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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mechanix544

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

Well, 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.

[CultBrennan59]

Boise State's Kellen Moore has NFL talent; college mailbag - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

Good read about Kellen Moore

[CultBrennan59]

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.

[GTripp0012]

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.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

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.

But then it's not as valuable to the team that's receiving it. What the heck is a 2016 first round pick worth to someone like the Polian's today? Nothing.

That's like saying that 3 high picks doesn't have to be 3 first round picks. They could be 3 second round picks. Well, sure they could. But it's not as good as an offer.

[CultBrennan59]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

But then it's not as valuable to the team that's receiving it. What the heck is a 2016 first round pick worth to someone like the Polian's today? Nothing.

That's like saying that 3 high picks doesn't have to be 3 first round picks. They could be 3 second round picks. Well, sure they could. But it's not as good as an offer.

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

There's a difference between a first rounder which skips one draft and a first rounder which skips 4 drafts (as in your 2016 example).

Besides the Seymour trade was an exception, not the rule.

[Dirtbag59]

"Sam Bradford didn't come out of a pro style offense and he was able to start right a way."

Just to clarify Bradford did play in a pro style offense during his freshman year that was centered around play action. It was the year after that saw the Sooners switch to the spread in spite of Bradfords success under center.

Anyway speaking of Sooner QB's.

Jake_Trotter Jake Trotter
Landry Jones talked more about the draft today. Said he's gone back and forth several times about what to do.
9 hours ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

Thats not true at all.

Perfect example, Richard Seymour traded to the Raiders a few years ago from the patriots. The raiders traded their 2012 first round, in 2010. The patriots, who are well known drafters, gladly accepted it.

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

The accepted conversion rate that the NFL uses in trades is about one round/year. So a 2014 first round pick could get a 2012 3rd round pick in return.

That's just what's accepted. For guys who need to win to keep their jobs, picks in 2014 and 2015 are worthless to them. They are not worthless to their franchises, but they do the guys who are currently employed by the team no good.

The reason Belichick likes to go and trade for picks a year later is because of a roster management move. If he knows he's only going to keep five or six rookies on the roster all year, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make 14 draft picks a year. That's inefficient. So he can turn something that's in demand now into something that will be more valuable when he can use it.

Which is fine. He consistently gets first rounders for second rounders and second rounders for third rounders. And he doesn't feel much of the loss of return in the draft, because he can only keep so many players on his roster.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by CultBrennan59

So are you saying back in 2010 its worthless for a team to receive the rams/colts first round pick for 2012(this year), not knowing what Luck would be? A first rounder is a first rounder.

I am saying this: if you are Tom Cable, head coach of the Raiders, and you trade your second round pick in 2010 to the Colts for the pick in 2012 that ends up being Andrew Luck, you don't get to take that pick with you when you get fired and become OL coach for the Seahawks.

[The Goat]

Luck in a Skins uniform is worth almost any cost in terms of picks IMO. However, I think it only makes sense if we're very active in FA as well. We need to provide Luck w/ a top tier WR and continue to add quality depth on the oline and probably look to replace J Brown. And we need to improve markedly on defense. If Luck somehow lands in DC I think replacing Haslett with the best defensive mind available is necessary. Haslett doesn't know how to help the QB/offense with his defensive scheme on a play by play basis like the Steelers, Ravens and Niners (and the Colts up to this season).
And we need (still) need to add talent to the secondary.

[diehard]

How about trading conditional first round picks since everyone knows Luck is a sure-fire franchise QB?

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

That's what I've been trying to say in this thread. While I think it's a plus to have been in a pro style offense in college, MY thoughts are on how well the quarterback can read coverages straight out of college. If he's already doing that before he even gets into the NFL, that is a HUGE advantage over the other QBs being drafted.

[diehard]

Give me the guy who's gonna be forced to sit in the green room longer than anticipated because the fans and so-called experts underestimate him. That's who I want!