IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Everytime I try to make a concluding post I write too much.

I do feel the thread has reached the level of ridiculous, but can't promise there won't be another more-ridiculous response if left open. I support this going right to thread hell.

Honestly I think you both are correct but stubborn enough not to admit to either that your both right.

I think you have to look at the stats in order to get an idea of how accurate the QB was under pressure, get to see where he was most accurate in his passes like short, medium, or long. but I think you also have to actually see the player and watch film to see his mechanic's, ie; footwork, arm motion, release of the ball, pocket awarness, and over all control of the offense.

I for one give little opinion to which would be better QB from a big school vs. a little school. True the competition is different but if he has few flaws and little for the QB Coach to change when the player makes the change to the pro's then what does it matter.

I'll be happy with whoever our coaching staff decides is best for it's scheme/system and I doubt the coaching staff would go out and play pin the tail on the donkey to get the next franchise QB so I presume they will do their due dilligence and look at all aspects of the QB's on the board and have a list of who they could work with.

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

Honestly I think you both are correct but stubborn enough not to admit to either that your both right.

I think you have to look at the stats in order to get an idea of how accurate the QB was under pressure, get to see where he was most accurate in his passes like short, medium, or long. but I think you also have to actually see the player and watch film to see his mechanic's, ie; footwork, arm motion, release of the ball, pocket awarness, and over all control of the offense.

I for one give little opinion to which would be better QB from a big school vs. a little school. True the competition is different but if he has few flaws and little for the QB Coach to change when the player makes the change to the pro's then what does it matter.

I'll be happy with whoever our coaching staff decides is best for it's scheme/system and I doubt the coaching staff would go out and play pin the tail on the donkey to get the next franchise QB so I presume they will do their due dilligence and look at all aspects of the QB's on the board and have a list of who they could work with.

So Gtripp wants Newton and 30 wants Locker? Or the other way around? Sorry but I didn't want to read their 8 page essays on the matter LOL.. Either way I hope the guy sits for a season.. Sexy Rexy is good enough for next year IMO

[30gut]

Originally Posted by skinsfaninok

So Gtripp wants Newton and 30 wants Locker? Or the other way around? Sorry but I didn't want to read their 8 page essays on the matter LOL.. Either way I hope the guy sits for a season.. Sexy Rexy is good enough for next year IMO

LoL,
in re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?
Jake Locker

But, I would hope we're in position to select a top defensive prospect that miraculously falls (Orakpo) like Marcel Dareus.
If the above situation doesn't occur then i would hope we're in position to trade down and still acquire a QB we like.

I like all this years QBs.
I think the top 4 prospects all have above average arm talent and generally sound fundamentals.
The top of my list would be Jake Locker.
Followed by Newton and Gabbert; althogh i have a hard time thinking Kyle would want a QB like Cam Newton.
Lastly there's Mallett i like his arm but not his feet, i prefer QBs that can move and make plays but there are plenty of successful QBs that don't move well.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

I think you have to look at the stats in order to get an idea of how accurate the QB was under pressure, get to see where he was most accurate in his passes like short, medium, or long. but I think you also have to actually see the player and watch film to see his mechanic's, ie; footwork, arm motion, release of the ball, pocket awarness, and over all control of the offense............I'll be happy with whoever our coaching staff decides is best for it's scheme/system and I doubt the coaching staff would go out and play pin the tail on the donkey to get the next franchise QB so I presume they will do their due dilligence and look at all aspects of the QB's on the board and have a list of who they could work with.

I agree with you here.
Except i think there should be distinction made between comp% and accuracy.
Imo you have to watch a QB too assess their acuracy.
But, i agee with you about everything else.

HTTR

[SBXVII]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I agree with you here.
Except i think there should be distinction made between comp% and accuracy.
Imo you have to watch a QB too assess their acuracy.
But, i agee with you about everything else.

HTTR

The only reason I think you have to look at the stats is because you might find a QB whose team ran the ball more then passed. Is it fair to look at him and say another QB threw for 3,000 yrds when this one only threw for 1,000? no but to see out those passes how many were caught might give you an idea of his accuracy, but you are also correct in saying that if the team has a horrid OL and it constantly breaks down and the QB is always throwing under heavy pressure should he be evaluated the same as a QB who has OL who gives him all day to find an open receiver and get them the ball? no.

Which is why I said both of you are correct. Ya have to look at all the facts not just one side and even then it's a crap shoot as to how well they will do in the NFL.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by SBXVII

The only reason I think you have to look at the stats is because you might find a QB whose team ran the ball more then passed. Is it fair to look at him and say another QB threw for 3,000 yrds when this one only threw for 1,000? no but to see out those passes how many were caught might give you an idea of his accuracy.

Right.
And like i said i agree with you.
All i was saying is there should be a distinction made between comp% and accuracy.
And imo you have to watch a QB to assess their accuracy.
Like you say in your example using the 1,000 yard QB and 3,000 yard QB in your scenario watching the prospects will give you a better gauge of their ability as passers then looking at the there stats.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Right.
And like i said i agree with you.
All i was saying is there should be a distinction made between comp% and accuracy.
And imo you have to watch a QB to assess their accuracy.
Like you say in your example using the 1,000 yard QB and 3,000 yard QB in your scenario watching the prospects will give you a better gauge of their ability as passers then looking at the there stats.

Completely agree. Completion percentage also counts inaccurate passes and screens and the like. There is no way to tell from the numbers themselves where the physical placement, the trajectory, the velocity, etc of the ball is. Even a difference of 25 completions can swing completion percentage by 5% if 500 passes were thrown.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by SirClintonPortis

Completely agree. Completion percentage also counts inaccurate passes and screens and the like. There is no way to tell from the numbers themselves where the physical placement, the trajectory, the velocity, etc of the ball is. Even a difference of 25 completions can swing completion percentage by 5% if 500 passes were thrown.

Uh, yeah. Give me the guy who completes 25 more passes in a sample of 500.