PDA

View Full Version : Best QB Class in Years?


the natural
02-27-2011, 05:00 PM
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom. This year's group put up some of the best Combine test numbers in years at the position. Most of them can throw the ball as well. I think there could be half a dozen solid starting NFL QBs from this group in a few years.

akvikefan89
02-27-2011, 05:02 PM
Contrary to the prevailing wisdom. This year's group put up some of the best Combine test numbers in years at the position. Most of them can throw the ball as well. I think there could be half a dozen solid starting NFL QBs from this group in a few years.

The fact that how well the QBs can throw the ball was tossed in as an afterthought tells people everything they need to know about this thread...

the natural
02-27-2011, 05:05 PM
The fact that how well the QBs can throw the ball was tossed in as an afterthought tells people everything they need to know about this thread...
Well, there aren't definitive quantitative measurements for throwing ability. If there were, (in terms of ball speed, accuracy, etc.) the 2011 guys would be up there with anyone over the past decade as well.

Scott Wright
02-27-2011, 05:18 PM
This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.

Iamcanadian
02-27-2011, 05:31 PM
This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.

I agree that there is some bust potential in this group which is clearly shown in that none of them is getting solid top 5 consideration although a couple could go in that area.
Getting a real solid ranking on them is very difficult because so many of the top ones are juniors and hardly finished products.
Nevertheless, it is a pretty deep crop with lots of boom potential as well. After all, this is a superb draft year which is very talented and deep, so the QB's may turnout to be real surprises when all is said and done.

CaneBang
02-27-2011, 05:40 PM
I tend to disagree in the complete way. I think this class is superiorly overrated at the quarterback position. The only player I would feel absolutely 100% comfortable with taking in the 1st round alone is Blaine Gabbert.

Cam's raw, undeveloped talent with character concerns are enough to push me away.

Jake has average starter written all over him if he can't develop any consistency.

Mallett, well Mallett is as physical as they come but his work ethic and lack of even above average technical abilities makes me wonder about hsi future in the league.

At least 3 of these quarterbacks will go 1st round, but that doesn't mean squat in terms of the talent. NFL teams are so quarterback desparate in today's league that a player like Tim Tebow or Jake Locker will go just because they have above average skills and a somewhat promising future.

Caulibflower
02-27-2011, 06:09 PM
With the spread becoming more prominent, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more QBs run for 300-400 yards a year. Channeling my inner Nostradamus, I'm going to say that scrambling QBs are on their way in in a major way. in ten years, teams are going to be specifically looking for QBs who can scramble a couple of times a game. And I'm not talking option QBs, just to be clear, I'm talking about the kind of running Aaron Rodgers does, or the way the Chiefs used Tyler Thigpen a couple years ago.

Rabscuttle
02-27-2011, 06:38 PM
The '11 class of porn stars was great. They could all jump out of the gym, some of them could even **** a mean **** as well.

My team already has a reasonably athletic quarterback, making him run .2 faster in the 40 wouldn't keep him from throwing high and late now would it? Would jumping higher help him see the that his receiver is about to come open? Just shoot me.

Caulibflower
02-27-2011, 06:46 PM
The '11 class of porn stars was great. They could all jump out of the gym, some of them could even **** a mean **** as well.

My team already has a reasonably athletic quarterback, making him run .2 faster in the 40 wouldn't keep him from throwing high and late now would it? Would jumping higher help him see the that his receiver is about to come open? Just shoot me.

It's pretty hilarious how people continue to somehow spin athleticism at the quarterback position as a bad thing. Like being able to run and being able to competently throw are mutually exclusive. Let's just drop that angle, shall we? It's dumb.

More specifically, "No, running faster wouldn't solve your quarterbacks accuracy and decision-making issues." But if you could have a guy who could throw and not run versus a guy who could throw and run, which would you rather have? And don't give me some BS about how they might look to run too soon, or what have you. It's about ability and potential, and trying to play off a prospect's athleticism like it's not ever going to help the team he's on makes no sense.

Michigan
02-27-2011, 07:04 PM
From the top 4 there will be 1 HOFer and 3 busts. Which QB becomes the HOFer is anyone's guess.

doingthisinsteadofwork
02-27-2011, 07:19 PM
I completely disagree not a single one of them is worth a top five pick.

NotRickJames
02-27-2011, 07:36 PM
If Locker, Newton, Gabbert and Mallet play to their potential it would turn out be very, very good.

Right now though, it's one of the worst QB classes in recent memory. The bust factor is very high with all of these guys, and it could turn out be as bad as the 2007 draft which churned out the likes of JaWalrus, Brady Quinn, John Beck etc. Next years should be excellent, however.

Rabscuttle
02-27-2011, 07:38 PM
It's pretty hilarious how people continue to somehow spin athleticism at the quarterback position as a bad thing. Like being able to run and being able to competently throw are mutually exclusive. Let's just drop that angle, shall we? It's dumb.

More specifically, "No, running faster wouldn't solve your quarterbacks accuracy and decision-making issues." But if you could have a guy who could throw and not run versus a guy who could throw and run, which would you rather have? And don't give me some BS about how they might look to run too soon, or what have you. It's about ability and potential, and trying to play off a prospect's athleticism like it's not ever going to help the team he's on makes no sense.

Lord thunderin' Jesus, Mary. How did I spin athletisicm as a bad thing? It's just nowhere near as important to the position as some people seem to make it out to be.

Where do you rank the track and field skills in level of importance of a quarterback's makeup? Where do you think scouts and coaches rate these things? I'm curious, perhaps you will give me some insight as to who my team will pick? We just picked up this Harbaugh guy. Do you think he will be going "Holy ****, that Locker kid ran a 4.5 40 let's get him" or do you think he will be saying "Can that Locker kid learn to hit a receiver from the pocket and feel pressure a helluva a lot better?" I can guarantee you he won't even consider drafting Locker if he doesn't think the accuracy issues can't be fixed no matter how athletic he is.

If a guy can't read a defence and is dumb as a post, does his 40 time matter when evaluating him as a quarterback prospect? What if he has huge accuracy issues? No pocket presence? Doesn't like the film room?

Again, nobody says athleticism at the position is a bad thing. Overvalueing it is. It's even more foolish than getting wowed by a big arm when the important pieces aren't there.

nepg
02-27-2011, 07:47 PM
I like the QBs in this draft a lot. I don't know why people are so down on them. They could all go in the Top 10 - easily.

Caulibflower
02-27-2011, 07:54 PM
Lord thunderin' Jesus, Mary. How did I spin athletisicm as a bad thing? It's just nowhere near as important to the position as some people seem to make it out to be.

You indicated that you think it is trivial. Aaron Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Vick, Cutler, and others are considered franchise QBs, and you're kidding yourself if you think that coaches ignored their ability to extend plays when they were evaluating them. All of these guys had athletic ability that made them stand out against their peers at their respective combines, and it's evident in the way that they play.

Where do you rank the track and field skills in level of importance of a quarterback's makeup?

Do you really think that there's some sort of sequential list that scouts and coaches look at? You look at the aggregate abilities of each prospect, and take the guy who looks like he's got the best chance of turning his ability into actual success.

Where do you think scouts and coaches rate these things? I'm curious, perhaps you will give me some insight as to who my team will pick? We just picked up this Harbaugh guy. Do you think he will be going "Holy ****, that Locker kid ran a 4.5 40 let's get him"

No, but since Locker was known as a guy who could run, I think his stock would definitely have dropped if he had ran, say, a 4.82 instead. Taking off with the ball is something he's able to do well. We wouldn't be talking about him as a first round prospect if he had a weak arm or came across as a dunce.

Or do you think he will be saying "Can that Locker kid learn to hit a receiver from the pocket and feel pressure a helluva a lot better?" I can guarantee you he won't even consider drafting Locker if he doesn't think the accuracy issues can't be fixed no matter how athletic he is.

Again, you're going the either/or route as if the coach has to take one side or the other. I guarantee you he's going to say something like, "That Locker kid's got some real speed and an arm. We'll have to check out his accuracy and pocket presence, though, because he didn't show that he was great at either in college." In other words, their going to take the pros as pros and the cons as cons. Accuracy being important doesn't make his running ability irrelevant.

If a guy can't read a defence and is dumb as a post, does his 40 time matter when evaluating him as a quarterback prospect? What if he has huge accuracy issues? No pocket presence? Doesn't like the film room?

Show me the direct correlation between having open-field running skills and being dumb, inaccurate, unaware and lazy. If a guy really is one or more of those things, fine.

Again, nobody says athleticism at the position is a bad thing. Overvalueing it is. It's even more foolish than getting wowed by a big arm when the important pieces aren't there.

And it's foolish to undervalue it just because you prefer Matt Schaub to Michael Vick.

PhinsRock
02-27-2011, 08:33 PM
I only see one Franchise QB in this draft. And even Gabbert is just good not great. It's one of the worst classes I can remember.

I can easily see it turning into another 2007 class.

J-Mike88
02-27-2011, 08:37 PM
This QB class will prove to be subpar when all is said & done. I still can't believe Andrew Luck chose to stay in school.

Rabscuttle
02-27-2011, 08:48 PM
Post resulting from either a lack of reading comprehension or being deliberately obtuse. Either of which is irritating at best

Listen, I followed Steve Young's entire career. He would be the bench mark of success for athletic quarterbacks in the NFL so I know full well what one can bring to the table. His running skills would have meant jack if it wasn't for the rest of the package. You need to work on comprehension though unless your approach is intentional....

dannyz
02-27-2011, 08:58 PM
2012? You are Lucky to get one Franchise QB in one Draft but Next Year there is a possibility of Two.

PossibleCabbage
02-27-2011, 09:15 PM
We've got four all-or-nothing guys in Newton, Gabbert, Locker, and Mallett... so it's entirely possible we'll get nothing out of that group (or four hall of famers).

But I think some of the lower tier prospects (Ponder, Dalton, even Stanzi and Kaepernick) could go on to have ten year careers if they land in the right situation.

WCH
02-27-2011, 09:24 PM
Listen, I followed Steve Young's entire career. He would be the bench mark of success for athletic quarterbacks in the NFL so I know full well what one can bring to the table. His running skills would have meant jack if it wasn't for the rest of the package. You need to work on comprehension though unless your approach is intentional....

This is off topic, but Steve Young is also one of the smartest QB's in NFL history. He certainly wins the award for "Best Contract Negotiation Ever."

After a stellar career at BYU, he agreed to a 10 year, $40 Million deal with the LA Express of the USFL. Now that was a mind-blowing, HUGE deal in those days, but it gets better. Probably being smart enough to know that the USFL would fail, Young agreed to take his payment in the form of an annuity that would pay him $40 Million over 40 years. His USFL career lasted two years before his team went bankrupt and the league went under, so he effectively earned $20 Million per year, in the mid-1980s.

katnip
02-27-2011, 09:31 PM
This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.

Same here. Are you thinking, Newton, Gabbert, & Mallett?

I didn't get to watch college ball this year. But to me the one who'll have the best career is Locker, even after his mediocre senior season. I think he'll end up like Josh Freeman. In terms of progression. I can see the Titans, Skins, or Vikings drafting him. A team with a good amount (to me) of offensive pieces, except the skins. If the two most popular QB's (Newton, Gabbert) get drafted higher.

To me. The Dolphins or Vikings would be the bet fit for Locker. Plus I think he'll get drafted around those spots.

And OP. Yes, in my opinion. If you go based on potential more so

Rabscuttle
02-27-2011, 09:35 PM
This is off topic, but Steve Young is also one of the smartest QB's in NFL history. He certainly wins the award for "Best Contract Negotiation Ever."

After a stellar career at BYU, he agreed to a 10 year, $40 Million deal with the LA Express of the USFL. Now that was a mind-blowing, HUGE deal in those days, but it gets better. Probably being smart enough to know that the USFL would fail, Young agreed to take his payment in the form of an annuity that would pay him $40 Million over 40 years. His USFL career lasted two years before his team went bankrupt and the league went under, so he effectively earned $20 Million per year, in the mid-1980s.

He was one of two lawyers on the team for awhile as well. Did he ever collect on that contract?

Brent
02-27-2011, 09:36 PM
His USFL career lasted two years before his team went bankrupt and the league went under, so he effectively earned $20 Million per year, in the mid-1980s.
he still receives checks over the length of that contract: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1121853/index.htm

ToldLikeItIs
02-27-2011, 09:58 PM
It starts and stops with Stanzi, everyone knows that.

descendency
02-27-2011, 10:01 PM
This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.

It's not hard to believe that when you have a drug addict, a product of Todd McShay, a 1 year wonder, and David Carr 2.0

WiSeIVIaN
02-27-2011, 10:20 PM
I do agree that this QB class is greatly underrated. Its insane that when looking at every other position, people understand that depth of talent can make a strong class, yet when it comes to QBs people look at the first QB and if he's not a slam dunk, crap class.

There are 4 guys here who all have the potential to be hall of fame QBs, and regardless of what draft class in the last decade you put any of those 4 guys into, they would be first round prospects. This isn't like when in 2009 Knowshon goes in the 1st cause the HB class is weak as balls as 08. Each of these guys are bonafide athletic superstars with the potential to carry teams.

I mean hell, 3 guys (newton, locker, gabbert) are faster than any current NFL starting-caliber QB besides vick, and all have legit NFL arms.

If guys like Leinart and Brady Quinn can projected top 5 in "good QB classes", but the 2011 class is weak, then something is wrong.

Cam Newton

Fast. Great runner. Cannon. Clutch with great production.

Locker

Fast. Cannon. A lot of college experience. Intangibles. Leadership

Gabbert

Fast. Cannon.

Mallett

If Jemarcus Russel came into the draft without the sugar bowl greatness, he is Mallett (I'm comparing as prospects not the NFL careers of course). Russel was a legit #1 overall pick. Mallett is likely gonna be the 4th QB taken in this draft.

====

Yes no single QB rises above the rest. But you can look at any draft in the last decade and they just SMASH the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th QB prospect in terms of athleticism, arm strength, and potential.


====

COMPARING AS PROSPECTS IN RECENT DRAFTS

2010

Bradford>Newton
Tebow<<Locker
Clausen<Gabbert
McCoy<<<<<Mallett

2009

Stafford>Newton
Sanchez<Locker (he was a reach at #5)
Freeman=Gabbert
Pat White<<<<<<Mallett

2008

Matt Ryan>Newton
Flacco=Locker
Brohm<<Gabbert
Henne<<Mallett

2007
Russel>Newton
Quinn<<Locker
Kolb<<Gabbert
Beck<<<<<<Mallett

2006
Young>Newton
Leinart<Locker
Cutler>>Gabbert
Kellen Clemons<<Mallet

2005
Alex Smith<Newton
Rodgers<Locker (I'm talking as prospects coming into the draft of course)
Jason Campbell<Gabbert
Charlie Frye<<<<<<Mallett

2004
Eli Manning>Newton
Rivers<Locker
Rothlisberger>Gabbert
Losman<Mallet


Imho this class is on the level of strong QB classes like 2004 and 2006 as far as the depth and potential of the top quarterbacks is concerned. Just because 1 QB has not been able to pull away does not mean the class is weak.

Both Newton and Locker go in the top 11 this year. Gabbert could be up there too if he has a great pro day. Mallett would be up there too if he wasn't doing drugs and going out of his way to nuke his own draft stock.


imo, fwiw. :)

FUNBUNCHER
02-27-2011, 10:36 PM
It's not hard to believe that when you have a drug addict, a product of Todd McShay, a 1 year wonder, and David Carr 2.0

So cold. Funny, but cold.

This draft class most resembles IMO the 1999 draft; Couch, McNabb, Akili Smith, Culpepper, McNown.

2 certified busts, (McNown, Smith), one eventual bust who played 5 years, (Couch), one who had great career moments and is presently out of the league,(Culpepper), and one perennial pro bowler, (McNabb).

I don't think there are three busts in the top 4, but I do believe that one will be great, one good, one a ten year starter but not regarded among the league's best, and one outright bust.

Caulibflower
02-27-2011, 11:12 PM
Listen, I followed Steve Young's entire career. He would be the bench mark of success for athletic quarterbacks in the NFL so I know full well what one can bring to the table. His running skills would have meant jack if it wasn't for the rest of the package. You need to work on comprehension though unless your approach is intentional....

OK, I went back and re-read the exchange. I guess took the first post you made a little differently than you meant it, and that affected my interpretation of the other things you wrote. It didn't occur to me that you were probably directly referring to Alex Smith, and I was talking hypotheticals. That being the case, I apologize for trying to make a big argument about it.

descendency
02-27-2011, 11:27 PM
Rivers<Locker

No, just no.

WiSeIVIaN
02-27-2011, 11:44 PM
No, just no.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/45539.html

Bad release and ****** arm strength don't make you a great prospect just because the Chargers reached at 4 and you developed into a pro bowl QB tbh.

Rabscuttle
02-27-2011, 11:52 PM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/45539.html

Bad release and ****** arm strength don't make you a great prospect just because the Chargers reached at 4 and you developed into a pro bowl QB tbh.

You should have just said he had a bad 40 time.

descendency
02-28-2011, 12:19 AM
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/2004/draft/players/45539.html

Bad release and ****** arm strength don't make you a great prospect just because the Chargers reached at 4 and you developed into a pro bowl QB tbh.

He was one of the all time leaders in passing (in the nation) when he left NC State and was the best player (and one of the two great players) that were here at the time. Maybe he wasn't a stellar prospect, but it's easy to see what wannabe GMs missed.

the natural
02-28-2011, 12:31 AM
Rivers had a 72% completion percentage his senior season, and was considered a possibility to go #1 overall in the draft. Pittsburgh wanted him over Roethlisberger.

the natural
02-28-2011, 12:33 AM
No one is even mentioning guys like Chris Ponder and Colin Kaepernick. In other years they would warrant first round consideration. They may even go in the first round.

Ness
02-28-2011, 02:05 AM
Not really that high on anyone in this draft. The last quarterback I really liked coming out of college was Carson Paler. Every year these quarterbacks get hyped up, when in reality it would be fortunate if two made a name for themselves and have a great career. Most of the quarterbacks, like most of the other players going in the draft will soon be forgotten. Happens every year.

descendency
02-28-2011, 02:16 AM
QB success rate in the NFL (first rounders only... after that it's terrible) is like 28%.

So it's totally believable that only 1 of the 4 guys drafted will succeed.

If I had to pick, I would take Locker. While I call him David Carr 2.0 - he may still be salvageable.

the natural
02-28-2011, 10:52 AM
Kaepernick, Mallett, and Newton all threw the ball in the high 50 range according to the radar gun. About 10 mph higher than Jay Cutler was clocked at a few years back.

Babylon
02-28-2011, 11:31 AM
No one is even mentioning guys like Chris Ponder and Colin Kaepernick. In other years they would warrant first round consideration. They may even go in the first round.

I think they'll go early in the second and give teams like the Bengals and the Bills a reason to go in a differant direction early. Kaepernick is the better athlete of those two but has a bit of a quirky motion. Ponder reminds me of a Tony Romo, i think he could be pretty good if he developes a little arm strength.

jth1331
02-28-2011, 11:34 AM
I feel people are overrating this class.
Cam Newton had 1 year, it was amazing yes, but 1 year. He's raw and a project. Could be great though.
Jake Locker screams Jake Plummer to me as best case scenario.
Ryan Mallett, man I don't know about him. He seems to have tools, but screws up a lot.
Gabbert didn't do much at Missouri against the Big 12, but he IMO is the QB I like as the "safe" pick.

Like someone else said, I think there will be 2 definite busts out of the top 4(IMO Mallett and Locker), one decent QB(IMO Gabbert) and one great QB(IMO Newton).
Ponder I think will be kind of like Brian Griese/Chad Henne/David Carr. Serviceable, but at some point realize he's just a backup QB.

bucfan12
02-28-2011, 01:50 PM
Honestly, watching the segment on ESPN with Gabbert and Terry Shea, he just looks like he has "It". He's smart, quick learner, strong arm, and can make all the throws. The question with him is consistency and lack of production. However, lack of production in college doesn't always mean lack of production in the NFL. Is Gabbert an elite QB prospect to come out in years? Probably not. Can he be your starter for the next 10-12 years? Quite possibly. I

Is he worth a top 5 pick? No. But no QB is in this years class. He'll be drafted a lot high than he should be due to need, but I don't think he'd be able to succeed right away in a place like Tennessee or Carolina or even Buffalo. Arizona possbily with Fitzgerald as his WR.

Is it me, or did Cam Newton look like an exact Jamarcus Russell clone when it came to mechanics at the combine. I think this guy is getting too much attention and he is going to be a bust in my opinion.

Still don't get why many had Locker as the top QB prospect over Sam Bradford last year. He is way to inconsistent and honestly, is a poor man
's Tim Tebow when it comes to mechanics and QB play. If Tebow had a 2nd/3rd round grade, why did many project Locker as the top QB in the draft?

Mallett has all the talent in the world, but work ethic and leadership and character are HUGE question marks. Reports say he seems really arrogant and he has trouble reading defenses. Many question his dedication on whether or not he watches enough film or does enough preperation before a game. Cocky but has a big arm. Apparently he threw very well at the combine, but that doesn't mean he'll succeed in the NFL. I don't think this guy is a true leader that can take over an NFL team. He seems to be a guy who will be out of the league in 2-3 years, much like Ryan Leaf./

Saints-Tigers
02-28-2011, 01:56 PM
If your mechanics are like Jamarcus Russell's, that's a good thing. I don't know why people keep using the Jamarcus Russell comparison as a negative when it comes to throwing the football.

If he's lazy and unconcerned, then bash away, but if you have a guy that is competitive and wants to be the best, and throws like Russell, that's a great thing....

the natural
02-28-2011, 02:07 PM
Honestly, watching the segment on ESPN with Gabbert and Terry Shea, he just looks like he has "It". He's smart, quick learner, strong arm, and can make all the throws. The question with him is consistency and lack of production/

Gabbert's college production, for a guy who was a 20 year old junior last season, is pretty impressive. He had over 7,000 total yards, I believe. 18 wins as a starter. The only ones who have better production are some of the fifth year seniors in the draft who are two years older than he is, or more.

bucfan12
02-28-2011, 02:22 PM
Gabbert's college production, for a guy who was a 20 year old junior last season, is pretty impressive. He had over 7,000 total yards, I believe. 18 wins as a starter. The only ones who have better production are some of the fifth year seniors in the draft who are two years older than he is, or more.

Yeah, many forget that he is still very young and will be 21 year old rookie.

He was also rated as the top high school qb recruit in his Sr. Class in the country so the talent is there.

Mr. Offseason
02-28-2011, 05:40 PM
On the contrary I think that this QB class is terrible overall... Unless Gabbert turns out to be a Franchise QB (which I am not confident he will, though I think he has the potential to be a very good NFL QB) I don't think there is one in this draft class. There's definitely potential, but overall this class is just awful.

San Diego Chicken
02-28-2011, 05:58 PM
There are no elite QB prospects in this class, but it is a very strong group of 2nd tier QB prospects. I like Newton, Locker, Gabbert, Mallett and Ponder anywhere in the first round outside of the top ten, though it's likely at least the last two and perhaps Locker fall to the 2nd.

the natural
02-28-2011, 06:15 PM
Last year you had Bradford coming in off two serious throwing shoulder injuries, major surgery, and six months of inactivity as a quarterback. Tebow with his wonky throwing motion being talked about as a fullback, yappy jerk Jimmy Clausen with his pop gun arm, and Colt McCoy who looked like he just left the seventh grade. Why is this class so bad by comparison?

YoJoeBucsFan
02-28-2011, 07:00 PM
This QB class has a GREAT chance to be just like the 1999 QB class.

Babylon
02-28-2011, 07:31 PM
This QB class has a GREAT chance to be just like the 1999 QB class.

Similar athletically (this one is better). If you were making comaparisons:

Jake Locker=Donovan McNabb
Cam Newton=Daunte Culpepper
Blaine Gabbert= Tim Couch

SRK85
02-28-2011, 08:08 PM
I have faith in Gabbert as long as he is not rushed. Newton will not bust but he will not be a dominant QB either. Newton will put up Vince Young like numbers which were good but nothing close to a great signal caller. Locker I am unsure about he def is the boom or bust candidate.

the natural
02-28-2011, 09:24 PM
It's supply and demand. Some of these guys have to play, and play fairly quickly. At the end of last season only half the starting QBs were the same as at the start. Mayock says that at least 1/3 of the league's teams are looking for QB help at the moment. That is without injuries, suspensions, or breakdowns that come during the season. I think there were 6 2010 drafted QBs starting on the last weekend of the season. Bradford, Tebow, Clausen, McCoy, Webb, and Skelton. May have even missed one in there.

katnip
02-28-2011, 09:38 PM
Similar athletically (this one is better). If you were making comaparisons:

Jake Locker=Donovan McNabb
Cam Newton=Daunte Culpepper
Blaine Gabbert= Tim Couch

I made the bolded comparison in a different thread I think. But I think Newton if he reaches his ceiling can be like Culpepper at his peak, or similar numbers. Then again. Culpepper had some really good skill players around him

the natural
02-28-2011, 10:04 PM
I don't see the Couch comparison. Couch was strictly a thrower and put up huge numbers passing. He ran the 40 in 5.1 and he was 10 pounds lighter than Gabbert at the time. Couch would be more like a smaller version of Ryan Mallett.

the natural
02-28-2011, 11:14 PM
Rob Rang of CBS says that 5 quarterbacks could be taken in first round this year. Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett, and Ponder. Kaepernick can't be far off that group.

BuddyCHRIST
02-28-2011, 11:43 PM
There was a time I thought this class would be awesome, but then Jake Locker and Christian Ponder had disappointing seasons, Mallett's faults really came to the surface, Andrew Luck stayed in school, and Gabbert declared.

Now this is a pretty underwhelming group, there is a ton of talent but I am just not sold on anyone. I think Gabbert is among the most overrated prospects in recent memory. Newton is so inconsistent throwing the ball and has no experience in a legit offense.

WCH
03-01-2011, 09:45 AM
Now this is a pretty underwhelming group, there is a ton of talent but I am just not sold on anyone. I think Gabbert is among the most overrated prospects in recent memory. Newton is so inconsistent throwing the ball and has no experience in a legit offense.

I agree 100%. In fact, I'll obviously be in the minority on this, but I gave Bradford, Clausen, and McCoy higher ratings last year than I gave any of these guys this year.

the natural
03-01-2011, 06:33 PM
Sam Wyche at NFL.com says flat out that Gabbert will be the first quarterback drafted. He doesn't seem to think that it will be a contest.

the natural
03-07-2011, 01:06 PM
Bucky Brooks at NFL.com raves about the combination of athleticism and arm strength shown by this year's top QB draft prospects. Should set records for QBs draft in the first through third rounds.

Babylon
03-07-2011, 01:13 PM
Bucky Brooks at NFL.com raves about the combination of athleticism and arm strength shown by this year's top QB draft prospects. Should set records for QBs draft in the first through third rounds.

Personally i think the depth will keep teams right at the top of the draft from wanting to jump on a QB but i may be alone in that thinking. Taking a Ponder or a Mallett at the top of the second is probably a lot less risky than taking any of the top 3 in say the top 5 picks.

RealityCheck
03-07-2011, 05:07 PM
Rob Rang of CBS says that 5 quarterbacks could be taken in first round this year. Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett, and Ponder. Kaepernick can't be far off that group.
Didn't know the 1st round will have 160 picks this year.

the natural
03-07-2011, 11:28 PM
Several of the top QB prospects have fanatical support on these boards. No one can say their support is without basis. I think it's perfectly possible that half a dozen of the prospects turn out to be solid NFL players. I don't see any superstars among the group that includes Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett, Ponder, and Kaepernick, but I don't see any flat out busts either. Unless Jake picks baseball, or one of the guys suffers a serious injury which hampers his ability to play.

Iamcanadian
03-07-2011, 11:43 PM
Every year, draftniks get down on the QB's but in recent year's pro teams have really improved in drafting successful QB's. There have been far less flops recently with a pretty decent success rate, so criticizing QB's may seem reasonable, but in this great draft year, if 2 go top 5, then I predict that we will have 2 HOF QB's, 1 average but decent QB and a couple of flops or career backups.

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 12:01 AM
Several of the top QB prospects have fanatical support on these boards. No one can say their support is without basis. I think it's perfectly possible that half a dozen of the prospects turn out to be solid NFL players. I don't see any superstars among the group that includes Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett, Ponder, and Kaepernick, but I don't see any flat out busts either. Unless Jake picks baseball, or one of the guys suffers a serious injury which hampers his ability to play.

Gabbert is the classic example of a player who gets overrated because he has a prototypical build and arm strength, and the better players have been picked apart too long. He'll bust unless he lands on an already-solid team, in which case he'll be a serviceable starter in a best-case-scenario.

Newton has to be allowed to run wild. If he can do that and stay healthy, I could see him having a lot of success. For me, it's as simple as looking at what Tyler Thigpen did in Kansas City a couple of years ago, and then imagining that Newton is in that position. And if Buffalo drafts him, he will be. I don't think he'd work well with Harbaugh in SF, Minnesota would be a black hole for him, Cincinnati a terrible environment, and Washington has a crazy owner who would only complicate things. I can see him doing alright throwing bombs to Larry Fitzgerald and Steve Breaston in AZ with a couple good running backs behind him, but Whisenhunt doesn't really seem like the type to draft a Cam Newton. Dallas would be intriguing, because he'd be able to learn for maybe 3 years while Tony Romo, who will be 31 at the beginning of next season, holds him off until he begins to lose form. Dallas is an interesting scenario, because while he has the good option of getting to learn for a few years, it's also a media circus. But who knows, maybe he'll be good and end up being the biggest superstar the NFL has ever seen. 'Cause frankly, if he's a stud in Dallas, that's what he'd be. Well... pretty much. Miami would be a possibility, too. Another franchise whose management and owenership is a bit off-kilter. Bottom line: Cam Newton, while an amazing talent, has shown that he's affected by the people who surround him. He needs a good situation.

Locker is underrated at this point. I don't know if he's really...magnetic...enough to be a "superstar," but he's a guy who I definitely think can be a solid starter. He's a hard worker, has good athleticism, throws well on the run and has the respect of his teammates. I expect him to be drafted in the first round. Talk of him falling to the second is nonsense. Clausen dropped because besides being known as a bit of a douche, he just wasn't that gifted. Locker is gifted.

Mallett is a like a mortar-launcher. Or a trebuchet. He needs some units to protect him while he assaults a secondary. If he lands on a team that protects him, he can be really good. But I think if he goes to a really bad team, he's going to epically suck it up, throw a bunch of interceptions (albeit reaaally far down the field), and forever be seen as a big, immobile arm who never really had anything else going for him. But, of course, in the right situation that could be all he needs. I don't really buy him "not being able to read a defense." I think that has more to do with poise and getting frantic in the pocket. We all know Alex Smith can read a defense, but he panics in the pocket and throws at defenders. It's not an intelligence issue as much as a composure issue. Which is related to protection.

Ponder kinda reminds me of Tyler Thigpen, since I mentioned him earlier. I think he could start, but I see him more as a capable backup. He's pretty generic to me. 4th-rounder.

Kaepernick is for guys who like scrambling quarterbacks but don't like Newton because of his off-the-field stuff. They invent reasons to puff up CK and say he can do this or that better than Cam. Fact is, he played in a far, far, far, FAR inferior conference in a similarly "gimmicky" offense. He's got a slighter build and isn't the same caliber of runner Cam is, stats notwithstanding. He does have a good arm, but if you're looking for a starter, anyone who prefers Kaepernick over Newton is insane. Looking for a buddy to chill with, sure, whatever floats your boat. But I think Kaepernick is a bit of a novelty prospect. I think he's another solid player who'll probably get a chance to start pretty early in his career. I definitely don't think he's a first rounder. I think I'm coming off a bit negatively in my assessment of him, so I'll make it clear that I don't have any major issues with him as a prospect. I think he has enough athletic ability to be a starter. I dunno, I'm probably just a Cam Newton homer. I think he's kind of an idiot, but I love watching him play.

I'm done now.

the natural
03-08-2011, 12:17 AM
I hardly see comparing these guys to Tyler Thigpen as a ringing endorsement. I'd hope most of them turn out better than that. Gabbert has "the prototypical build and arm strength" as you mention, but he also showed he was a terrific athlete at the combine (top 10 among all QBs there over the past 5 years in every test he took), and the word is that he was " a natural leader, and by far the best interview of all the QBs. He took over the rooms...", in the words of the NFL guys.

His career production (for a guy who will be 21 at the start of next season) was excellant, nearly 1,000 passes, 61% completion, extremely low interception rate, 18-8 record at Mizzou which is not a powerhouse school. He has no off field issues. I'm not sure exactly what else there is to look at in determining the worth of a prospect.

Iamcanadian
03-08-2011, 12:20 AM
I hardly see comparing these guys to Tyler Thigpen as a ringing endorsement. I'd hope most of them turn out better than that. Gabbert has "the prototypical build and arm strength" as you mention, but he also showed he was a terrific athlete at the combine (top 10 among all QBs there over the past 5 years in every test he took), and the word is that he was " a natural leader, and by far the best interview of all the QBs. He took over the rooms...", in the words of the NFL guys.

His career production (for a guy who will be 21 at the start of next season) was excellant, nearly 1,000 passes, 61% completion, extremely low interception rate, 18-8 record at Mizzou which is not a powerhouse school. He has no off field issues. I'm not sure exactly what else there is to look at in determining the worth of a prospect.

Solid rebuttal.

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 12:48 AM
I hardly see comparing these guys to Tyler Thigpen as a ringing endorsement.

Notice I called Ponder a 4th rounder, and said that if Thingpen could be successful in Chan Gailey's offense, then Cam Newton surely could be. So... yeah. I wasn't saying anything close to "Tyler Thigpen is awesome."

(Gabbert's) career production (for a guy who will be 21 at the start of next season) was excellant, nearly 1,000 passes, 61% completion, extremely low interception rate, 18-8 record at Mizzou which is not a powerhouse school. He has no off field issues.

You seem like you're scouting guys by looking at their ESPN.com profiles. And why do you keep bring up their ages? You think Gabbert's going to be great because he's young, and Fairely's shouldn't be considered an elite prospect because he's, uh... haha... "old?" And I wouldn't even call his production "excellent;" he had just over 3000 yards in the spread with a 16:9 ratio. That's awfully pedestrian. No, he's not playing at a powerhouse school, but he's not playing in a powerhouse conference either. If I'm a stat-scouter, I'm worried that he couldn't throw 20 TDs last year running a spread in the Big 12. But I'm not a stat-scouter, and I still think he's overrated, despite his lack of stats. Er...

I'm not sure exactly what else there is to look at in determining the worth of a prospect.

...Film?

Sportsfan486
03-08-2011, 01:15 AM
I'm done now.

Long post so I won't full quote but agree with all of it. It's a bad class.. Gabbert.. I mean.. come on. He was in a gimmicky pass offense and threw 16 TDs on 475 attempts in a mediocre conference. That's TERRIBLE. I don't care who he's throwing to.. Jay freaking Cutler threw for 21 TDs on 462 attempts at freaking VANDERBILT. 18 on 327 attempts his soph year!

Gabbert is a joke. I mean, look what Chase Daniels did in that offense. Sure, Chase had better weapons but still.. it's a ridiculous difference when you're calling Gabbert a possible #1 choice.

the natural
03-08-2011, 01:20 AM
...Film?[/QUOTE]

Well, I don't have the capability, time, or inclination to watch every pass that Blaine Gabbert threw over the past 3 years, but the people who do seem to like him well enough. In January everyone was gasping that Gabbert "came out of nowhere to being considered a top 10 pick.". That was based on the scouts who watched his film or watched him in person. There were no other measuring sticks available at the time. Now we have had a chance to watch him work out at the Combine and listen to his inteview. Neither of those would cause his draft stock to slip, and we already know that he throws a beautiful ball, so the chance of him slipping up at his pro day are slim to none.

the natural
03-08-2011, 01:25 AM
Long post so I won't full quote but agree with all of it. It's a bad class.. Gabbert.. I mean.. come on. He was in a gimmicky pass offense and threw 16 TDs on 475 attempts in a mediocre conference. That's TERRIBLE. I don't care who he's throwing to.. Jay freaking Cutler threw for 21 TDs on 462 attempts at freaking VANDERBILT. 18 on 327 attempts his soph year!

Gabbert is a joke. I mean, look what Chase Daniels did in that offense. Sure, Chase had better weapons but still.. it's a ridiculous difference when you're calling Gabbert a possible #1 choice.

K. we have the word of the guys at NFL.com saying that there will be a record number of QBs taken in the first three rounds, and the guys at CBS saying that there should be 5 first round QBs this year, vs. Sportsfan486! Who to believe?

Sportsfan486
03-08-2011, 01:36 AM
K. we have the word of the guys at NFL.com saying that there will be a record number of QBs taken in the first three rounds, and the guys at CBS saying that there should be 5 first round QBs this year, vs. Sportsfan486! Who to believe?

Where did I ever say he wasn't going in the first? I believe I said "possibly #1 overall." I would be shocked if 4 QBs didn't go in the first.

Doesn't mean he even compares to QB prospects from previous years. Teams need QBs. They will always reach for them, always. I don't see the upside with Gabbert... if he can only throw 16 TDs in a spread in college, where does that put you in the pro game?

I agree that he has a decent arm. Good character. Good athleticism. But his production is really pretty medicore at best.

Crickett
03-08-2011, 01:45 AM
K. we have the word of the guys at NFL.com saying that there will be a record number of QBs taken in the first three rounds, and the guys at CBS saying that there should be 5 first round QBs this year, vs. Sportsfan486! Who to believe?

http://www.bestsportsphotos.com/images/t_18782_07.jpg

Wrathman
03-08-2011, 02:07 AM
To me, it looks like you can make a case pro or con with any of the top four quarterbacks. Because of that, I'm very hesitant to spend a top-five pick on any of them.

Newton's best comparison is probably Vince Young but like Young, he'll need to run a high-school level offense in the pros (at least initially) until he becomes comfortable reading defenses and going through progressions. Young still doesn't get it; hopefully Newton will. Newton has off-field concerns that will bother some teams but not others.

Gabbert seems to have everything you want and he has aced his interviews. If he's so good and so talented, why was his production so average for a team that has had lesser quarterbacks produce better stats? That bothers me. It's probably the least of the worries among these quarterbacks though (if it can be answered)...at least for me.

Locker was never going to be drafted ahead of Bradford, but it's fun to say that it could have happened. Accuracy issues tend to be extremely hard to fix at the next level and Locker has them in spades. I'd have a hard time trusting my franchise with him.

Mallet has all the physical tools other than wanting for more mobility, but his character concerns are real. Can he handle the pressure at the NFL level? Are the drug concerns valid? These are tough questions to overcome.

I think the future of all of these quarterbacks will, like most pros, depend upon the system they land in and the supporting cast they have around them. I don't see any of them as being the type of quarterback that can carry a franchise on their back, but they all have the raw talent to succeed in the right environment. I'd take Gabbert if I had to choose one at this time, but I reserve the right to change my mind.

You can bet that Carolina would pass on any of these guys for Andrew Luck in a heartbeat if they had the opportunity.

niel89
03-08-2011, 03:46 AM
I could honestly see all of the other 3 QBs easily putting up better stats than Gabbert if they were in the same position as Gabbert this year.

I think that all 3 of these guys are sizable risks in the top 15. No one is even a semi-complete package.

PACKmanN
03-08-2011, 03:50 AM
call me crazy, but if each one of these qbs had the chance to sit for a year and learn. I think Mallet would become the best qb from this draft class with Locker second.

Sportsfan486
03-08-2011, 04:28 AM
I could honestly see all of the other 3 QBs easily putting up better stats than Gabbert if they were in the same position as Gabbert this year.

I think that all 3 of these guys are sizable risks in the top 15. No one is even a semi-complete package.

It's so hard to fall in love with any of the top guys. None of them have something that seems transcendent about them; good enough that (for some) it cancels out their flaws.

Cam is a great athlete.. but we've seen great athletes flame out at QB.
Gabbert is a workout guy.. but he has never done anything impressive with it.
Locker coulda been there last year but now he's not the best athlete in the class and more questions were raised.
Mallet is a douche and no one has any faith in his ability to work under pressure.

You look at past guys like Bradford, who's accuracy and poise was his skill that made some people love him. Russell with his size and throwing ability. Even Quinn with his attitude and arm. Stafford with his leadership and arm. Ryan with his heart and clutchness. Vince Young with his ridiculously clutch play and epic games where he looked like a man among boys. Jay Cutler and his production on an awful team. Alex Smith and the magical journey of that team, plus his comparison to Steve Young. Aaron Rodgers and his accuracy and safety with the ball.

They all had question marks but had a feel about them that they were something special. All of them also had impressive college production. You may not have loved all of them but lots of people did. None of these guys have that feel to them, in my opinion. I hate to go back to it but when your consensus top guy threw 16 TDs from a spread with over 450 attempts.. that says a lot.

Saints-Tigers
03-08-2011, 05:59 AM
Really, they aren't perfect, but Mallett, Locker and CAm Newton are 3 of the most physically talented QBs to come out, they really have magnificent tools.

Halsey
03-08-2011, 07:05 AM
The criticism I'm reading for Gabbert lately is of his stats. That sounds familiar: Josh Freeman didn't even pass for 3,000 yards his last year at Kansas State. Good thing teams like Buffalo and San Francisco passed on him. Matt Ryan threw OMGZ 19 INTS! Thanks to Miami and St. Louis for passing on him.

Perhaps QB needy team will do the same thing again and continue to be irrelevant. Why take a chance on a QB when you go with with a 'safe' pick and be picking in the top 10 again next year. At least one of them might get a shot at Luck next year....unless his stats don't look great in 2011. Then they'll have to pass on him and take another lineman. Bad teams can never have enough DTs.

Saints-Tigers
03-08-2011, 07:42 AM
Gabbert sucked as a QB, give me a break. WE get it dude, you always want to be the progressive thinker that is a step ahead of all of us, but you just come off sounding like a douchebag, stop posting.

FUNBUNCHER
03-08-2011, 08:30 AM
The criticism I'm reading for Gabbert lately is of his stats. That sounds familiar: Josh Freeman didn't even pass for 3,000 yards his last year at Kansas State. Good thing teams like Buffalo and San Francisco passed on him. Matt Ryan threw OMGZ 19 INTS! Thanks to Miami and St. Louis for passing on him.

Perhaps QB needy team will do the same thing again and continue to be irrelevant. Why take a chance on a QB when you go with with a 'safe' pick and be picking in the top 10 again next year. At least one of them might get a shot at Luck next year....unless his stats don't look great in 2011. Then they'll have to pass on him and take another lineman. Bad teams can never have enough DTs.

Freeman, correct me if I'm wrong, played in a pro set offense at K-State, and still threw for 20 TDs as a senior. Also, NO ONE was talking about taking Freeman #1 overall.

I do however believe it's the Freeman example that's causing NFL teams to toss out Gabbert's stats and evaluate him strictly based on his potential upside.

Gabbert taken in 10-20 range is a non-controversial pick. Drafting him 1/1, or even top 5 is iffy.

For Gabbert to throw for 16 TDs in an offensive system that's teed up for an average QB to throw for at least 25 TDs in a season is troubling, to me.
Add on top of that how many Gabbert highlights where he sets in the pocket, untouched, looking what seems like forever for a WR, then without the slightest hint of pressure takes off running.

I'll be honest, I didn't see Freeman becoming a good QB so soon in the NFL.
Maybe that's Gabbert's model, if he's taken in the top 5, he better be.

Halsey
03-08-2011, 09:22 AM
Go ahead and dwell on his stats from his 2 years of starting in college. NFL teams are concerned with what he can become in the pros. Stats in college are not a perfect indicator of pro potential. Go look at Matt Cassel's college stats for a glaring example. Gabbert shows many of the signs of a QB who could develop into a quality starter.

Babylon
03-08-2011, 11:15 AM
The criticism I'm reading for Gabbert lately is of his stats. That sounds familiar: Josh Freeman didn't even pass for 3,000 yards his last year at Kansas State. Good thing teams like Buffalo and San Francisco passed on him. Matt Ryan threw OMGZ 19 INTS! Thanks to Miami and St. Louis for passing on him.

Perhaps QB needy team will do the same thing again and continue to be irrelevant. Why take a chance on a QB when you go with with a 'safe' pick and be picking in the top 10 again next year. At least one of them might get a shot at Luck next year....unless his stats don't look great in 2011. Then they'll have to pass on him and take another lineman. Bad teams can never have enough DTs.

I look at stats as being a product somewhat of the people around you. Josh Freeman was better his junior year when he had Jordy Nelson, Matt Stafford was much better when A.J. Green arrived. Gabbert's supporting cast was mediocre at best same with Locker, who had better numbers as a junior when he had a decent TE and his receivers were healthy. I think Mallett and Newton had much better supporting casts and the better numbers to show for it. You'd almost have to do a mix and match to really find out the differance in all 4.

This is probably why the combine and private workouts are so important, sort of levels the playing field. Gabbert needs a big pro day after begging off on the throwing at the combine. Newton i think with a big day today will probably go in the top 5, i wouldnt take him there but the media seems to think or want to think he is worthy of a top pick. Gabbert and Locker i think will eventually compete for the second QB taken and Mallett probably goes later in round 1 or early round 2 based on bad footwork and spotty character.

FUNBUNCHER
03-08-2011, 11:36 AM
Go ahead and dwell on his stats from his 2 years of starting in college. NFL teams are concerned with what he can become in the pros. Stats in college are not a perfect indicator of pro potential. Go look at Matt Cassel's college stats for a glaring example. Gabbert shows many of the signs of a QB who could develop into a quality starter.

Matt Cassel never started at USC and was a 7th round pick. Not the best comparison IMO.

Just curious, if we aren't going to look at production or really even scheme, or performance against elite competition, only pro tools, size and accuracy on certain throws, how the heck do you grade a guy a potential franchise QB, or potential #1 overall??

It used to be that franchise type QB prospects were dominant in college with the tools to match, now it's less about performance on the field and all about skillset, tools, character and 'upside'.

Maybe Freeman isn't the model for drafting QBs in the future, but guys like Cassel, Brady, Warner and Romo.

If a prospect can be accurate making pro type throws and is coachable with a solid work-ethic, I guess many NFL HCs believe they can 'invent' a pro bowl QB.

Who knows?

Halsey
03-08-2011, 11:49 AM
Gabbert was productive and played well in college. That's not even worth debating. I don't conclude a QB played poorly just because he didn't pass for 5,000 yards and go 14-0.

If you're brushing off Gabbert because he didn't play in a pro style offense, you're stuck in the past. There have been numerous QBs in the NFL who didn't play in pro style offenses. It should be pretty obvious that NFL teams can work with QBs from so called 'gimmick offenses'.

SchizophrenicBatman
03-08-2011, 12:06 PM
Missouri's offense averaged 30 points a game this year. They scored 28 rushing TDs split amongst 8 players (including Gabbert, who had 5). You guys really get too caught up in reading stat lines

I don't think Gabbert will be that great in the NFL because he has zero pocket presence. But harping on his TD number from one year is getting old. Extremely old

FUNBUNCHER
03-08-2011, 12:16 PM
Gabbert was productive and played well in college. That's not even worth debating. I don't conclude a QB played poorly just because he didn't pass for 5,000 yards and go 14-0.

If you're brushing off Gabbert because he didn't play in a pro style offense, you're stuck in the past. There have been numerous QBs in the NFL who didn't play in pro style offenses. It should be pretty obvious that NFL teams can work with QBs from so called 'gimmick offenses'.

Gabbert didn't have the level of production one would typically expect for an elite talent playing in a spread offense.

I'm not 'brushing off' Gabbert, but like Freeman and Flacco, I didn't see either amounting to much in the NFL.

A guy like Philip Rivers I was all over because I could see him perform at a high level on game days at NC State. If a QB prospect isn't playing at a high level throughout the season, it's hard for me personally to see him as a top pick.

I look at QBs like any other position, performance first, then see if their measurables match up to their game film.
The problem is, that formula works well for most positions, except QB.

the natural
03-08-2011, 12:25 PM
Gabbert is being slammed for ONE stat, basically, the fact that he had only 16 TD passes in his draft year. He had more yards than Newton, a similar completion percentage, and a lower interception ratio. As a sophomore, Blaine had the best year of any quarterback in this draft. His 2009 season was far ahead of Andrew Luck's as well. But Sam Bradford had only 2 TDs in his draft year, if you want to get technical. 56% completion percentage. Dez Bryant caught 17 passes his draft year. Rob Gronkowksi and Jimmy Gresham didn't catch a pass between them in their draft year. If those players were judged solely on their draft year production they would all have been UDFA.

DiG
03-08-2011, 12:27 PM
gabberts lack of tds is not the only thing he is slammed for...far worse to me are his happy feet and lack of pocket presence, let alone his accuracy concerns. and dont give me "they are better than x..." im not comparing, im grading.

FUNBUNCHER
03-08-2011, 12:39 PM
Gabbert is being slammed for ONE stat, basically, the fact that he had only 16 TD passes in his draft year. He had more yards than Newton, a similar completion percentage, and a lower interception ratio. As a sophomore, Blaine had the best year of any quarterback in this draft. His 2009 season was far ahead of Andrew Luck's as well. But Sam Bradford had only 2 TDs in his draft year, if you want to get technical. 56% completion percentage. Dez Bryant caught 17 passes his draft year. Rob Gronkowksi and Jimmy Gresham didn't catch a pass between them in their draft year. If those players were judged solely on their draft year production they would all have been UDFA.

It's not about Gabbert IMO, it's about a gradual transition over the last 5 or so years in the way that NFL teams scout the pro potential of QB prospects.

QB prospects are being evaluated the way a quarterback coach or OC would grade a prospect, and not necessarily the way a generic scout 20 years ago might have.

J-Mike88
03-08-2011, 12:42 PM
About the title: Best QB Class in Years

How many years, maybe the best QB class since last year?

I'm less-than-impressed by this crop of QBs. Now had Luck had been in it, then....

the natural
03-08-2011, 12:43 PM
But you can't simultaneously slam Gabbert for playing in a gadget system and his pocket presence. Most of the time there wasn't a pocket to operate in. He took the snaps from shotgun and (hopefully) threw the ball before the defenders got to him. He didn't really get the chance to set up and work within a traditional pocket. As to his accuracy, 64% is not too shabby. Same with 61% for his career. That is higher than Stafford, Freeman, Ryan, managed in recent times. About the same as Sanchez who was a one year guy on a loaded team.

the natural
03-08-2011, 12:47 PM
It's not about Gabbert IMO, it's about a gradual transition over the last 5 or so years in the way that NFL teams scout the pro potential of QB prospects.

QB prospects are being evaluated the way a quarterback coach or OC would grade a prospect, and not necessarily the way a generic scout 20 years ago might have.

I would tend to agree with this. There are so many variables in trying to compare QBs to each other within a single class. Different styles, systems, conferences, quality of support, etc. etc. You have to look closer at the raw tool set the way teams did with Cassell, Cutler, Flacco, Freeman, etc.

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 12:56 PM
Gabbert didn't have the level of production one would typically expect for an elite talent playing in a spread offense.


This, and this.

gabberts lack of tds is not the only thing he is slammed for...far worse to me are his happy feet and lack of pocket presence, let alone his accuracy concerns. and dont give me "they are better than x..." im not comparing, im grading.

Trying to paint it like people are just ragging on Gabbert because of his stats is as off-base as... ragging on a player because of his stats. The point here is that he's supposed to be an elite prospect, and he played in a notoriously QB-friendly offense without putting up great statistics. I don't care what kind of excuse you give me for that; it bothers me. I think if you're drafting a guy in the top ten, which is what many people are projecting, he should have more than a game manager resume running a spread offense. We can compare him to Locker, the other top QB prospect who never really lit it up statistically. Locker had a comparable TD:INT ratio and a higher yards-per-completion playing in a system where he had to throw downfield more. There are people saying Locker is a second rounder because he regressed statistically last year. I don't understand why some of the same people are touting Gabbert as a top-ten pick. It just doesn't make sense.

FUNBUNCHER
03-08-2011, 01:00 PM
But you can't simultaneously slam Gabbert for playing in a gadget system and his pocket presence. Most of the time there wasn't a pocket to operate in. He took the snaps from shotgun and (hopefully) threw the ball before the defenders got to him. He didn't really get the chance to set up and work within a traditional pocket. As to his accuracy, 64% is not too shabby. Same with 61% for his career. That is higher than Stafford, Freeman, Ryan, managed in recent times. About the same as Sanchez who was a one year guy on a loaded team.
Gabbert more than once ran from the pocket when there was absolutely no pressure.

Don't bring up his accuracy either; Stafford, Freeman, and Ryan all played in more conventional pro style offenses.

It doesn't matter anyway because the level of evaluation going on with today's QB prospects IMO is like the 'moneyball' of pro football.

Different metrics are in play here and total game stats aren't the only absolute numbers modern scouts are looking at.

It's why two ND QBs who put up outstanding numbers prior to their draft year after being coached by one of the most innovative offensive minds in the game, Charlie Weis, weren't considered elite prospects despite having adequate tools across the board.

Like I've said before, there are prospects I like and personally I'm rooting for, but I NEVER root for any prospect to fail.

I don't get the love for Gabbert, but that doesn't mean I hope he doesn't develop into a pro bowler.

Scouts make mistakes, as do fans, but I'll give pro-Gabbert supporters and scouts the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe they're right. And it's not like I haven't been wrong about a QB prospect before, ( I'm still waiting for Colt Brenan to recover from that wreck in Hawaii and make a comeback!!!lol)

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 01:06 PM
But you can't simultaneously slam Gabbert for playing in a gadget system and his pocket presence.
False.
Most of the time there wasn't a pocket to operate in.
False.
He took the snaps from shotgun and (hopefully) threw the ball before the defenders got to him.
Trivially true.
He didn't really get the chance to set up and work within a traditional pocket.
False. There is still a pocket when running the shotgun.
As to his accuracy, 64% is not too shabby. Same with 61% for his career.
So when he's in the NFL, is he going to be throwing sixtyfourpercents at his wideouts?
That is higher than Stafford (pro offense), Freeman, Ryan (pro offense), managed in recent times. About the same as Sanchez (pro offense) who was a one year guy on a loaded team.
You do understand that saying a player played in a "pro-style offense" doesn't mean "he was on a good team," right? That it actually has a lot to do with how their stats look? That it means they make different types of throws from one offense to the other? And that it's part of the reason you can't scout by looking at football cards?

Hurricanes25
03-08-2011, 01:08 PM
"Best QB Class in Years?"

Ask me that last August and without a doubt my answer was yes. Now, not a chance. Way too many question marks about Newton, Mallett, Locker and Gabbert.

Halsey
03-08-2011, 02:31 PM
When does any Draft ever get widely viewed as strong or deep at QB? In a league where only like a dozen guys are viewed as 'star QBs', there's not going to be a Draft 'deep' at future star QBs. Media and fans aren't looking at a Draft for how deep it is with quality backups. There's always going to be more players at most other positions who are going to see the field.

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 02:45 PM
You probably wouldn't be too far off, really, calling this a "deep class" because there are a half-dozen guys who have the athletic ability to be starters. The fact that there are generally only a dozen or so really good quarterbacks in the league at a time doesn't really have much to do with "depth" in a draft, because profiling prospects is all about their potential, anyways. There's a number of guys this year who look like they can be starters, and that's about as deep as you get with rating a crop.

Babylon
03-08-2011, 02:46 PM
When does any Draft ever get widely viewed as strong or deep at QB? In a league where only like a dozen guys are viewed as 'star QBs', there's not going to be a Draft 'deep' at future star QBs. Media and fans aren't looking at a Draft for how deep it is with quality backups. There's always going to be more players at most other positions who are going to see the field.

It's like OTs, they are hardly ever any that blow your socks off but you have to have them so they sometimes get overvalued. I actually like the potential with the top QBs and the depth overall. To me it's the strongest class in awhile even though there may be a couple of busts.

1999 was a year everyone was ga-ga over the QBs, you had several athletes like McNabb, Smith and Culpepper. There may be too much love because of athletic QBs but this years group can throw the ball too.

Sportsfan486
03-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Go ahead and dwell on his stats from his 2 years of starting in college. NFL teams are concerned with what he can become in the pros. Stats in college are not a perfect indicator of pro potential. Go look at Matt Cassel's college stats for a glaring example. Gabbert shows many of the signs of a QB who could develop into a quality starter.

As was mentioned.. yeah.. Cassel was drafted where again? When you're talking about the #1 overall pick.. effectively putting the future hopes of your franchise on this one player.. then yeah, you're going to be concerned if he only played "pretty well" at the college level. People get way too caught up in measurables.. measurables aren't what make Manning. Brady. Brees. Rodgers. what they are and this class is seriously lacking in QBs with top-knotch intangibles.

J-Mike88
03-08-2011, 09:49 PM
You probably wouldn't be too far off, really, calling this a "deep class" because there are a half-dozen guys who have the athletic ability to be starters.
It takes a lot more than athletic ability to be a good NFL starting QB though.
Vince Young, Alex Smith, Akili Smith... they had great athletic ability.
Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning? Not so much.

Give me a QB, you can have your Vince's and Cam's.

dannyz
03-08-2011, 10:06 PM
When your Top QB is Cam Newton, I would not call that a Good Class at all.

Dark Knight01
03-08-2011, 10:11 PM
I get a kick how nobody on NFLN and BSPN is taking about Scam Newtons pedestrian 50 for 60 passing today in a controlled environment.

His mechanics suck and he has accuracy problems and he will not be able to learn a pro style playbook, that requires audibles.

The team that drafts him better be patient with him and better have a plan to cater the offense to Newtons strengths.....otherwise he will be a for sure flop.

dannyz
03-08-2011, 10:36 PM
I get a kick how nobody on NFLN and BSPN is taking about Scam Newtons pedestrian 50 for 60 passing today in a controlled environment.

His mechanics suck and he has accuracy problems and he will not be able to learn a pro style playbook, that requires audibles.

The team that drafts him better be patient with him and better have a plan to cater the offense to Newtons strengths.....otherwise he will be a for sure flop.

I think it's because the Network tells them to do it. Newton is the hot thing right now he can't do anything wrong. Just like Tebow last year. If Five years from now if Newton and Tebow are bust no one on either the NFLN/ESPN are going to admit they were wrong.

the natural
03-08-2011, 10:44 PM
I think it's because the Network tells them to do it. Newton is the hot thing right now he can't do anything wrong. Just like Tebow last year. If Five years from now if Newton and Tebow are bust no one on either the NFLN/ESPN are going to admit they were wrong.

Those guys are human. They aren't going to come out and crap all over a kid over a merely "decent" performance. Mayock praised the things Newton did well, but when the other guys pressed him on whether he would move Cam up on his ranking list, he sluffed it off. I'm sure Mike and a few other guys there know exactly what Newton can and cannot do, but they have to be diplomatic in their comments. They have a big audience and a big impact.

Caulibflower
03-08-2011, 10:48 PM
I get a kick how nobody on NFLN and BSPN is taking about Scam Newtons pedestrian 50 for 60 passing today in a controlled environment.

His mechanics suck and he has accuracy problems and he will not be able to learn a pro style playbook, that requires audibles.

The team that drafts him better be patient with him and better have a plan to cater the offense to Newtons strengths.....otherwise he will be a for sure flop.

Did you really think you offered enough insight with this post to merit posting it in multiple threads?

J-Mike88
03-08-2011, 10:50 PM
Did you really think you offered enough insight with this post to merit posting it in multiple threads?
I guess so if you read it in multiple threads.

And actually on NFL Network tonight, Trent Green criticized Newton's technique today, with his left side specifically not following thru, finishing the throws to the sideline.

the natural
03-08-2011, 11:17 PM
Carolina met formally with Gabbert at the Combine, and no one else that I know of. Buffalo is meeting with Newton in Auburn tonight. That is how it is going to go down, I believe.

Babylon
03-09-2011, 12:14 AM
When your Top QB is Cam Newton, I would not call that a Good Class at all.

How does it look if he's the 3rd best QB?

dannyz
03-09-2011, 03:27 PM
Better. But Locker and Gabbert and not that great either.

Babylon
03-09-2011, 03:33 PM
Better. But Locker and Gabbert and not that great either.

Locker's stocker is going up. I read today where Kiper now has him in the first going to Seattle (Mel's still the boss). Other teams that have shown some interest by all accounts are the Redskins and the Vikings. If someone like a Gabbert or a Newton manage to go in the top 5 (wouldnt be my choice) then i doubt Jake gets by the Vikings pick.

the natural
03-09-2011, 04:39 PM
Apparently the Bidwell family, who own the Arizona Cardinals, will be in attendence for Gabbert's pro day workout. But they may be from the St. Louis area, not sure. I think it's telling that Carolina has still not had a formal meeting with Cam Newton.