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

That was a fun read. SmootSmack do you think the FO should do whatever it can to land one of the two (probably RGIII)?

Um, I don't know. Not sure "whatever it can" entails exactly. I would say that I would make very strong attempts to get Luck and even Bradford. For RGIII, I'm not as inclined. I just don't think he's ready to take over yet. But if we draft him, I'd love to be proven wrong

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.

So, you are saying that he is a better option than R.Tannehill because, as you put it, he cant really escape the sack, but he has a good sense of when its coming? So, his value is, that when he is getting crushed, he had a good sense he was about to get the shit knocked out of him?

I didnt know that was an admirable trait for a pro quarterback, but I guess its worth something??????

I wonder if Troy Aikman had that trait in my avatar pick..........it worked out great for him......lol

Um, I don't know. Not sure "whatever it can" entails exactly. I would say that I would make very strong attempts to get Luck and even Bradford. For RGIII, I'm not as inclined. I just don't think he's ready to take over yet. But if we draft him, I'd love to be proven wrong

How many picks (and in what round) do you think each is worth...Luck, Bradford, RGIII?

To me, it looks like this is the bottom line if Mike wants his QB of the future and start winning in his 3rd season...

The BIGGEST piece of info from that link is the fact that the DC reads the defenses and not RG III. In my personal opinion, what makes an NFL QB great is the fact that he's top notch at reading defenses. He doesn't have to have to necessarily have a huge arm or be able to run, but he must be able to read defenses and audible out of bad plays.
I agree to an extent.
But, the ability to 'read' defenses isn't innate its taught/learned.
The ability to read defenses has a lot to with the QBs apptitude and intelligence but imo its equally a function of:

o the system
o coaching
o experience/continuity

BUT, I think that means drafting him with the knowledge that he's not going near the field his entire first season.People say things like this about spread QBs every year.
But, imo being ready to play isn't a question of coming from a pro-style offense or not.
Its a question of maturity, coachability, drive, confidence, intelligence and of course talent.
Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Bradford, Colt McCoy all had coaches 'reading' the defense 'for' them (its par for the course for spread QBs) but that didn't stop these guys from playing early or right away.

The bigger question imo isn't the apptitude of RGIII but rather of Kyle.
The inability to teach any other QB the offense has led to Rex being our QB for 15 games.
This imo calls into question how easily the offense can be taught.
Rookies Cam Newton and Andy Dalton, non-pro-style/spread QBs, were able to learn their respective offense in a shortened offseason.
Matt Moore was able to learn a new offense at the end of training camp.
Carson Palmer and Kyle Orton learned their offseason mid-season.
Yet, Rex Grossman was our QB because he knew our offense.

I agree to an extent.
But, the ability to 'read' defenses isn't innate its taught/learned.
The ability to read defenses has a lot to with the QBs apptitude and intelligence but imo its equally a function of:

o the system
o coaching
o experience/continuity

People say things like this about spread QBs every year.
But, imo being ready to play isn't a question of coming from a pro-style offense or not.
Its a question of maturity, coachability, drive, confidence, intelligence and of course talent.
Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Bradford, Colt McCoy all had coaches 'reading' the defense 'for' them (its par for the course for spread QBs) but that didn't stop these guys from playing early or right away.

The bigger question imo isn't the apptitude of RGIII but rather of Kyle.
The inability to teach any other QB the offense has led to Rex being our QB for 15 games.
This imo calls into question how easily the offense can be taught.
Rookies Cam Newton and Andy Dalton, non-pro-style/spread QBs, were able to learn their respective offense in a shortened offseason.
Matt Moore was able to learn a new offense at the end of training camp.
Carson Palmer and Kyle Orton learned their offseason mid-season.
Yet, Rex Grossman was our QB because he knew our offense.I think they've done a good job with Grossman. But the offensive upside is limited. Because it's Rex Grossman.

I think you've really touched on a number of bottom line things here.

One thing I would add is that the "pro-style" offense in college doesn't typically involve a lot of pro reads. That's what makes Luck so different from everyone else, because one of the biggest limitations on QBs coming from college to the pros (the abilities to use coverage reads and to work a progression) is something Luck is already doing. Because of that, you don't risk a situation like you have with Sanchez where three years down the line you need a fall guy because your quarterback isn't improving.

Andrew Luck could still fail. He could play inconsistently in his first season, get hurt and miss the entire second season and then have another injury in his third preseason. Then it really doesn't matter what you have invested in Andrew Luck: you didn't get return on it. Andrew Luck could end up being the next Greg Cook. But Andrew Luck is not going to fail because of the nuances of pro offenses. He's already doing that in college.

Anyway, whether or not someone is running pro style formations in offense doesn't mean they are reading defenses. If the receiver is determined by the playcall, then the receiver is determined by the playcall. And that's the norm in college. Spread/pro/wishbone doesn't matter when projecting quarterbacks.

So, you are saying that he is a better option than R.Tannehill because, as you put it, he cant really escape the sack, but he has a good sense of when its coming? So, his value is, that when he is getting crushed, he had a good sense he was about to get the shit knocked out of him?

I didnt know that was an admirable trait for a pro quarterback, but I guess its worth something??????

I wonder if Troy Aikman had that trait in my avatar pick..........it worked out great for him......lolWell, there are things can do when a quarterback is under pressure besides eluding the rush and taking a death-defying sack.

Just to give one example: he can throw the ball to a receiver.

Boise State's Kellen Moore has NFL talent; college mailbag - Stewart Mandel - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/stewart_mandel/12/27/mailbag.bowls/index.html?sct=nfl_bf2_a3)

Good read about Kellen Moore

watched inside the nfl tonight. Nothing really new/important, but Michael Lombardi said that the st. louis job is appealing to coaches and he heard that if st. louis got the number 1 pick, that they Will trade it to the highest bidder in a hershel walker type of deal, which could be--as this board has mentioned--3 first rounders. I don't remember if he mentioned washington or not, but we need--if we want Luck--to have the jags lose to Indy-as we've mentioned before.

The point of this post is that what we keep hearing and hearing is starting to become more of a definite reality, should St. Louis get the pick.

Well, if St. Louis was silly enough to trade the Luck pick, I'd certainly like the Redskins to put a package together.

Three first round picks would be a starting point, but they'll be lucky to get something nice in addition to two first round picks. I doubt you'll have to touch the 2014 draft to make that trade.

I don't know if I would do a first and a second in 2012 and a first and a second in 2013, but I think that that would be a reasonable return for the first overall pick in this draft. I don't know if I'd match that, but I could see a team getting that.

Well, if St. Louis was silly enough to trade the Luck pick, I'd certainly like the Redskins to put a package together.

Three first round picks would be a starting point, but they'll be lucky to get something nice in addition to two first round picks. I doubt you'll have to touch the 2014 draft to make that trade.

I don't know if I would do a first and a second in 2012 and a first and a second in 2013, but I think that that would be a reasonable return for the first overall pick in this draft. I don't know if I'd match that, but I could see a team getting that.

Remember, as I've been saying on the other thread, just because you trade 3 first rounders, doesn't mean its 3 straight years 2012-2014, it could be 2012 2014 2016.