Yet Another QB Rumors Thread (Volume 9)

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

I sure hope we are interested in Nate Potter OT/OG from Boise State. The dude could start at RT right away IMO.

We need RG3 simple as that. Quit trying to go after the lesser guys shanahan! Just give up the picks and get Griffin.

Why are you ready to give up the bank for one player? I wouldn't give up the bank for Luck either. This team has no depth and most of our starting O line would be backups for the better teams in the league. Yeah go ahead and break the bank for RG III and with no O line to block for him he will result to being Vick in ATL. No thanks. Build the team right for a change. We have broken the bank trying to get the "sexy" pick only to have it blow up in our face all the time. Not knocking RG III, but we have serious holes on our fav team, and giving up mulitple first rounders or even multiple second round picks would be detrimental. Go for Tannehill or Weeden, or even Moore if it means keeping picks or gaining them. We need fresh young talent. What happens to our D if Fletcher leaves, or other stalwarts decide to bolt? Then you are in a big hole without picks in the future. RG III is a very talented guy, but so is Cam Newton and I am not sure Cam is going to win a SB in the near future if at all. A QB can't win a game on his own.

[SkinzWin]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

2012 Kirk Cousins=2011 Colin Kaepernick

Kouz (Pronounced Cuzz) Krusader just doesn't have the same ring as Kaep Krusader...

[GusFrerotte]

Originally Posted by Mahons21

Draft Breakdown — Search Results — Kirk Cousins

Some good footage of cousins for those of you with some spare time on their hands.

No to any MSU QB plain and simple. I am a Michigander and a Big Ten guy, and see MSU often. I like Cousins, but I don't see him any higher than the rest of the MSU Qbs in the NFL now, backups at best. MSU QBs do well because the program always seems to recruit TO type guys at WR.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by redskins5044

I agree, and even RG3 combine results were overhyped. We already knew he was going to run a fast 40 time, have a good vertical, broad jump, and interview well. The kid is a smart with a good head on his shoulders, nothing new was learned at the combine, just the media needing something to talk about.

Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.

Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.

end track specific rant back to football....

[redskins5044]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.

Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.

end track specific rant back to football....

I just don't get why it was big news and all the talk was about how he improved his stock. To sort of quote Dennis green " he is who we thought he was". I am just tired of all these rumors and arguing about who we should draft or sign as QB. I don't even know who i prefer they get anymore, I change my mind everyday. I am glad I don't have to make the decision.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

*sighs* Skill set is not the sum of a prospect.
2 QBs can have the same physical skill set yet grade out completely differently.
For some reason you struggle with the notion of physical skill set being part of a QBs profile yet not the sum of that propsect.
Kaepernik has a much bigger arm then Griffin, Luck and Tannehill and he's at least the athletic equal to Tannehill and superior to Luck.
He's on the same tier as Griffin although not his equal.

But, I guess I should expect this from you since for whatever reason you cannot admit that Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck.
http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post889702

Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.

It's an irrelevant argument since you're the only guy here who starts the quarterback discussion with athleticism, and then gets involved in this quarterback virtual reality where Andrew Luck is this unremarkable first round quarterback who anyone with a good build and a good arm gets compared to.

I thought comparing Tannehill and Kaepernick was a useful way to make your point about Kaepernick being undervalued last year, but your desire to make Luck seem like "one of the guys" undermined the argument you were actually trying to make.

I disagree that NFL Network is pushing a conspiracy to compare Luck and Newton as athletes. But Luck is in that kind of class as an athlete. Whether or not he'll be a better QB than Newton is up for debate and won't be answered for many years. But we already know that this is the kind of athlete we're talking about here.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by redskins5044

I just don't get why it was big news and all the talk was about how he improved his stock. To sort of quote Dennis green " he is who we thought he was". I am just tired of all these rumors and arguing about who we should draft or sign as QB. I don't even know who i prefer they get anymore, I change my mind everyday. I am glad I don't have to make the decision.

I hear yah.
But at the end of the day its the media's job to sell things.
Yelling about Griffin/Luck is an easy way to sell the combine to the casual fan.
Fact of the matter is that coaches/exec/scouts all a test to the fact that the 2 most important events at the combines don't occur on the field: medical and interviews.
The whole 'player X stock rose' is hot air.
And I'm sure real scouts hate it.
They literally work all year round tracking these players, talking to their coaches, friends, girlfriends, watching film, going to practices the idea that all their work is less important then a few ours in Indy is silly.

The only 'stock' that jumps at the combine is media 'scout' perceptions which are feed by the same coaches/execs/scouts and enter player agents lying throw their teeth to the media 'scouts' to get their message/agenda out there.

[44Deezel]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Flame suit on: I was actually dissappointed in Griffin's 40 time considering what he's capable of running.
We're talking about a rare specimen here.
A true to life Olympic caliber sprinter.

Now this has nothing to do with football, its not coming from that persepective at all but from a track prospective.
Marshall Faulk hinted at it but stopped short of explaining it.
I have a little bit of background in track myself and knowing that Griffin ran a 21.46/200m (IIRC) 2 years ago when he was a finalist for the Olympic trials, suggests using simple track logic that he should be around around a low 4.4 without breaking a sweat really.
If Griff really wanted to (i.e. trained) he could/should be capable of a lower 40 time, I'm talking low 4.3's.
And who knows he might put up that number at Baylor's pro day where the track will undoubtedly be faster.
BTW Vick's 4.33 was not ran at the combine so I'm not sure why he gets credit for that as his 'official' time.

end track specific rant back to football....

How fast is Eli? I'll take some of that

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GusFrerotte

Why are you ready to give up the bank for one player? I wouldn't give up the bank for Luck either. This team has no depth and most of our starting O line would be backups for the better teams in the league. Yeah go ahead and break the bank for RG III and with no O line to block for him he will result to being Vick in ATL. No thanks. Build the team right for a change. We have broken the bank trying to get the "sexy" pick only to have it blow up in our face all the time. Not knocking RG III, but we have serious holes on our fav team, and giving up mulitple first rounders or even multiple second round picks would be detrimental. Go for Tannehill or Weeden, or even Moore if it means keeping picks or gaining them. We need fresh young talent. What happens to our D if Fletcher leaves, or other stalwarts decide to bolt? Then you are in a big hole without picks in the future. RG III is a very talented guy, but so is Cam Newton and I am not sure Cam is going to win a SB in the near future if at all. A QB can't win a game on his own.

The result in Atlanta was the #1 rushing attack with a below average offensive line and a QB that wasn't much of a threat to throw due to his inability to put in the time and effort to learn the playbook. A QB who by his very presence alone opened running lanes for the Backs off the cutback lanes.

And keep in mind RG3 went 9-3 at Baylor. A school that typically got the in state leftovers from Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and TCU while competing with SMU for those final scraps of the Texas High School football landscape.

I can't believe we would pass up the chance to pick a once in a decade QB because we weren't happy with our current situation at RT and LG. It is infinity easier to fill those positions then it is to fill the QB spot.

Heck if our offensive line is as bad as we think it is then we need RG3 as no QB extended and completed more plays last year after protection broke down then RG3. And believe me behind that Baylor O-Line protection broke down plenty.

Quantity does not equal quality.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

I can't believe we would pass up the chance to pick a once in a decade QB because we weren't happy with our current situation at RT and LG. It is infinity easier to fill those positions then it is to fill the QB spot.

This easily falls in the category of nitpicking, but I have a tough time seeing how a once in a decade QB would be available with the second pick in his own draft. And how the team with the second pick would then trade the pick because "you know what, we're good!"

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

This easily falls in the category of nitpicking, but I have a tough time seeing how a once in a decade QB would be available with the second pick in his own draft. And how the team with the second pick would then trade the pick because "you know what, we're good!"

The last QB with his physical skill-set was Vick in 2001. It's been 11 years since an athlete at the QB position like RG3 has come along so thats what I meant by once in a decade. Of course unlike his predecessor he can actually complete passes especially the deep ball as I'm learning from watching his game against TCU. Being in the same draft as Luck is just a crazy coincidence.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Pushing falsehoods is not the same as grading quarterbacks. Of course Andrew Luck is a better athlete than Tannehill.

Ah, of course anyone with a different view point then yours is 'pushing' falsehoods.

For some reason you think posting your opinion as a declarative statement makes it something more then your opinion, but it doesn't.
It just makes for a needlessly childish/tedious discussion.
Anyone can say 'Of course Tannehill is a better athlete then Luck'
But unlike you I've stated why I think that.
Namely that Tannehill was a good enough athlete to not only play WR but he was the leading WR on A&M for 2 years in a row.

Of course you haven't responded to the above fact you just keep repeating your opinion: Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill, Luck is a better athlete then Tannehill rinse, repeat.

It's an irrelevant argument since you're the only guy here who starts the quarterback discussion with athleticism, and then gets involved in this quarterback virtual reality where Andrew Luck is this unremarkable first round quarterback who anyone with a good build and a good arm gets compared to....I thought comparing Tannehill and Kaepernick was a useful way to make your point about Kaepernick being undervalued last year, but your desire to make Luck seem like "one of the guys" undermined the argument you were actually trying to make.

Oh, sweet now you're gonna just completely fabricate my position?
Why don't you at least use the quote feature and show where I've done any of the above?

http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post888736

Originally Posted by me 02-25-2012, 05:48 AM

I think a large portion of what separates Luck from the other prospects is directly related to Harbaugh.
And I mean that as a compliment to both.
I think Jim Harbaugh is currently the premiere QB guru in the NFL.
His success with Josh Johnson and San Deigo State followed by Luck at Stanford and Alex Smith in the NFL is proof positive for me that Harbaugh know how to coach the QB position.
Consequently Luck is one of the most ready to play NFL QBs I can remember.
And you couple that with his physical skill set (size, mobility, playmaking); he's clearly the top QB in this draft class.
But, even if he Luck didn't have the benefit of Harbaugh's 'AP QB classes' his physical skill set would still make him a top prospect.

But, the QB prospects imo are viewed differently from coaches then by GMs.
Imo when a GM sees a QB like Luck they value his 'pro-readiness' more then coaches especially ones that view themselves as QB gurus.
Pro-readiness to a GM means: QB's X success is less contingent upon my coaching staff's ability to 'coach him up' and to a GM that is very valueable.
But, coaches might think QB's Y skill set is near QB X's skill set and my coaching can make QB's Y skill set produce the same results as QB X.

If I was judging on physical skill set alone I would have Tannehill ahead of Luck. (especially arm talent and athletic ability)
But, of course evaluating any prospect is based on far more then physical skill set alone.
And for that reason I have Luck and Griffin ahead of Tannehill.

more Luck related opinion here: http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-l...tml#post887349

Originally Posted by me

However their is a clear distinction or separation between Luck/Griffin and Tannehill.
Where Tannehill is raw Luck/Griffin are both high efficiency QBs that exhibit high level command of their respective team's passing offense.

Originally Posted by GT

I disagree that NFL Network is pushing a conspiracy to compare Luck and Newton as athletes. But Luck is in that kind of class as an athlete. Whether or not he'll be a better QB than Newton is up for debate and won't be answered for many years. But we already know that this is the kind of athlete we're talking about here.

Did you pay attention to the post I was responding to at all or now you're just gonna invent fictional positions then claim I was making them?

Why you so salty tonight bro?

[skinsfaninok]

I saw a quote from mike wilbon that said something like "it doesn't matter who the skins get, they'll screw it up somehow " I've seen him bash us before what's up with that? Doesn't he live in DC?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

The last QB with his physical skill-set was Vick in 2001. It's been 11 years since an athlete at the QB position like RG3 has come along so thats what I meant by once in a decade. Of course unlike his predecessor he can actually complete passes especially the deep ball as I'm learning from watching his game against TCU. Being in the same draft as Luck is just a crazy coincidence.

Well, it's not like Vick is the only quarterback in the last decade that has had an undeniably positive effect on his own running game. Newton, Rodgers, and maybe Tebow fall into that same category.

But really, that skill set is held by any quarterback who can force the defense to keep a pair of safeties deep. That's the key: if safeties are alley players, you can defend the zone-boot action easily, whether Tebow, Vick, Newton, or Griffin is running it. If the safeties have to stay over the top to prevent the big play, then the zone-boot game works wonders.

And obviously the fact that Griffin comes out so much more polished a passer than Vick is the big deal here.

[Mahons21]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

I saw a quote from mike wilbon that said something like "it doesn't matter who the skins get, they'll screw it up somehow " I've seen him bash us before what's up with that? Doesn't he live in DC?

He's a Chicago sports fan at heart, and has never been well liked by the Washington area ever since his article about Taylor which was written in very poor taste, and I think he's well aware of it.