IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

I have a headache reading that back and forth. Back to the overriding question, if we are picking a QB at 10 I'd have to go with Newton simply because I think he has the highest upside of all of the incoming QB. Unfortunately, I also think he's the furthest away from a making an impact as a starter due to his limited college experience and the gimmick offense he came from. I also wonder about his adaptability to Kyle's system. That being said, a 6'6, 255 specimen with a championship pedigree who supposedly loves football and is willing to put in the work is rather enticing long term.

People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.

Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?"

To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here.

I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.

For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).

Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.


You may be right about Taylor, but if he is the only one with a job in 5 years, it'll probably be as a wr. I just don't see him as a starting qb. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

You may be right about Taylor, but if he is the only one with a job in 5 years, it'll probably be as a wr. I just don't see him as a starting qb. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I have only one comment for this post. Drew Brees. Side note: (stop trying to keep down the short man)

Edit: I think the P.C. term for it is height challenged, pardon my indiscretion.

You explain away the uptick any way you want but the fact that uptick occured goes against the point you're making and speaks to my point.
The team around the QB effects their comp% and therefore comp% alone is not reliable predictor of success.
And quite frankly i think its pretty lame when people say that player X won't make it in the NFL or won't become a pro-bowler etc.
We're talking about the NFL the majority of people that attempt to make it fail and those that make it often have short careers.
You're not exactly going out on a limp when you say that player X won't make it.
When it comes to the NFL saying someone won't make it is always the safe side.
You're right. Your absolutely right. I'm on the safe side of this argument, and make no outlandish claims otherwise. It's the easy prediction to say that Locker won't be much in the pros because he didn't amount to much in college. The world is not promising Jake Locker anything.

It would be a huge blanket statement to say that passing environment doesn't affect completion percentages at all. That's not really true. It is true as a generalization compared to all other well-known statistics. It's one of two or three QB stats where the primary variable is the ability of the quarterback. It's not the only variable, but you can change the quality of receivers and see a drop in yards, TDs, an increase in INTs, and a relatively stable completion percentage. That would be pretty normal.

Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is. It just means you have to be mindful of the chasm between Locker and the next-worst guy in a pretty stable statistic, and what it means for him in the pros.

Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked. I've got the smart money, plus plenty of room for error, on my side the the pickett fence.

This QB class needs a nickname.

Let's call them the "Red Flag Brigade."

Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is.
Which was my point all along, there is a context to the stats and if you look only at the stats you miss the evaluation.

Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked.
Again were back to a looking at the stats.
If the stats were the sum of his ability then according to your view it would be long odds for Locker to improve his comp%.

When you repeatedly avoid the question about how many Washington games you've watched leads me to believe that you haven't seen Locker play very often.
If stats were excluded from the discussion and we just look at Locker as a prospect i bet you would have a different opinion of him; especially his accuracy.

HTTR!

Stats are like 64 bps MP3s but worse. What physically goes on the field, such as ball location, routes thrown, etc are not carried over in the transfer to stats.

I have only one comment for this post. Drew Brees. Side note: (stop trying to keep down the short man)

Edit: I think the P.C. term for it is height challenged, pardon my indiscretion.

I never said a thing about his height. I don't care how tall he is, I just don't think he'll become a starting qb.

I think it's vertically challenged. I'm 6'2" but horizontally challenged lol...

OMG.......im sorry i opened my mouth. I just dont get why people can't say "if i had to choose it would be Mallet" or whomever. SS just asked a hypothetical........ people just seem to veer off is all.

Ok to make those happy who are stuck on the question....
I'd take Andy Dalton at #10. now you want my constructive criticism after right? Because his team didn't lose a game all season, they won 16 games, cause he looks more mobile then the other top prospects to me, cause he can make all the throws, cause he's got good character, cause he looks like he'd fit the scheme well to me.

Now is he worthy of the top 10 spot? Most say no. So I'll take the OL ( Center) that we need and take Andy Dalton later in the draft to make the rest of you happy that we didn't waist a top 10 pick on Dalton.

A top 10 pick on a center... That's even worse than Dalton.