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

[diehard]

Originally Posted by Landry44

I have no idea why people keep making a big deal out of players coming out of a pro style offense. Sam Bradford didn't come out of a pro style offense and he was able to start right a way. Cam Newton didn't come out of a pro style offense and he's setting rookie passing records. Sanchez came out of a pro style offense and he sucks. Matt Leinart also come out of the same offense and had the privilege of sitting behind a future hall of fame qb for a few year and still wasn't able to adjust to the NFL. Players don't have hard time picking up the offense of defensive systems. That has never been proven to a true. They have a hard time adjusting to the speed of the game. There is no doubt in my mind that RG3 will have no problems picking up our offense and being ready to start day one.

Thank you.

[diehard]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Barkley's a cheater?

Yes, he's trying to set the deck. He'll be a 8th year senior in 2016 having a press conference talking about, "I've decided to come back another year..." just because other QBs are earning "his" limelight. Pu$$y.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by diehard

Yes, he's trying to set the deck. He'll be a 8th year senior in 2016 having a press conference talking about, "I've decided to come back another year..." just because other QBs are earning "his" limelight. Pu$$y.

Umm.....ok

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by EARTHQUAKE2689

Well I played him in Madden and he kept "nano-blitzing"

lmao...that was good for a chuck in the office today

[SkinItup]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Definitely exposes Griffin's downside. Of course, my biggest question of him was how quickly could he adjust to a pro style offense. 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 do agree though, I think if you can develop RG III and develop his skills at reading defenses, you can have a championship caliber QB. BUT, I think that means drafting him with the knowledge that he's not going near the field his entire first season.

Who is going to Challenge him on the skins? He might not be better than grossman to start but he can't throw too many more INTS than him and the experience would be valuable. he doesn't seem like the type of guy who would lose confidence easily.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by SkinItup

Who is going to Challenge him on the skins? He might not be better than grossman to start but he can't throw too many more INTS than him and the experience would be valuable. he doesn't seem like the type of guy who would lose confidence easily.

You have to keep in mind that this is Mike Shanahan's third season coming up as coach of the Redskins. While I believe Snyder is more patient than what he was in the beginning of his tenure, he does not want to see another 5-11 or 6-10 season. While I believe we have seen the best that Rex Grossman has to offer, Grossman knows the offense and can run it pretty well. The only quarterback coming out of college who I'd feel comfortable starting from the start of the season would be Andrew Luck, and I don't think we're getting him. All the rest of the guys will more or less have to ride the pine for at least a few weeks. That being said, I believe the only way RG III shows early success ala Cam Newton, is if Kyle Shanahan is willing to re-work his offensive scheme around RG III's strengths and knowledge and go with that. But, we have all seen that KS wants someone who fits his system, not the other way around.

I'm thinking no matter who we draft, assuming we don't get someone like Mark Sanchez, Rex Grossman is probably going to start the season, and maybe gives way to the rookie by mid-season. Keep in mind, Grossman was out for about three games this year. While at least one of those he would have been out no matter what (pneumonia), there COULD have been possibly one or two games that the Redskins win, which would have put the Redskins in the thick of things for the NFC East title this season. So, as bad as Rex can be, we still had opportunities to have at least an 8-8 season, which would have been an improvement on last season, and on paper would have shown progress. Don't get me wrong, Rex Grossman is NOT the Redskins future, and I strongly support drafting a quarterback and going with young talent. But, as fickled as us Redskins fans are, no matter if Shanahan does that and even starts the kid day one, Redskins fans will be calling for his head come mid season when the skins are 2-6 with the rookie in.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You have to keep in mind that this is Mike Shanahan's third season coming up as coach of the Redskins. While I believe Snyder is more patient than what he was in the beginning of his tenure, he does not want to see another 5-11 or 6-10 season. While I believe we have seen the best that Rex Grossman has to offer, Grossman knows the offense and can run it pretty well. The only quarterback coming out of college who I'd feel comfortable starting from the start of the season would be Andrew Luck, and I don't think we're getting him. All the rest of the guys will more or less have to ride the pine for at least a few weeks. That being said, I believe the only way RG III shows early success ala Cam Newton, is if Kyle Shanahan is willing to re-work his offensive scheme around RG III's strengths and knowledge and go with that. But, we have all seen that KS wants someone who fits his system, not the other way around.

I'm thinking no matter who we draft, assuming we don't get someone like Mark Sanchez, Rex Grossman is probably going to start the season, and maybe gives way to the rookie by mid-season. Keep in mind, Grossman was out for about three games this year. While at least one of those he would have been out no matter what (pneumonia), there COULD have been possibly one or two games that the Redskins win, which would have put the Redskins in the thick of things for the NFC East title this season. So, as bad as Rex can be, we still had opportunities to have at least an 8-8 season, which would have been an improvement on last season, and on paper would have shown progress. Don't get me wrong, Rex Grossman is NOT the Redskins future, and I strongly support drafting a quarterback and going with young talent. But, as fickled as us Redskins fans are, no matter if Shanahan does that and even starts the kid day one, Redskins fans will be calling for his head come mid season when the skins are 2-6 with the rookie in.

I think the idea a rookie must sit his first year and if he doesn't then the team will suck has kinda of gone by the way side. Many rookies have come out starting in the NFL of late with great success. It depends on their ability to shorten the learning curve and their supporting cast.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by mredskins

I think the idea a rookie must sit his first year and if he doesn't then the team will suck has kinda of gone by the way side. Many rookies have come out starting in the NFL of late with great success. It depends on their ability to shorten the learning curve and their supporting cast.

Your idea only makes sense IF your last sentence is true. Unfortunately, that's not the case across the board, and I'm not sure that would be true in Washington. I think it would be a moot point anyways, as I'm not sure Mike Shanahan would necessarily start a rookie quarterback unless he showed unbelievable skills from the start. And even though Rex Grossman is probably going to be as good as he has been this season, he's still going to be a tough man to bench simply because he knows the offense. It would be easier to bench him for another young veteran with playoff experience. Mike is not going to make that mistake again of benching Rex Grossman for an unproven commodity. Maybe even if the 'skins somehow got Andrew Luck, its not a given Shanahan starts him from day one.

I can't tell you the situations of other teams around the league, but this is the situation at Redskins park. You're going into Mike's third season on his five year contract. He has had two losing seasons so far. There is going to be pressure on him to show some legitimate progress in the win column this season. Not saying he's fired if season three is another sub .500, but I don't believe Dan Snyder wants this team to be losers throughout the whole rebuilding process. It's important the Redskins are no worse than 8-8 in year three and that's strictly my opinion, but I believe that to be true regardless who the quarterback is.

Just thinking realistically, I think it's a long shot for any rookie quarterback to be named the starter from week one. I would be very surprised, because that would be a bold move on Mike Shanahan's part. If that rookie is RG III, knowing what all we have learned about him - the good and bad - that's even more of a bold move. It's pretty much a common knowledge that Andrew Luck seems would get a free pass around the league if he's thrust into the starting role (not that I necessarily agree with it) but I think he's the only one.

[SmootSmack]

Robert Griffin III vs. Andrew Luck | National Football Post

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Robert Griffin III vs. Andrew Luck | National Football Post

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

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by The Goat

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

[Mechanix544]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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

[The Goat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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...

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.