Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV)

True and it depends on if Jones and RGIII come out.

You are on the right track. It would be nice to have a stud QB and a stud WR so that we can get a triplets thing going.

Crazy Bold Pred: Andrew Luck

Probable: Sam Bradford

Someone sell me on Foles. When I've seen him play, I see a QB who pads his stats by throwing short a lot. I also see a QB who throws rainbows when he should be throwing ropes. It is not that I think he is bad - he just seems overrated to me.Foles has a much better deep ball than someone like Ryan Tannehill. A much better sense of timing, and I think he has a good concept for calculated risk. He doesn't always elude the pressure well, but he has a good sense of when time is running out. Gets through progressions quickly (maybe too quickly). He'll throw it to his first read if he thinks he can get the ball in, whether or not it is his best throw. I like the way he throws the shorter passes with zip and authority (although Tannehill is also quite good at this).

There are things I don't like about Foles, but I don't know if I would agree on your criticisms. I think the padding the stats argument implies that he's trading in winning throws for easier ones, and I never got that sense that Foles is looking only for the easy completion. I think he's looking for the first completion, but he's not averse to extending the play to let someone get open. As for rainbows vs. ropes, I would just point at his completion percentage and ascending YPA and suggest that it's probably not much of an issue.

I think he can both play within a scheme and create on his own, and that makes him a great fit for what we do. Some guys (Romo for example) struggle when you limit them to scheme throws and timing. Others (Grossman) really struggle to create outside the pocket. Foles can do both. And more importantly, he's accurate doing both.

Biggest knock on him: that he's not a good athlete at all. But he is a solid first round quarterback.

Foles has a much better deep ball than someone like Ryan Tannehill. A much better sense of timing, and I think he has a good concept for calculated risk. He doesn't always elude the pressure well, but he has a good sense of when time is running out. Gets through progressions quickly (maybe too quickly). He'll throw it to his first read if he thinks he can get the ball in, whether or not it is his best throw. I like the way he throws the shorter passes with zip and authority (although Tannehill is also quite good at this).

There are things I don't like about Foles, but I don't know if I would agree on your criticisms. I think the padding the stats argument implies that he's trading in winning throws for easier ones, and I never got that sense that Foles is looking only for the easy completion. I think he's looking for the first completion, but he's not averse to extending the play to let someone get open. As for rainbows vs. ropes, I would just point at his completion percentage and ascending YPA and suggest that it's probably not much of an issue.

I think he can both play within a scheme and create on his own, and that makes him a great fit for what we do. Some guys (Romo for example) struggle when you limit them to scheme throws and timing. Others (Grossman) really struggle to create outside the pocket. Foles can do both. And more importantly, he's accurate doing both.

Biggest knock on him: that he's not a good athlete at all. But he is a solid first round quarterback.

Fair enough GTripp. Excellent review. Thanks for that.

I'm trying to think of recent first round pick quarterbacks who weren't really great athletes. I guess there were a couple. Bradford isn't a great athlete. Leinart doesn't move that well. Rivers is well built, but doesn't get to display his athleticism much. Peyton is a bit underrated as an athlete, but he's still more statue than anything. And, well, then there was the 2003 draft which totally broke script (Palmer, Leftwich, Grossman).

By and large, the tendency for teams with first round quarterbacks is to lean towards passers who are also pretty good athletes. Luck, RG3, and Tannehill are fantastic athletes. Foles and Landry Jones are rather bow-legged. In recent history, those who lack athleticism have had a tough time getting picked high at the QB position. They are not the prototype anymore, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them.

I'm trying to think of recent first round pick quarterbacks who weren't really great athletes. I guess there were a couple. Bradford isn't a great athlete. Leinart doesn't move that well. Rivers is well built, but doesn't get to display his athleticism much. Peyton is a bit underrated as an athlete, but he's still more statue than anything. And, well, then there was the 2003 draft which totally broke script (Palmer, Leftwich, Grossman).

By and large, the tendency for teams with first round quarterbacks is to lean towards passers who are also pretty good athletes. Luck, RG3, and Tannehill are fantastic athletes. Foles and Landry Jones are rather bow-legged. In recent history, those who lack athleticism have had a tough time getting picked high at the QB position. They are not the prototype anymore, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider them.

I don't recall Ponder being touted as athletic but, he sure as hell looked it.

NFL.com news: With Barkley now out of picture, attention turns to Griffin (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8254ff24/article/with-barkley-now-out-of-picture-attention-turns-to-griffin?module=HP11_cp)

NFL.com news: With Barkley now out of picture, attention turns to Griffin (http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8254ff24/article/with-barkley-now-out-of-picture-attention-turns-to-griffin?module=HP11_cp)

Lots of information about Griffin there. Makes him sound much more like a project QB (at the pro level) than most comments would lead you to believe.

Well, taking into consideration all of the info or speculation or rumors or all of it just rolled into one basket and jostled around and threw up in the air and then it all fell and rolled on the ground for a while, there are two names that I wouldnt be TOO shocked to see in the Burgandy and gold next year.

Those two are Philip Rivers and Matt Schaub...........and I guess I would throw in the Packers backup as well, Flynn, but, given everyones circumstances, possible scenarios point to those two "possibly" being available to us by trade, be it by players or picks or both.......to an extent.

fyi just throwing those two names out there........in hopes that in doing that, it distracts people from the new "Mark Sanchize thread started by someone here.......*(vomits in mouth)*, ok, im back, yeah, no chance of getting the above two guys, just please, oh please do not trade anything over a 3rd for sanchez.........god damn it......if shanny and company gave a 2nd and a 4th for mcflabb, what the hell are they gonna chuck on over to the meadowlands for their underacheiving prettyboy...........

Lots of information about Griffin there. Makes him sound much more like a project QB (at the pro level) than most comments would lead you to believe.

Very accurate report, that's why Luck and Barkley were consider 1 and 2, because of the pro style offenses they played on. Griffin is great just not as polished, however he has a great upside cause he's very smart and I'm sure could pick things up quickly.