’s all better than being coddled on the bench as the heir apparent while someone else is under center busting his butt and earning the team’s respect
How in the world can you keep making that claim when you have nothing to back it up
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
neither do you! that's my point
you keep on making statements about rookie qb’s as if they are facts when they most certainly are not. I am not saying every rookie MUST start to be successful or that sitting CANT help some players. But you’re saying we MUST sit whomever we draft for a full year because it’s a FACT that if we dont disaster awaits.
That is simply not true and there are countless examples including at least 2 this season. I think you are finding a causation where there isnt one, Brady was going to be great whether he sat or not and Ryan Leaf was going to suck under any circumstance.
I'm sorry the numbers are pretty clear
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
no they arent.
The fact Brady sat a year proves nothing whatsoever, just as the fact Cam is playing well doesnt prove all rookies should start. These are independent situations with many variables, the biggest being the talent and ability of the qb in question. If he’s the goods, starting early isnt going to ruin his career. If he sucks, sitting wont transform him (ask Beck).
at any rate, we can agree to disagree…
exactly...
and guess what the REDSKINS have NONE OF THOSE VARIABLES. Look at the teams and quarterbacks that had success as rookies, and the Redskins aren’t remotely comparable.
If Tom Brady started as a rookie on a horrible team he probably would have been a bust, and yes I do believe that to be true. You have no idea what that kinda failure could have done to his psyche, and you also can’t say he would have even been given a 2nd chance.
I’m not saying sitting equals success, but what i do know is that those qb’s who start early as rookies have a far worse failure rate, so why would you even consider putting him in that situation. Maybe Matt Barkley is the next Peyton Manning, but you know what is more likely is that he is not. Why risk it? It’s not as if we have a delorean to fix it if it blows up in our face.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
QB's can make or break a team
It is possible for one guy to make a HUGE difference on a team. Bears looked like shit without Cutler. Texans looked average without Schaub, even with that great running game. Imagine how bad the panthers would be(unwatchable)without Newton. The Cardinals have sucked ever since Warner retired. Seattle is garbage without Hasslebeck. The Chiefs are one of the worst teams in the NFL without Cassel. Do I even need to go Colts!
Crying Lion
Barkley doesnt look like he needs to sit, so why bother
I bet 80% of Rex’s completions this year are to his first read, in fact I’m pretty sure he said something that effect re: Kyle’s offense earlier this year. You dont think Barkley can come in and throw the ball to the first read 80% of the time? What could happen to him that would ruin him? He’d quickly learn life in the NFL is not like USC where he always had superior talent? That’s a good thing.
The point is not that he (or anyone else) would have to start, it’s that in today’s NFL they certainly could….as is being proven every week for Carolina and Cincy. Every week there are two guys out there disproving the point you are trying to make…if Andy Dalton is good enough to start as a rookie, why couldnt Matt “top3 pick” Barkley do the same?
Cincy has far more talent than we do
including bookend tackles that help keep Dalton upright
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:35 PM EST up reply actions
That's your only arguement
So what say you, if we go and get two solid FA O-Linemen(one of either Nicks or Grubbs), then draft a RT in the 2nd, and a C in the 3rd. Would that change your opinion?
I believe with you, it’s not about the talent of the QB, but rather the lack of talent you perceive on the O-Line.
Crying Lion
that is a big part of it, why put a guy back there to be killed
I’d still have him sit, but maybe bring him in for the final 5-6 weeks like Eli or Cutler
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 10:45 AM EST up reply actions
there's an agenda to have a great team
of which the offensive line has a major importance.
When it comes to QB’s the success rate of those who play behind bad O-lines is essentially non-existent so for me it is about being smart. If you are going to draft a guy you mine as well protect him.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
No one is saying we shouldn't upgrade the O-Line
I don’t know where your getting this non-idea from. I have proposed plans that address both the QB and O-Line. You still have something wrong with them.
Point is, just like QB’s, sometimes O-Linemen, no matter where they are drafted, don’t work out either. Sometimes(and this is obviously a much higher rate than for QB’s) late round O-Line picks can do pretty well in the league.
I know you hate late-round projects at O-Line, as much as I hate late-round projects at QB, but fact is, late round linemen have a higher success rate than Late round QB’s do.
Crying Lion
oh, and the game has changed tons over the years
that’s why qb examples from 15 years ago aren’t necessarily relevant anymore.
It really hasn't changed that much
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
it's changed a ton
back in the late ‘90s there were maybe 5-6 qb’s completing 60% or more of their passes, now it’s 3/4 of the league doing it. Back then only a few guys managed 8yd/attempt, now Cam is doing it in his rookie year. Different game
this coming from the guy who argued that Beck had a stronger arm than Grossman and was more mobile so the offensive line wouldn't look as bad
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
He does have a stronger arm
and he is more mobile. No doubt about that.
If you want to pick on me, at least attack me on Brown.
Crying Lion
yes but neither of those translated into him being a better QB
and his ‘mobility’ didn’t lead to less sacks. You try to blame the sacks on Rexy, but the fact of the matter is he has avoided more sacks than far more mobile QB’s.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
It doesn't matter
what I said was true, and the only reason I called for Beck, is because I saw how bad Rex was, and wanted to see if Beck could give us more……………….obviously he didn’t, and now we don’t have to wonder what if, but facts be facts, Beck has better mobility and better arm strength.
Crying Lion
yes but the point is those things don't always matter
Blaine Gabbert has better arm strength than Andy Dalton, and Jake Locker has both a better arm and more mobility, yet Dalton is the superior QB. Maybe the others will catch up, but since you are looking for an ASAP solution, those are the facts.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Obviously things were not working with Grossman
so I wanted to see if beck could give us a spark. He’s obviously not good, but at least we know it, and don’t have to wonder anymore.
Crying Lion
i don't have a problem with that
what i’m stating is when you say things like “Rex is a statue and causes the sacks and pressures” (not a direct quote but fairly close to what you have said), when mobility doesn’t equal less sacks and pressures, and when in fact Grossman’s throwing the ball away has saved quite a few sacks (which we saw again yesterday).
There is a lot more to a QB than how fast or far he can throw it or how mobile he is.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Grossman is a statue
no one in their right mind will argue that. He does cause sacks. He does backpedal, instead of stepping up in the pocket. He does have a piss-poor arm, and if it was average, we would have scored more TD’s, and possible won some more games.
Crying Lion
Grossman doesn't cause sacks
his sack % is far below the line’s pressure %, and his sack rate is less than guys like Newton, Sanchez, Rodgers, McCoy, Roethlisberger etc.
I’m not saying he’s better than those guys (except maybe Sanchez) but i’m saying he has kept our sacks allowed at a far lower rate than many QB’s would. Obviously Rodgers risk/reward is worth it, but you can’t say the same about all the QB’s below him.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
how does he keep sacks down?
By throwing int’s?
Actually this is so rediculous, I’m not even having this conversation with you.
Crying Lion
by getting rid of the ball
maybe a couple have been int’s but that is what most qb’s
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:38 PM EST up reply actions
i'm talking about his traits i.e his arm
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I still didn't like him
arm strength is not everything to me, but it is big. If your lacking in one area, you better be damn good in others to counter it.
Example – Barkley has a little left to be desired to me in arm strength, but it’s not that bad, and he makes up for it with excellent decision making, good mobility, good accuracy, and off the charts leadership and character.
Another Example – Tannehill has less tha desired arm strength, but unlike Barkley, he also doesn’t make good decisions with the football, isn’t super accurate, and hasn’t shown me he can put a team on his back and lead them to victory in a tough environement.
Kind of see my point?
Crying Lion
except Tannehill is widely credited with good decisions and accuracy
no one saying he is perfect, but compare Tannehill to Barkley at the end of his freshman year? b/c that is what you have to do with Tannehill switching positions.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Tannehill is not widely accurate
nor does he make good decisions………..there is no more to it. End of discussion. He’s just not there yet, and I don’t know if he ever will be.
BTW, I will never compare a senior to an 18 year old freshmen……………..stupid for you to even suggest so. You know better than that.
Crying Lion
so does Landry Jones not make good decisions?
because his INT rate isn’t too pretty despite playing in a spread offense with better receivers.
Speaking of where are your 50 posts talking about how Landry Jones is Awful etc. etc. did you see his game against Iowa State?? Last I checked Iowa State was far worse a defense than Texas, yet Jones numbers weren’t much prettier than Tannehill’s.
I’m talking about their QB experience which is a valid comparison.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:46 PM EST up reply actions
I watched the entire Iowa St game
something you can not say you did.
I’ll tell you that the one Int he threw to one of his young WR’s, was thrown perfectly on a crossing route. He put the ball right on him, and also gave him room to run after the catch; problem is, the reciever let the ball go right through his hands, bounce off his pads, and then into the secondary for an easy INT for the defense. Clearly not Jones’ fault, but you wouldn’t know that looking at the stat line. Also, hjis TD’s were not up, yet he moved the team down the field every time with a balanced attack. When they got inside the 10, they brough in Blake Bell, the 6’5" 255 freshmen, and let him run the power read. It obviously takes away from his TD opportunities, but point is, it was effective, and Oklahokma won the game.
Also, I’m glad you mentioned his receivers, because you do realize he lost his best WR 5 weeks ago with a torn ACL, and Stills has been fighting a hamstring injury since the 3rd week of the season. He’s relying on a lot of young WR’s, which would obviously effect his play to an extent. These WR’s are guys he didn’t practice with on a regular basis, yet they are know thrown in mid season, and expected to be sharp and crisp. It would be like taking Woods away from Barkley.
You can say Jones’ numbers are down from last year, but when your QB throws for over 4000 yards, and has a 65% completion percentage, with over 8.3 YPA, and prob over 30 TD’s, it’s hardly a bad season.
Crying Lion
I watched every snap (of Oklahoma's)
from the Iowa State game.
And yes the one INT wasn’t fully his fault (’d hardly call it a perfect pass though). And the 2nd INT was just awful.
While Blake Bell is getting the short yardage snaps, it is hardly what is affecting Jones’ TD’s. Last year DeMarco Murray took those TD’s (14 of his 15 TD’s came inside the redzone. The fact that Jones is completing just 50% of his red zone passes and the loss of Broyles are far bigger reasons as to why Jones can’t punch it in these last two weeks.
Finally I don’t know where you get 5 weeks for Ryan Broyles being out as he was injured in the Texas A&M game which was on Nov. 5th. The Sooners have only had two games since, in which Jones has yet to throw a TD pass. Which means Jones had an off week to get acclimated with these WR’s. And really only one of his WR’s is a freshman, that has been getting consistent playing time so it isn’t as if he hasn’t worked with them.
And Jones’ numbers are down as I answered in the other thread not sure how you can argue the opposite, esp. considering the offense that he is in.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
And yes the one INT wasn’t fully his fault (’d hardly call it a perfect pass though). And the 2nd INT was just awful.
It was a perfect pass. Numbers high, and led him just enought to produce RAC. There is no debating this.
Sorry, it was like 4 games Broyles missed, as he went out fairly early in the Texas AM game.
Crying Lion
how is that 4? THEY'VE ONLY PLAYED TWO GAMES SINCE
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:41 AM EST up reply actions
So
They have this metric called QB rating, that was designed to compile all of the QB’s numbers, and put them into a formula to determin how effective the QB has been. You say you see no improvement from Jones, yet his QB rating last year was 146.3, and this year it is 148. It was 130 his freshmen year.
To compare, Andrew Luck’s was 143(freshmen), 170.2, 167.5 – oops, his is down, we should rule him out.
Matt Barkley – 131.3(freshmen), 141.2, 161.2
Tannehill – 137(junior year), 132.6 – oops, he went down. Rule him out.
Now combine that with intangibles, and you can see why Barkley, Luck and jones are all good fits for this team.
Crying Lion
awesome
really turned me around by showing how he hasn’t developed.
In case you didn’t notice but Barkley’s and Luck’s are far better than Jones, despite playing in more pro style sets (which has a huge impact on yards). The fact that Luck’s numbers have dipped slightly is meaningless because they are still at an elite level.
and again why are you taking me so literal with the numbers going down?? I said I wanted Jones to ascend to that next tier (as Barkley has done) but he didn’t he stayed the same and went down in most categories.
Tannehill isn’t in his junior year or senior year of BEING A QB, not sure why that isn’t clear.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
yes and in the early 90's there were 10 and 12
you are talking about different offensive and defensive styles, not to mention rule changes that have greatly favored the offense.
The game though hasn’t changed. despite it being the ‘year of the qb’ as ESPN continues to push down our throats, we see teams like the 49ers, Bills, Bears, Texans etc. winning b/c of their ground games. We see the Jets and Ravens and other teams severely struggle (despite their ‘1st round’ franchise QB’s and highly paid WR’s) because they can’t run.
We continue to see defenses carry teams year in year out, and we see star quarterbacks come through in the clutch. But the one thing we don’t see is quarterbacks single-handily winning games, divisions and Super Bowls. As great as Aaron Rodgers is, he couldn’t do it alone. If Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady was on the Redskins right now we are maybe a 9 or 10 win team (and that is with better health and still against this easy schedule). What we aren’t though is a SB team, why b/c we don’t have that kinda talent on our roster.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
If you truly believe this
there is no sense arguing anymore.
The game though hasn’t changed. despite it being the ‘year of the qb’ as ESPN continues to push down our throats, we see teams like the 49ers, Bills, Bears, Texans etc. winning b/c of their ground games. We see the Jets and Ravens and other teams severely struggle (despite their ‘1st round’ franchise QB’s and highly paid WR’s) because they can’t run
I call you Uncle Rico in jest, but I’m startig to truly believe you honestly can still win in this league with a good defense and a solid running game, with a game manager at QB.
Crying Lion
well there hasn't been much evidence shown to the contrary
Why did the Patriots dominate the early 2000’s? Their defense
Why have the Bears gone to the playoffs behind Kyle Orton, Rex Grossman and Jay Cutler, their defense.
Why do the Ravens go to the playoffs, their defense
Jets, Steelers etc. are the same.
It’s a lot easier to build up a great defense and o-line than it is to hope and pray that some 1st rounder won’t be a bust. I’ve never said not to address the QB situation, and in fact my scenario added two viable QB’s, you just don’t like it b/c its not the big name way that succeeds a couple of times but fails more often than not.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Cutler is a very good QB
Big Ben is a very good QB. Flacco is a very good QB. Brady is a very good QB, and so was Bledsoe.
The only arguement I’ll give you is the Jets. They went to the playoffs in spite of Sanchez.
Take Rodgers away from green bay…..where are they?
Take Brees away from NO…….where are they?
Take Manning away from the Colts………where are they?
Take manning away from the Giants……….where are they?
Take Romo away from the cowgirls……….where are they?
Get my point?
Crying Lion
The point is the Bears and Ravens were playoff teams more often than not well before their 'franchise quarterbacks' got there
Brady wasn’t that good for his first couple of years…was he down right awful? no not by any means, but he was more of a ‘game manager’
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:49 PM EST up reply actions
Just look at his numbers for the first couple of years
a lot of short safe passes, with a good completion %. His numbers were good, but pale in comparison to the elite numbers he has now. In fact what was statistically his best season in those first 4 years (2002), the Patriots had their worst record and didn’t win the SB.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
there is a huge difference in their offense though
they have become far more of a passing team, and also have added a deep passing element. Now Brady goes back there and read’s the defense. His first couple of years he had 2-3 reads and then throw it away.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:42 AM EST up reply actions
defense, winning games, and Superbowls are a different subject
the point i’m trying to make is that due to the very rule changes etc that you just acknowledged, it’s now absolutely plausible for a talented rookie qb to come in and hold his own from Day1. So the previous NFL history where conventional wisdom said you need to coddle a qb for a year or two is completely out the window at this point. If the guy is the best qb on your team, by all means play him from day1…the rules are now geared for him to succeed
by DCrez on Nov 28, 2011 8:30 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
what rule changes have their been in the last 5 years though?
nothing significant, yet you still see more top QB’s sitting (or not developing if they don’t)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:47 PM EST up reply actions
What rule changes??????
are you serious??? The whole damn league is designed to protect the QB, and make sure he succeeds. Please don’t go here.
Crying Lion
what rule changes in the last 5 years? The Brady rule?
things like defensive holding, and the 5 yard cushion have been around for longer, didn’t make QB’s any more successful starting from day one.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
The 5 yards rule certainly made QB more successful
The rules are designed to protect the QB and WR’s, and give them every advantage in the passing game.
Crying Lion
you are missing the point
that rule didn’t make rookie qb’s succeed at a higher rate
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
please explain since there is zero evidence backing up your case
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
Arguing with you is like arguing with a 5 year old
you’ll ignore all facts except those that pertain to your side of the arguement. Your always right, so what sense does it make. You;ll ignore all facts presented, just like you always do.
Myopic!, It’s the only word to describe you.
Crying Lion
what facts am i ignoring?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
I never said I'm always right and have and will point again times that I've been wrong (i.e. Newton)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:28 PM EST up reply actions
I see Newton and Dalton playing well (for rookies) almost every week.
that’s the RIGHT NOW in the nfl. And whereas you can make the case that Cam is an otherworldly talent due to his physical abilities, Dalton is much more a “regular” guy who is playing terrific for a rookie on a previously bad team. And actually most people assumed Cam would suck and were completly wrong about him.
So if Andy Dalton can play well as rookie, why cant Barkley or RG3 or whomever?
the thing is no one saying a rookie MUST start from Day1
just that if he’s good enough, there’s no reason to hold him out an entire year
see that is where I disagree many teams have chosen to take the opposite approach
why? b/c it is pretty damn risky to start a guy for the majority of the year on a bad team.
I know people only want to remember Matt Ryan or Cam Newton (which the jury is still out, we have no idea the long term affects), but forget all the failures…including Blaine Gabbert.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:28 AM EST up reply actions
why risk it?
what evidence do you have to the contrary? Peyton Manning?? awesome!
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:43 AM EST up reply actions
no you really didn't
why b/c they aren’t there. You can’t use Stafford b/c he spent the majority of his first two years on the sideline (how about that), or Bradford since he’s not exactly ‘developing’. Sanchez is a no go. As are Young, Leinart, Russell, and Alex Smith, Gabbert.
So you are basing it on Newton, Dalton, Ryan and Flacco. Awesome! Good luck with trying to say that has any factual basis.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:50 AM EST up reply actions
you have no factual basis at all
because you are looking at correlations and assuming causation…sorry, but that’s just not a valid argument
there are correlations that is a valid argument
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
I'm not assuming causation
it is out there, only a handful of quarterbacks have ever been able to start day 1 and it not hold back their careers.
Now there are other factors like the quality of players around them (which I’ve mentioned time and time again), but we aren’t talking about putting a QB on a team with 3 pro bowl OL like Big Ben had, or Marvin Harrision, Marshall Faulk and book end tackles like Peyton.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:01 PM EST up reply actions
i dont know why you are saying day1 now
you’ve been saying the qb shouldnt play at all in year1, i dont think anyone has suggested they MUST start from day1
huh??
Most successful QB’s around the league don’t start their rookie year. Now if they get one or two starts I don’t see that as a big deal, but I’d rather develop the guy.
Most people on here are saying that whatever rookie QB we get should start day 1.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:16 PM EST up reply actions
so what's the magic number?
Cutler started 5 games as a rookie….if it had been 6 would he be ruined?
It’s about the individual players and what the coaches think he can do, there’s no set formula for how it should work out
it's different for every QB and every situation that he goes into
Cutler also was joining a playoff caliber team, with a good line, good receivers and a strong running game. A quality defense to back him up helped as well.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:29 PM EST up reply actions
what logic is being used here??
the fact that two guys in 11 games have played well (one of which is a 2nd rounder mind you, which you are so adamantly against). That ignores the scores of QB’s who did sit and develop into good to great QB’s, and the scores of those who started from day one and failed.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions
what about Locker and Gabbert?? or even Ponder??
what about Bradford the year before? What about Stafford getting killed his first two years and getting out played by the likes of Shaun Hill and Drew Stanton. What about Mark Sanchez on one of the best teams in the league being down right awful.
What Newton and Dalton are doing is awesome, but its a fairly small sample size. Newton’s numbers have begun to go down since the beginning of the year, so it’s more than possible that teams are figuring him out. What Dalton is doing is impressive, but the vast amount of evidence shows that it is a risky proposition so why do it?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
because it's not actually risky, you are just drawing causation where there is none
MOST players do not end up as good qb’s, it’s the most difficult position in pro sports. Pointing out failures doesnt mean anything, and neither does pointing out successes of guys who happen to sit. Brady was a late round pick, of course he sat. Of course these top picks play, there is a lot invested in them.
Do you really think Jason Campbell would be any different if he started from Day1? He’d be the same player. Or that somehow if Sanchez had sat a year he’d be better? Why? Because he’d have LESS experience? Really doesnt make any sense, these guys are well into their careers and far past their rookie years. It’s about them as players, not whether they held a clipboard for a year
If Jason Campbell started day 1 then yes I think he'd have been far worse
he wasn’t ready and probably would be out of the league by now. If Sanchez sat then he could potentially be better, but we will never know b/c they tried to take a QB who was a major project and force him to start.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:55 AM EST up reply actions
i dont think players are nearly as fragile as you do
nor that a few starts when they are 21 years old somehow prevents them from ever being a good qb even 9yrs later like you said below with Boller.
well evidence shows that it does have an impact
I will fully admit that poor scouting is part of the equation, and some guys like Mark Sanchez I wouldn’t have even considered drafting in the first round.
But the fact of the matter is there are flaws in scouting ever position (using 40 times for guys, or not recognizing level of comp. etc.) and there is a bust rate regardless. But the QB success rate particularly in 1st and 2nd round guys isn’t pretty. Now there are a variety of factors and some of these guys would have never had it, but you can’t tell me that all these first rounders (esp.) and 2nd rounders didn’t have it? If so why draft them?
No there have to be other causes as too why these QB’s struggle so much. The two most obvious ones are the fact that many of them aren’t ready, and that they are placed on poor teams.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:10 PM EST up reply actions
It is well documented throughout football
be it H.S., college, or the NFL that developing a player has merit, I’m not sure how you can argue to the contrary.
Yes most 1st rounders at most positions start from day one, b/c they are supposed to be the exceptions, but QB is the one spot where that has shown to be risky. How you can not say that one of the root causes for so many first round QB busts is over exposure is beyond me. It is well documented at every level, but teams and fans get impatient.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:59 AM EST up reply actions
your logic is that basically anyone and everyone should be a good qb
if only they have enough time on the bench. You point to basically every early starter who failed as supposed evidence as if that player’s actual ability doesnt factor in. If you are correct, the league is currently filled with franchise caliber qb’s sitting on various benches who quietly became great without ever playing.
The fact is very, very few athletes are talented enough to be great qb’s and that’s where the failure rate comes from
by DCrez on Nov 29, 2011 12:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
this couldn't be further from the truth
I’ve never said anything remotely like this. What i’ve said is that since first round QB’s are a crap shoot, and it is one position where development has shown to have a positive impact, you should sit and develop a guy.
As to your point about guys sitting on the bench you are actually correct. No the league isn’t ‘filled’ which I’ve never said. But there are some future quality starting QB’s sitting on benches right now, plenty of QB’s get developed not sure how that isn’t clear.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:14 PM EST up reply actions
great players like Matt Cassell and Kevin Kolb?
for every early-play qb who was a bust there is a supposed 2nd string savior who sucks after switching teams
It's def. not a 1-1 ratio. Maybe a 1-1 ratio of those that succeed (i.e. Brunell) to those that bust (i.e. Cassell)
just as there are 3 rookie 1st round QB’s who fail for everyone that succeeds.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:18 PM EST up reply actions
Seriously man what's your problem
Why keep trying to bait me. I’m not the one on here who thought resigning Jamaal Brown was a good idea because he was ‘good’ last year. Or thought that they should spend big money on Sidney Rice ( he seems to be really helping the Seahawks), o drafting Jake Locker and starting him ( the Titans who have a far better supporting cast thinks that is a bad idea). Yet for some reason my ideas that actually do have a track record o success are the " ridiculous ones".
I appreciate a good debate but come on man you are just making non- factual statements.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I have no problem with a good debate
but you spin EVERYTHING to fit your view, whether it’s right or wrong. You are always against any skill position, UNTIL we get more linemen. Basically every arguement you are involved in revolves around linemen…………………….it always has. And please stop frouping Locker in with everyone else you hate. Yeah, we get it, you were not a fan of his, but the kid has yet to play, so lets wait to judge.
The other problem I have, is you were so adament about Landry Jones and you saying that he had not improved from last year, and you expected to see more improvement from the QB we draft, YET, you’re all about drafting a QB who is playing terrible, and yet you still continue to defend him.
It’s a two way street here brother.
Crying Lion
Hes not playing terrible
And I’m only using Locker to show that not every Qb is ready to go day one like you try to suggest.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I still think Locker could have been more effective than Rex of Beck this year
but at least Tenn has a competent QB in Hasslebeck, and someone who is a pro for Locker to learn from
Crying Lion
again you are confusing being better than Rex as the bench mark
Matt Moore is better than Rex and Beck doesn’t mean he should def. be our starter. Tenn was smart and is protecting their investment, to do otherwise is highly risky. Sometimes it works, but most of the time is doesn’t. And don’t you ever wonder what a Joe Flacco might be like now if he got to develop for a year or two?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Flacco is a damn good QB
and we would be lucky to have a guy of his calibur. Don’t know how you can group him in this catagory.
Not everyone sits. Again, these college kids are more and more talented each and every year. If the kids are ready, or give you a better option to win that your current situation, you play them.
Crying Lion
Flacco is good
but he’s on a top notch team and despite now being surrounded by WR’s and TE’s his numbers are very similar to Rexy’s this year (yes Flacco is still better, but again reverse the situation, but him behind this line and with these weapons).
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
maybe Flacco wouldnt be as good as he is now if he'd sat year1
how can you assume otherwise? Most likely he’d be the same player imo, but it’s not plausible to assume he’d be better if he sat a year
why wouldn't it be? evidence points towards sitting
do you really believe Brady, Brees, Favre, Rivers, Palmer, Rodgers, Palmer, Schaub, Romo, Hasselbeck, McNabb, Warner, T. Green, B. Johnson, Brunell (not to mention the majority of the season for Eli, Cutler, and Freeman) would have all been as good as they were/are if they were day one starters??
Why would Flacco be worse when it has been shown (either 15 years ago, 10 years ago, or even in the past 5 years) that it is ideal to sit and develop a QB. That it actually benefits the player in most instances. Yes the player still needs to have ‘it’, but the fact of the matter is if you believe he has ‘it’ now, why wouldn’t he have ‘it’ a year from now.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 11:55 PM EST up reply actions
so Cam Newton should be sitting the bench this whole year?
And whatever he turns out to be, he would have been better if only he didnt play this year?
it's def. possible
Cam might be the exception, but it is still possible that his career stalls out and he never becomes elite. What he is doing now is great for a rookie, but if he doesn’t grow then yes you could question if sitting and learning for a year would have been a better course of action.
and there are a variety of ways to do it. They could let him play a couple series a game with a much smaller playbook so that way he gets some experience without all the pressure.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:32 AM EST up reply actions
there's no causation there!
What do you think is more likely, that a promising player’s career stalls because he didnt sit the bench? Or that it stalls because there are 16-32 weeks of game film on him and opposing dcoord’s know exactly what he is going to do? Gus made a living off of deciding where he would throw the ball before it was even snapped. His success as rookie entailed focusing on one receiver per play. Lots and lots of guys get away with that and become marginal qb’s who either never get better or regress as defenses are prepared for them.
so what is your point
since it is quite evident that QB’s do get better on the bench.
You are here saying that QB’s who were apparently good enough to start as rookies never developed. But that QB’s who weren’t good enough to start as rookies, apparently gained no benefit (according to you) from the time to work with coaches, study game film, fix their technique, read defenses etc. You think these guys all could have started day one and would have been just as good or as you even said better??
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:48 AM EST up reply actions
why does Kyle Boller still suck if qb's get better on the bench?
Why is John Beck the worst player in the NFL after sitting on the bench for 4 years? Because he started a few games as a rookie and thus had his career irreparably damaged? It makes no sense.
b/c they did start as rookies
that is kinda the point you can shell shock a kid. Kyle Boller started 9 games as a rookie and played in 12, that is more than a few games.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:52 AM EST up reply actions
I never said every QB gets better on the bench
i’m not the one here making ridiculous claims. The fact is sitting QB’s has worked, and worked recently so why defy the odds?? You base your argument with zero facts or logic.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:54 AM EST up reply actions
why?
what evidence do you have to the contrary??
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
Anyone else?
I kind of wanted to hear arguments from all perspectives… Where’s three trade up crowd?
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 24, 2011 12:00 PM EST via mobile reply actions
If Luck is really the next Elway, then Shanny will make the trade up happen
we’ll be out of some picks, but we’ll have our guy and I won’t be upset with it. I’d like to stay put with whatever spot we end up with and get a QB there but as long as we draft a QB this year in the first I’ll be happy.
I'm voting for a trade up, but it's coming with caveats
I want to look at the whole body of work and the Redskins draft position at the end of the college season before I make up my mind. Right now, I think there is a chance Luck’s value in trade is coming down from the sky-high estimations of two months ago. If Luck still looks like the slam dunk of a lifetime to our management and the trade-up costs something in the neighborhood of two high 1st rounders, I want to go for it.
Barring that perfect storm scenario, I want RGIII. I want him so bad. This is the best QB class in a long time and we will have a something-like-top-10 pick. This is the time to go for it.
I doubt he'd want to play for us.
Dear Passionate fan, I know you are passionate, but please reply with a logical answer or I will ignore you.
by TerpsAllTheWay on Nov 24, 2011 3:18 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is pretty much exactly how I feel about the quarterbacks.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Trade back-Sorta
My thought process is…Redskins are drafting ahead of Seattle, and since I’m not sold on Barkley, Trading back with seattle so they can take Barkley…While the Redskins can pickup one of the Top-5 QBs a few steps back while adding picks…Want added picks to address the offense similar to what the Defense did this year…
Who are the top 5 QB's?????
There are 3(possibly 4 top QB’s – GR3)that could possible decide to enter early. Who, and where is this 5th?, because he certainly shouldn’t be considered “top”.
Crying Lion
I'm all for a trade up
and I’ve already proposed what I’d be willing to do to get our guy(Luck). I would have absolutely no problem giving up our 1st, 2nd and 4th in 2012, and our 1st and 3rd in 2013.
Crying Lion
Really?
That sounds like something you trade to QB needy team. There Colts…while needy, they have Peyton on the books and it may not take that much. IMO
There healthier he is near there draft, there cheaper the pick should be theoretically.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 24, 2011 5:36 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Tell that to some of the clowns on here
who say that won’t even begin to scratch the Colt’s interest.
Some on here have said 3 first rounders at least……………………IDK, just telling you what I’ve heard.
Crying Lion
shortly after the palmer trade, the consensus was definitely north of 2 first rounders, and many said 3
but it depends on how good that first first rounder is
by sofutomygaha on Nov 24, 2011 11:16 PM EST up reply actions
I think if the Skins are in the top 5 it becomes cheaper and it probably won't cost 3 1sts anymore
but it will still cost a lot.
If we are say 5th (which is where I’d believe we’d be if the season was over right now) then I think it takes one of the two following scenarios:
2012: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 2013: 1st, 2nd, plus 2 of Perry Riley, Roy Helu, Leonard Hankerson, Jabar Gaffney, DeJon Gomes, Niles Paul (probably 1 of the first three guys and one of the last three).
OR
2012: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 2013: 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I don't think Peyton's health should play into the mix
If I’m the Colts i am prepared to make that pick regardless, even if it means you make an Elway type trade (done a couple weeks after the draft). It isn’t ideal and even if you have to wait till the next year, it is better than taking less than that pick is worth. Someone will def. pay.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
right... Peyton will be "healthy"... right until he gets sacked... then he'll have a very dangerous neck injury agravated
Colts should draft Luck regardless of Peyton’s health
How about... Sign free agent QB Matt Flynn (backup for Aaron Rogers in Green Bay)
Having settled the starting QB question… move back for an extra 2nd… and fill in the needs… OL, Secondary, WR, Dline, etc.
that is one more than a rookie
the point is it is def. a viable option, and has been successful quite a few times in the past (yes it has failed too, but so has drafting a top 5 guy).
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The obsession with Flynn is ridiculous
The weapons they have in Green Bay are ridiculous. He had every tool to succeed in that game and he didn’t fuck it up. Doesn’t make him a good NFL QB (see Matt Cassel)
by BigOLinemen on Nov 25, 2011 11:37 AM EST up reply actions
using the word "obsession" is a bit much... 1st time I've ever posted about this...
and granted… he’s only started once…. but that’s still more than any draftee.
In college, he not only won a National Championship… he was the MVP! He has had 4 years in the NFL to learn from the best (Aaron Rogers).
Its his bad (good?) luck to be stuck behind Rodgers in the pecking order (see Drew Brees for a similar situation).
This would allow us to draft a good, 2nd rounder like Tannehill and use our 1st (and extra 2nd) for Olinemen, WR, and/or Secondary.
The same Tannehill that completed 35.7% last night?
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 11:59 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
That's why he'll develop behind Flynn (in this scenario)... yes... he was bad last night
… but there is plenty of upside!
He(Tannehill)has been below average all season
People need to open their eyes here. Just because one person on here is hyping him up, doesn’t mean he’s any good.
Crying Lion
he's had a rough month, but no where close to below average all season
Plenty of scouts are high on him so it just ain’t me leading the charge
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Haha
a rough month……………did you happen to watch any of last nights game? He looked HORRIBLE! Right now, I wouldn’t even consider him in the 2nd. Guy has a WAYS to go, and thats putting it nicely.
If this guy ends up on our team as our future, I’ll give up my allegiance to the team.
Crying Lion
yeah b/c it's good to judge a guy on a single game, that strategy never fails
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I've watched his last 2 games
and the game against Oklahoma, and he was bad in each one. Why is this so hard for you to admit?
Crying Lion
well I don't think he did have a bad game against K-State
(and he def. didn’t against Kansas, which was actually his game before Texas).
There are struggles yes, but his numbers are still pretty good for the year despite him being so ‘bad’ this past month.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
yes I think he can be great
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
you could find just about every 1st round QB have at least one game like that in their careers
is it ugly? sure, but by no means unprecedented.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Can you imagine getting Flynn... and using our 1st rd pick for WR Blackmon or either OT Jonathan Martin or Kalil
… and still get a 2nd round QB (Tannehill, Foles) or a 3rd round QB (Lindley, Wheeden), etc.
I would love to see Flynn-to-Blackmon with Santana Moss and Hank as 2nd and 3rd option…. with a Tannehill as a backup. Use the 3rd and two 4ths for Oline! The rest for Secondary and Dline.
Not sure if you saw it, but I posted about an article I wrote on the subject the other day
http://fanspeak.com/washingtonredskins/2011/11/23/early-look-at-the-redskins-offseason-plan-part-1/
Now I went with the trade back approach, but a similar idea.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I hadn't read it... thanks for the link... I mostly agree with you... except, why cut J Brown? when you can trade him? Isn't he under contract?
I also agree that if we don’t stay put (Sign FA QB Flynn and get Blackmon, Martin, Kalil in the 1st scenario)… we should trade back (we also need help in the Secondary CB/FS)…. and could use the extra pick(s) for this.
no problem
I’d be shocked if anyone would trade for Brown. Now he’d be cheaper for another team since the Redskins have to eat that signing bonus, but it’s going to be hard to find a taker. Though I do agree you never know some team could get desperate. If so it still won’t be much (6th or 7th rounder). So if you can dupe some team into doing so then yest you trade him.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
plenty of market for experienced Tackles... even bad ones
everyone (to include Shanny) thinks they can turn-them-around :-)
haha
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
ESPN is showing highlights of the last LSU v. Arkansas game that had Matt Flynn as QB
Eventhough LSU lost… Flynn showed a strong arm and mobility!
Flynn went on to play Ohio St for the National Championship.
haha nice
I just think he’s had 4 years now to sit and develop behind the same coaching staff that turned Rodgers potential in to greatness. I don’t think anyone ever thought Rodgers would be what he has become, and had he been in a different situation his career would probably be a lot closer to Campbell’s. While I don’t think Flynn will be Rodgers I do like the fact that he’s been working in that system with those coaches.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
your draft
Are the two extra #2s, #3, and extra #4 all from trading down? I don’t think a team would trade all those picks to move up unless it was for one of the QBs, and to be honest, I had trouble identifying a team outside of the usual suspects (Dolphins, Seattle, maybe Cleveland, Arizona, and Denver) who would be that interested in a QB. In addition, the draft seems deep this year, so I think team are going to be more inclined to have multiple picks rather than bet the farm on one player.
I have my ship
And all her flags are a flyin'
She is all that I have left
And music is her name
I used a double trade back philosophy
i.e. trading to the middle of the round (ostensibly to a team needing a QB) then trading to the late round. Now if you do a deal like the Browns did last year, much of your value would come in the 2013 season (which isn’t a bad thing).
Also remember now that with the rookie cap in place, the value of the top picks will be at a premium again as teams won’t have to give essentially ‘franchise’ contracts to top 5 and 10 talent.
I think the draft is def. deep this year, but I also believe there is an ‘upper’ class (as there are in most years). There are def. a drop off in talent after some of the top guys at a position (i.e. running back…the position as a whole has been devalued, but there is a huge gap between Richardson and the next guy (Lamar Miller)) So I can see some teams looking to move up.
You also have 3 teams (Browns, Bengals and Pats) with a pair of 1st rounders so they have the ammo to make a major move if they want and don’t necessarily have to ‘sell the farm’
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:02 AM EST up reply actions
Where is the draft deep
I don’t see it. CB’s it’s pretty deep. Wr’s and QB’s is OK. Offensive linemen – no. Defense linemen – no. S – no. LB – uh, not really. RB – no
Crying Lion
huh?
how’s it not deep. It will be predicated on the Junior class like most years, but:
OL is the deepest it has been in a couple of years, QB’s have 3-4 1st rounders and about 4-6 guys with starting potential, RB is about as deep as last year, with higher upside in James, Polk, Miller as well. D-line isn’t as deep as last years class, but it is pretty close and strong comparitively. WR is really strong and not even predicated on the juniors outside of Blackmon and Jeffery.
LB’s- Kuechly, Te’o, Burfict, Upshaw, Hightower, Brown, L.David, Irvin, Jarvis Jones, are all top 70 picks, and there are another 4-6 tweeners who will be rush linebackers in the 3-4.
CB’s are really deep as you mentioned.
TE- Depending on if Allen, Charles and Eifert come out, it could be a strong class to go along with Fleener.
safety is the only thing that I see to be below average (and last year wasn’t strong either).
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:36 PM EST up reply actions
Foles can not avoid a sack to save his life he has "terrible" feet.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
he also has a terrible o-line and majority of the team around him is average at best
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
He has one good WR
and that’s Criner, who by all accounts, is haveing a below-average year.
Crying Lion
Criner is his only NFL talent that's for sure
he’s not having a below average year (numbers are down slightly but he had an appendectomy at the beginning of the year and then a knee sprain in mid Oct.), but he hasn’t had a world beating year either.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
really don't see that?
not in the same category of a Fuller or Childs
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 29, 2011 12:37 PM EST up reply actions
Are you defending Foles?
A guy in another post said he is the perfect fit for the Shanahan system. That my friend….he is not.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
no i don't see him as a fit for this system either
but i think he’s a solid QB prospect, and in the right system he could succeed. I really don’t hold much of Arizona’s failures against him since that team is a mess.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
there are some differences
1. there have been numerous successes (Brunell, Schaub etc.) of players who were back-ups for a couple of years then traded for and turned into star QB’s.
2. While there are down right busts acquired this way (Rob Johnson), even if Flynn is Matt Cassel, that is a higher ceiling than what most 1st rounders develop into.
3. Flynn unlike the other QB’s listed isn’t a trade scenario. And you still get to use that draft pick either on a single player or trade it back for multiple players.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
While I love trade backs and acquiring picks like we did this past draft
It is my staunch personal opinion that we pull the trigger on a QB in the first round with the first pick unless some other desperate team gives us a lot ONLY to move back a couple of spots as this QB class is better than recent ones.
However if we trade back and miss out on drafting a QB and have to deal with Grossman/other teams’ garbage then I will probably flip out…….more so than I’ve already done.
Just say NO! to Rex Grossman.
I get the frustration
but most other team’s ‘garbage’ are far better than our players. Drafting a bust is just as likely as signing a bust, but the difference is you still have that draft pick for another need. Yes you could sign someone else, but since the QB should sit regardless you are going to have to spend some money on the position anyways.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
maybe I didn't define garbage
I would not object to bringing in either a Flynn or Orton (nevermind on him now) as I do’t consider them garbage…yet. Just as long as we draft a QB. My idea of garbage is Leinart, Quinn, Derek Anderson, and such. Either way 1st round has to be QB.
Even if I concede the fact that a draft pick can be a bust as well as some other teams guy, I would rather take the chance on the drafting of a QB than putting my hopes in a journeyman
Just say NO! to Rex Grossman.
What I want to know is....
What’s going on in the background of that picture??? Old man having a heart attack or is it a mugging?
At least "WE ARE" not Penn State!!!
As far as the question at hand.....
I am happy staying put and taking the QB that they have graded the highest at that spot….my preference right now is Barkley but it’s always up to change as things unfold. If we managed a trade up that wasn’t ridiculous in cost….I guess I would be down but I don’t value Luck that much higher than the others. Everyone talks like after Luck it’s the scraps….I think a few QBs in this draft have very successful NFL careers.
At least "WE ARE" not Penn State!!!
I think Barkley is a winner... and will have a good career.
Is it me? or does he have a “douche bag” look to him? Like Clausen? Like he’s better than you?
I don’t care either way… all I care about are Ws… but I can’t figure out if he’s a guy that others will rally around… a natural leader!
Barkley is far from a douche bag
he’s a very humble kid, who comes from a great family, who all donate time to work with underprevlidged youths. He’s one of the better people you’ll find in college football.
It’s very well documented how well he has handled his role as starting QB at USC, and also how he is an ambassador to the university all over the community(and even other parts of the world)
Crying Lion
Watching LSU v. Arkansas... WR Rueben Randle looks like a baller
6’4" 207… He’s been mocked at the 4th round… We should consider him… could be a bargain.
Funny how no one on here
is willing to talk about Tannehill’s ugly performance last night. Are people just not interested in him anymore, or do people no believe what I have been saying about him all year………………………..overrated!
Crying Lion
Actually, I used Tannehill as an example of other QB prospects available in the 2nd round
I agree with you that he is inexperienced as a QB… from what I’ve read… he was converted from WR.
I couldn’t see the game last night… so I can’t disagree about him being bad. I’m just saying that he has upside… and if we went with Flynn (in the off season), then we could go with a 2nd rounder to develop for a year or two.
I’d be perfectly happy drafting a QB in the first! Just exploring all the options!
I'm scared to death of trying the FA option
for our starter/future. I truely believe, we need to draft a QB, and draft him early. This is a unique year, in that there could be 3, possible 4 highly rated, smart, leaders at the QB position, who all have potential to be great. We need to go all out, and put as many resources as possible into this.
Crying Lion
they said the same thing in 1999, 2003 and 2004 and last year. And thus far it has only worked out once.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
and Shanny seems "scared to death" of drafting a QB
I mean look at all of the rookie QBs drafted in the last 2 years… he passed on all of them!
Copious mentioned it in another thread
and I’m sure it will turn people off, but one game should not define a player
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Why then are you down on Jones?
he hasn’t even had a bad game???? Also, you’d think you be as high as hell on Barkley, especially given the last 2 months he’s put together…………….hottest QB in the country IMO.
Curious as your take on Landry though. The kid has done nothing to show he isn’t a stud.
Crying Lion
I just don't see Jones as a fit for Shanny's offense at this point (if we were willing to tweak it yes)
And I think Jones needs some more time to develop to work on his reads against next level defenses.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Jones = Schaub
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 4:38 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
haha
was just going to post he same thing.
Schaub, with a stronger arm, and better athleticism.
I’ll take that any day!!!!!!
Crying Lion
Schaub also is a better decision maker and more accurate, he also got time to sit and learn
if you tell me Jones will get to sit two years then I’m with you
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Bull shit
Jones in college was 100 times the QB Schaub is. You can not use accuracy or decision making againt Jones. Kid is great in both.
Crying Lion
why b/c Jones is at Oklahoma and Schaub is at UVA?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
i've watched plenty of both
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I love him
i actually attended that draft and when the Skins moved up to draft Cooley I was hoping it was for Schaub (though i knew it was unlikely since they just traded for Brunell).
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Then I don't see how you can't love Landry Jones
He’s got a lot of Schaub’s qualities, just with a better skillset.
Crying Lion
Locker might
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
i don't get what you are saying?
why shouldn’t our next guy? Why should we handicap him?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
haha
same can be said for all these linemen our suggest picking. Adams has no business starting as a rookie, thats for sure.
Crying Lion
except there is a far better track record of starting linemen than QB's
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
true
but it’s an easier transition for an O-lineman than a QB.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
due to injury Rinehart is starting in Buffalo and he's actually looking good
now he might not have been a fit for ZBS and it def. took him longer to transition, but for being the 98th pick or whatever he was he might end up being a solid player.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 26, 2011 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
I think you hit the nail in the head... I don't see Kyle tweaking the Offense to match his personnel...
for example… his Zone blocking scheme (eventhough our Olinemen are not as athletic/nimble as required), etc.
schaub wasn't a shotgun QB
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I don't care about the shotgun shit
that is so weak.
Sa Bradford was a shotgun QB. Newton was a shotgun QB. Rivers ran a lot of shotgun at Nc St. Dalton was in the gun at TCU. I don’t care where they line up, I care about the complexity of the offense. If you doubt the offense Stoops runs, then you have some game watching to do.
Crying Lion
wow...
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Is Schaub a good fit for Houston
because with Jones you get a more athletic, stronger armed schaub. It seems to me Kyle did just fine with Schaub in Houston.
Crying Lion
well unfortunately Kyle isn't the one making the personnel decisions otherwise maybe we wouldn't resign Jamaal Brown
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Does that matter
Mike and Kyle, Kyle and Mike. Point is, if Jones is Schaun esq, but with better intangibles, anyone in their right mind would take that.
And we all know Kyle’s running the same offense he ran in Houston, so again, don’t see your point.
Crying Lion
Schaub I think is better in some areas
and I see that as the difference, plus the time factor
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Guy, your comparing an NFL vet to a junior in college
compare them when they were in college, and you’ll see it;s not even fair.
Crying Lion
why b/c Schaub had a better completion percentage despite being in a pro style system?
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
how can you even compare? Every Oklahoma QB is going to put up more yards, TD's and YPA than a UVA quarterback.
They should also have a higher completion %, but didn’t in this case.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
well he'd probably be a better prospect
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
some guys just get it at the college level
and playing another year won’t do them squat. They are better off going to the next level and learning there.
Crying Lion
It's a good think Jake Locker never had a game that bad...oh wait
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Again
your just refusing to talk about the deficiencies of Tanneheill here. Very poor debate.
Crying Lion
how am I refusing to debate?
You are the one saying Tannehill’s numbers are oh so awful when even after last night’s performance he is putting up good season numbers. He only has 4 more INT’s than Jones has to the same number of TD’s. Yes Tannehill has more games (but that is more attempts as well). Jones has a higher completion %, but I’d expect that given the talent around him, time as a QB, and the style of the offense. Now i’m not saying Jones isn’t as good as Tannehill, but comparing taking one at 5 and one at 37 its a different ball game.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
The bigger question....
Does Tannehill have a higher ceiling than any of the top 3 or 4?
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 4:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I really think he does
I think Jones can be a star but with some time to develop and in a system that uses a ton of shotgun.
Barkley I see as being a Matt Ryan type (11-15th best QB in the league…not as a rookie), but never really a top 10 elite guy.
Tannehill I think with time to develop he can be a really special QB.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
he play in a heavy shotgun offense
point is, so do a lot of college QB’s. He has no problem taking a handoff from center. I’ve seen him do it. That is such a BS excuse for someone who just doesn’t like him. Just like what you said about Newton and Mallett last year………….really smart.
Crying Lion
look how Newton is being used?? And Mallett is in the perfect system if he was forced to play.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Are you honestly tryinhg to tell me
that Landry Jones can not run an offense from under center???
Did you watch any games from his freshmen year? Do you know what type of system he cam from in highschool?
Crying Lion
I'm not saying that
but i’m saying it will be part of the transition process and he’d be much better suited in a shotgun heavy offense.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
I'll call BS again
now your just making stuff up.
Why don’t you talk a little more on your boy Tannehill. I’d like to hear more about why you are fime settling with him.
Crying Lion
how am I making stuff up?
You’ve used Rivers (2 years and is in a shotgun heavy offense), Newton (who is in an offense that plays to his strengths, it is well documented he does better this year in the shotgun than from under center), among others.
Tannehill has excellent potential and has the makings to develop into a top 10 QB. He throws well on the move, has shown good decision making and accuracy, and has a nice arm.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Here, fixed it for you.
He throws well on the move, has shown good questionable decision making and accuracy, and has a nice average arm
Crying Lion
you really need to stop citing decision making
as a strength of Tannehill. At this point in his career, it’s not good.
Crying Lion
Tannehill is a terrible decision maker
He reminds me of Mark Sanchez coming out of USC.
Dear Passionate fan, I know you are passionate, but please reply with a logical answer or I will ignore you.
by TerpsAllTheWay on Nov 26, 2011 6:34 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
why?
I wouldn’t even say they are in the same ballpark (in any category)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 26, 2011 11:17 PM EST up reply actions
yeah i have and Tannehill is far superior
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
based on what???
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
swing and a miss
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 28, 2011 12:57 PM EST up reply actions
Swing and a miss is correct...............
for Tannehill.
Zing!!!!!
Down goes Uncle Rico
Crying Lion
Strike two
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Please explain
for the sake of debate.
Tannehill has regressed. Agree? Agree. To me, that’s a strike against him.
Crying Lion
Stats may have changed
but at some point it was the exact opposite:
The one area where Newton is statistically the weakest, according to his Total QBR (27.7), is out of the shotgun. In 114 passing attempts from the shotgun formation, Newton has just three touchdowns versus four interceptions and five sacks.
I don't know what the numbers are now
but I know a good bit of his rushing yards (though not the TD’s) are from shotgun, and from the Panthers games I’ve watched he’s made some big plays out of the gun.
They are obviously using him quite a bit out of it as well.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 26, 2011 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
My confusion...
Everyone brings up Flynn and a developmental guy in round 2 or 3, and the basis is Aaron Rodgers. But Rodgers was supposed to be a top 10 pick and slid tremendously. He also sat and learned from a legend for 4 years, not a career backup. None of this applies to the Redskins situation, except….picking in the top 10.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 4:56 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Rodgers was considered top 10 b/c of a dearth of QB's that year
that is like saying Brady Quinn was considered a top 10. And Flynn is learning behind Rodgers which ain’t too shabby and under the same staff that is credited with helping develop Rodgers.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
However
Flynn would have to come in and learn this offense. As sad as it is to say…Rex knows this offense and has been a pro longer, so Rex + 1st Round QB > Flynn + 2 Round QB.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 5:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I don't think I could take another year of Rex Grossman as our starting QB (or Beck for that matter)
ha ha... dude... you'll be quoting it for life... its like a curse...
besides… the Rexettes are hot!
disagree
Talent matters more than knowledge of a particular system. (Note i consider this difference then having some time in the league to learn the nuances of being an NFL QB)
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Who knows more?
Rex knows this offense better and has been a pro longer. He has won playoff games and played backup.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 25, 2011 8:33 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Flynn has upside and potential, I think we know Rex has reached the Outer Limits
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
by Steve Shoup on Nov 26, 2011 12:27 PM EST up reply actions
Flynn is a place holder until the young guy is ready.
It would seem that you view him as the QB of the future.
Redskins @Robert Griffin III - 2012
by Copious 1 on Nov 26, 2011 12:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I view that he possibly could be
there is no such thing as a ‘sure thing’ esp when it comes to QB’s
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
Tannehill's games is severely flawed
and you just keep saying he hasent been a QB for that long, so I take that as your only defense. I want you to tell me about he regression this year, and about his decision making, and why it hasn’t improved. Or try and tell me his arm strength isn’t an area of concern, because to me, these are all MAJOR issues with him.
Crying Lion
a long while
which is why i want nothing to do with him. He’s just not what we need right now………………nor is Matt Flynn.
We need a hand-picked guy we can develop.
Crying Lion
He has more than enough arm strength and his decision making is good
Could both be better? Sure but they aren’t bad.
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
They are both average
Barkley is a little lacking in arm strength, and his arm is a hell of a lot better than Tannehill’s. Also, I wouldn’t go decision making with Tannehill. That’s CLEARLY not his strength.
Crying Lion
AGEED...also agree on Randle kid is special
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
best QB without trading away picks
we should be able to get one of those top 3 QBs without trading away picks so that’s my vote. That means we can use the 2nd and 3rd rounds to bolster the OL.
Thats how I feel too
but I would definitly throw out a trade offer for the number 1 pick just to see what the reception is.
Crying Lion
My personal opinion, as of right now...
I’d be down for trading two firsts, two seconds, and two thirds for Luck. I think he’s that good. I hate trading away all those picks as a developing team, but I would LOVE to lock up a guy who I think has a great chance to be a top level QB for the next 10-15 years.
I’d be ecstatic if Robert Griffin came out and we could draft him at our original draft spot (assuming we’re around #5).
I would not want to draft Barkley or Jones at #5. Right now, I’m not sold on either of those guys as deserving of such a high pick. If we could trade back to pick 15 or so, I’d feel better about grabbing one of those two, but I don’t think they’ll last that long.
If Ryan Kalil was available where we picked, I’d be okay with taking him. I really want a QB. We desperately need a QB. But if Luck or RG3 aren’t available, I’d rather take Kalil (who I feel good about) than reach (in my opinion) for a QB who I’m not sold on. I would make this move assuming that Kalil starts at LT with Trent moving to RT. I’m not giving up on Trent on the left. He’s still our best OL, but I’d say he’s performed below expectations.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Have you gotten a chance to see Barkley
over that last 2 months? You opinion on him could change drastically.
Crying Lion
I've seen a ton of Barkley over his career at USC.
About 75% of the college football I watch is Pac-10. I’ve seen him live once. Over the last two months, I’ve seen him against Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Notre Dame, and Arizona.
My opinion on him has changed quite a bit this season. Going into the year, I’d have been reluctant to spend more than a mid-late 2nd rounder on him. However, I think he’s shown much better decision making this season than in his first two years. He’s making good reads, and playing within the offense. In the past, he had a tendency to huck the ball up against double coverage and rely on his elite WR talent to make a play. This season, he’s been much more judicious with his passes, and it’s why his INT and % numbers are much improved.
However, the rest of his game still looks about the same as it always has. Good (not great) accuracy. Good (not great) arm strength. He can’t quite put pro zip on a 15 yard out, and his deep ball tends to float. He strikes me as a good (not great) college QB who’s had a lot of help from his line and WRs (best tandem in the nation this season). I’m not gonna discount Barkley’s contribution to USC’s offense, but often enough that “Barkley 80 yd TD pass to Woods” in the box score is really a quick pass to Woods who eludes three tacklers and outruns the defense for a TD, and that has to be taken into account.
After seeing him this season, I’d now be willing to take him somewhere around #15 overall, so that’s a pretty big improvement over how I felt about him going in. I just don’t have him rated as worthy of a top 10 pick. If we did take him at, say, #5, I’d live with it because he’s got a rep as a good guy and a hard worker. It wouldn’t be my first (or second or third) choice, but my TV remote would be safe.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
I too was a doubter of Barkley coming into the season
and for some of the same reasons you mentioned above. The one that stood out was arm strength, but for some reason, I think he has improved that too. i saw him throw 65 yards in the air with ease, which I never thought he could do before.
Crying Lion
I can't really say what the farthest I've seen him throw was...
but I can’t recall him going too far past 50. I’ve just seen him underthrow enough of those 40-50 yarders that I’m not sure how far he can go past that. If Tiller can find the highlight of the throw he’s thinking of, I’d be interested to see it.
The game against Arizona this year was one I remembered for Barkley throwing some of his nicer deep passes. I think those were more like 40-50 yarders, but he did a nice job hitting receivers in stride on a rope. Check Youtube for some highlights of that game.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Couldn't remember a pass quite like that against Oregon.
And I watched that entire game, because I hate the Ducks, who needed to lose to be knocked out of national title contention. ‘Bama still would’ve made it ahead of them, but I’d have had to listen to all my Duck fan buddies whine about how they got screwed.
In any case, I went back to watch the tape. Barkley really just has two long (in the air) completions in that game. The first was in the first quarter to Marquise Lee. Barkley throws from his own 35 to the Ducks’ 15—50 yards in the air. Even if you give him credit for throwing from just inside the hash to a yard or two from the sideline—about 20 yards, the throw still comes out to ~54 yards (thanks, trigonometry). This throw also seems to be about the limit for Barkley. He had a clean pocket, was able to step into it, and still underthrew Lee a bit (Lee made a nice play to go up and snag it even though the DB got a hand in).
The second throw is in the 3rd quarter, also to Lee, from his own 49 to the Ducks’ 5. Horizontally, it’s about 20 yards again, so the throw comes to about 50 yards in the air. This is the better throw, IMO. Barkley doesn’t really get to step into it all the way (due more to pressure than bad mechanics), but he hits Lee almost in perfect stride (maybe just a tad behind). The DB actually makes a great play to get a fingertip on the ball, but he never has a shot to make the pick or considerably alter the ball’s path. Lee makes a nice grab after the tip.
Barkley actually played a hell of a game against Oregon, and those throws he made were still pretty good. I just don’t see that great, 60+ yard arm strength from him (a la Jones or RG3)—more like pretty good (~50 yards). I’d actually say that his arm strength is just a touch below Luck’s, but very close (although I also think Luck’s deep ball is more consistently accurate).
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
yeah from what I have seen his arm maxes out at 50 yards give or take a few
for me personally, there are a disturbing number of plays where he is fully set and steps into his throw but the ball is short downfield and the wr has to make a play rather than catch it in stride.
The 2nd throw was the one I was talking about
55 in the air(i’m counting where it would have hit if not caught), and he barelt stepped into the throw at all. It looked effortless.
Crying Lion
Fair enough.
That’s pretty much exactly how I’d evaluate that throw. It was a pretty throw.
It’s just that your original post said 65 yards. A typo, maybe?
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
I was trying to remember back
and I thought it was 60-65. He did also throw 2 nice 55yrd balls against Arizona, and both looked easy.
Crying Lion
Who would you prefer between Jones and Barkley?
I meant to watch more of Landry Jones this season, but I only saw the FSU game, the A&M game (to see him vs. Tannehill), and the end of the Baylor game (after USC/Oregon ended). I feel like other highlights I’ve watched of him show flashes of big potential—he throws well on the run and has a really strong arm—but the games I saw left me a bit underwhelmed in terms of consistency and decision-making. I know his stats are ridiculous, so I might’ve just picked two down games for him—and he still had his moments in those.
I feel like I could be swayed a bit on Jones, but at this point I haven’t seen enough to be confident in wanting him top 10. I’ll be making an effort to watch the Big 12 ‘ship and OU’s bowl game to make up for what I missed during the regular season.
I know you started the season considerably higher on Jones. Where do you stand on those two now?
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Jones IMO has done all he needed to do to cement him as a top pick
He has struggled a bit lately with Broyles being out, and Stills recovering from a hammy. His young receivers have been inconsistant. For example, on Saturday, he was credited for an Int, but i saw the play and it was not Jone’s fault. He placed a perfect ball to his reciever in stride, and the ball bounced off the receivers hands, and right into the defender for the int. Also, peole are looking at his TD numbers being down, but thats a result of coaching. Oklahoma moves the ball downfield at ease. Inside the 10 yard line, they bring in Blake Bell at QB(he’s 6’5" 255 – they call him the Bell-dozier), and just let him run the wildcat. It works every time, but it also takes away potential TD’s from Jones.
I’m not down on Jones at all. It’s actually Barkley’s play that has impressed me so much, that I have moved him up considerably.
Now, from a skill perspective, Jones has it all. He has one of the best arms in all of college football, he is deadly accurate, has great size, is a leader on and off the field, throws well on the run, and makes great decisions with the football. What more could you ask for? His numbers being down, are a result of him not having as many attempts, and his INT’s being up, have a lot to do with WR’s missing catches or running the wrong routes(trust me, I have watched almost every game of his). He is so comfortable in the Oklahoma offense, that people often take it for granted.
Crying Lion
Just looking at the stats...
it seems that I did stumble upon two of Jones’s weaker starts—the two games I chose to watch were his two lowest passing yardage totals of the season. Also, FSU was probably the toughest defense he’s faced all season.
I hope I’m fully swayed by watching his final two games. I want him to be great. The more great QBs there are at the top of the draft, the better our chances to get one.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
Griffin was taking vicious hits last night
The one that put him out was cheap and could have put anyone out, but aside from that he was getting laid out on the regular. Played great and didnt seem affected by the hits (til the cheap shot) but man, at his size you wonder if he’ll be able to withstand NFL violence.
He is an absolute stud though, very accurate with such a live arm AND will be able to bust backbreaker 30yd runs vs NFL defenses…definitely franchise player talent level
Given his size, injury is certainly a concern.
However, I feel that he does a pretty good job avoiding hits when he can. When he scrambles, he often finds a way to get out of bounds. He’s also a damned good pocket passer, who doesn’t really rely on his legs in the same way other moblile QBs do. His mobility is more a bonus weapon than a crutch.
As a Skin, I would see him taking about as many hits as Rex. He’d get a couple extra on scrambles, but he’d also probably avoid a few in the pocket. That’s still a lot of hits (given our crummy O-line), and he’s smaller than Fat Rex, but I feel like his injury risk is pretty reasonable—nowhere near the likes of a Vick.
Vick is really the closest comparison to him as a player, IMO. Vick is a better runner (he’s otherworldly in that regard), but RG3 is more accurate, smarter, and seems to project as a better pocket passer. They’ve both got ridiculously big arms for their size.
"Dominant" is an adjective.
"Dominate" is a verb.
We'll work on "Dominance" once we get the first two figured out.
i think this is a very accurate description of Grifffin
Steveospeak - Content Manager of Fanspeak.com
although imo Vick is an even better athlete (better arm, even faster at the same age)
Griffin is not like Vick at all in that he is an extremely accurate passer who is also smart, disciplined, and a hard worker. Two military parents suggest he’s probably perfect for Shanny’s egomaniacal operation too.
RG3 is making like 5 or so plays a game that guys like Barkley and Landry will NEVER make in their careers. Conversely you will never see those other guys make a play that Griffin isnt also executing regularly. He’s as accurate as you could possibly want, has a great arm, AND is incredibly mobile. Perfect fit for ANY system if he can stay healthy.
QB in Round 1
There is no doubt Shanahan finally pulls the trigger on a QB in the 2012 draft after passing on one last year and how obvious the QB position needs to be upgraded.
The Redskins are not in the position the Vikings were in a few years ago – being a QB away from contention. If that were the case, I’d be for trading up for Luck. But the Redskins need to address too many positions in this year’s draft and the next to be trading up (remember the Julio Jones trade btw ATL & CLE?). Some pieces are already in place on defense and the WR corps is gaining some valuable experience this year. With that said, i don’t think Shanahan trades back to take a developmental QB, but instead selects his QB of the future, whomever that may be between Barkley, Jones, & BGIII. Grossman may be under center to start 2012, but the rookie gets the reigns at some point. Shanahan wasn’t afraid to start rookies to gain experience and I think he does the same with his rookie QB.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
