PDA

View Full Version : This is the worst QB draft since..


Gmen1987
02-28-2010, 10:37 AM
How long has it been since we had a QB class this bad top to bottom? I will say it would be 10 years ago in 2000 when Chad Pennington was the only QB drafted in the 1st round (latter half).

I am going by judging QBs as prospects, not how well they did in the NFL.

This draft overall seems to be lacking many premium "skilled" players. But it has lots of players who will make a difference in the win column in the NFL (guys in the trenches, defensive players).

LookItsAlDavis
02-28-2010, 10:49 AM
I wouldn't say it's that bad..there are a lot of potential starters out there, it just depends on what teams draft who, and how they handle them. Overall it is a very deep draft in just about every area.

Job
02-28-2010, 11:07 AM
Every year is the worst QB draft since god knows how long. There was Stafford and Sanchez last year and people were like "the best QB (Bradford) didn't even declare, this draft is soooo weak at QB and weak at the top." Year before that with Ryan and Flacco, well everyone said it sucked at QB. Year before with Quinn and Russell? Same old, same old. It seems to me people here just love not to like the QBs. Whatever.

Halsey
02-28-2010, 11:07 AM
Seems like a lot of people call it a bad Draft for QBs every year. Last year many fans thought the Lions would be better off waiting till this year to take a QB. People judging this Draft as poor are assuming Bradford will never fully recover from his injury, Clausen will never mature further, no other QB will emerge as a quality NFL starter, etc.

BuddyCHRIST
02-28-2010, 11:13 AM
Not at all, but people do say this every year. Personally I didn't like the Ryan/Flacco class at all, but they both are great so that shows what I know.

Geason Noceur
02-28-2010, 11:17 AM
I don't think it's bad. I think it's average. I don't see any elite talent, just a bunch of average QBs. Most could end up as backups, and a few lucky might just end up starting if the cards fall just right for them. But I don't see them setting the league on fire. I fear for Bradford if he goes to the Rams though. As we all know, the Rams are bad. Not much better than the Lions. There's nothing in Bradford's resume that tells me he will be able to flourish in a completely different environment than what he was in at OU. I could be completely wrong, but I just have the feeling that it might not end up well for him there.

MikeTeel
02-28-2010, 12:05 PM
I actually like this class, personally. I like Bradford a lot and I think Clausen could become a above average starter as well. Then there are a lot of guys with starter tools, such as LeFevour, and a lot of guys who could be very good back ups. Guys like McCoy will be great #2 QBs.

How many starters generally come from each draft anyways? Maybe 1 or 2? Then a couple solid backups and developmental types that never pan out. That sounds almost exactly like this class.

Michigan
02-28-2010, 12:08 PM
Well, there some strong QB classes. '03, '04, '06, and '07 come to mind.

I really think this is the weakest QB class in a long time. It's weak at the top, and almost every QB prospect comes from a non-traditional offense. Bradford and Clausen have starter potential, but I'm not sure they'd be early first round picks in any other year. I'd easily take Locker and Mallett over both of them, and I wasn't saying the same thing last year when comparing Stafford and Sanchez to Bradford.

jnew76
02-28-2010, 12:24 PM
Skelton has excellent mechanics and spins it effortlessly. Love Zach Robinson too. Snead holds the ball too low. Pike looks okay.

jnew76
02-28-2010, 12:27 PM
edit wrong thread

Triumphdog
02-28-2010, 01:23 PM
Yeah...thank the lord baby Jesus that the Lions didnt wait another year for their Qb huh? Like MANY people scared to draft one said..."We should go O-Line and defense"....MUHAHAHAHAH! Thank you Bradford and Clausen for being so poopy !

RealityCheck
02-28-2010, 02:22 PM
Not at all. There are some great QBs getting little attention, such as Pike and Skelton.

Gmen1987
02-28-2010, 03:00 PM
Not at all. There are some great QBs getting little attention, such as Pike and Skelton.

I wouldn't call either if these guys great.

Even this year's bottom feeders seem worse than prior year bottom feeders.

Saints-Tigers
02-28-2010, 03:04 PM
I like Clausen more than I liked Alex Smith or Aaron Rodgers. To be fair, I hated Alex SMith though.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 03:11 PM
Not at all. There are some great QBs getting little attention, such as Pike and Skelton.

Would you honestly consider either against Bradford.

This isn't directed at you at all, but I swear this has to be by far the worst board (other than Caste football) at evaluating Quarterbacks. I've heard people say Sam is a 3rd-5th Round pick. If you can't see why NFL teams see him as a Franchise passer then all I can do is continue to tell people why. When he's drafted Top 5, like Matt Ryan (a guy I was big on), there will still be some here that will bash him as a prospect..

Sam Bradford is a better NFL Quarterback prospect than Mark Sanchez. He's not there a lot of places now, but expect to see more and more of Bradford in the Top 5-6 on Big Boards. He's moved to 5th on mine for the time being with the potential to move up as high as 3rd.

eagles6606
02-28-2010, 03:36 PM
Not at all. There are some great QBs getting little attention, such as Pike and Skelton.

Pike is a pretty good prospect besides his frame, but Skelton is not. Yes he has a great arm, but he has horrible accuracy. He couldn't even hit the recievers in the gauntlet drill.

Day One Pick
02-28-2010, 03:53 PM
It's a poor QB class overall, but I can see almost every QB who get's drafted starting some day. I think there will be 8-11 QB's drafted, I can buy 9 of them being starters some day.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 03:53 PM
Pike is a pretty good prospect besides his frame, but Skelton is not. Yes he has a great arm, but he has horrible accuracy. He couldn't even hit the recievers in the gauntlet drill.

Skelton > Pike. Tony's all but proven he can't play in the NFL and has more rhythm/mechanical concerns than Skelton has level of competition concerns. Pike blew it in Mobile and has only a few scattered tools here and there that can't make up for his deficits. If you want further explanation I have a scouting report done on Pike that really illustrates his strengths/NFL barriers.

Day One Pick
02-28-2010, 03:55 PM
Skelton > Pike. Tony's all but proven he can't play in the NFL and has more rhythm/mechanical concerns than Skelton has level of competition concerns. Pike blew it in Mobile and has only a few scattered tools here and there that can't make up for his deficits. If you want further explanation I have a scouting report done on Pike that really illustrates his strengths/NFL barriers.

I couldn't disagree more.

I heard a lot of reports that Pike had a buzz about him in Mobile. I actually think Pike will be an above average QB and could start in a year or two.

Nard_Dog
02-28-2010, 03:56 PM
Nope I don't agree. We hear this every year. I like this class I see a lot of potential out of it. I can see Clausen, Bradford, LeFevour, Brown, and Skelton as potential starters. And that's just naming a few guys. Sure it's not the greatest, but it has potential.

Day One Pick
02-28-2010, 03:59 PM
I see 6 QB's who may go in the first two rounds. That's actually a lot. This class really just lacks that one or two stud prospects. They all have their fair share of question marks.

RealityCheck
02-28-2010, 04:01 PM
However, 2011 will be sweet with Ryan Mallett, Jake Locker, T.J. Yates, I mean, Terrelle Pryor.

Scotty D
02-28-2010, 04:04 PM
I love the mid tier QBs of this class. I'm high on Jarrett Brown, John Skelton, Levi Brown, Dan Lefevour, and Tim Hiller.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 04:06 PM
I couldn't disagree more.

I heard a lot of reports that Pike had a buzz about him in Mobile. I actually think Pike will be an above average QB and could start in a year or two.

Pike **** the bed at the Senior Bowl, he threw poor balls and struggled to find any rhythm under center. Not to mention his frame is the most fragile of all QBs in the class and injuries have been a problem in every season he's played. He has a couple attractive tools, but he's twice the concern of Sam Bradford in terms of scheme and injuries.

http://images.athlonsports.com/d/15534-1/TonyPike_001.jpg

Tony Pike Ė QB - Cincinnati
6í5 5/8 223 4.93e Ė 34 ľĒ Arm Ė 9 ĺĒ Hand
#10 Quarterback - #148 Overall Ė Late 4th-7th Round

I think there's a lot to like about Tony Pike in terms of height, poise, ability to throw on the move, and arm strength; however, I think his game may not translate to the pro game all too well. For starters, Pike played in a spread-style offense that allowed him to make the majority of his reads before the snap. As any system like this, the primary target is identified right away and the offense is relied upon to spread out the defense and make it an easy throw for Pike. That's the problem really, it's just too many simple reads and easy throws, almost like a dumbed down version of Oklahoma's offense with Sam Bradford. Too often it seems that Pike is simply the middle man between the Center and receiver, not playing with the responsibility or pressures of a Pro-Style QB.

Pike has an arm, and superb touch, but I'm not often impressed the zip he puts on his short to intermediate routes and wonder if he can make those throws as effectively in the NFL as he has in college. He is definitely capable there, but typically the more effort you see going into his velocity, the more his balls tend to flutter and his accuracy tends to suffer. In Brian Kellyís spread offense it was not often we saw Pike squeeze a ball into a tight spot. When he goes deep, it's to take advantage of single coverage and itís clear heís not as comfortable with Safety help over the top. He displays a lot of touch on these long throws and often hits receivers in stride & puts balls over their shoulder. He throws well on the move, and displays subtle ecapability. Heís capable of putting balls downfield while rolling out and he can release with a tight spiral. Mechanically, his throwing motion is good, quick, and high but his footwork is very raw and I fear heíll really struggle to get in a rhythm under center.

His week in Mobile for the Senior Bowl was one that didnít do him any favors. He struggled with consistency both in his footwork and in his passing. Pike didnít display a tremendous command on the ball, and had passes come out wobbly all week. I just donít think taking snaps under center, dropping back, setting his feet, and releasing comes natural to him and I think he really struggled to find a rhythm passing. Though Pike appeared poised and comfortable in his spread offense, he had real accuracy troubles in practice and suffered from a laundry list of mishaps: botched snaps, hanging passes, and wobbly throws. Itís clear he needs time in a new system and needs to work hard on developing strong timing with his receivers. While that may be true for all Quarterbacks, it would appear Pikeís learning/development curve is especially high. He didnít get better as the week went on, and might be nothing more than a project.

Another cause for concern for Tony Pike would be his weight and durability. In Mobile, Pike measured as the tallest Quarterback (by over two inches), and while that no doubt is beneficial for seeing the field, he also weighed in at only 212 pounds. He possesses a frail body that may not be ready for NFL punishment, and he wasnít exactly an iron man in college. Recently he bulked up to 223 for the Combine though I'm not sure if he'll continue to add the weight he needs. Pike had a series of forearm injuries in his two seasons as the Bearcat starter, and he has a very skinny lower body. Iím also worried heíll never get his chance as heíll be a 24 year old rookie and I consider his learning curve high.

The Combine will be a big test for Pike, as heíll need to test out medically, and show that his accuracy, touch, and timing is in order. Iím particularly interested to watch him in drills, drop back and fire the 10-15 yard out, as I would consider it his biggest challenge. He has the arm strength, height, touch, and ability throw on the move, so thereís upside and some potential. Still, I see Pike ending up between the 5th and 7th Round, though with a big Combine, he could move up of course.

Pros
+ Height, at 6í5 5/8, sees the field well
+ Has the arm strength to make every throw, can put the ball 60-70 yards downfield
+ Displays touch on short-intermediate throws and deep balls
+ Throws well on the move, doesnít hurt his accuracy and his arm strength shows
+ Has surprising escapability from the pocket, isnít just a statue
+ A hard-worker who puts in the time with his playbook and receivers
+ Productive as a starter and a good teammate

Cons
- Little experience under center, will need to re-work much of his game
- Very frail build, thin upper body and lower body
- Raw footwork, very inexperienced taking snaps from Center
- Very average zip on short-intermediate passes and has a hard time when rushed
- Durability is a concern, struggled with forearm injuries in 08í and 09í
- Primarily made pre-snap reads, and dealt with single coverage
- Inconsistent accuracy, struggles finding a rhythm under-center
- Occasionally puts too much air on his deep balls
- Timing, which was a strength of Kellyís scheme, will need to adjust under-center
- Will be 24 years old by the time of the draft
- Inexperienced as a starter and leader, only two years starting, never a full year

RyanBraun8
02-28-2010, 04:23 PM
Skelton > Pike. Tony's all but proven he can't play in the NFL and has more rhythm/mechanical concerns than Skelton has level of competition concerns. Pike blew it in Mobile and has only a few scattered tools here and there that can't make up for his deficits. If you want further explanation I have a scouting report done on Pike that really illustrates his strengths/NFL barriers.

Couldn't agree more! I never could understand the Pike hype at all. I thought him not being able to hit the broadside of a barn at the Senior Bowl would help people realize that he is a career back-up and spot starter at best. I really is not that great. He wasn't even the best QB on his own team.

As for the draft as a whole.... nowhere close to being the worst. Like people said before every single year is the worst QB year ever.

Addict
02-28-2010, 04:25 PM
it may lack a true franchise-type guy... but it's not THAT bad a class.

Job
02-28-2010, 04:40 PM
it may lack a true franchise-type guy... but it's not THAT bad a class.

It doesn't. Clausen is gonna buttrape Brady, Manning, Rivers and Rodgers. In his rookie year.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 04:40 PM
it may lack a true franchise-type guy... but it's not THAT bad a class.

Don't underestimate Sam Bradford. He looks to have a physical skill-set and a mental make-up that makes him very close to Matt Ryan when it comes to Franchise QB potential. He doesn't have tools that come out and slap you in the face like Stafford, but he's every bit the franchise QB prospect that Sanchez was. Bradford's college film was actually more impressive than Mark's (and Matt Ryan's), there is just a shoulder concern and a small adjustment period necessary to grow accustomed to dropping back every down instead of just occasionally. I don't think a couple injury concerns and adjustment period takes him away from being a franchise QB prospect.

Paranoidmoonduck
02-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Bradford's college film was actually more impressive than Mark's (and Matt Ryan's), there is just a shoulder concern and a small adjustment period necessary to grow accustomed to dropping back every down instead of just occasionally.

I think that Sanchez and Bradford are a bit hard to compare, because they are very different quarterbacks. Sanchez was a little easier to project to the NFL for me, but played far more out of control in his college career. That said, in comparing Ryan to Bradford (an easier comparison, I think), I don't think Bradford's game film is nearly as impressive. Ryan was asked to do full field reads more often, to make more NFL throws, and simply did the little stuff that Bradford never even had to think about in that Oklahoma offense. Everytime I watched Ryan, I became more and more impressed with him. I can't say that about Bradford.

Geason Noceur
02-28-2010, 06:25 PM
I wouldn't call either if these guys great.

Even this year's bottom feeders seem worse than prior year bottom feeders.

I don't know, I think the likes of Graham Harrell and Chase Daniel would rival this year's bottom feeders.

mario
02-28-2010, 06:43 PM
I love the mid tier QBs of this class. I'm high on Jarrett Brown, John Skelton, Levi Brown, Dan Lefevour, and Tim Hiller.
Well done ;)

wordofi
02-28-2010, 08:19 PM
How long has it been since we had a QB class this bad top to bottom? I will say it would be 10 years ago in 2000 when Chad Pennington was the only QB drafted in the 1st round (latter half).

I am going by judging QBs as prospects, not how well they did in the NFL.

This draft overall seems to be lacking many premium "skilled" players. But it has lots of players who will make a difference in the win column in the NFL (guys in the trenches, defensive players).

I don't think much of the qb class this year. However, this draft is loaded with offensive and defensive lineman.

GoRavens
02-28-2010, 10:00 PM
Rusty Smith should be the #1 draft pick IMO

OaklandRaider56
02-28-2010, 10:13 PM
As far as college success and accolades, this is the best class in a long time.

WCH
02-28-2010, 10:40 PM
How long has it been since we had a QB class this bad top to bottom? I will say it would be 10 years ago in 2000 when Chad Pennington was the only QB drafted in the 1st round (latter half).


I'm convinced that most of this board doesn't follow the NFL between the months of May and February.

Worst since 2000? Really? Have you looked at that draft, or just at how high Kiper rated those guys?

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

Bulger and Brady have both been to multiple Pro Bowls (with Brady being a once-or-twice per decade QB) and the 3rd best guy, Pennington, hasn't been too shabby.

In the past decade, which drafts have produced better QBs? 2004, for sure. 2008 and 2009 both look solid so far, but it's early enough that any of those guys can still fizzle out. We're still dealing with very small-sample sizes for the guys drafted in the past two years.

So basically, 2000 was the second best QB draft of the past ten years (trailing 2004, which gave us E.Manning/Rivers/Rothlisberger/Schaub), unless you want to try to argue for 2001 (Brees/Vick/Rosenfels(!)) or the guys who haven't played long enough to prove whether or not they can hang in the NFL.

I will be very surprised if this draft (or almost any other draft) produces three guys who are consistently starting QBs in the NFL when 2020 rolls around.

Maybe we should be asking why the analysts and scouts didn't see what they had in 2000?

And on a side note, 2004 has a real chance at overtaking 1983 for the title of "Greatest QB Draft Ever."

SKim172
02-28-2010, 10:48 PM
In terms of how they present as prospects, yes, I agree with you. People are talking about Pike, LeFevour, Skelton, McCoy, Brown, guys who they think could surprise, but as prospects, they are all lacking. There are few prospects look guaranteed to be a starter and no prospects that look guaranteed to be an elite. I like some later-round guys as well, but I won't say that any of them, as prospects, are guarantees or even a boom-bust guy. So in those terms, yes, this class is fairly poor.

Last year's class wasn't miserable - it didn't have a lot of prospects who looked like quality, but Stafford and Sanchez were both prospects who appeared to have amazing potential, even if they were also viewed as risky.

Clausen and Bradford ... eh. The best I can say for Clausen is that he has no glaring flaws and the best for Bradford is that he seems to have NFL tools. Neither one, for me, looks like an "elite" prospect.

Bulger and Brady have both been to multiple Pro Bowls (with Brady being a once-or-twice per decade QB) and the 3rd best guy, Pennington, hasn't been too shabby.

As prospects, Bulger and Brady were definitely not elite or even projected as starters. They eventually did well in the NFL and all credit to them, but hindsight is 20/20. At the time, neither seemed like what they would turn out to be - therefore, neither was a good prospect.

vikes_28
02-28-2010, 10:49 PM
Bradford will be the face of the St. Louis Rams franchise in 3 years.

Michigan
02-28-2010, 10:51 PM
I'm convinced that most of this board doesn't follow football between the months of May and February.

Worst since 2000? Really? Have you looked at that draft, or just at how high Kiper rated those guys?

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?type=position

Bulger and Brady have both been to multiple Pro Bowls (with Brady being a once-or-twice per decade QB) and the 3rd best guy, Pennington, hasn't been too shabby.

In the past decade, which drafts have produced better QBs? 2004, for sure. 2008 and 2009 both look solid so far, but it's early enough that any of those guys can still fizzle out. We're still dealing with very small-sample sizes for the guys drafted in the past two years.

So basically, 2000 was the second best QB draft of the past ten years, unless you want to try to argue for 2001 (Brees/Vick) or the guys who haven't played long enough to prove that they suck.

I will be very surprised if this draft produces three guys who are consistently starting in the NFL when 2020 rolls around.

Maybe we should be asking why the analysts and scouts didn't see what they had in 2000?

I'm pretty sure he's describing the class in terms of "prospects", not how they turned out.

ElectricEye
02-28-2010, 10:53 PM
Pudge is throwing around truth bombs in this thread. RealityCheck, it's really pretty obvious this is your first real rodeo with the OMG EVERYONE WILL RUN 4.2 and the Skelton and Pike stuff.

As far as the class at quarterback this year goes, it's just like any other. There's two guys at the top that everyone wants and no real value until the fourth round after that. Clausen and Bradford are both very good as far as quarterback prospects go. I'm a huge Bradford fan since his freshmen year, and I still am. It's harder to talk about him with his injury problems last year, but he was far more impressive than Sanchez or Stafford to me last year, spread offense or no. Clausen has a nice pedigree and some really strong Junior year film to back it up. Somebody will like him within the top ten to fifteen picks.

Only difference between this year and most years is that there's usually a high upside guy waiting to be picked in the top twenty that isn't there this year. The Josh Freeman and Joe Flacco's of the world. We've got a bunch of spread option quarterbacks/guys who don't project very well after that, same as usual. Pike is the guy everyone seems to like, but he did blow it in Mobile. Cinci's offense last year was probably one of the worst I've seen in my years of following the draft in terms of translating to the NFL. They really didn't miss a beat with him out and you could argue that Collaros was actually out preforming him in the limited time he was in games. When he was put on an equal field with NFL caliber athletes in a drop back system with NFL routes, he struggled HARSHLY.

WCH
02-28-2010, 11:04 PM
I'm pretty sure he's describing the class in terms of "prospects", not how they turned out.

Hence my suggestion that...:

Maybe we should be asking why the analysts and scouts didn't see what they had in 2000?

What most draftniks fail to understand is that, if a player exceeds their expectations, then that means that their analysis of said player was wrong. If EVERYBODY misjudges a player, then EVERYBODY'S analysis was wrong.

In retrospect, there were scouts who gave Brady and Bulger very high grades (and if you can track them down, they're quick to bring it up, and talk about how their team ignored them). Go to Ann Arbor and read old articles from local publications, and you'll find plenty of stories that go along the lines of "Tom Brady led Michigan to an early lead...Drew Henson went in, my God this kid looks like a stud and should probably be the full-time QB...and Brady returned to the game to lead Michigan to a come-from-behind win!!!!"

In reality, Brady always was very good. At Michigan, he had the misfortune of being sandwiched between the son of a legend (Brian Griese) and the top HS recruit in the country (Drew Henson).

The idea that these guys were bad prospects is laughable. They were undervalued prospects, due to market inefficiencies inherent to the structure of the NFL Draft. Our goal, as students of the Draft process, should be to try to identify these players before they win three rings. And also, to identify people like Tim Couch, who in hindsight, never were very impressive prospects (regarding Couch, the Browns didn't "screw up his development;" he just never was very good. Mike Leach was his OC at Kentucky; and at the time, scouts had no clue that Leach's system was that spectacular. Live and learn).

Geason Noceur
02-28-2010, 11:28 PM
As far as college success and accolades, this is the best class in a long time.

Yes, and as we've seen time and time again that means little at the next level.

OaklandRaider56
02-28-2010, 11:32 PM
Yes, and as we've seen time and time again that means little at the next level.

Clearly, just stating a fact.

ThePudge
02-28-2010, 11:37 PM
I think that Sanchez and Bradford are a bit hard to compare, because they are very different quarterbacks. Sanchez was a little easier to project to the NFL for me, but played far more out of control in his college career. That said, in comparing Ryan to Bradford (an easier comparison, I think), I don't think Bradford's game film is nearly as impressive. Ryan was asked to do full field reads more often, to make more NFL throws, and simply did the little stuff that Bradford never even had to think about in that Oklahoma offense. Everytime I watched Ryan, I became more and more impressed with him. I can't say that about Bradford.

Just a slight distinction I should make... I liked Matt Ryan more as pro prospect. He definitely made a lot of NFL reads, had exceptional size, had terrific throwing mechanics, plenty of arm strength, and the top intangibles I've seen in the past five years. His game film was very impressive, but partly due to his WR personnel he had to force a few too many passes in there and didn't have quite the efficiency that you see from these top QBs (31:19 vs 50:8 and 28:4). Obviously a ton of that could be attributed to a difference in personnel and I made tons of arguments about that back in 2008. Matt Ryan was my top rated player in the 08' draft for most of the process, I threw Jake Long above him after it was announced Long was the #1 pick.

Bradford could make every throw, he was remarkably accurate, and his film shows more pocket presence than we've seen in years at the position. Watching game film though it's very hard to see his drawbacks as a prospect. I was very impressed with how well he went through his reads and progressions, he was asked to make tough throws, and their spread offense wasn't nearly as pass-happy as some make it to be. Bradford averaged 28.4 pass attempts per game in 2007 and still only 34.5 in that monster 50 Td year in 2008. The guy threw 50 Td's on 34.5 pass attempts per game.

In the increasing passing trends in the NFL that number is typical as far as attempts go. Only 6 teams in 2009 didn't throw the ball at least 30 times. Bradford did play under center a bit (so his footwork shouldn't be too raw there) and he's looked just as good throwing under center, though his experience is limited and it obviously will help him a lot to get plenty of reps in camp. The other thing I stress about his system is that he wasn't often working with 5 Wideout sets like other spread offense and their system wasn't just set up just for the quick read.

I was always impressed by Bradford's patience, confidence, and his ability to see the field. I just don't think that offense was as gimmicky a year ago as people seem to think it was, but such is the profile/reputation of the spread offense. Some think you can put anyone in that offense to succeed at Quarterback but Landry Jones, a fairly talented replacement was only able to manage 8 wins in the same offense throwing the same amount of passes if not more. They seemed to simplify it down a bit this year for Jones perhaps also because Jermaine Gresham was hurt. That offense just was not firing all cylinders this year.

Addict
03-01-2010, 04:40 AM
Don't underestimate Sam Bradford. He looks to have a physical skill-set and a mental make-up that makes him very close to Matt Ryan when it comes to Franchise QB potential. He doesn't have tools that come out and slap you in the face like Stafford, but he's every bit the franchise QB prospect that Sanchez was. Bradford's college film was actually more impressive than Mark's (and Matt Ryan's), there is just a shoulder concern and a small adjustment period necessary to grow accustomed to dropping back every down instead of just occasionally. I don't think a couple injury concerns and adjustment period takes him away from being a franchise QB prospect.

It doesn't. Clausen is gonna buttrape Brady, Manning, Rivers and Rodgers. In his rookie year.

note that I said 'true' previous years had a Stafford/Ryan type player (hesitating to mention russell). Nobody really had great doubts about their ability to be franchise QB's. Ryan threw too many interceptions, some felt. Stafford I don't even really remember I think it was an INT thing too.

Anyhooo, Bradford and Clausen are fine QBs but they both have more question marks than Stafford and Ryan.

wicket
03-01-2010, 04:49 AM
note that I said 'true' previous years had a Stafford/Ryan type player (hesitating to mention russell). Nobody really had great doubts about their ability to be franchise QB's. Ryan threw too many interceptions, some felt. Stafford I don't even really remember I think it was an INT thing too.

Anyhooo, Bradford and Clausen are fine QBs but they both have more question marks than Stafford and Ryan.

Clausen has been way better than both stafford and ryan in his junior year statistically though. His sole cocern imo is his attitude (wont call it character cuz he has lived an honourable life and character usually goes hand in hard with drug use or criminal incidents in drafnik circles)

Addict
03-01-2010, 05:39 AM
Clausen has been way better than both stafford and ryan in his junior year statistically though. His sole cocern imo is his attitude (wont call it character cuz he has lived an honourable life and character usually goes hand in hard with drug use or criminal incidents in drafnik circles)

Ryan and Staffard had cannons for arms, Clausen not much. He's got a good arm, but it's not the franchise arm Stafford, Ryan (again, hesitating to mention Russel)

wicket
03-01-2010, 08:28 AM
Ryan and Staffard had cannons for arms, Clausen not much. He's got a good arm, but it's not the franchise arm Stafford, Ryan (again, hesitating to mention Russel)

staffords arm is exceptional, ryans arm was adequate but nothing special, I actually think purely on arm strenght jimmys arm is similar to that of ryan

ElectricEye
03-01-2010, 08:33 AM
Coming from a guy from the Boston area who has seen most of the games Matt Ryan has played; he didn't have a "cannon" for an arm and still doesn't. He has very good arm strength, but no better than Jimmy Clausen. That was what people were knocking him for, which was stupid. More than enough arm, but not in Matthew Stafford/Jamarcus Russell land.

Brothgar
03-01-2010, 08:45 AM
I love the mid tier QBs of this class. I'm high on Jarrett Brown, John Skelton, Levi Brown, Dan Lefevour, and Tim Hiller.

I agree this QB class is waaaaay better than Quinn Russel class. That said there is no elite QB this year.

Gmen1987
03-01-2010, 07:01 PM
Here is an article that also says this year's QB class is mediocre.
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/draft-is-light-on-impact-quarterbacks?gt1=39002

BBIB
03-01-2010, 07:19 PM
Feels like the same thing is said every year. Last year people were talking about how great this class was going to be with SNEAD, Bradford, Locker, Clausen, etc.

Next year it will be how great the one after that is going to be and how bad that one is.

And for people to overlook the Quinn/Russell/Edwards draft, hilarious

Gmen1987
03-01-2010, 08:42 PM
As far as college success and accolades, this is the best class in a long time.

College success and accolades have little bearing on how good of an NFL player a college will be. Most successful NFL QBs in the league right now never played in the national championship game.

wogitalia
03-02-2010, 12:42 AM
Every year is the worst QB draft since god knows how long. There was Stafford and Sanchez last year and people were like "the best QB (Bradford) didn't even declare, this draft is soooo weak at QB and weak at the top." Year before that with Ryan and Flacco, well everyone said it sucked at QB. Year before with Quinn and Russell? Same old, same old. It seems to me people here just love not to like the QBs. Whatever.

I disagree with this at least from my perspective.

Last year I felt Stafford was a better prospect than Bradford and an actual elite prospect. I felt Sanchez was between Bradford and Stafford. For what it's worth I still value them the same. Stafford has all the tools and is a genuine top 5 pick, imo. Sanchez for me is a 5-20 guy as a talent, he has some flaws that need working out as a prospect. I still see Bradford in that 20 to 40 range as a prospect, I see a lot of problems in his game. For what it's worth, I see Clausen in the 15-35 range. As pure prospects I think both are tail end of the 1st round players in what they provide from a scouting report perspective. This obviously changes based on the strength of the draft and what else is available, team needs and the like. I think this is as weak a QB draft as I can remember.

I would say both Sanchez and Stafford were better prospects than the top two this year. Matt Ryan was a better prospect than either, though the rest of that class wasn't as good. I liked Quinn more as a prospect and Russell was probably in the same range as Clausen. Though Quinn is in the Sanchez range for me as a grade. So that draft is comparably bad. I didn't rate Young, but Leinart and Cutler were both vastly superior prospects in my books, I had both of those guys as top 10 value.

Mr.Regular
03-02-2010, 12:52 AM
The 2 first round QB's in this class are better then the 2 in 08 as prospects. And this class has some pretty decent depth and some very intriguing mid round guys. Its not 2004 or 2006 good obviously but its not like it is anywhere close to 2000.

ThePudge
03-02-2010, 01:10 AM
I still see Bradford in that 20 to 40 range as a prospect, I see a lot of problems in his game.

What exactly are the problems you see in his game? The top concern about Bradford is his right shoulder, it's current health & it's ability to take some punishment in the NFL. The #2 concern with Bradford will be his adjustment to play under center full-time, though he didn't play in a particularly gimmicky spread offense and was asked to make most NFL throws. He will need reps under center as he'll need to really practice his footwork on drops and he'll need to work to keep his eyes moving before he is set (as thats not something he had to do consistently in college.) He made plenty of NFL reads and went through his progressions as well as any QB at the college level I've seen all while possessing an unreal amount of pocket presence and confidence. He just had a great handle & feel for the QB position.

Arm strength isn't a concern I have with Bradford as he has excellent mechanics, throws the ball with great velocity, and shows the ability to squeeze the ball into a tight window. He throws extremely well downfield between 15 and 25 yards and is effective on the move. He is going to have to improve his deep ball at the next level, though it's not likely he's drafted into an offense that will require him to look vertically often (St. Louis/Washington).

Turn an any OU film when Bradford started there and it's hard to pick apart flaws in his actual game on a down to down basis. The consensus top concerns with him are related to injuries and adjustment period, not related to his actual play on the field. On film and on paper he's an elite prospect. At 6'4 1/4 236 with an athletic background and a great personality, he really does look the part. It's amazing how many people forgot this guy was coming off a 50 Td 8 Int year for the Sooners (on 34.5 attempts a game not the 47+ that Graham Harrell threw in college per game.) He was set to be one of the best college Quarterbacks of all time had he played this year, no one has any clue what he meant to that OU team.

Ness
03-02-2010, 03:55 PM
How long has it been since we had a QB class this bad top to bottom? I will say it would be 10 years ago in 2000 when Chad Pennington was the only QB drafted in the 1st round (latter half).

I am going by judging QBs as prospects, not how well they did in the NFL.

This draft overall seems to be lacking many premium "skilled" players. But it has lots of players who will make a difference in the win column in the NFL (guys in the trenches, defensive players).

2000 actually brought a few decent quarterbacks. Pennington, Bulger, and Brady.

RealityCheck
03-02-2010, 04:04 PM
Next year it will be how great the one after that is going to be and how bad that one is.
No. Because Locker/Mallett/Pryor rules and Luck/Barkley stinks.