PDA

View Full Version : If Cam Newton is the Next JaMarcus Russell


Complex
03-09-2011, 05:41 PM
and Ryan Mallet is the next Ryan Leaf, what is Blaine Gabbert?

I am wondering because nobody has compared him to a former bust like people have with Newton and Mallet.

wonderbredd24
03-09-2011, 05:43 PM
Jim Drunkenmiller

TACKLE
03-09-2011, 05:46 PM
A faster Tom Brady.....;)

BeerBaron
03-09-2011, 05:53 PM
The lesser of 3 evils.

Caulibflower
03-09-2011, 05:59 PM
Blaine Gabbert is Charlie Whitehurst.

BaLLiN
03-09-2011, 06:01 PM
Cam Newton- Donovan McNabb
Ryan Mallet- Derek Anderson minus some athleticism?
Blaine Gabbert- idk, he seems to have awful accuracy

FUNBUNCHER
03-09-2011, 06:02 PM
Jim Drunkenmiller
That was killa!!!

Babylon
03-09-2011, 06:03 PM
Blaine Gabbert is Charlie Whitehurst.

Geez dont wish that on anyone.

J255979-11nine
03-09-2011, 06:20 PM
Mallett = BLEDSOE!!

ericzedwards
03-09-2011, 06:27 PM
Josh Portis = Aaron Brooks

Halsey
03-09-2011, 06:29 PM
Yay for meaningless comparisons! Every top QB prospect gets compared to Leaf and Russell by fans on message boards.

Complex
03-09-2011, 06:44 PM
A faster Tom Brady.....;)

really?...

Saints-Tigers
03-09-2011, 06:45 PM
4.6 Peyton Manning.

Roddoliver
03-09-2011, 06:47 PM
I don't think Mallett is innacurate like Derek Anderson. Gabbert is more like Anderson in terms of inaccuracy. Maybe we could compare Gabbert to Brady Quinn. Athletic, inaccurate, dink and dunk QB.

descendency
03-09-2011, 07:23 PM
I think there are ways to see every prospect as a range of a really bad all time bust to a really elite (future or current) hall of famer.

BaLLiN
03-09-2011, 07:33 PM
After watching more Gabbert, I do not want in the first if im any team

RealityCheck
03-09-2011, 07:51 PM
The next Brady Quinn.

BeerBaron
03-09-2011, 08:02 PM
The next Brady Quinn.

Alright, that's too low of blow. Quinn is easily the worst QB on an NFL roster not named Todd Collins.

GoRavens
03-09-2011, 10:22 PM
http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2000_The_Replacements/keanu_reeves_the_replacements_002.jpg

J-Mike88
03-09-2011, 10:27 PM
David Klingler

Caulibflower
03-09-2011, 10:33 PM
Brady Quinn is not as bad as a lot of people would make him out to be. I'd certainly rather have him than Whitehurst.

49erNation85
03-09-2011, 11:28 PM
He will be the next Alex Smith if he doesn't prove wrong when he gets going to a good coaching staff or at a place where he can sit a FULL year and learn the system.Tenn or Vikings maybe.

Crickett
03-09-2011, 11:32 PM
Alright, that's too low of blow. Quinn is easily the worst QB on an NFL roster not named Todd Collins.

I'd happily trade Kellen Clemens for Brady Quinn.

SickwithIt1010
03-09-2011, 11:34 PM
Comparisons?

Newton- P. Manning
Mallett- Big Ben
Gabbert- Tom Brady

definitely.

Brodeur
03-10-2011, 12:42 AM
Brady Quinn is not as bad as a lot of people would make him out to be. I'd certainly rather have him than Whitehurst.

Have you seen Brady Quinn?

GB12
03-10-2011, 12:48 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 12:50 AM
Have you seen Brady Quinn?

Have you seen Charlie Whitehurst? I'm not saying he'll ever be a pro bowler, I'm saying that there are plenty of guys who are worse. I think he could start for a team that had a bare cupboard.

TACKLE
03-10-2011, 12:52 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.

Michael Lombardi among others. Don't understand it whatsoever.

BuddyCHRIST
03-10-2011, 01:51 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.

Agreed, comparing Newton to Russell comes off as racist. What defined Russell as a player was his complete lack of work ethic and zero intangibles. Two things should never be mentioned with Newton. The only thing linking them is skin color.

Gabbert is like a poor mans Jake Plummer or McNabb

descendency
03-10-2011, 02:08 AM
Michael Lombardi among others. Don't understand it whatsoever.

Their identical QB prospects, and by that I mean they're black.

It's the same situation with every white WR. They're all Wes Welker.

It's because (and you can call me racist if you want, but I see tons of examples of this) most people's favorite player is of their own race. So, a way to generate interest (by ESPN, NFLN, etc) is to make comparisons of racially equivalent people to each other. In other words, No one is ever going to say Julian Edelman is a poor man's Santonio Holmes, but since Edelman is "successful" - he can't be Matt Jones either (Welker and Jones are the two iconic examples for White WRs).

I mean, even Danny Woodhead (a runningback) is compared to Wes Welker, because of the lack of white skill players in the NFL. He clearly isn't Peyton Hillis, so he must be Wes Welker.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 02:23 AM
Danny Woodhead is more like Justin Forsett. See? I'm not racist.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 02:27 AM
Seriously though, comparing Cam Newton to JaMarcus Russell is... Well, I started a thread over on the Pro Football forum complaining that Lombardi is one of the worst NFL writers around, and it's because of **** like that. I mean, what the ****. Cut, hard-working scrambling quarterback with a rocket arm coming from the spread vs. a fat, lazy, immobile quarterback with a rocket arm from a pro-style offense.

Obviously it must be the arm.

TACKLE
03-10-2011, 02:45 AM
If people have a hard time making cross-racial comparisons, Cam has WAAAAYYY more Culpepper in him than he does Russell.

HChKZDA3oGk

*on a side not, daunte's '04 season was one of the all-time regular seasons for a quarterback. it just gets overlooked because peyton happened to throw 49 td passes that year.

San Diego Chicken
03-10-2011, 03:56 AM
If people have a hard time making cross-racial comparisons, Cam has WAAAAYYY more Culpepper in him than he does Russell.

HChKZDA3oGk

*on a side not, daunte's '04 season was one of the all-time regular seasons for a quarterback. it just gets overlooked because peyton happened to throw 49 td passes that year.

I like the Culpepper comparison for Cam. I think his play style is in between Culpepper and Vince Young.

Razor
03-10-2011, 04:00 AM
Comparisons?

Newton- P. Manning
Mallett- Big Ben
Gabbert- Tom Brady
definitely.

Really? Tom Brady couldn't run a sub 5.5 40 to save his life... Also, Gabbert is no where near as precise as Brady. I can't come up with a good comparison for Gabbert, but Brady sure as hell isn't a good comparison!

TACKLE
03-10-2011, 04:04 AM
Really? Tom Brady couldn't run a sub 5.5 40 to save his life... Also, Gabbert is no where near as precise as Brady. I can't come up with a good comparison for Gabbert, but Brady sure as hell isn't a good comparison!

c'mon man. look at the post closely. you really think he thinks peyton is a good comparison for cam newton? really? look more closely next time before you get all fired up and start throwing out exclamation marks.

descendency
03-10-2011, 04:06 AM
Really? Tom Brady couldn't run a sub 5.5 40 to save his life... Also, Gabbert is no where near as precise as Brady. I can't come up with a good comparison for Gabbert, but Brady sure as hell isn't a good comparison!

You missed the obvious point that post is trying to make: Blaine Gabbert will be the best QB in the league in 5 years.

Razor
03-10-2011, 04:11 AM
You missed the obvious point that post is trying to make: Blaine Gabbert will be the best QB in the league in 5 years.

c'mon man. look at the post closely. you really think he thinks peyton is a good comparison for cam newton? really? look more closely next time before you get all fired up and start throwing out exclamation marks.

Well... No, I didn't notice that... I just thought people were thinking about his hair and linking him to Brady.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 10:51 AM
I need to watch a frickin highlight tape of Gabbert or something. I still haven't seen a single down of football that he's played, ever.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 10:57 AM
Just found a vid with every snap Gabbert took vs Illinois. Gonna check it out and a couple others and try to pinpoint a comparison for him.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 11:03 AM
I am about 15 passing plays into this game and can already say he just might have the worst pocket presence I've ever seen.

A Perfect Score
03-10-2011, 11:03 AM
Gabbert is so wildly unimpressive on tape. As much as I dislike Newton, and Ive been one of his biggest detractors on here, he's definitely a better prospect then Gabbert.

J-Mike88
03-10-2011, 11:07 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.
They're both big, and black, and QB'd great SEC champion teams. That's something, not nothing.

However, you're right in that Russell is slow and unathletic while Newton is very athletic, also Russell wasn't the guy who led that team to all those wins, whereas Cam carried that team to the top.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 11:08 AM
Q5nGYHLeB2g

I just watched the play at the 2:23 mark.

Dude feels ghost rushers, runs around, throws off of his back foot, and underthrows what should be a TD pass. If he just steps up into the perfectly clean pocket he has, it's a TD. Easily. He's lucky the DB caused PI, because an NFL DB picks that lame duck off. **** like this is happening, like, every three plays so far.

J-Mike88
03-10-2011, 11:08 AM
I need to watch a frickin highlight tape of Gabbert or something. I still haven't seen a single down of football that he's played, ever.
For some reason, that comment made me laugh harder than anything else I've seen on here in weeks, months probably, even the funny video thread.

A Perfect Score
03-10-2011, 11:11 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.

I don't think that's entirely true. I can see where the comparisons are coming from. They are both athletic (yes, before he was a whale Jamarcus was athletic), raw SEC quarterbacks who have very strong arms and accuracy issues. Both had big final years in college and spectacular pre-draft workouts and both had major off the field issues. That said, you can make the exact same comparisons between Vince Young and Russel or Young and Newton or a number of other QBs for that matter. I'm just saying there are similarities between the two prospects when you break it down from a specific angle.

That said, I made the Culpepper comparison in the Cam Newton thread a while back as a type of ceiling for Newton, and that wouldn't be too bad either.

RealityCheck
03-10-2011, 11:17 AM
Really? Tom Brady couldn't run a sub 5.5 40 to save his life...
I'm pretty sure Tom would go under 5 seconds in a hundred reps.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 11:19 AM
For some reason, that comment made me laugh harder than anything else I've seen on here in weeks, months probably, even the funny video thread.

For the past couple years, I really haven't watched any CFB - mostly because of my schedule (I was coaching at the time so my entire Saturdays were spent breaking film down). I'm not coaching anymore, but I still haven't really jumped into CFB. Part of it is disillusionment with CFB and a protest of sorts (I didn't watch a single bowl game this year), and partly because living with your GF makes it impossible to get both Saturday and Sunday completely reserved for watching football. I'd catch the SEC or Pac-10 game of the week, but that was about it.

SimonRath
03-10-2011, 11:34 AM
If people have a hard time making cross-racial comparisons, Cam has WAAAAYYY more Culpepper in him than he does Russell.

HChKZDA3oGk

*on a side not, daunte's '04 season was one of the all-time regular seasons for a quarterback. it just gets overlooked because peyton happened to throw 49 td passes that year.

Cam looks exactly like Culpepper. I never realized it till now.

and the pass at 2:10 is ******* amazing.!

LizardState
03-10-2011, 11:40 AM
Who the **** compared Newton to Russell? They are nothing like each other.

I did among others, posted a thread on this topic > a month ago.

He could be like Russell insofar as Russell is the most recent highly profiled case of a Face of the Franchise QB taken #1 overall who took the megabucks & ran, busting b/c of poor work ethic & lackadaisical attitude toward his pro career leading to miserable game performances. Russell's bust impact was magnified by several degrees of magnitude b/c he was a Raider, & Oakland was/is the poorest NFL team & his huge lump sum of guaranteed $ almost bankrupted them.

And I noticed almost all the posters on this thread adhered to the unwritten rule of NFL player comparisons, only other black QBs can be compared to other black QBs, & only white other QBs can be compared with white QBs ..... is that racist? probably, but rules are rules :--D.

More important is the high risk factors for both Russell & Newton, both black obviously, & both SEC starters on NC-contending star-studded teams, although Russell started for a season longer at LSU than Newton in his one yr. at Auburn. Both put up big numbers & both are huge in size by even the most modern QB standards, where 6-4 & 6-5, 240+ lbs. QBs are where that bar has been raised. Newton's past is a big red flag, & to be generous, is checkered with real & alleged major infractions.

Granted those indicators weren't there with Russell but his recent big bust leaves a lingering doubt about rolling the dice on another somewhat similar QB, essentially it's a question of Will he take the $ & run? other questions like can he develop with improved accuracy, improve his footwork, etc. are there, but those can be resolved with the right team with the right system, QB coach, & time allotted to develop, again no guarantees that perfect team for Newton will happen, the NFL is full of stories of desperate early-drafting teams throwing a raw college sensation phenom QB into a starting role too early on an undertalented team, I think that was the case with Tim Couch among others..... And newton has zero control over that, like every player he has to play for whoever drafts him (you only get away with picking your own NFL team if last name is Manning or Elway).

Is Newton to Carolina a bust waiting to happen? could be, they have a new coach who will want to make a big NFL splash, & they are severely undertalented. Newton to Buffalo? Maybe so for the same reasons, but I think they're happy with Fitzpatrick.

Newton to Zona? Depends on whether he is thrown to the wolves as a rookie or is allowed to sit that yr. & learn, & I agree with 49ernation, same with Tennessee or the Vikings.

Gabbert will sink or swim based on his Pro Day next wk. And Zona is giving a pretty clear indication of interest, the Bidwells will be there at Mizzou:

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Report-Bidwills-will-attend-Gabberts-pro-day-next-week.html

Maybe they can turn their reputation for underpaying around, if they draft whoever for their franchise QB, they're going to have to pay for him. You get what you pay for in the NFL in the 1st rd.... unless of course they bust.

Point being the team is paying for their roll of the dice when you're talking about drafting a franchise QB. The adjustment to the pro level is such a steep curve, the intangibles like ability to adapt & learning capability so important, & the position so crucial to the franchise that I'd say the odds are against it. Sometimes you get Matt Ryan, sometimes it's Ryan Leaf.

MetSox17
03-10-2011, 12:37 PM
How does Cam look exactly like Culpepper? Pep was throwing 60 yard lasers in that video, i've never seen Newton do anything close to that. He may have the strength to get it 60 yards, but not on a rope like Pep once could.

SimonRath
03-10-2011, 12:45 PM
How does Cam look exactly like Culpepper? Pep was throwing 60 yard lasers in that video, i've never seen Newton do anything close to that. He may have the strength to get it 60 yards, but not on a rope like Pep once could.

i dont think Newtons ever been asked to do that.

CheechHarvin12
03-10-2011, 01:09 PM
A few comparisons for each guy:

Cam Newton:

Jason Campbell - One big, undefeated year on a great Auburn team brought him into high draft consideration. Both are big (6'-5" for both), athletic QBs with good arms, solid enough mechanics to make scouts/others think they could be coached to be a star. Not to say they will end up the same, but Newton is a slightly faster version of Campbell to me.

Big Ben - Ben's times from quickness drills were actually a bit better and 40 a bit worse, but both are 6'-5", strong armed, athletically above average QBs that benefitted from strong Junior seasons to get into the conversation as 1st rounders. Both had 'poor' throwing performances at the combine, followed up by a 'better' pro day. Both mainly shotgun QB's in college. Again, to say they will end up having the same sort of success is foolish, but they are seemingly similar as prospects, save the character concerns.

Jake Locker:

Donovan McNabb - Locker is more athletic, by every measurable except broad jump. Locker had more rushing yards, rush TD's and rush average than McNabbb during college...McNabb was slightly more accurate overall in college, but not by much. Locker has had basically no offensive NFL draft picks play with him during his time at Washington, with only Isaiah Stanback as a drafted player. McNabb had Kevin Johnson, Rob Konrad and a handful of scrubs, and better teams overall. McNabb won more, maybe just a talent issue, but who knows. Both are 6'2" QB's with above-average arm strength that (try to) make up for accuracy issues with scrambling and escapability.

A few others come to mind, of similar size, numbers, test numbers...Steve McNair, David Garrard, Akili Smith, Jake Plummer (although Plummer was not nearly the rusher in college). Personally, McNabb is the most apt comparison...as a prospect anyway.

Ryan Mallett:

Derek Anderson - 6'-6", 250ish LB, strong armed, limited athletically QB's. Both improved accuracy numbers throughout their college careers, although Anderson's was never very good. Pro day athletic test numbers are pretty similar, with the slight edge to Anderson. Both had/have footwork issues that
needed work, possibly due to both having larger than normal feet. Overall, I think Mallett is in the same category in that he is a better passer, but with more character issues.

Others - Drew Bledsoe (size/'speed'), Joe Flacco (transfer/size/arm). Anderson seems like the best comparison to me...and that's not all bad. He did have one Pro Bowl year with the Browns, even though he currently sucks balls. Shows the upside (and downside) of a guy like Mallett.

Blaine Gabbert:

Alex Smith - Same height (6'4-3/8 for BG vs 6'4-1/8" for AS), similar speed, quickness, etc. Gabbert faster 40, Smith quicker in change of direction drills. Both vaulted higher by a high completion % year (imo), 67.5 for Smith and 63.4 for Gabbert. Known for gimmicky offenses that 'inflated' accuracy, working out of shotgun a lot. I think arm strentgth is in the same vein, but many would give Gabbert the edge here. Upside, potential, coachable, etc....drafted by high ceiling, with some athleticism to go with other traits. No trait stands out as elite, but all are good.

Others - I personally think there is a taller version of J.P. Losman in there, not taking into account attitude. Not a lot of great guys to compare him to recently (or at least ones that were highly regarded), as he is more athletic than most 6'4" guys and bigger than other similar athletes. Ceiling is high, floor is blah.

Feel free to rip any of these, but keep in mind...I am not saying each comparison will mean they will have similar careers. For example, Alex Smith on the Packers after sitting for a few years may have been a different player, as would Rodgers if he needed to start for a terrible 49ers team right away.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 01:18 PM
Jake Locker:

...Locker has had basically no offensive NFL draft picks play with him during his time at Washington, with only Isaiah Stanback as a drafted player.

Stanbeck was a quarterback.

Who graduated the year before Locker even started playing.

J-Mike88
03-10-2011, 01:18 PM
Good stuff cheech. Well done.

GaMeTiMe
03-10-2011, 01:41 PM
Funny how someone starts a completely sarcastic "comparison" thread and 75% of you take it completely seriously and start running wild with the "what current/past player career-path this prospect will follow" talk.

hockey619
03-10-2011, 01:46 PM
I am about 15 passing plays into this game and can already say he just might have the worst pocket presence I've ever seen.

Gabbert is so wildly unimpressive on tape. As much as I dislike Newton, and Ive been one of his biggest detractors on here, he's definitely a better prospect then Gabbert.

I think all the big Gabbert fans (are their any?) haven't seen him play too much, because whenever i see him im astounded at how terrible he looks. as of now i have him graded as a 4th to 5th round pick, even though he'll probably get picked in the first or second by someone. I think i ranked him the fifth best QB I've seen, and as i noted then i haven't seen ponder, kaepernick, of enderle.

In the video YFS posted at 44 sec, he has an easy throw to his left with 4 guys being covered softly by 3, doesn't notice it. Then he's got a guy common wide open on the slant. Unfortunately, this was nearly one second into the play and he had already run from the pocket instead of stepping up into what was clearly plenty of space to work with. There are so many plays of him missing whats going on, missing open guys, running away scared, he just awful.

He's not an nfl qb. he's a smart mobile guy with a good arm. His accuracy is not even close to nfl caliber on any level of the field and he looks scared to death to stand in the pocket and runs out at random, no composure of any kind. he's a huge bust waiting to happen. I still cant believe how much press he gets for such a mediocre to bad player.


oh and as pointed out above, this is supposed to be a ridiculous comparison thread, so ill try: gabbert is the right handed ronnie brown. runs around almost as much as ronnie did during the wildcat plays anyway

Brothgar
03-10-2011, 01:50 PM
Funny how someone starts a completely sarcastic "comparison" thread and 75% of you take it completely seriously and start running wild with the "what current/past player career-path this prospect will follow" talk.

Well the sarcasm is b/c of the prevailing opinion of many fans that Cam and J-Rock are similar to each other.

Roddoliver
03-10-2011, 02:11 PM
You watch these videos and project Gabbert in the NFL against fierce defenses... The result can only be disaster.

DeathbyStat
03-10-2011, 02:13 PM
The lesser of 3 evils.

agreed, maybe he is a very poor man's Big Ben

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 02:18 PM
in the first few minutes of that video, the guy is a 7th round pick, if not UDFA. wow.

Yeah, I've watched two full games now (that one and against Nevada in 2009). Not to say that two games tells the story of an entire career, but I've got a good enough feel for him to say that I honestly don't know how this guy is even being considered as a top five pick.

That's not to say he's completely without positives. His physical tools obviously jump out - most notably the ease and velocity with which he can throw the out to the wide side of the field. You can tell he's also a rhythm based passer - albeit a very streaky one. Other than that, though, he doesn't really have anything going for him. He bails from the pocket when there's no pressure, and makes really stupid decisions when there actually is pressure. His ball placement on underneath, inside routes (slants/ins/curls/etc) is horrific - often throwing high, which is going to get his WRs killed in the NFL.

I could see the Big Ben comparisons if I just watched the 2009 Nevada tape. His offensive line actually gets their asses kicked a lot in that game and he makes a few good throws on the run escaping pressure. Even in that game, though, he makes downright awful errors when he knows he's going to get hit. That's a huge, huge, huge problem - exacerbated by the fact that it isn't something that can be "coached" into you. And it's only going to get worse in the NFL.

I don't know who said it, but I can actually see a "bigger JP Losman" comparison. The tools are there, but he's going to need a significant amount of work. In a vacuum, I'd say third round pick and that's almost entirely based on his skillset. But the dearth of QBs in the NFL is going to get this kid way, way overdrafted.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 02:21 PM
at 0:25 he randomly starts running backwards because... a pocket formed around him? (claustrophobic, maybe?)

2:09 he throws high and gets his receiver laid out. (he does this all the time, because he's always running backwards and throwing off his back foot.)

2:25 we see the claustrophobia again.

...etc. What I see with him is that he hates standing in the pocket. Even when he doesn't run, and there's a pocket, he's actually standing behind it. The only times he actually looks comfortable are when he takes it in the shotgun, because that gives him an automatic 5-yard buffer between himself and the defensive line. Over and over again we see examples of situations where it looks like he'd probably be able to make a good throw if he would only step up into the pocket and throw off of his front foot, but instead he's running sideways and backwards and throwing high passes to receivers who aren't as open as they were a moment before.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 02:25 PM
at 0:25 he randomly starts running backwards because... a pocket formed around him? (claustrophobic, maybe?)

2:09 he throws high and gets his receiver laid out. (he does this all the time, because he's always running backwards and throwing off his back foot.)

2:25 we see the claustrophobia again.

...etc. What I see with him is that he hates standing in the pocket. Even when he doesn't run, and there's a pocket, he's actually standing behind it. The only times he actually looks comfortable are when he takes it in the shotgun, because that gives him an automatic 5-yard buffer between himself and the defensive line. Over and over again we see examples of situations where it looks like he'd probably be able to make a good throw if he would only step up into the pocket and throw off of his front foot, but instead he's running sideways and backwards and throwing high passes to receivers who aren't as open as they were a moment before.

Yup, this pretty much sums it up. You're absolutely right about him being behind the pocket instead of actually being in it. Like you said, it's like he has a complete aversion to standing tall and making a basic throw.

I honestly don't want to hear a single Gabbert fanboy pump him up from now on. I'm not the biggest Newton fan in the world, but there is not a single thing that Blaine Gabbert does better than Cam Newton. But he'll probably have a nice workout, completing all his passes against air with no rush. Ergo, winning!

FUNBUNCHER
03-10-2011, 02:27 PM
If Jason Campbell was the QB of that Auburn team that Newton led to the NC, they would have maybe won 6 games. JC is mobile, but he's a straight line type guy who has limited run instincts, ( not elusive, can't make people miss, doesn't know when to run or how to slide).
I don't think there's a chance JC would have been drafted by any other coach besides Joe Gibbs in the late first round, and doubt he was graded by most NFL teams as a first round talent.
Besides that, Campbell is a nice guy, but he's not what I'd call a 'leader'. He can't rally the guys on his team to bring their 'A' game or inspire teammates with his play IMO. Hope JC sticks in Oakland, but most SKins fans believed JC would be a career backup once he left D.C. He's simply too afraid to make mistakes with the football and prefers a checkdown throw instead of letting it rip to a WR in single coverage.

The comparisons work with the other prospects if you're strictly basing it on tools, but after that most of these comparisons IMO fall apart.

Mallett as a quarterback, not height/weight/arm strength, is so superior to Derek Anderson coming out of Oregon State that there really isn't any legit comparison between them.

Bledsoe IMO works best for him.

As for Locker, I don't know if you remember McNabb at Syracuse, but he was a devastating scrambler. He and Locker had similar rushing stats, but McNabb IMO was the far better runner with the ball in his hands.

Athletically they're probably about the same; I think McNabb ran a 4.4 something at his Pro Day, and I have little doubt Locker could post the same time at U Dub.

As college players, IMO McNabb was better. But those Syracuse teams McNabb played on probably would have hung 50 on Jake's U DUb squads; talent-wise they played on dramatically different football teams, (as a RSfrosh, D Mac was throwing to Marvin Harrison!)

Gabbert scares me because I feel like analysts are ignoring his game film and focusing on the handful of great throws he's made, dismissing the fact he looks terminally uncomfortable in the pocket and his troubling decision making.

Athletically, Gabbert is on a different level than Alex Smith, and nearly every other pro prospect to enter the league in decades.

He, Locker and Newton may be three of the most physically talented QBs to ever enter the NFL in one year; all three are roughly 4.5 guys or better, each weighs 230# or more, and each has outstanding arm strength.


EDIT: BTW, I thought this thread was meant to be ironic, not a serious prospect comparison analysis. Anyway....!

Crickett
03-10-2011, 02:29 PM
Yeah, I've watched two full games now (that one and against Nevada in 2009). Not to say that two games tells the story of an entire career, but I've got a good enough feel for him to say that I honestly don't know how this guy is even being considered as a top five pick..

http://www.patricklentz.com/ToddMcShay1.jpg

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 02:33 PM
I think all the big Gabbert fans (are their any?) haven't seen him play too much, because whenever i see him im astounded at how terrible he looks. as of now i have him graded as a 4th to 5th round pick, even though he'll probably get picked in the first or second by someone. I think i ranked him the fifth best QB I've seen, and as i noted then i haven't seen ponder, kaepernick, of enderle.

In the video YFS posted at 44 sec, he has an easy throw to his left with 4 guys being covered softly by 3, doesn't notice it. Then he's got a guy common wide open on the slant. Unfortunately, this was nearly one second into the play and he had already run from the pocket instead of stepping up into what was clearly plenty of space to work with. There are so many plays of him missing whats going on, missing open guys, running away scared, he just awful.

He's not an nfl qb. he's a smart mobile guy with a good arm. His accuracy is not even close to nfl caliber on any level of the field and he looks scared to death to stand in the pocket and runs out at random, no composure of any kind. he's a huge bust waiting to happen. I still cant believe how much press he gets for such a mediocre to bad player.


oh and as pointed out above, this is supposed to be a ridiculous comparison thread, so ill try: gabbert is the right handed ronnie brown. runs around almost as much as ronnie did during the wildcat plays anyway

According to all the scouts, former GM's and former Director of Personal people on NFL.com, Gabbert is in the running to be the #1 overall pick and most have him as their #1 QB on their boards and pretty well a lead cinch to go top 5 in a worse case scenario, against that, you still have the fact that he hasn't worked out yet and could possibly fall flat on his face.
So, unless you have some real background in professional football, I have to assume, you haven't a clue what you are talking about and need a h..ll of a lot more work on assessing QB's.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 02:37 PM
had the same thing in my location for months. and i think newton is vince young waiting to happen.

There is no comparison between Newton's arm and VY's, VY's mechanics also don't come close to Newton's. Not to say, Newton doesn't have serious flaws but he's way ahead of VY right now.

TACKLE
03-10-2011, 02:42 PM
Yeah, I've watched two full games now (that one and against Nevada in 2009). Not to say that two games tells the story of an entire career, but I've got a good enough feel for him to say that I honestly don't know how this guy is even being considered as a top five pick.

That's not to say he's completely without positives. His physical tools obviously jump out - most notably the ease and velocity with which he can throw the out to the wide side of the field. You can tell he's also a rhythm based passer - albeit a very streaky one. Other than that, though, he doesn't really have anything going for him. He bails from the pocket when there's no pressure, and makes really stupid decisions when there actually is pressure. His ball placement on underneath, inside routes (slants/ins/curls/etc) is horrific - often throwing high, which is going to get his WRs killed in the NFL.

I could see the Big Ben comparisons if I just watched the 2009 Nevada tape. His offensive line actually gets their asses kicked a lot in that game and he makes a few good throws on the run escaping pressure. Even in that game, though, he makes downright awful errors when he knows he's going to get hit. That's a huge, huge, huge problem - exacerbated by the fact that it isn't something that can be "coached" into you. And it's only going to get worse in the NFL.

I don't know who said it, but I can actually see a "bigger JP Losman" comparison. The tools are there, but he's going to need a significant amount of work. In a vacuum, I'd say third round pick and that's almost entirely based on his skillset. But the dearth of QBs in the NFL is going to get this kid way, way overdrafted.


In his defense, his O-Line is pretty terrible and the offense is a horrible system fit for him. He's a tall, slow-footed (I know he has speed but his feet are slow) downfield passer with a strong arm and was asked to play Mike Leach small ball. With that being said, there aren't many defensive ends who can create pass rush quite like Gabbert does. Although he never quite had a true pocket in that offense, his feel and movement in the pocket is among the worst I've seen out of a top prospect. Making accurate throws and good decisions with pressure in your face is what separates the great QB's from the good one's and the good one's from the busts. For all the talk about how Jamarcus failed because of laziness, his biggest issue as a quarterback was his inability to step up in the face pressure and deliver the ball accurately. Accuracy is directly related to balance and footwork and maintaining that with pressure in your face. It's not a coincidence that the most accurate passers in the NFL, are all the guys who possess the best pocket presence.

Overall, I very much agree with your evaluation. You're very right about his velocity outside the numbers. That's the main thing I think scouts are falling in love with - his ability to throw with velocity to 1 and 5 zones from the opposite hash. Cam or Gabbert is kind of the main debate this year in the scouting community. Both have all the physical tools to be very successful but both have a ton of area for improvement. I think Cam's biggest issues are quite fixable with reps and coaching. I don't know if I can say the same thing about Gabbert.

Crickett
03-10-2011, 02:47 PM
So, unless you have some real background in professional football, I have to assume, you haven't a clue what you are talking about and need a h..ll of a lot more work on assessing QB's.

"Everybody said if Marino was going to be around at that time, they'd take Marino. Obviously the Jets know something the people up here don't". - Interview with a Jets fan after the selection of Ken O'Brien.

With the sheer number of busts in the top five over the past decade, two decades, heck, pick a time period that the jury *isn't* still out on, why should we believe the word of those who claim to be experts over our own lying eyes?

Babylon
03-10-2011, 02:49 PM
Stanbeck was a quarterback.

Who graduated the year before Locker even started playing.

Jermaine Kearse might be a late round draft pick next year and Kasan Williams in 3 or 4 years should get drafted (unfortuanately he was playing in highschool this year).

People really dont realize how mediocre Washington's receivers were this year.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 02:50 PM
In his defense, his O-Line is pretty terrible and the offense is a horrible system fit for him. He's a tall, slow-footed (I know he has speed but his feet are slow) downfield passer with a strong arm and was asked to play Mike Leach small ball. With that being said, there aren't many defensive ends who can create pass rush quite like Gabbert does. Although he never quite had a true pocket in that offense, his feel and movement in the pocket is among the worst I've seen out of a top prospect. Making accurate throws and good decisions with pressure in your face is what separates the great QB's from the good one's and the good one's from the busts. For all the talk about how Jamarcus failed because of laziness, his biggest issue as a quarterback was his inability to step up in the face pressure and deliver the ball accurately. Accuracy is directly related to balance and footwork and maintaining that with pressure in your face. It's not a coincidence that the most accurate passers in the NFL, are all the guys who possess the best pocket presence.

Overall, I very much agree with your evaluation. You're very right about his velocity outside the numbers. That's the main thing I think scouts are falling in love with - his ability to throw with velocity to 1 and 5 zones from the opposite hash. Cam or Gabbert is kind of the main debate this year in the scouting community. Both have all the physical tools to be very successful but both have a ton of area for improvement. I think Cam's biggest issues are quite fixable with reps and coaching. I don't know if I can say the same thing about Gabbert.



I agree but I would add that I think GM's and scouts just don't have a lot of experience judging junior declared QB's, they don't appear to be real comfortable in assessing them and some want to shy away from them. However, the new reality is that with more and more junior QB's declaring for the draft, teams that want a true franchise QB are going to have to gamble even if the risk is higher because the rewards are immense. Sanchez and Freeman clearly show that it is worth the risk.

Babylon
03-10-2011, 02:53 PM
If Jason Campbell was the QB of that Auburn team that Newton led to the NC, they would have maybe won 6 games. JC is mobile, but he's a straight line type guy who has limited run instincts, ( not elusive, can't make people miss, doesn't know when to run or how to slide).
I don't think there's a chance JC would have been drafted by any other coach besides Joe Gibbs in the late first round, and doubt he was graded by most NFL teams as a first round talent.
Besides that, Campbell is a nice guy, but he's not what I'd call a 'leader'. He can't rally the guys on his team to bring their 'A' game or inspire teammates with his play IMO. Hope JC sticks in Oakland, but most SKins fans believed JC would be a career backup once he left D.C. He's simply too afraid to make mistakes with the football and prefers a checkdown throw instead of letting it rip to a WR in single coverage.

The comparisons work with the other prospects if you're strictly basing it on tools, but after that most of these comparisons IMO fall apart.

Mallett as a quarterback, not height/weight/arm strength, is so superior to Derek Anderson coming out of Oregon State that there really isn't any legit comparison between them.

Bledsoe IMO works best for him.

As for Locker, I don't know if you remember McNabb at Syracuse, but he was a devastating scrambler. He and Locker had similar rushing stats, but McNabb IMO was the far better runner with the ball in his hands.

Athletically they're probably about the same; I think McNabb ran a 4.4 something at his Pro Day, and I have little doubt Locker could post the same time at U Dub.

As college players, IMO McNabb was better. But those Syracuse teams McNabb played on probably would have hung 50 on Jake's U DUb squads; talent-wise they played on dramatically different football teams, (as a RSfrosh, D Mac was throwing to Marvin Harrison!)

Gabbert scares me because I feel like analysts are ignoring his game film and focusing on the handful of great throws he's made, dismissing the fact he looks terminally uncomfortable in the pocket and his troubling decision making.

Athletically, Gabbert is on a different level than Alex Smith, and nearly every other pro prospect to enter the league in decades.

He, Locker and Newton may be three of the most physically talented QBs to ever enter the NFL in one year; all three are roughly 4.5 guys or better, each weighs 230# or more, and each has outstanding arm strength.


EDIT: BTW, I thought this thread was meant to be ironic, not a serious prospect comparison analysis. Anyway....!

Most threads start out serious and then morph into something ######. This one seems to be going in a differant direction.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 03:03 PM
"Everybody said if Marino was going to be around at that time, they'd take Marino. Obviously the Jets know something the people up here don't". - Interview with a Jets fan after the selection of Ken O'Brien.

With the sheer number of busts in the top five over the past decade, two decades, heck, pick a time period that the jury *isn't* still out on, why should we believe the word of those who claim to be experts over our own lying eyes?

Any examination of the last 5 drafts seem to clearly indicate that pro scouts and GM's are currently doing a superb job of evaluating QB's coming out of college. The flop rate is one of the lowest for round 1 selections at any position. They seem to have improved significantly their ability to assess the position.
The whole scouting process has taken a quantum leap IMO over the last 5 years, I could make some guesses why but I'm not privy to pro draft discussions. Does that mean there won't be flops , NO, because as long a poor GM 's like Matt Millen get hired, flops are always going to happen, and he isn't the only poor drafter in the NFL. In fact, any study of flops inevitably shows that the majority of those choices were made by weak personnel people or understaffed personnel departments by cheap teams.

wonderbredd24
03-10-2011, 03:06 PM
I don't know enough about him to make a real educated assessment, but whenever I've watched the '86 playoff game between the Browns and Jets that went to double OT, I felt awful for O'Brien. The guy had absolutely no help whatsoever and all of the Jets talent was on that great defense with Klecko, Gastineau, etc.

The Browns kicked the **** out of O'Brien for 6 quarters.

If that game was typical of O'Brien's career, Marino to the Jets might not have gone a whole lot better, but I could be totally wrong

CheechHarvin12
03-10-2011, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE=FUNBUNCHER;2549931]If Jason Campbell was the QB of that Auburn team that Newton led to the NC, they would have maybe won 6 games. JC is mobile, but he's a straight line type guy who has limited run instincts, ( not elusive, can't make people miss, doesn't know when to run or how to slide).
I don't think there's a chance JC would have been drafted by any other coach besides Joe Gibbs in the late first round, and doubt he was graded by most NFL teams as a first round talent.


The comparisons work with the other prospects if you're strictly basing it on tools, but after that most of these comparisons IMO fall apart.

Mallett as a quarterback, not height/weight/arm strength, is so superior to Derek Anderson coming out of Oregon State that there really isn't any legit comparison between them.

Bledsoe IMO works best for him.

As for Locker, I don't know if you remember McNabb at Syracuse, but he was a devastating scrambler. He and Locker had similar rushing stats, but McNabb IMO was the far better runner with the ball in his hands.

Athletically they're probably about the same; I think McNabb ran a 4.4 something at his Pro Day, and I have little doubt Locker could post the same time at U Dub.

As college players, IMO McNabb was better. But those Syracuse teams McNabb played on probably would have hung 50 on Jake's U DUb squads; talent-wise they played on dramatically different football teams, (as a RSfrosh, D Mac was throwing to Marvin Harrison!)

Gabbert scares me because I feel like analysts are ignoring his game film and focusing on the handful of great throws he's made, dismissing the fact he looks terminally uncomfortable in the pocket and his troubling decision making.

Athletically, Gabbert is on a different level than Alex Smith, and nearly every other pro prospect to enter the league in decades.

He, Locker and Newton may be three of the most physically talented QBs to ever enter the NFL in one year; all three are roughly 4.5 guys or better, each weighs 230# or more, and each has outstanding arm strength.


Not sure I can buy he's on a different level of athlete than any QB in the last decade, but suffice to say he's not that far off of Newton and Locker in that regard. I think people have forgotten that Smith was considered a better athlete than Aaron Rodgers at the time. Actually, now that you mention it, it's getting harder to do comparisons to QBs with athletes like Tebow, Sanchez, Freeman, Young, Rodgers, etc coming out in the last handful of years, coupled with this years' crop.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 04:05 PM
According to all the scouts, former GM's and former Director of Personal people on NFL.com, Gabbert is in the running to be the #1 overall pick and most have him as their #1 QB on their boards and pretty well a lead cinch to go top 5 in a worse case scenario, against that, you still have the fact that he hasn't worked out yet and could possibly fall flat on his face.
So, unless you have some real background in professional football, I have to assume, you haven't a clue what you are talking about and need a h..ll of a lot more work on assessing QB's.

I think it should be noted that the opinion of scouts and the opinions of GMs, former GMs, and media analysts are often wildly divergent.

Any examination of the last 5 drafts seem to clearly indicate that pro scouts and GM's are currently doing a superb job of evaluating QB's coming out of college. The flop rate is one of the lowest for round 1 selections at any position. They seem to have improved significantly their ability to assess the position.
The whole scouting process has taken a quantum leap IMO over the last 5 years, I could make some guesses why but I'm not privy to pro draft discussions. Does that mean there won't be flops , NO, because as long a poor GM 's like Matt Millen get hired, flops are always going to happen, and he isn't the only poor drafter in the NFL. In fact, any study of flops inevitably shows that the majority of those choices were made by weak personnel people or understaffed personnel departments by cheap teams.

Correlation doesn't equal causation. The recent success of young quarterbacks lately is far more likely due to the fact that playing quarterback in the NFL is now easier than it has ever been.

Edit: And as broth pointed it, more first round quarterbacks aren't being successful, it's just that they're generally developing quicker than in year's past.

Brothgar
03-10-2011, 04:19 PM
Any examination of the last 5 drafts seem to clearly indicate that pro scouts and GM's are currently doing a superb job of evaluating QB's coming out of college. The flop rate is one of the lowest for round 1 selections at any position. They seem to have improved significantly their ability to assess the position.
The whole scouting process has taken a quantum leap IMO over the last 5 years, I could make some guesses why but I'm not privy to pro draft discussions. Does that mean there won't be flops , NO, because as long a poor GM 's like Matt Millen get hired, flops are always going to happen, and he isn't the only poor drafter in the NFL. In fact, any study of flops inevitably shows that the majority of those choices were made by weak personnel people or understaffed personnel departments by cheap teams.

A leap in the past 5 years? If we observe the 3 year rule look at the QB 1st round draft class in the past 5 years.

1 3 Matt Ryan QB Boston College Atlanta Falcons
1 18 Joe Flacco QB Delaware Baltimore Ravens

Two great pics no doubt.

1 1 JaMarcus Russell QB Louisiana State Oakland Raiders
1 22 Brady Quinn QB Notre Dame Cleveland Browns

Two terrible picks those picks are as bad as the other two are good.

1 3 Vince Young QB Texas Tennessee Titans
1 10 Matt Leinart QB USC Arizona Cardinals
1 11 Jay Cutler QB Vanderbilt Denver Broncos

None of those players are on their original teams. Jay is serviceable but far from successful.

But lets forget the three year rule for a moment.

1 1 Matthew Stafford QB Georgia Detroit Lions
1 5 Mark Sanchez QB USC New York Jets
1 17 Josh Freeman QB Kansas State Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Stafford is a great QB and it was obvious to all draftnics that he was the real deal. But he is oft injured. Sanchez is far from a franchise QB. Freeman is looking like a real success.

1 1 Sam Bradford QB Oklahoma St. Louis Rams
1 25 Tim Tebow QB Florida Denver Broncos

Sam Bradford was the obvious top QB. The jury is still out on Tim Tebow he looked good against Houston but Fox is still going with Orton that tells you alot.

Roddoliver
03-10-2011, 04:55 PM
Sam Bradford was the obvious top QB. The jury is still out on Tim Tebow he looked good against Houston but Fox is still going with Orton that tells you alot.

I think Tebow looked good against Oakland as well. He made a very sharp TD throw that would give Denver the lead in the 2nd half, but RB Lance Ball dropped the pass in the endzone. And he had good moments against San Diego, including a deep bomb as his 2nd throw in the game that was dropped by Lloyd. And he still had a chance to win with that Hail Mary.

Tebow needs to improve his completion %, but when he completes a pass, it's meaningful to move the chains. He had good YPA and he likes to throw deep, and has accuracy to do so. He will not be a small bal QB in the NFL like Brady Quinn, living of dink and dunk passes. That's what I learned from Tebow as a rookie, he is fearless and goes for the big play. I don't think he is 2 or 3 years away from being an NFL QB like advertised by draft analysts.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 05:07 PM
Tebow needs to improve his completion %, but when he completes a pass, it's meaningful to move the chains. He had good YPA and he likes to throw deep, and has accuracy to do so. He will not be a small bal QB in the NFL like Brady Quinn, living of dink and dunk passes. That's what I learned from Tebow as a rookie, he is fearless and goes for the big play. I don't think he is 2 or 3 years away from being an NFL QB like advertised by draft analysts.

This is what I like about Tebow, too. He's always playing balls-to-the-wall. I mean, are you going to look at a 50% completion percentage, or an 8.0 yards per attempt? Personally, I prefer the latter.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 05:10 PM
[QUOTE=broth223;2550087]A leap in the past 5 years? If we observe the 3 year rule look at the QB 1st round draft class in the past 5 years.

1 3 Matt Ryan QB Boston College Atlanta Falcons
1 18 Joe Flacco QB Delaware Baltimore Ravens

Two great pics no doubt.

1 1 JaMarcus Russell QB Louisiana State Oakland Raiders

Very talented player but apparantly Al Davis doesn't always appreciate committment, he thinks he can still modivate players who have the talent. If Russell would ever commit to a team, he could still be a great player.
1 22 Brady Quinn QB Notre Dame Cleveland Browns - a real flop but QB's who last till #22 in round 1 aren't really expected to be true franchise QB just servicable one. You need some real luck to get a franchise QB late in round 1.
Two terrible picks those picks are as bad as the other two are good.

1 3 Vince Young QB Texas Tennessee Titans
1 10 Matt Leinart QB USC Arizona Cardinals
1 11 Jay Cutler QB Vanderbilt Denver Broncos

None of those players are on their original teams. Jay is serviceable but far from successful.
By any standard both VY and Jay are successful QB's and that is why the Bears jumped all over to acquire him. VY ran into a personnality conflict witrh his HC, he has been a winner since he entered the league.
But lets forget the three year rule for a moment.

1 1 Matthew Stafford QB Georgia Detroit Lions
1 5 Mark Sanchez QB USC New York Jets
1 17 Josh Freeman QB Kansas State Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Stafford is a great QB and it was obvious to all draftnics that he was the real deal(Lots of people questioned Stafford accuracy including Mayock who has a solid record appraising QB's) . But he is oft injured. Sanchez is far from a franchise QB
I disagree and think he will have a real breakout year this coming season. His team has been in the playoffs every year since they drafted him and he has won playoff games. Freeman is looking like a real success.

1 1 Sam Bradford QB Oklahoma St. Louis Rams
1 25 Tim Tebow QB Florida Denver Broncos

Sam Bradford was the obvious top QB
What do you mean by obvious, tons of people on this forum hated the guy-spread QB and all that stuff.
The jury is still out on Tim Tebow he looked good against Houston but Fox is still going with Orton that tells you alot.-not a Tebow fan and I have heard that a lot of people expect Orton to be traded and Tebow to be their starter.and IMO, McDaniel's ability to assess talent got him fired quickly anyways.

So far, I only see 2 out of 12 who actually flopped because of a lack of talent although I won't be shocked if Tebow eventually gets added to the list.
Russell had the talent but got caught up in his money and never committed to be good.
Of the rest Flacco, VY, Ryan, Cutler, and Sanchez have already taken their teams to the playoffs while Bradford and Freeman came very close and Stafford has been injured way too much to pass judgment.

Caulibflower
03-10-2011, 05:17 PM
not a Tebow fan and I have heard that a lot of people expect Orton to be traded and Tebow to be their starter.and IMO, McDaniel's ability to assess talent got him fired quickly anyways

I don't think it was his ability to assess talent as much as a belief that he didn't need it.

Brothgar
03-10-2011, 05:26 PM
So far, I only see 2 out of 12 who actually flopped because of a lack of talent although I won't be shocked if Tebow eventually gets added to the list.
Russell had the talent but got caught up in his money and never committed to be good.
Of the rest Flacco, VY, Ryan, Cutler, and Sanchez have already taken their teams to the playoffs while Bradford and Freeman came very close and Stafford has been injured way too much to pass judgment.

I can see where people call Vince a success but, when you look at the ends work ethic, personality clashes etc. Are all things that must be looked at when considering if a player is right for their team and at the moment teams still have trouble putting it together.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 05:29 PM
[QUOTE=yourfavestoner;2550078]I think it should be noted that the opinion of scouts and the opinions of GMs, former GMs, and media analysts are often wildly divergent.



Correlation doesn't equal causation. The recent success of young quarterbacks lately is far more likely due to the fact that playing quarterback in the NFL is now easier than it has ever been.

Really, I don't think pro personnel people will agree with this analysis, considering how well teams disguise their defenses and how many different variations they face. If anything, it is far more difficult to be a QB today.

wonderbredd24
03-10-2011, 05:39 PM
Really, I don't think pro personnel people will agree with this analysis, considering how well teams disguise their defenses and how many different variations they face. If anything, it is far more difficult to be a QB today.
More difficult in terms of what? The offenses and defenses might be a little more complicated, but quarterbacks are not calling their own plays like they did in previous generations. More importantly, the quarterbacks of today are protected so much more than they have been in the past in terms of hits, concussions, etc. in addition to the fact that just about every rule change helps the offense and specifically the quarterback.

Iamcanadian
03-10-2011, 05:59 PM
More difficult in terms of what? The offenses and defenses might be a little more complicated, but quarterbacks are not calling their own plays like they did in previous generations. More importantly, the quarterbacks of today are protected so much more than they have been in the past in terms of hits, concussions, etc. in addition to the fact that just about every rule change helps the offense and specifically the quarterback.

Nevertheless, in past generations, teams each played a specific defense, they varied very little from those precepts. It made it a lot easier for QB's to read defenses especially in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's, and most of the 90's. The 4-3 dominated almost totally and every QB had a pretty easy time reading the defense which is why most called their own signals.
True, QB's are protected more but there are reasons which are never discussed by fans. Before the switch to artificial turf, player's bodies didn't take nearly the beating they take today. Playing on grass is far more easy on the body than playing on artificial turf. They only played 12 games for quite a few decades and the beating that QB's took didn't match the beating they are forced to take in 16 games even with preferential rules.
Finally, players were a completely different size going back a few decades. In the 50's and 60's nobody ever saw a 300lber, big DLmen were in the 250's and most teams ran the ball as their #1 weapon well into the 90's. That meant QB's had a much easier time of it since the offense didn't always revolve around them.
There are solid reasons why the rules have changed to protect QB's in today's game.

yourfavestoner
03-10-2011, 06:25 PM
Nevertheless, in past generations, teams each played a specific defense, they varied very little from those precepts. It made it a lot easier for QB's to read defenses especially in the 50's, 60's, 70's 80's, and most of the 90's. The 4-3 dominated almost totally and every QB had a pretty easy time reading the defense which is why most called their own signals.
True, QB's are protected more but there are reasons which are never discussed by fans. Before the switch to artificial turf, player's bodies didn't take nearly the beating they take today. Playing on grass is far more easy on the body than playing on artificial turf. They only played 12 games for quite a few decades and the beating that QB's took didn't match the beating they are forced to take in 16 games even with preferential rules.
Finally, players were a completely different size going back a few decades. In the 50's and 60's nobody ever saw a 300lber, big DLmen were in the 250's and most teams ran the ball as their #1 weapon well into the 90's. That meant QB's had a much easier time of it since the offense didn't always revolve around them.
There are solid reasons why the rules have changed to protect QB's in today's game.

There is a huge difference between difficulty of learning and difficulty of doing. Yes, NFL offenses and defenses are more complex than in year's past. I don't think that anybody would argue that point. However, to argue that it's harder to play quarterback now than ever before is asinine. Football today is glorified basketball on grass. Not only do we have we had rules changes to protect quarterbacks, but the re-emphasis on the five yard chuck rule and other protections placed for wide receivers have opened up the passing game to the point that we're seeing Playstation numbers from relatively average quarterbacks.

Crickett
03-10-2011, 07:04 PM
This is going to be difficult, because I'm going to have to sift through this to respond to Iamcanadian.



a real flop but QB's who last till #22 in round 1 aren't really expected to be true franchise QB just servicable one.

Really? Players drafted in the mid to late first are only "servicable"? And here I was thinking that serviceable players were drafted in rounds 2 or 3 and if you drafted someone ........ ANYONE in the first round and then pay him several million dollars before he ever played a down, it was because you expected him to be at some point in the future, a quality starting player.

Or did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers thinking that all they needed to replace one of the greatest QB's of all time was someone who was "servicable"?


By any standard both VY and Jay are successful QB's and that is why the Bears jumped all over to acquire him. VY ran into a personnality conflict witrh his HC, he has been a winner since he entered the league.

Do these standards include playoff success or production? Because by those measures, VY certainly isn't, with his 0-1 playoff record or his inability to even approach three thousand all purpose yards or throw for more than a dozen touchdowns in any season.


I disagree and think he will have a real breakout year this coming season. His team has been in the playoffs every year since they drafted him and he has won playoff games.

If we're looking at who has and has not been a success up to this point from the last five drafts, what you think will happen in the future is irrelevant. The jury is still out on Sanchez who certainly had his ups and downs the past two seasons. To put him in the success camp at this stage of his career diminishes the label.

What do you mean by obvious, tons of people on this forum hated the guy-spread QB and all that stuff.

If by hated, you mean that a large portion had him rated as merely *top 3* instead of *the #1 prospect*, then yes, a lot of people hated him. Otherwise the biggest criticism I saw was his lack of a senior season. It was obvious because the Rams needed a quarterback quite a bit more than an interior defensive linemen. Remember, that recently, the Rams had drafted Chris Long and Adam Carriker in the early first round.


So far, I only see 2 out of 12 who actually flopped because of a lack of talent although I won't be shocked if Tebow eventually gets added to the list.

I think you forgot Matt Leinart.

Of the rest Flacco, VY, Ryan, Cutler, and Sanchez have already taken their teams to the playoffs while Bradford and Freeman came very close and Stafford has been injured way too much to pass judgment.

To which I would ask, how many of them took their team to the playoffs, and how many were taken by their team?

Rex Grossman did not take his team to the Superbowl. They took him. And while Sanchez and Young certainly contributed to their team's playoff appearances, I think it is a stretch to say "they took their team to the playoffs."

hockey619
03-10-2011, 10:16 PM
According to all the scouts, former GM's and former Director of Personal people on NFL.com, Gabbert is in the running to be the #1 overall pick and most have him as their #1 QB on their boards and pretty well a lead cinch to go top 5 in a worse case scenario, against that, you still have the fact that he hasn't worked out yet and could possibly fall flat on his face.
So, unless you have some real background in professional football, I have to assume, you haven't a clue what you are talking about and need a h..ll of a lot more work on assessing QB's.

Because I am different I am wrong?

What is wrong with my evaluation of him? Is his pocket presense good and I missed it, as did everyone else in this thread (YFS, njx specifically said he looked undraftable at times)? His ball placement isnt garbage? He doesnt miss open guys and make awful reads under pressure?

As i pointed out, there was one time in specific where his recievers outnumbered the coverage guys. As a qb, you cant miss that, you need to be able to recognize that and take advantage. He didnt. Then the play starts and a guy comes wide the hell open on a slant. and gabbert is too busy running around from the ghost pressure because whoever his first read was wasnt open, so he started running around rather than look to see if he can find someone else.

If a QB cant put the ball in the right spot and is scared to hell of staying there and taking a hit to make a play, thats not good, those two things are hard to teach, especially the courage.

Roddoliver
03-11-2011, 10:16 AM
"Several personnel sources" tell FOX Sports' Adam Caplan that Blaine Gabbert would be a reach as a top-five pick.

"In fact," adds Caplan, "there are teams that don't have a first-round grade on him." Gabbert isn't as polarizing a prospect as Cam Newton, but there certainly are differing opinions about the former Missouri Tiger. NFL Network's Mike Lombardi -- a former personnel man with the Raiders, Eagles, and Browns -- believes Gabbert should be the No. 1 overall pick in the draft.

yourfavestoner
03-11-2011, 10:20 AM
"Several personnel sources" tell FOX Sports' Adam Caplan that Blaine Gabbert would be a reach as a top-five pick.

"In fact," adds Caplan, "there are teams that don't have a first-round grade on him." Gabbert isn't as polarizing a prospect as Cam Newton, but there certainly are differing opinions about the former Missouri Tiger. NFL Network's Mike Lombardi -- a former personnel man with the Raiders, Eagles, and Browns -- believes Gabbert should be the No. 1 overall pick in the draft.

That absolutely can't be right. According to all the scouts, former GM's and former Director of Personal people on NFL.com. That's what Iamcanadian told me anyways.

bigbluedefense
03-11-2011, 10:24 AM
I don't get why you would rate Gabbert over Locker. Both need to work on their game, but Locker has more experience in a pro style offense, is just as smart and determined, is more athletic, and had less to work with.

So why is Gabbert ahead of him again? I just don't get it. Is it bc of the arm? I need to study Gabbert more.

Jake Locker is my #1 qb though as of right now. That's not saying much bc i'm mostly disappointed in this qb class, but if I needed a qb and had to draft 1, I'd go with Locker, sit him for 2 years and see what you got.

I think Philly would be wise to grab Locker. Sit him for 3 years behind Vick and train under Reid, you could potentially have the next Aaron Rodgers.

yourfavestoner
03-11-2011, 10:30 AM
I don't get why you would rate Gabbert over Locker. Both need to work on their game, but Locker has more experience in a pro style offense, is just as smart and determined, is more athletic, and had less to work with.

So why is Gabbert ahead of him again? I just don't get it. Is it bc of the arm? I need to study Gabbert more.

Jake Locker is my #1 qb though as of right now. That's not saying much bc i'm mostly disappointed in this qb class, but if I needed a qb and had to draft 1, I'd go with Locker, sit him for 2 years and see what you got.

I think Philly would be wise to grab Locker. Sit him for 3 years behind Vick and train under Reid, you could potentially have the next Aaron Rodgers.

I'm gonna watch a few Locker games today and see what I think. Only game I've seen of his previously was USC in 2009.

bigbluedefense
03-11-2011, 10:32 AM
I'm gonna watch a few Locker games today and see what I think. Only game I've seen of his previously was USC in 2009.

There's no medium with him. He's either really good or really bad. And he's infinitely better rolling out than in the pocket.

I see a talented player with flaws, but correctable flaws. He's not plug and chug, but with a good offensive mind and some patience, I think he can succeed in the NFL.

My guess is he'll be the best qb from this draft class.

yourfavestoner
03-11-2011, 10:53 AM
From what I see so far, he's a poor man's Favre (young Favre, not old Favre).

Babylon
03-11-2011, 11:06 AM
There's no medium with him. He's either really good or really bad. And he's infinitely better rolling out than in the pocket.

I see a talented player with flaws, but correctable flaws. He's not plug and chug, but with a good offensive mind and some patience, I think he can succeed in the NFL.

My guess is he'll be the best qb from this draft class.


Through all the inconsistancies this year he was always great throwing on the run.

As for sitting him two years i dont think that you would have to do that, the system he has played in the last two years i think has him better prepared than guys who worked out of the gun a lot like Tebow and Bradford. I'm not comparing the players just the readiness. His problem has been accuracy and it seems he's improved greatly on that.

bigbluedefense
03-11-2011, 11:11 AM
Through all the inconsistancies this year he was always great throwing on the run.

As for sitting him two years i dont think that you would have to do that, the system he has played in the last two years i think has him better prepared than guys who worked out of the gun a lot like Tebow and Bradford. I'm not comparing the players just the readiness. His problem has been accuracy and it seems he's improved greatly on that.

All his issues are correctable. He's my #1 qb on the board.

Iamcanadian
03-11-2011, 11:22 AM
There is a huge difference between difficulty of learning and difficulty of doing. Yes, NFL offenses and defenses are more complex than in year's past. I don't think that anybody would argue that point. However, to argue that it's harder to play quarterback now than ever before is asinine. Football today is glorified basketball on grass. Not only do we have we had rules changes to protect quarterbacks, but the re-emphasis on the five yard chuck rule and other protections placed for wide receivers have opened up the passing game to the point that we're seeing Playstation numbers from relatively average quarterbacks.

Playing an 18 games schedule means almost every player in the NFL is in pain far more than anything faced in the past, also playing on artificial surfaces beats up the body far worse than playing on grass and in the mud. If anything, players in the past had a far easier time playing the game with linemen who weighed only 250lbs at the most.
I've watched pro football since the early 50's and players didn't get beat up like they do today, not even close, it is a complete myth that today's game is soft, it is actually far tougher and the rules are actually there so QB's have a reasonable shot at surviving the season.
As for the bump and run defense, it actually didn't exist till Al Davis invented it in the old AFL, he created the defense. Before that WR's couldn't be touched by CB's and the technical level of defending the pass has improved so much, that I seriously doubt you could just put an old timer in his youth on the field and he would immediately be able to play in today's game. It would take him quite awhile to adjust before he would be able to get open against today's CB's.
All, your doing is repeating a lot of myths which have no basis in fact.

Iamcanadian
03-11-2011, 11:31 AM
There's no medium with him. He's either really good or really bad. And he's infinitely better rolling out than in the pocket.

I see a talented player with flaws, but correctable flaws. He's not plug and chug, but with a good offensive mind and some patience, I think he can succeed in the NFL.

My guess is he'll be the best qb from this draft class.

He's a solid prospect and will go top 15 IMO. Right now, he looks very good when he leaves the pocket but when asked to throw from the pocket, he comes apart and needs a lot of work. It looks correctable but you never know.

yourfavestoner
03-11-2011, 11:55 AM
Playing an 18 games schedule means almost every player in the NFL is in pain far more than anything faced in the past, also playing on artificial surfaces beats up the body far worse than playing on grass and in the mud.
Relevance? I never asserted that the game was physically more demanding.

If anything, players in the past had a far easier time playing the game with linemen who weighed only 250lbs at the most.Again, my points had nothing to do with the physical demand of the game. Although, I disagree with this point as well, because offensive linemen weren't even allowed to use their hands in pass protection until 1978. Not only that, but defensive linemen were allowed to use the head slap as a legal move, and holding was a 15 yard penalty instead of 10. There's a reason teams didn't throw the ball a whole lot back then: because it was hard as **** to accomplish.

I've watched pro football since the early 50's and players didn't get beat up like they do today, not even close, it is a complete myth that today's game is soft, it is actually far tougher and the rules are actually there so QB's have a reasonable shot at surviving the season.Again, my point had nothing to do with the physical demand of the game, but rather the structure of the game itself.

As for the bump and run defense, it actually didn't exist till Al Davis invented it in the old AFL, he created the defense.Al Davis coached the Raiders in the 1960s - before the AFL and NFL even merged. Bump and run made the passing game even harder so, again, I fail to see the point you're trying to make with this.

Before that WR's couldn't be touched by CB's and the technical level of defending the pass has improved so much, that I seriously doubt you could just put an old timer in his youth on the field and he would immediately be able to play in today's game. It would take him quite awhile to adjust before he would be able to get open against today's CB's.So before the 1960s? That's great, but again, not really relevant to this discussion. So you could really argue that the period of time between 1962 (Davis' first year as coach of the Raiders) and 1978 (year of the rule changes favoring offense) was the single hardest period of time to make a passing game successful in league history. The rule changes of 1978 and the re-emphasis of them in 2004 both ushered in new eras of ridiculous passing that we've never seen before.

Secondly, I hate the argument that "well if you took a guy from back then he'd be completely lost now." Of course, in a vacuum, that's the truth. It works the other way around, too. Marvin Harrison, one of the all-time great receivers of this generation, wouldn't be able to get off the line of scrimmage pre-1978. He'd curl up into a ball at the first sight of Jack Tatum or Mel Blount. It works both ways.

All, your doing is repeating a lot of myths which have no basis in fact.No, you're just trying to skew my argument into saying that the game isn't as physically demanding now as it was in year's past, when I never said anything close to that. My argument was that the majority of the rules changes we've seen (whether they've been related to player safety or not) have been passed with the intention of MAKING PASSING THE BALL EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept, especially when the league openly admits that it passes legislation favoring offense and scoring.

Iamcanadian
03-11-2011, 11:56 AM
This is going to be difficult, because I'm going to have to sift through this to respond to Iamcanadian.





Really? Players drafted in the mid to late first are only "servicable"? And here I was thinking that serviceable players were drafted in rounds 2 or 3 and if you drafted someone ........ ANYONE in the first round and then pay him several million dollars before he ever played a down, it was because you expected him to be at some point in the future, a quality starting player.

All I'm saying is in the case of QB's in the past, QB's drafted late in round 1 do not have a strong record for success. QB's tend to get overdrafted and rarely fall unless teams have serious questions.

Or did the Packers draft Aaron Rodgers thinking that all they needed to replace one of the greatest QB's of all time was someone who was "servicable"?

GB took a huge risk on Rodgers, he fell because every Tedford QB up until Rodgers had been a complete flop and that is why he dropped so severely. Teams were scared off by Tedford's record.
Morris was Freeman's coach in college and really believed in him.



Do these standards include playoff success or production? Because by those measures, VY certainly isn't, with his 0-1 playoff record or his inability to even approach three thousand all purpose yards or throw for more than a dozen touchdowns in any season.

Call me stupid but I judge QB's on making the playoffs and producing a winning record and winning the SB if a team has enough talent. VY in his rookie season took a team who hadn't won the year before to a much better record and was a winner from then on. Nobody ever expected him to be a stats QB.



If we're looking at who has and has not been a success up to this point from the last five drafts, what you think will happen in the future is irrelevant. The jury is still out on Sanchez who certainly had his ups and downs the past two seasons. To put him in the success camp at this stage of his career diminishes the label.

Then you don't believe in the opinion of your team's HC. Ryan is more than satisfied with Sanchez's improvement and firmly believes his team is going to win SB's with him at QB.
I guess you have no faith in your team's HC.


If by hated, you mean that a large portion had him rated as merely *top 3* instead of *the #1 prospect*, then yes, a lot of people hated him. Otherwise the biggest criticism I saw was his lack of a senior season. It was obvious because the Rams needed a quarterback quite a bit more than an interior defensive linemen. Remember, that recently, the Rams had drafted Chris Long and Adam Carriker in the early first round.

The QB complainers light into Bradford because he was a spread QB especially as he was injured his senior year. Much the same way, people are complaining about Gabbert and Newton, but I guess you were one of a few who absolutely knew he would adjust easily.



I think you forgot Matt Leinart.

No, I can count.


To which I would ask, how many of them took their team to the playoffs, and how many were taken by their team?

Everybody in pro football recognizes that the QB is by far the most important position on the field and unless they play well, a team isn't going very far in the current NFL. Sanchez, for instance, already hold quite a few records for winning playoff games as a young QB, but I guess you don't appreciate his efforts.

Rex Grossman did not take his team to the Superbowl. They took him. And while Sanchez and Young certainly contributed to their team's playoff appearances, I think it is a stretch to say "they took their team to the playoffs."

Well, I happen to think neither team sees the playoffs if their QB's didn't have a real impact.

Iamcanadian
03-11-2011, 12:38 PM
Relevance? I never asserted that the game was physically more demanding.

Again, my points had nothing to do with the physical demand of the game. Although, I disagree with this point as well, because offensive linemen weren't even allowed to use their hands in pass protection until 1978. Not only that, but defensive linemen were allowed to use the head slap as a legal move, and holding was a 15 yard penalty instead of 10. There's a reason teams didn't throw the ball a whole lot back then: because it was hard as **** to accomplish.

Teams didn't throw the ball like they do today because of the changes in field surfaces and covered stadiums. Playing on grass and without a dome, you couldn't rely on the weather to cooperate and it forced teams to rely on the run far more. Sure, the rule changes helped but they aren't the only reason why teams pass more today than they did in the past.
So now, the game is easier since 1978 when offensive linemen were allowed to use their hands more and the ridiculous head slap was outlawed. Nevertheless, passing began to take over the game when domes and artifical turf came on the scene. Of course playing on artifical turf before the newer stuff was invented was like playing on cement and they also had to change the rules to help perserve player's bodies.

Again, my point had nothing to do with the physical demand of the game, but rather the structure of the game itself.

Al Davis coached the Raiders in the 1960s - before the AFL and NFL even merged. Bump and run made the passing game even harder so, again, I fail to see the point you're trying to make with this.

So before the 1960s? That's great, but again, not really relevant to this discussion. So you could really argue that the period of time between 1962 (Davis' first year as coach of the Raiders) and 1978 (year of the rule changes favoring offense) was the single hardest period of time to make a passing game successful in league history. The rule changes of 1978 and the re-emphasis of them in 2004 both ushered in new eras of ridiculous passing that we've never seen before.

I actually agree, the bump and run period made it ridiculously hard for a WR to perform but again, in my opinion the rules which changed to allow the bump and run were stupid, they never should have been added to the game in the first place. Mugging a WR while he is trying to run his pattern is just plain ridiculous and I'm glad they took it out of football, it had no place in the game in the 1st place. If you want to call that football, your welcome to, but I prefer the current rules which are still tougher than the pre Davis era.

Secondly, I hate the argument that "well if you took a guy from back then he'd be completely lost now." Of course, in a vacuum, that's the truth. It works the other way around, too. Marvin Harrison, one of the all-time great receivers of this generation, wouldn't be able to get off the line of scrimmage pre-1978. He'd curl up into a ball at the first sight of Jack Tatum or Mel Blount. It works both ways.

Which is why the bump and run era was absurd. It allowed players like Tatum to be thugs on the field, and more important, players like Tatum shortened the life of many players. IMO, that kind of play has no part in sports and I'm glad it is gone.

No, you're just trying to skew my argument into saying that the game isn't as physically demanding now as it was in year's past, when I never said anything close to that. My argument was that the majority of the rules changes we've seen (whether they've been related to player safety or not) have been passed with the intention of MAKING PASSING THE BALL EASIER TO ACCOMPLISH. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept, especially when the league openly admits that it passes legislation favoring offense and scoring.

I again agree, the rules make it easier to pass the ball just like playing in domes does and playing on artificial surfaces does, but it doesn't make the modern QB's life easier because modern defenses still makes it far tougher to be a good QB. The fact is that many of the QB's of the past couldn't survive as starters in today's game, slow footed QB's like you saw in the past, couldn't even play today.
Even with all the rules changes, the 16 game schedule, the artificial surfaces and the size and strength of the modern players, means that players have to play hurt most of the season in today's game, even with all the rules protecting the QB's.
You just want to live in the past and hang on to a lot of myths, but I was there in the past and most modern players would likely prefer to play in past eras because their bodies would be far less beat up every week than in today's game.

wonderbredd24
03-11-2011, 02:19 PM
I disagree with your argument that the 50's and 60's were not more brutal than they are now... there were guys out there like enforcers in hockey called hatchet men who were there to hurt players, facemasking was legal on anyone who was not the ball carrier, late hits pretty much did not exist, so on and so forth. But why is it anytime a discussion is between football now and football history, the jump is immediately to the 60's.

In the 80's, quarterbacks were not nearly as a protected as they are now and the 70's and 80's is when the size of linemen made their biggest jump in size. Guys over 300lbs were still somewhat rare, but linemen in the 280s and 290s were commonplace.

cvv84
09-11-2011, 06:19 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_S687TecgLwo/S7tKZ3e_IMI/AAAAAAAAAJs/z6kDJyVjl1A/s400/american-crow.jpg