PDA

View Full Version : Brock Osweiler, QB, Arizona St.


BeerBaron
09-09-2011, 10:48 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on him? He's a junior and this will be his first year as a full time starter.

My thoughts:

He's HUGE, listed at 6'8 and appears to have a very lively arm having thrown some nice passes tonight. He also looks like he can move around pretty well too.

I think he's a guy to watch for 2013.

Hurricanes25
09-09-2011, 10:50 PM
I like him a lot. Big frame, big arm, puts a lot of zip on his passes, and he's pretty mobile for a guy his size. He also has a quick delivery. He is still very raw though. Like you said, he is someone to pay attention to in 2013.

ElectricEye
09-09-2011, 10:52 PM
The sick reality of this business is that he might be a guy to watch for this year if he has any production whatsoever. You don't find guys with that kind of size and athleticism very often. It's still super early with a small sample size, but you've got to like what you've seen so far. Best thing I've seen about him is the sheer athleticism. He moves far better than most jumbo size quarterbacks do. Not a scrambler or a guy who is going to burn you running very often, but his movements and mechanics are just very easy and fluid. Moves well within the pocket as well.

He's got a long way to go, but he's got as much potential as any QB out there south of Luck... and as much physically as anyone.

SolidGold
09-09-2011, 10:55 PM
Not to toot my own horn but I was impressed with him last year as a replacement for Threet. He has all the tools needed at the next level. I hope he stays the next two years and does not leave early so he can develop.

BeerBaron
09-09-2011, 10:58 PM
As has been said, he has a ways to go yet, but the only comparison I can think of with that kind of size and smooth athletic ability is Ben Roethlisberger.

I was most impressed with a couple of shorter passes he threw. On-target laser beams.

ElectricEye
09-09-2011, 11:11 PM
Maybe semantics, but I don't see Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger is a naturally thick human being. Osweiler has a wing basketball build, which has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. I also haven't seen a guy that likes the hold the ball as much as Big Ben does quite yet. Small sample size, but I'm not quite feeling that at the moment. Can't really give a precise answer as to who he reminds me of though.

Brent
09-09-2011, 11:16 PM
that TD to #4 didn't lead him as much as I would have wanted, if we are going to nitpick.

gator3guy
09-09-2011, 11:22 PM
Maybe semantics, but I don't see Roethlisberger. Roethlisberger is a naturally thick human being. Osweiler has a wing basketball build, which has it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. I also haven't seen a guy that likes the hold the ball as much as Big Ben does quite yet. Small sample size, but I'm not quite feeling that at the moment. Can't really give a precise answer as to who he reminds me of though.

In my opinion there isn't a true comparison. We haven't seen a 6'8 QB, let alone one with his skills.

ElectricEye
09-09-2011, 11:31 PM
that TD to #4 didn't lead him as much as I would have wanted, if we are going to nitpick.

I think he's got the right ideas about ball placement and timing. Clearly some stuff to work on there though.

fenikz
09-09-2011, 11:32 PM
Reminds me of John Skelton if anyone, not a bad think I loved Skelton as a prospect

SchizophrenicBatman
09-09-2011, 11:44 PM
yea there really isnt a good comparison for him. his body type is more like a john isner or an andrew brackman than any of the other 6'6+ QBs we've seen

i really like what i've seen from him. he isn't a finished product by any means but teams have taken bigger fliers on guys with worse tools and ability

TACKLE
09-10-2011, 12:29 AM
With two more seasons of experience in CFB, this guy could be quite the prospect. He has a terrific arm and a very compact release considering his height. He actually reminds me of a young Joseph Flacco.

niel89
09-10-2011, 12:39 AM
What I really like is that his size isn't a handicap for him. He moves well and just looks fluid. His arm strength is looking like its very good to great, but not quite elite yet. His release is a lot quicker and compact than I would think for a lanky guy like that.

JLaw45
09-12-2011, 05:26 PM
In my opinion there isn't a true comparison. We haven't seen a 6'8 QB, let alone one with his skills.

Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_McGwire)

SickwithIt1010
09-12-2011, 05:56 PM
I was thinking about going to the university of montana to play football for a little while my senior year, half way through the year we go to play Flathead High School in Montana....Osweiler was their QB.

Beat him 42-6.

Now look at the frickin kid lol. Prolly gonna be makin some bucks playin on sundays. He has come a long way from when I played against him, release is much quicker now than it was, and hes gotten much thicker.

His freshman and sophomore year he was committed to play basketball at Gonzaga by the way. Good athlete.

MassNole
11-29-2011, 04:22 PM
What are everyone's thoughts on him? He's a junior and this will be his first year as a full time starter.

My thoughts:

He's HUGE, listed at 6'8 and appears to have a very lively arm having thrown some nice passes tonight. He also looks like he can move around pretty well too.

I think he's a guy to watch for 2013.
If Barkley goes pro, I'd have him as the #1 QB in 2013.

fenikz
11-29-2011, 04:27 PM
:/ he's no where near that good, with a good year he can be a mid-late round developmental QB but his footwork and throwing motion need a ton of work as well as he needs to add a ton of muscle to his frame.

But most likely ASU's new headcoach is going to come from a spread offense (Leech or Sumlin) so he will just continue to take snaps from the shotgun and not work on his drops

BeerBaron
11-29-2011, 04:34 PM
Little bit of thread necromancy....he looked quite good in the game I was watching when I first posted this at least.

Babylon
11-29-2011, 05:14 PM
Actually... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_McGwire)

McGuire was the first one to come to mind and that isnt necessarily a good thing.

Brock is a good athlete. Originally was going to go to Gonzaga on a basketball scholarship so there's that. Personally will need to see a lot more before i can get too excited about him for 2013.

BeerBaron
01-06-2012, 04:33 PM
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/01/06/arizona-state-quarterback-brock-osweiler-enters-nfl-draft/

Osweiler is coming out. Must not have liked the idea of the change in ASU coaching staff.

Mid-rounder with enormous upside I'm thinking. 5th round pick?

gpngc
01-06-2012, 04:34 PM
Bump. No Barkley, no Jones. Someone will fall in love...

EDIT: one minute later... wtf

BeerBaron
01-06-2012, 04:39 PM
Bump. No Barkley, no Jones. Someone will fall in love...

EDIT: one minute later... wtf

Yeah, the position has two GREAT ones at the top, them some "meh" ones in Tannehill (2nd round imo) and Foles (who I strongly dislike at the position.)

5th round is my early starting point. If he works out well and some teams fall in love with the physical tools, he could raise. Given that is pretty raw and only has one year as a full time starter, I wouldn't take him any earlier than the 3rd. Someone may though.

DraftSavant
01-06-2012, 04:44 PM
If he signs with Tom Condon, he'll get first round buzz by tomorrow.

We may have found this year's Gabbert. Love this kid's tools, but he's going to get seriously overdrafted.

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2012, 05:10 PM
When Josh Freeman declared did people think he was a 1st rounder or did he steadily rise up draft boards because of his tools?

BaLLiN
01-06-2012, 05:11 PM
When Josh Freeman declared did people think he was a 1st rounder or did he steadily rise up draft boards because of his tools?

I think he was regarded as a 1st rounder by a lot of draftniks but not mid first when he first declared.

Giantsfan1080
01-06-2012, 05:23 PM
I think he was regarded as a 1st rounder by a lot of draftniks but not mid first when he first declared.

Got it. I can see someone like Osweiler moving up into the 2nd or 3rd round this year based on the other QB competition.

DBNYDP
01-06-2012, 05:34 PM
The lack of QBs + his tools is going to move him into the 1st IMO. He'll have a good pro day, he'll look good throwing routes that he has practiced for a while to his receivers without any pressure. He'll test fine at the combine and will measure well. I don't really know his personality but I haven't heard of any huge red flags so he'll seem like a solid young guy to coaches. I think he'll be the 4th QB off the board and I think he'll land in Seattle, a place where he can develop behind a stopgap guy in Tavaris Jackson.

ElectricEye
01-06-2012, 05:38 PM
I really don't see all that separates him and Tannehill as prospects, besides exposure time. Similar playing time, similar upside, similar flaws. There's some things I even prefer about Osweiler, even.

DraftSavant
01-06-2012, 05:39 PM
I really don't see all that separates him and Tannehill as prospects, besides exposure time. Similar playing time, similar upside, similar flaws. There's some things I even prefer about Osweiler, even.

While Tannehill is inconsistent going through his progressions, you'll at least see him attempt to go though them and try to find a secondary or third target.

With Osweiler, it's one quick read and check down to the flat. Still incredibly raw at going through the most basic of reads. It has to be really defined and open for him to pull the trigger.

fenikz
01-06-2012, 05:44 PM
He's big, athletic and has a arm but he isn't the greatest qb and played in a entirely qb friendly system

I'd go maybe 4th round at the earliest

DBNYDP
01-06-2012, 05:49 PM
I don't think NFL teams really care that much. We saw that with Gabbert and with Newton to an extent last year. Both had great QB tools but neither really played in a complex system in college, and in fact both played in very friendly QB offenses I thought. Neither had to go through progressions in college very much, and neither looked like a very polished passer in college. But that obviously didn't mean that teams weren't willing to take a chance on them, and I think it is going to be the same case with Osweiler and even Tannehil.

ElectricEye
01-06-2012, 05:53 PM
While Tannehill is inconsistent going through his progressions, you'll at least see him attempt to go though them and try to find a secondary or third target.

With Osweiler, it's one quick read and check down to the flat. Still incredibly raw at going through the most basic of reads. It has to be really defined and open for him to pull the trigger.

He does throw a lot of those little swing passes and things to the flat. But again; not really seeing a whole lot of separation between those two in terms of what they've proven and the selling points are similar.


We'll have to see. I would put him as the clear cut 4th QB in the class after Luck, Griffin, and Tannehill. Tons more potential than a Cousins or Foles.

asdf1223
01-06-2012, 06:30 PM
While Tannehill is inconsistent going through his progressions, you'll at least see him attempt to go though them and try to find a secondary or third target.

With Osweiler, it's one quick read and check down to the flat. Still incredibly raw at going through the most basic of reads. It has to be really defined and open for him to pull the trigger.

Yup, I wanted to say this. Osweiler locks onto his target almost Gabbert like.

SickwithIt1010
01-06-2012, 07:58 PM
I am not a fan of Osweiler's and think this is a huge mistake on his part. For as much hype as he gets for his arm, I havent been that impressed. He's not as bad as Gabbert but he gets happy feet and creates pressure on himself that isn't really there. Plays in a very QB friendly system full of screens and underneath routes. I cant see him going sooner than the 4th unless some team is out of their minds.

phlysac
01-06-2012, 09:59 PM
At least he was smart enough to realize that Todd Graham would try to get him to be a running back.

Great move, Osweiler. Screw Graham.

ellsy82
01-06-2012, 10:04 PM
If Tannehil is a first rounder, so is Osweiler. As stated...someone will take a chance.

BeerBaron
01-06-2012, 10:15 PM
If he signs with Tom Condon, he'll get first round buzz by tomorrow.

We may have found this year's Gabbert. Love this kid's tools, but he's going to get seriously overdrafted.

Sigghhhh....I knew you were going to point this out and the Gabbert comparisons would come up.

I WANT to like Osweiler, but not in the first two rounds.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-06-2012, 10:16 PM
Sigghhhh....I knew you were going to point this out and the Gabbert comparisons would come up.

I WANT to like Osweiler, but not in the first two rounds.


Might as well just move to hating him, because someone will take him in the first.

BeerBaron
01-06-2012, 10:17 PM
Might as well just move to hating him, because someone will take him in the first.

At least I've seen him make the occasional good throw. It'll be hard to be as bad as Gabbert.

JHL6719
01-06-2012, 10:20 PM
I think Osweiler sucks. JMO.

ElectricEye
01-06-2012, 10:26 PM
I don't think it's smart to draft Osweiler in the first...nor do I think it's likely that an NFL team actually goes through with it. He might have that kind of talent, but he just hasn't proven enough yet. I'm going to give him a pass on some of the elements of rawness in his game considering this was his first year starting(he's even less experienced than Tannehill, who people routinely give breaks to in) and a lot of the stuff that's wrong with him projects to get better with more seasoning. You still can't assume he can make that sort of leap forward.... but he had the ability to. That's more than you can say for the next batch of guys.

ellsy82
01-06-2012, 10:37 PM
I don't think it's smart to draft Osweiler in the first...nor do I think it's likely that an NFL team actually goes through with it. He might have that kind of talent, but he just hasn't proven enough yet. I'm going to give him a pass on some of the elements of rawness in his game considering this was his first year starting(he's even less experienced than Tannehill, who people routinely give breaks to in) and a lot of the stuff that's wrong with him projects to get better with more seasoning. You still can't assume he can make that sort of leap forward.... but he had the ability to. That's more than you can say for the next batch of guys.

Pfft...didn't stop the drafting of Locker, Tebow, Gabbert, and Ponder in the first. Probably gonna be a 49er.

BeerBaron
01-06-2012, 11:03 PM
Pfft...didn't stop the drafting of Locker, Tebow, Gabbert, and Ponder in the first. Probably gonna be a 49er.

And Kaepernick is going to....be a WR?

RaiderNation
01-07-2012, 03:09 AM
Pfft...didn't stop the drafting of Locker, Tebow, Gabbert, and Ponder in the first. Probably gonna be a 49er.

Locker looked good this year in the time I saw him, I think he will be a best QB of the 4 you named...

I have Osweiler going in the 2nd round in my latest mock that I'm going to post soon, and it should be intersting to see where some rank him in the coming weeks.

nepg
01-07-2012, 03:28 AM
I'd take Osweiler in the first if I'm a team like the Seahawk. I mean, the guy seems like a complete douche, but he's got a lot of things going for him as a starting QB. Size, arm, athleticism... Staring down receivers really isn't a knock going into the NFL, but it's a plus to not do it.

Better than Tannehill by a lot. Compared to last year's class, I'd have him below Stanzi (my #6 2011 QB), but ahead of Ponder, Dalton, and Yates.

Brown Leader
01-07-2012, 08:04 AM
I really don't see all that separates him and Tannehill as prospects, besides exposure time. Similar playing time, similar upside, similar flaws. There's some things I even prefer about Osweiler, even.

This. (10ch)

If Tannehil is a first rounder, so is Osweiler. As stated...someone will take a chance.

and this.

SuperPacker
01-07-2012, 08:47 AM
I hate Osweiler! He literally is just horrible. If i was a GM i wouldnt touch him untill the 5th round as a development prospect but ovbiously he is going to go higher i just feel sorry for the team that gets him.

Hes unaccuarte, locks onto receivers, has poor pocket presence, gets fazed by the rush makes no reads or progressions and has only played for one year.

F*** it! I wouldnt even take him in the 7th round.

Scott Wright
01-07-2012, 09:23 AM
Tannehill and Osweiler basically have the same amount of college starting experience.

Who has more upside?

Brown Leader
01-07-2012, 09:38 AM
I'd say Tannehill is the bigger project but has slightly more upside. He's got the bigger arm and better speed outside the pocket. But....I actually think Osweiler has better mobility inside the pocket, with good pocket awareness, and is more elusive, even at 6'8, than Tannehill, which is really impressive.

Brent
01-07-2012, 09:39 AM
And Kaepernick is going to....be a WR?
OLB, he knows what the QB is thinking. :D

holt_bruce81
01-07-2012, 09:43 AM
I'd say Tannehill is the bigger project but has slightly more upside. He's got the bigger arm and better speed outside the pocket. But....I actually think Osweiler has better mobility inside the pocket, with good pocket awareness, and is more elusive, even at 6'8, than Tannehill, which is really impressive.

See I'm the other way, I think Osweiler's upside is bigger than my weener.

Brown Leader
01-07-2012, 09:55 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DR42Lus8p-o/TognLrplV7I/AAAAAAAAA9g/ihAkhi0cch4/s1600/scrubs3.jpg

FUNBUNCHER
01-07-2012, 10:15 AM
I know Osweiler received a b-ball scholarship out of HS, so despite the height he is coordinated and can move a little.

But does anyone see any drawbacks for Osweiler because of his height??
Or has the skepticism been in drafting extremely tall QBs the concerns about their athleticism(ability to move outside the pocket)??

I'm always stunned when some players are drafted almost exclusively because of their measurables and potential upside.

I know it happened to Mike Vick, but it's still a surprise when you see it go down on draft day.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-07-2012, 10:25 AM
Tannehill and Osweiler basically have the same amount of college starting experience.

Who has more upside?


Not only is Tannehill better now, he has more upside.

phlysac
01-07-2012, 11:13 AM
See I'm the other way, I think Osweiler's upside is bigger than my weener.

Are you saying Osweiler has very little upside?

ElectricEye
01-07-2012, 11:38 AM
Tannehill and Osweiler basically have the same amount of college starting experience.

Who has more upside?

It's close, but I'm going Osweiler. There's things he can do right now that are better than Tannehill too, although it's fairly close all around. Ultimately, I feel like Osweiler declaring drives Tannehill's value down a bit, as GM's will know they can take Osweiler lower and get a similar prospect. I can see someone passing on Tannehill in the middle of the first knowing that they can just sit and get Osweiler a round later.

Not sure where the hate for Osweiler comes from either. Maybe it's because I only saw him on fairly good days, but I'm not seeing him as a pure one read lock on guy. I've seen him go through progressions. I think he reads and recognizes coverages slightly better at this stage too, which makes sense given that he's played quarterback his entire collegian career.

ellsy82
01-07-2012, 12:37 PM
Tannehill and Osweiler basically have the same amount of college starting experience.

Who has more upside?

Gonna go with Osweiler. Nearly every statistical comparison, he edges out Tannehill...then he's also younger, and has a bigger build.

And lets stop with this "he's gonna be a project" stuff. Any QB that declares for the draft knows he has a payday coming, and then attends every QB camp imaginable between now and their pro-day.

This isn't 10 years ago when you had to sit a QB 2-3 years before turning over the reigns. You're not "throwing them to the wolves" by starting them as a rookie. These young men are professionals who have been trained to be under center before they ever take a snap in the NFL.

Babylon
01-07-2012, 12:39 PM
It's close, but I'm going Osweiler. There's things he can do right now that are better than Tannehill too, although it's fairly close all around. Ultimately, I feel like Osweiler declaring drives Tannehill's value down a bit, as GM's will know they can take Osweiler lower and get a similar prospect. I can see someone passing on Tannehill in the middle of the first knowing that they can just sit and get Osweiler a round later.

Not sure where the hate for Osweiler comes from either. Maybe it's because I only saw him on fairly good days, but I'm not seeing him as a pure one read lock on guy. I've seen him go through progressions. I think he reads and recognizes coverages slightly better at this stage too, which makes sense given that he's played quarterback his entire collegian career.

I think the negative, at least for me, is he hasnt a lot of starts and add to that he'll have to sit for a couple of years. Not saying the guy doesnt have some upside but can you afford a high pick on that.

ElectricEye
01-07-2012, 12:54 PM
I think the negative, at least for me, is he hasnt a lot of starts and add to that he'll have to sit for a couple of years. Not saying the guy doesnt have some upside but can you afford a high pick on that.

Ideally, you put him in a situation to sit behind a decent quarterback for at least a year. Looking at possible landing spots, Washington, Miami, Buffalo, or Seattle in the second round could be decent landing spots, with Miami and Buffalo being the two best situations for both parties involved. The Eagles could make some sense as well...and they even have an extra second round pick to make that happen and still come away with someone who could help right away.

Raiderz4Life
01-07-2012, 01:24 PM
I would say come on down to Oakland but...we don't have any picks...so there goes that.

SchizophrenicBatman
01-07-2012, 01:47 PM
Do the people who think Tannehill's arm is better have eyes?

Osweiler needs a lot of work but he has as much upside as anyone in this draft. The swing passes were part of his offense. My biggest problem with him is a lack of awareness when he throws the ball - you can call it "locking in" but it's a little more than that. It's almost like he doesn't have good peripheral vision, or maybe he just doesn't care. Idk. The draft process will be big for him. Could go anywhere from late first to 6th depending on how he does

Go watch his game against USC if you think he has anything in common with Gabbert

Babylon
01-07-2012, 02:59 PM
Do the people who think Tannehill's arm is better have eyes?

Osweiler needs a lot of work but he has as much upside as anyone in this draft. The swing passes were part of his offense. My biggest problem with him is a lack of awareness when he throws the ball - you can call it "locking in" but it's a little more than that. It's almost like he doesn't have good peripheral vision, or maybe he just doesn't care. Idk. The draft process will be big for him. Could go anywhere from late first to 6th depending on how he does

Go watch his game against USC if you think he has anything in common with Gabbert

Which means what exactly?

Matthew Jones
01-07-2012, 03:07 PM
Anyone comparing Osweiler to Ryan Tannehill should probably reconsider; Osweiler does not deserve to go in the first two or three rounds of the draft. Very mentally raw and at this point not one of the top five or six quarterbacks in the draft. Osweiler seems to be too tall for his own good and has a very awkward style of scrambling.

ElectricEye
01-07-2012, 03:23 PM
Anyone comparing Osweiler to Ryan Tannehill should probably reconsider; Osweiler does not deserve to go in the first two or three rounds of the draft. Very mentally raw and at this point not one of the top five or six quarterbacks in the draft. Osweiler seems to be too tall for his own good and has a very awkward style of scrambling.

Would you really take Foles or Cousins over him? I like Cousins for what he is, but at best he ends up being a Ryan Fitzpatrick type player...and he isn't even assured of that. Foles is a statistical illusion. I don't see the skills that translate to playing quarterback in the NFL there. His accuracy isn't as good as his completion percentage says it is and his arm isn't anything special either.

Osweiler has problems and is very raw, I do agree there. I would try to coach him out of trying to run entirely if I could, as he seems to think that he can run far better than he actually is able to(although he moves very well for a player of his stature), but there's far more to like physically over the rest of the crop. He's taller than the usual guys you look for, but taking the standard courtesy inch off, he's only really an extra inch or two taller than ideal. That would be a concerned if he was awkward and uncoordinated, but I fail to see how it's anything more than an aesthetic issue with his movement skills and coordination.

The only thing I'm really concerned about besides the mental side of it and general lack of refinement is his release. It's a little bit lower than you would prefer, but at 6'7/6'8, he can probably be one of those guys that can get away with it. Still, he could get a lot more zip on the ball and probably increase his accuracy with a more conventional windup/release.

I don't know. It seems like I'm taking a more bullish stance on Osweiler than the majority of people are, but I still feel pretty good about it. Not a perfect prospect or even a legitimate first round type of guy, but after Luck and Griffin(and maybe Tannehill), I feel pretty good about him vs. what else is available. His flaws are very correctable. He's coming off his first year of starting and is still just 21 years old. He needed some more time in the oven for sure, but his physical skills have the potential to make him a far better player down the road than the rest of the guys he's competing against positionally.

SuperPacker
01-07-2012, 03:27 PM
Anyone comparing Osweiler to Ryan Tannehill should probably reconsider; Osweiler does not deserve to go in the first two or three rounds of the draft. Very mentally raw and at this point not one of the top five or six quarterbacks in the draft. Osweiler seems to be too tall for his own good and has a very awkward style of scrambling.

I agree! Osweiler is behind Andrew Luck, RG3, Nick Foles, Russell Wilson, Kirk Cousins, Case Keenum, Brandon Weedan and Ryan Tannehill in my quarterback rankings.

SolidGold
01-07-2012, 04:28 PM
Comparing Brock with Tannehill is fair in my opinion. They both took over about mid-way through the 2010 season as the starting QBs. Both are athletic...Brock with a b-ball background and Tannehill spending 2 1/2 years as a very good WR. The lack of experience/being raw QBs is obvious. They both have all the tools needed to succeed. They pass the eyeball test - can make all the throws etc.

I think their two main differences are the fact Osweiler is huge - basically has a Power Forwards body playing QB. The automatic comparison is to Dan McGuire who was 6'8" as well, but watching Brock play he is very fluid in his movements and coordinated...not awkward at all and that Brock played in a spread offense while Tannehill's was more Pro-style. Tannehill also had the benefit of learning under a former NFL head coach in Mike Sherman.

I would argue that Brock had the better season than Tannehill (and I am/was the biggest Tannehill fan at the beginning of the season). They both play in conferences not known for playing defense so that can't really favor one over the other.I could see Brock as a mid second rounder./early third rounder Tannehill will probably go in the mid-late first.

My QB Rankings would be:
1. Luck
2. Griffin III
3. Tannehill
4. Osweiler
5. Cousins
6. Foles
7. Wilson
8. Weeden
9. Harnish
10. Kellen Moore

Also an interesting note is that the Redskins coaching staff will be coaching the Senior Bowl. I would not be surprised of Shanahan falls in love w/ Tannehill (kind of like the Bengals with Dalton) and ends up drafting him. Both Luck and Griffin will be gone when the Redskins are up to draft and after last year's draft with all the QB craziness it cannot be discounted that Tannehill could go as high as number 6.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-07-2012, 04:33 PM
Anyone comparing Osweiler to Ryan Tannehill should probably reconsider; Osweiler does not deserve to go in the first two or three rounds of the draft. Very mentally raw and at this point not one of the top five or six quarterbacks in the draft. Osweiler seems to be too tall for his own good and has a very awkward style of scrambling.


Yes. I agree that Osweiler has a lot to like as a developmental guy, but Tannehill is so much more natural in just about every way. Tannehill's a year + project you take in the first. Osweiler's one you take in the 2nd, earliest, and you prefer to wait for Round 3.

Matthew Jones
01-07-2012, 04:47 PM
Rough quarterback rankings:

1. Andrew Luck, Stanford*

2. Robert Griffin, Baylor*

3. Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M

4. Nick Foles, Arizona

5. Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma St.

6. Kirk Cousins, Michigan St.

7. Brock Osweiler, Arizona St.*

8. Kellen Moore, Boise St.

9. Russell Wilson, Wisconsin

10. Case Keenum, Houston

Raiderz4Life
01-07-2012, 05:20 PM
Idk I like Osweiler more than Foles and Cousins. I actually like him better than Tannehill but I can see how he would be rated higher.

niel89
01-07-2012, 05:47 PM
The guy isn't that great but he has good tools and is a good addition to this class. I can see maybe a 2nd or 3rd after workouts. A couple years to develop and he could be a player.

FUNBUNCHER
01-07-2012, 08:01 PM
Does Osweiler have problems taking snaps under center, because of his height??

nepg
01-07-2012, 08:13 PM
I like Brock a lot as a prospect. I get the vibe that he's a complete douche, but that's just ASU in general. He's big, athletic, and could be a really great player down the road. Just needs a great coach to work with him for a year or two.

Not really sure how I'd grade him. If I'm Seattle and have no shot at Luck/Griffin, I take a serious look at this guy as he might not be there when they pick in the 2nd Round and they should be desperate enough to take a shot at a guy like this at this point.

ellsy82
01-08-2012, 03:20 AM
Rough quarterback rankings:

1. Andrew Luck, Stanford*
2. Robert Griffin, Baylor*
3. Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M
4. Nick Foles, Arizona
5. Brandon Weeden, Oklahoma St.
6. Kirk Cousins, Michigan St.
7. Brock Osweiler, Arizona St.*
8. Kellen Moore, Boise St.
9. Russell Wilson, Wisconsin
10. Case Keenum, Houston

Wow...and laughs.

Caulibflower
01-08-2012, 03:59 AM
Just watched all his throws against Boise State, and he looked terrible. Sure, he can throw a rope. And I'll give him this, he moves really smoothly for being such a big guy. But he seems to have a "If my guy is covered... I'll just throw it harder" mentality. His accuracy was all over the place. He locked onto his receivers, the defense was tipping tons of balls, dropped a few interceptions, and generally looked like they were too much for Osweiler to handle. He really did not look good at all, and this game is my first impression of him, so... He's got some ground to make up with me. Watching that game, I've honestly got no idea why he decided to go pro. Didn't look like a guy I'd draft. Decision-making and accuracy really looked bad to me.

SuperPacker
01-08-2012, 05:19 AM
Just watched all his throws against Boise State, and he looked terrible. Sure, he can throw a rope. And I'll give him this, he moves really smoothly for being such a big guy. But he seems to have a "If my guy is covered... I'll just throw it harder" mentality. His accuracy was all over the place. He locked onto his receivers, the defense was tipping tons of balls, dropped a few interceptions, and generally looked like they were too much for Osweiler to handle. He really did not look good at all, and this game is my first impression of him, so... He's got some ground to make up with me. Watching that game, I've honestly got no idea why he decided to go pro. Didn't look like a guy I'd draft. Decision-making and accuracy really looked bad to me.

I watched this game too and i was horified by what i saw. By the end i couldnt watch it because it was so bad. And its not even like Boise Stare are a good defense, i cant even begin to imagine what he would look like against Alabama for LSU.

The other tape i've seen has been average at best. I thinks hes a cerrtain bust if he goes as high as people think he will.

Matthew Jones
01-08-2012, 07:49 AM
Osweiler takes snaps almost exclusively from the shotgun, makes almost no pre-snap reads, locks onto targets and refuses to go to his second or third options, throws into tight coverage regularly, alters his release angle from throw to throw, and has scattershot accuracy. What did he ever win in college? Oh yeah, nothing. Easily the least mentally ready of any major quarterback prospect.

Babylon
01-08-2012, 11:45 AM
I like Brock a lot as a prospect. I get the vibe that he's a complete douche, but that's just ASU in general. He's big, athletic, and could be a really great player down the road. Just needs a great coach to work with him for a year or two.

Not really sure how I'd grade him. If I'm Seattle and have no shot at Luck/Griffin, I take a serious look at this guy as he might not be there when they pick in the 2nd Round and they should be desperate enough to take a shot at a guy like this at this point.

If you're implying that Seattle would/should take him at #11 that is just rediculous. Blake might have some upside and i think a mid-round pick is about right but to reach for him in the first.... well i guess i've said enough.

BeerBaron
01-08-2012, 11:49 AM
If you're implying that Seattle would/should take him at #11 that is just rediculous. Blake might have some upside and i think a mid-round pick is about right but to reach for him in the first.... well i guess i've said enough.

Hmmm...

Hmmmm....

Where I have I heard this story before...hmmm...

http://bleedblackandgold.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sports_missouri_football_blaine_gabbert_jaguars_je rsey_nfl.jpg

Demand always outweighs supply at QB in the NFL. Guys with even the smallest hint of potential get pushed up and thrown into bad situations.

Would I take Osweiler in the 3rd and sit him for at least 2 years where he wouldn't play barring injury? Absolutely. I love his potential in a situation like that. (Think, Ryan Mallett to the Patriots situation.)

But those situations are incredibly rare and, as I said, demand outweighs supply at QB, so it wouldn't be a stretch to see him be a first round pick and end up playing next year.

Babylon
01-08-2012, 12:02 PM
Hmmm...

Hmmmm....

Where I have I heard this story before...hmmm...

http://bleedblackandgold.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/sports_missouri_football_blaine_gabbert_jaguars_je rsey_nfl.jpg

Demand always outweighs supply at QB in the NFL. Guys with even the smallest hint of potential get pushed up and thrown into bad situations.

Would I take Osweiler in the 3rd and sit him for at least 2 years where he wouldn't play barring injury? Absolutely. I love his potential in a situation like that. (Think, Ryan Mallett to the Patriots situation.)

But those situations are incredibly rare and, as I said, demand outweighs supply at QB, so it wouldn't be a stretch to see him be a first round pick and end up playing next year.

God i'd have to call the moving van.

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 12:06 PM
Osweiler takes snaps almost exclusively from the shotgun, makes almost no pre-snap reads, locks onto targets and refuses to go to his second or third options, throws into tight coverage regularly, alters his release angle from throw to throw, and has scattershot accuracy. What did he ever win in college? Oh yeah, nothing. Easily the least mentally ready of any major quarterback prospect.

That sounds an awful lot like Nick Foles minus the release point issues. I wouldn't say he's "refuses to go to his second or third options" either. He just ins't asked to within his offense. That's an issue going forward(as it is for a lot of collegian quarterbacks coming out of spread systems), but I've seen him go through progressions enough to the point where I don't think it's completely hopeless. Quickest and best example I can think of is the first scoring drive in the Missouri game. On the long pass to Robinson, he looked to Pflugrad first and gave a little pump fake. It was enough to suck the zone guy over the top in a bit and give Robinson enough space to go vertical. He did a good job hitting him in stride on the subsequent throw. Two plays later, he had trips to the free side and the inside guys ran into coverage with the outside guy not getting open fast enough. He did a good job identifying this and looking to the other side of the field and finding the back running the curl for a touchdown.

I'm sort of uncomfortable with how often Gabbert is coming up in this discussion early. I don't think it frames it in the right place, and the comparisons would not be fair. The tools are similar...but there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, Gabbert has very good tools. Osweiler has already shown early in his collegian career that he's willing to throw down the field, both long and mid-range...and he doesn't take off at the rush the same way Gabbert does.

But in the end, it's all about potential with Osweiler. His physical skills project very well to being an above average starting quarterback in the NFL with some work. After Tannehill, the guys he's competing with are limited in terms of ceiling. I would rather take a chance on Osweiler in the second or third round knowing he can develop into someone who can be a plus player as opposed to taking a guy like Foles or Cousins who I already know isn't likely to be more than a below average starter/or a backup...even if Osweiler fails to develop. It's much better to aim high and miss than it is to take a guy who you can just get by with. You can find guys like that on the scrap heap/on the end of teams rosters. The same can't be said of guys who are 6'8 with strong arms and movement skills.

PossibleCabbage
01-08-2012, 01:23 PM
I really don't like Osweiler as a prospect, not only does he really struggle with the mental aspect of the game, I really don't like super-tall QBs in the modern NFL (Osweiler is like 6'8"). Not only is "being a statue in the pocket" problematic in the modern NFL, but having your center of gravity that high really messes with your footwork (and Osweiler's is not good.) If there's anything that's underreported as to what separates the great from the good in the QB business, it's footwork.

So personally, while I would have a day 2 grade on Tannehill, I wouldn't take Osweiler until day 3... which is to say "I would wait for someone else to draft him." Personally, I have Osweiler graded about the same as Kellen Moore: both have big time reds I'm not sure if I can correct, for Moore it's size and arm strength, for Osweiler it's mental and footwork. Osweiler probably comes out ahead, but only just, because there's no way Moore gets taller whereas the other three red flags are theoretically fixable.

BeerBaron
01-08-2012, 01:36 PM
Moore is undraftable. To even mention him in the same breath as Osweiler is insanity.

PossibleCabbage
01-08-2012, 01:55 PM
Moore is undraftable. To even mention him in the same breath as Osweiler is insanity.

I have a sixth round grade on both of them. The difference between my sixth round grade and your undraftable isn't that large.

Both have "career backup" as their ceiling and "out of the NFL before the end of their rookie contract" as a more likely scenario.

BeerBaron
01-08-2012, 02:25 PM
I have a sixth round grade on both of them. The difference between my sixth round grade and your undraftable isn't that large.

Both have "career backup" as their ceiling and "out of the NFL before the end of their rookie contract" as a more likely scenario.

I don't want a 5'11 backup QB with a arm that even Ken Dorsey laughs at.

Physical tools, which Osweiler has, always makes a guy at least worth a look. At least the base is there to build on. Osweiler, if allowed to do some sitting and developing, could become an NFL passer. That is why he is a mid-round pick based on potential.

Kellen Moore simply does not have the required physical tools for the job. Undraftable.

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 02:42 PM
It's slightly absurd to peg a guy with one year of starting experience and less than 700 attempts in major college football with the ceiling of a career backup, especially when there's a a very good package of tools. That's not how ceilings work.


Plus, it's not like the guy was completely unaccomplished as a passer in the college level; he had a pretty decent year for a first year starter. Watching tape, you come away far more impressed with the potential rather than the polish, but there's stuff to like. His release point is inconsistent, but it's a fairly quick and compact motion. He leads receivers fairly well. Moves around within the pocket very well too, and demonstrates the ability to be slippery with the rush. People make it sound like he's Blaine Gabbert at Missouri and he really wasn't.

San Diego Chicken
01-08-2012, 03:29 PM
As an ASU fan the one thing I wish Brock would have done is held the team together after that UCLA loss. He needs to progress as a leader and develop his football intelligence. Tries to take the game into his own hands, instead of being the point guard for his offense (which was a very basic one back offense, shouldn't have been very hard to learn). Needs work on the release and mechanics too.

But the dude has the physical requisites to play in the NFL and then some. I can't honestly blame him for declaring because this program is a mess right now. Had he returned and progressed I probably would have said 2nd, maybe late 1st, right now it's looking like rounds 3-4 for me but we'll see.

PossibleCabbage
01-08-2012, 03:35 PM
I don't want a 5'11 backup QB with a arm that even Ken Dorsey laughs at.

Physical tools, which Osweiler has, always makes a guy at least worth a look. At least the base is there to build on. Osweiler, if allowed to do some sitting and developing, could become an NFL passer. That is why he is a mid-round pick based on potential.

Kellen Moore simply does not have the required physical tools for the job. Undraftable.

If you ask me whether I'd draft a 5'11" QB or a 6'8" QB, I will draft the short guy every time. Taller than ideal is worse than shorter than ideal for a quarterback, these days.

I'm also inclined to prefer a guy with football intelligence but a weak arm over a guy with no football IQ but a canon. I don't want to draft either player though.

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 03:48 PM
So a guy has no football IQ because he made some mistakes and needs the same kind of refinement that most usually need as a first year starter? That's awfully absolute.

BeerBaron
01-08-2012, 03:54 PM
There is absolutely no evidence that Osweiler lacks football IQ. You draft Moore and I'll draft Osweiler. 5 years from now, when you've got, at ABSOLUTE best, a Colt McCoy Lite averaging 5.5 ypa in an offense with no teeth, while I've developed my QB with actual physical tools into a franchise passer.

"You'll take the short guy", what an asinine thing to say.

The average NFL QB is 6'3 and if you worked out a top 10 QB list in the NFL right now, the only guy on it under 6'2 will be Drew Brees, a very serious exception to the general rule.

Also, Brees arm >>>>>>>>>>> Kellen Moore's.

You'll take Moore over Osweiler...good luck.

Caulibflower
01-08-2012, 03:55 PM
So a guy has no football IQ because he made some mistakes and needs the same kind of refinement that a guy usually needs as a first year starter? That's awfully absolute.

I'm not just ragging on Osweiler because I'm bored, but he looked overwhelmed against a BSU team that is known much more for its offense than its defense. And for a guy who's suddenly jumped into the borderline first round/day one conversation, I was literally surprised by how bad I thought he looked when I started watching him. And what really bothered me, more than his lack of awareness, was his lack of accuracy. I've been making a lot of posts in support of Tannehill despite him not being the most cerebral quarterback at this stage in his career, so that's not the case I'm making against Osweiler. That is something that nearly all rookies have to make huge progress in when the enter the NFL, and for guys who haven't played the position for very long, you just understand that they've got farther to go. Sure, he could be a nice project for some guy because of his tools, but if I'm going to draft a "project" quarterback in the first few rounds, he has to show accuracy and composure, and those are the big things that were missing for me when I watched Osweiler.

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 04:03 PM
That Boise State game was a complete **** show. There's no getting around that on any front. He finished with very strong numbers, but that was the worst I saw him in the five games I saw him this year. You've got to take the fact that the coaching staff there was not long for this world(I'm fairly certain Erickson had already been told he wasn't coming back). ASU came out flat and just did not look at all prepared to play football. I'm not going to hold one game, where much of the story lines and attention were put on things other than preparing to beat a much stronger football team, against him.

...and Boise isn't exactly a scrub defensive team either. Know more for their offense? Sure. But they still finished 16th in the country defensively on the year. Arizona State was clearly outcoached and overmatched in that game.

Caulibflower
01-08-2012, 04:04 PM
That Boise State game was a complete **** show. There's no getting around that on any front. He finished with very strong numbers, but that was the worst I saw him in the five games I saw him this year. You've got to take the fact that the coaching staff there was not long for this world(I'm fairly certain Erickson had already been told he wasn't coming back). ASU came out flat and just did not look at all prepared to play football. I'm not going to hold one game, where much of the story lines and attention were put on things other than preparing to beat a much stronger football team, against him.

...and Boise isn't exactly a scrub defensive team either. Know more for their offense? Sure. But they still finished 16th in the country defensively on the year. Arizona State was clearly outcoached and overmatched in that game.

What game would you suggest as evidence for his potential?

Hurricanes25
01-08-2012, 04:09 PM
What game would you suggest as evidence for his potential?

Missouri this past season.

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 04:13 PM
What game would you suggest as evidence for his potential?

Nothing specific. Missouri was probably the best I saw out of the games I saw (I watched USC, Oregon, and Boise as well. Out of those, he played the best against USC, although that was won with high percentage passing and misdirection more so than anything). He was real good in that one, although as a rule with Osweiler it isn't about what he did in college, it's about what he can potentially do. I don't think he was a real good fit in that offense or that he was very well coached, which certainly doesn't do him any favors when you look at his film. I don't think it's weak, but it's certainly not as strong as it should be for someone with his talent level.

PossibleCabbage
01-08-2012, 05:37 PM
So a guy has no football IQ because he made some mistakes and needs the same kind of refinement that most usually need as a first year starter? That's awfully absolute.

Okay, I will be specific in terms of what I don't like about Osweiler:

-He's too tall.
-He has a slow release due to his length
-He's incapable of making pre-snap reads right now.
-Though that's probably because he often makes the decision of "who he's throwing the ball to" before the snap.
-His footwork is lethargic under ordinary circumstances.
-His ball-placement on intermediate routes is poor.
-He doesn't re-set his feet well when moving to a secondary target, particularly when pressured, as he gets the proverbial "happy feet."
-He drops his elbow when trying to throw quickly, or deep, which hurts his accuracy. His release point is just generally inconsistent.
-When you force him outside the pocket, he stops looking downfield.
-Worked pretty much exclusively from the gun, given his footwork troubles elsewhere I really don't know how well he can do anything that's not "catch, rock, and throw."
-He has only 15 starts and hasn't even won half of them.

He's basically a poor man's John Skelton. Can he turn into a decent NFL player? Possibly, but it will be a long reclamation project. I don't think he'll be ready to start for an NFL team before the end of his rookie contract, there's a whole lot that needs fixing. So I wouldn't take him before round six, maybe late in round 5.

Putting Moore (and Tannehill) completely aside, I have Osweiler behind Nick Foles, Brandon Weeden, Kirk Cousins, Case Keenum, and Russell Wilson (among others).

ElectricEye
01-08-2012, 06:02 PM
Okay, I will be specific in terms of what I don't like about Osweiler:

-He's too tall.
-He has a slow release due to his length
-He's incapable of making pre-snap reads right now.
-Though that's probably because he often makes the decision of "who he's throwing the ball to" before the snap.
-His footwork is lethargic under ordinary circumstances.
-His ball-placement on intermediate routes is poor.
-He doesn't re-set his feet well when moving to a secondary target, particularly when pressured, as he gets the proverbial "happy feet."
-He drops his elbow when trying to throw quickly, or deep, which hurts his accuracy. His release point is just generally inconsistent.
-When you force him outside the pocket, he stops looking downfield.
-Worked pretty much exclusively from the gun, given his footwork troubles elsewhere I really don't know how well he can do anything that's not "catch, rock, and throw."
-He has only 15 starts and hasn't even won half of them.

He's basically a poor man's John Skelton. Can he turn into a decent NFL player? Possibly, but it will be a long reclamation project. I don't think he'll be ready to start for an NFL team before the end of his rookie contract, there's a whole lot that needs fixing. So I wouldn't take him before round six, maybe late in round 5.

-I fail to see how being too tall is anything more than an aesthetic concern. He takes hits just fine and hasn't been ripped in half yet. He's only two inches taller than ideal; we're not talking about a guy who is like 7 feet here. An inch or two extra isn't going to make a huge difference.

-That's absolutely untrue. Osweiler's release point is an issue, but I actually think that's because he "cheats" by dropping it and just using his arm in the sake of getting the ball out. Still, his motion is very efficient and compact. He gets it out quickly, even.

-Incapable or not asked to? Cam Newton is a pretty good proof of concept that those two don't always go along. Aaron Rodgers too, if you want to go back that far.

-He doesn't need to use his feet as much as other guys do. When you can put as much on the ball as he can with pure arm strength, you can get away with throwing with your feet planted as opposed to stepping in. The important thing is that he doesn't drift backwards.

-Fair. Accuracy is something he'll have to work on.

-Fair.

-I agree. Cleaning up his release will be the biggest thing. He'll be able to get away with throwing side arm a bit because of his height, but getting it more consistent and establishing a motion he's comfortable with will be a point of emphasis. Still, we're not talking Tim Tebow here.

-Something else he'll have to work on. He clearly wasn't coached very well during his tenure at ASU. I don't think he was a real good fit for that offense either. He would have done better in a system that asked for him to throw the ball down the field more.... although he functioned in that spread fairly well.

-This is getting to be more and more of an issue that's blown of proportion with the prevalence of the spread in college. A lot of the guys you have listed ahead of him have the same issue without the advantage of Osweiler's athleticism.

So yeah, I do agree that he has some issues...they just aren't nearly big enough to outweigh the potential reward and talent level he brings to the table. Quarterbacks are adjusting quicker and quicker to the NFL game these days between the rule changes and coaching....I don't think it would take until the end of his rookie contract to clean up his release and integrate him into an NFL offense.

Putting Moore (and Tannehill) completely aside, I have Osweiler behind Nick Foles, Brandon Weeden, Kirk Cousins, Case Keenum, and Russell Wilson (among others).

It's funny, because a lot of those guys have some of the concerns you have about Osweiler except to an even worse extent, without the talent to make up for it. Foles is basically the guy you think Osweiler is; inaccurate, poor at making reads, throwing into coverage often, and a complete statue. Keenum plays in a system that doesn't demand complex reads and is the epitome of quarterback friendly. Wilson is drastically undersized, lacks the arm strength to be an NFL starter, and is another one read guy. Weeden I have a tougher time knocking, but the fact that he's going to be close to 30 his rookie year isn't going to do him any favors.

Just to be clear; I'm not in love with Osweiler. I like what he can do and I think there's still a whole to of potential there. With that comes significant projection, but I don't see Blaine Gabbert like some of you do. My main thing is that I think it's slightly asinine to have him ranked behind guys who clearly aren't going to be much more than backups in the NFL.

ChiFan24
01-09-2012, 04:35 PM
I single handedly beat Osweiler when ASU played at Illinois in September. I don't usually go to games because I'd rather watch good college teams on TV, but that night I whipped that student section into shape. Started a couple Osweiler chants. Dude was lost.

The sad thing is there is a small part of me that actually believes this ^

Brown Leader
01-10-2012, 08:23 PM
I looked at that Illinois game, statistically his worst game of the season, expecting to see something awful. Far from it.

He demonstrated some strong pocket awareness, footwork and NFL type throws while under pressure. His picks were basically flukes off of deflections (hit while passing and a tip at the line.) Illinois had free rushers all game and he showed poise, ignoring them and moving in the pocket, staying focused down-field and throwing or taking off and showing good running ability. Illinois' defense played well and overwhelmed him more than a few times (6 sacks)but generally he stood in, fired the ball and took his shots. It's what I've seen from him in most of the games I've watched. In that sense, he's nothing like Gabbert. And I didn't see any glaring accuracy issues despite the heavy pressure.

ChiFan24
01-10-2012, 09:39 PM
He has a lot of Mallet's negative qualities. He just stands there and throws it. Doesn't seem to move very well within in the pocket, doesn't try to manipulate the defense with his eyes, seems slow to react when the defense throws him something he's not expecting. Granted I'm basing this off of two games early in the season and a little bit of his bowl game, but at this point I think he's a mid rounder.

Brown Leader
01-10-2012, 10:12 PM
He has a lot of Mallet's negative qualities. He just stands there and throws it. Doesn't seem to move very well within in the pocket, doesn't try to manipulate the defense with his eyes, seems slow to react when the defense throws him something he's not expecting. Granted I'm basing this off of two games early in the season and a little bit of his bowl game, but at this point I think he's a mid rounder.
http://images.quickblogcast.com/8/3/1/4/7/184722-174138/smh2.gif

fenikz
01-10-2012, 10:13 PM
Ya that's just wrong not sure what game you're watching he's nothing like mallett

ChiFan24
01-11-2012, 01:49 AM
Didn't say he was like Mallett; he's probably more similar to Gabbert overall. Didn't even question his overall mobility; just his ability to navigate in the pocket. I picked out some things that I disliked about Osweiler, and noted that they were similar to the things I disliked about Mallett.

bored of education
01-18-2012, 06:06 PM
A lot of hype building up Brock to become a late 1st, early 2nd. He has a lot of physical skills and is very moldable piece of clay. He is working with Condon as well.

DraftSavant
01-18-2012, 06:07 PM
A lot of hype building up Brock to become a late 1st, early 2nd. He has a lot of physical skills and is very moldable piece of clay. He is working with Condon as well.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This boy is going in the first. Get used to it already, guys.

bored of education
01-18-2012, 06:10 PM
SEA, KC, Wash, Oakland, someone will trade to end of first or take him in the 2nd. The guy is very malleable. HE won't be much for a year or two but his skill set is one of the best in the draft, just raw.

Babylon
01-18-2012, 06:32 PM
SEA, KC, Wash, Oakland, someone will trade to end of first or take him in the 2nd. The guy is very malleable. HE won't be much for a year or two but his skill set is one of the best in the draft, just raw.

The only problem with the 4 teams you mentioned (and most others) is they all want to win now. Osweiller is at least two full years away, minimum.

bored of education
01-18-2012, 06:38 PM
I understand what you are saying about two years. Agreed. But some team will draft him higher than top 50. I have him in the 50-75 range based upon the two/four year projection.

TACKLE
01-18-2012, 06:39 PM
I understand what you are saying about two years. Agreed. But some team will draft him higher than top 50. I have him in the 50-75 range based upon the two/four year projection.

Where abouts on a 4/8 year projection?

bored of education
01-18-2012, 06:48 PM
Where abouts on a 4/8 year projection?

Better than RG3.

ElectricEye
01-18-2012, 06:52 PM
I'm not sure I would take him in the first, but I certainly would take him above the guys after Tannehill if I needed a quarterback. That probably takes moving up. Not sure if it's worth it, but I could see someone doing it. I really can't see him lasting much longer than the middle of the second. I think I said it earlier, but I feel like the Eagles could be a sleeper candidate with one of their two second rounders. It makes a lot of sense for them to bring in someone who can start eventually over Vick, especially with how he's struggled to stay healthy.

SchizophrenicBatman
01-18-2012, 08:00 PM
If you're a QB prospect is there any reason NOT to sign with Tom Condon?

neoroks32
01-28-2012, 06:44 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S6YODMPNgSA

BREAKDOWN
I just watched tape on Brock, yes he is a very talented quarterback his ceiling is a Ben Rothelisburger, at worst he's a stronger armed alex smith

ARM STRENGHT
Excellent:
He does have really good arm strength, right on par with anyone within this draft class.

MOBILITY
Above Average:
Is he Cam Newton? No, but he's no sloach. More quick then fast, a long strider that bulids momentum. would not be surprised if his 10-yard split is identical to Robert Griffin. He's defintely more athletc then you'd expect from a 6'7" 250lb quaterback.

ACCURACY
Below Average:
On the watched tape his most accurate passes were on premeditated quick passes flats/curls etc. Most of his throws were too high, which i believe is a combination of his height and terrible offensive line play. Also has many passes that are too low, which happens when he aims the throw instead of just winging it.

FIELD VISION/ DECISION MAKING
N/A:
This is harder to examine because of the spread offense he is in. For being in the offense for 3 years you'd expect him to make better throws and relize when to use touch. But every ball is thrown at 100mph, into covered recievers. This scraes me when projected to the NFL is because everybody in the NFL is fast, he wont get away with nearly as many throws that he gets away with in the tape. Another reason why its harder to evaluate his decision making is he had no help at all from his offensive line.

FINAL JUDGEMENT
3-4 round quaterback. There is no denying his talent, its easy to see why someone could fall in love with him. But to me he needs serious development. He has all the flashy qualities you want in a QB, big arm, size, mobility, but there's something missing as you can see in the tape. He should be taken mid second round but some team is gonna fall in love with how he throws in the combine with no defenders, showing off his physical attributes. But he's not ready for early playing time a first round pick demands, especially from the QB position. He'd be best on a team with a good offensive line that would get him the need time to shread a team apart, which he does have the potential to do.

Comparison: Blain Gabbert

P.S. if you want me to do anymore evaluations private message me who you want me to take a look at

Matthew Jones
01-28-2012, 07:35 PM
The hype surrounding Osweiler is bewildering; aside from being (awkwardly) tall and having a strong arm, he possesses none of the qualities that make a quarterback prospect attractive. He's not a proven winner, he lacks extensive starting experience, he never makes reads or goes through progressions, his accuracy is hit-or-miss, his touch is nonexistent, his release point is always changing, and his decision-making is lackluster. For all the praise he receives for his "athleticism", he often scrambles directly into defenders. Osweiler is of the most likely busts in the entire draft class.

ElectricEye
01-28-2012, 08:08 PM
Again; we're basing this on all of one year of him starting. That's a knock on him. No doubt about that, it's something people will have to consider. It does mean that there's room for projection though. I thought thought the writeup Neoroks did was very fair, even if I'm slightly higher on him. There's no guaranteeing that he'll improve, but he has a much better chance of doing so than some of the guys you have ranked ahead of him....and a much higher ceiling if he does. NFL Teams aren't betting the farm on him with a third or fourth round pick(or even a second, necessarily). He's a "let's see what we can do with him" kind of guy. Prospect aren't static; you can realistically expect improvement from guys who have the skills to do so provided they're coached well.

MassNole
01-29-2012, 11:39 AM
Again; we're basing this on all of one year of him starting. That's a knock on him. No doubt about that, it's something people will have to consider. It does mean that there's room for projection though. I thought thought the writeup Neoroks did was very fair, even if I'm slightly higher on him. There's no guaranteeing that he'll improve, but he has a much better chance of doing so than some of the guys you have ranked ahead of him....and a much higher ceiling if he does. NFL Teams aren't betting the farm on him with a third or fourth round pick(or even a second, necessarily). He's a "let's see what we can do with him" kind of guy. Prospect aren't static; you can realistically expect improvement from guys who have the skills to do so provided they're coached well.
Cam Newton was a one year starter in a Spread offense, when you have the tools this kid has, it isn't that big of a deal.

SolidGold
01-29-2012, 11:54 AM
I like Osweiler's potential. He has all the tools, he played well all season, it wasn't his fault that ASU went into a tailspin. I would project him as a second round pick. I can't really blame him for leaving ASU with the new coaching staff coming in. If he had stayed for another year he would of been a 1st round pick.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-29-2012, 12:41 PM
Cam Newton was a one year starter in a Spread offense, when you have the tools this kid has, it isn't that big of a deal.


Cam Newton was way more impressive than Osweiler.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 12:43 PM
Newton's tools >>>>>>>>>>>> Osweiler's.

Osweiler isn't going to do anything close to what Newton did. No one, absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, would have reasonably predicted Newton doing what he did. Don't even try to lie about it.

And that also makes him an incredible exception to the general rule. "Newton was successful after being a one year starter, therefore, all one year starters will be good!"

Haha...no. God, the simple-mindedness of some people makes me feel so damn intelligent.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Newton's tools >>>>>>>>>>>> Osweiler's.

Osweiler isn't going to do anything close to what Newton did. No one, absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, would have reasonably predicted Newton doing what he did. Don't even try to lie about it.

And that also makes him an incredible exception to the general rule. "Newton was successful after being a one year starter, therefore, all one year starters will be good!"

Haha...no. God, the simple-mindedness of some people makes me feel so damn intelligent.


Not only that, but most people had zero concerns about Cam's throwing motion, footwork, etc. He got a little lazy from time to time, but there really wasn't much of a question he could do it all.

The questions were more about character, and intelligence (which is where I really missed on him).

Babylon
01-29-2012, 12:49 PM
Newton's tools >>>>>>>>>>>> Osweiler's.

Osweiler isn't going to do anything close to what Newton did. No one, absolutely no one, anywhere, ever, would have reasonably predicted Newton doing what he did. Don't even try to lie about it.

And that also makes him an incredible exception to the general rule. "Newton was successful after being a one year starter, therefore, all one year starters will be good!"

Haha...no. God, the simple-mindedness of some people makes me feel so damn intelligent.

Probably would have been better to use Mark Sanchez or even a Ryan Tannehill for a comparison, neither of which had a lot of college starts.

Osweiller can really make a name for himself at the combine if he comes across as an intelligent guy who can make all the throws and he should show some atheltecism too. He'll probably move himself into that 3rd QB slot which based on need is going to lift his stock.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 12:51 PM
Not only that, but most people had zero concerns about Cam's throwing motion, footwork, etc. He got a little lazy from time to time, but there really wasn't much of a question he could do it all.

The questions were more about character, and intelligence (which is where I really missed on him).

Another thing that helped Newton to an insane degree was that opposing teams set up to stop his running because they didn't fear him as a passer. He proved to be a better passer right away than was expected and burnt them badly.

And Newton still has some issues to iron out. They were hidden really, really well last year but he's going to need to improve on them to have continued long term success.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 12:53 PM
Probably would have been better to use Mark Sanchez or even a Ryan Tannehill for a comparison, neither of which had a lot of college starts.

Osweiller can really make a name for himself at the combine if he comes across as an intelligent guy who can make all the throws and he should show some atheltecism too. He'll probably move himself into that 3rd QB slot which based on need is going to lift his stock.

I hate that term because no one can truly make ALL of the throws. The stronger your arm (with the requisite accuracy) the more you're going to be able to do on the field, continuing on forever.

I'd prefer to say that a QB "can make the baseline NFL throws."

Babylon
01-29-2012, 01:00 PM
I hate that term because no one can truly make ALL of the throws. The stronger your arm (with the requisite accuracy) the more you're going to be able to do on the field, continuing on forever.

I'd prefer to say that a QB "can make the baseline NFL throws."

Probably should have said can make the required throws of succesfull QBs, with around a 65% accuracy level. I guess i need to be more specific.

LonghornsLegend
01-29-2012, 01:11 PM
I really like Osweiler to the Jets if they keep Sanchez. All he needs is a good QB coach and some time, and he can really drive the ball in that weather. I guess he could make sense with Peyton there too but I'd venture to say they use as many early picks as they can for help.


Put him behind Sanchez and he can be a starter after a year if they part ways, then again someone will draft him who has no business and throw him out there in week 4 like Blaine Gabbert.

Victory X
01-29-2012, 01:12 PM
Cam Newton was way more impressive than Osweiler.

http://i.imgur.com/OyQY7.png

ATLDirtyBirds
01-29-2012, 01:16 PM
http://i.imgur.com/OyQY7.png


If someone's going to say, "Osweiler's got so many tools and look how successful Newton was with just one year's starting experience!" it worthy to note that Cam was better in every single ******* aspect.

PossibleCabbage
01-29-2012, 01:32 PM
I don't understand, at all, why people are comparing Osweiler to Newton. If there's a QB from last year to compare Osweiler to, it's Mallett what with awkward too-tall frame, the bad footwork, and the corresponding accuracy issues with non-primary reads and under pressure.

The key difference is that Osweiler lacks experience, while Mallett had big time character reds.

ElectricEye
01-29-2012, 01:36 PM
Mobility, size, and scheme. Newton isn't a good name to bring up because of the difference between the two running, but I wouldn't say Mallet is a good name either. Brock's ability to escape pressure and run a little bit makes him a drastically different player.

Babylon
01-29-2012, 01:38 PM
I don't understand, at all, why people are comparing Osweiler to Newton. If there's a QB from last year to compare Osweiler to, it's Mallett what with awkward too-tall frame, the bad footwork, and the corresponding accuracy issues with non-primary reads and under pressure.

The key difference is that Osweiler lacks experience, while Mallett had big time character reds.

Not sure anyone intended to compare him to Newton just their situations. (one full year starting)

1crazyredskinsfan
01-29-2012, 02:55 PM
to be 6ft 8inches tall,he really gets around good! he's a beast! i wish he'd fall into the skins laps draft day.he may not play this season,but he's worth waiting on,IMHO.

SchizophrenicBatman
01-29-2012, 03:13 PM
Osweiler's 40 time is probably going to be directly in between Newton's and Mallett's. He shouldn't be compared to either of them

PossibleCabbage
01-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Osweiler's 40 time is probably going to be directly in between Newton's and Mallett's. He shouldn't be compared to either of them

I honestly can't think of anything that takes place at the combine I care less about than "quarterback 40 times." He could run a 4.2 and that wouldn't elevate him as a QB prospect in my eyes.

Babylon
01-29-2012, 04:06 PM
I honestly can't think of anything that takes place at the combine I care less about than "quarterback 40 times." He could run a 4.2 and that wouldn't elevate him as a QB prospect in my eyes.

Agree. Not like those two guys in the game next week are speed burners. I do like to pay attention to shuttle times though.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 04:30 PM
If a 6'8 guy ran a 4.2 it would move him up my board pretty quickly.

...as a WR.

neoroks32
01-29-2012, 04:34 PM
If a 6'8 guy ran a 4.2 it would move him up my board pretty quickly.

...as a WR.

Lebron James???

1crazyredskinsfan
01-29-2012, 04:34 PM
He cetainly won't have a hard time seeing over the linemen ,will he?

PossibleCabbage
01-29-2012, 04:54 PM
If a 6'8 guy ran a 4.2 it would move him up my board pretty quickly.

...as a WR.

QBs often refuse to do WR drills, and I wouldn't draft this hypothetical 6'8" 4.2 guy until he shows me he can catch the ball.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 04:59 PM
QBs often refuse to do WR drills, and I wouldn't draft this hypothetical 6'8" 4.2 guy until he shows me he can catch the ball.

You can improve a guy's concentration on catching the ball and you can improve his route running. You can't teach 6'8 4.2.

fenikz
01-29-2012, 05:51 PM
I don't understand, at all, why people are comparing Osweiler to Newton. If there's a QB from last year to compare Osweiler to, it's Mallett what with awkward too-tall frame, the bad footwork, and the corresponding accuracy issues with non-primary reads and under pressure.

The key difference is that Osweiler lacks experience, while Mallett had big time character reds.

Osweiler is far closer to Newton than Mallett, not skill wise but just the way they play

MassNole
01-29-2012, 06:00 PM
QBs often refuse to do WR drills, and I wouldn't draft this hypothetical 6'8" 4.2 guy until he shows me he can catch the ball.
If said 6'8 player was a former high level basketball player I'd draft him regardless.

BeerBaron
01-29-2012, 06:05 PM
Osweiler is far closer to Newton than Mallett, not skill wise but just the way they play

Well that's like saying that I'm closer to Shaq than the guy who played Mini-Me. Newton and Mallett's styles of play are THAT drastically different. Newton is a smooth natural athlete while Mallett has bricks for feet.

LonghornsLegend
01-29-2012, 08:09 PM
Well that's like saying that I'm closer to Shaq than the guy who played Mini-Me. Newton and Mallett's styles of play are THAT drastically different. Newton is a smooth natural athlete while Mallett has bricks for feet.

Even then, that may be giving him 2 much credit lol. I think Mallett is, well let me say, can, be a very good NFL starting QB. Top 10 eventually. He just has to take this time seriously behind Brady, and I still think he's always going to run into issues if his line breaks down. Even a guy like Rivers who is just as clumsy, seems to have a much better feel for the pocket.


Luckily those are things you can learn with time if your not rushed, and the Pats seem to be well on their way to an elite offensive line.

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Kiper's #3 QB and McShay's #4 now. But McShay also had him as his most overlooked guy and had Tannehill, his #3 for the moment, as his most risky guy.

I agree. I think RT has more upside but I'd put Brock over him because of that risk factor. Basically I just don't see RT leading his squad down the field for the game winning score very often even though I do like him. Poor man's Joe Flacco imo, which if you watched the Ravens playoff game isn't half bad to be. But I like Osweiler's pocket presence better. Especially his ability to get it there while under duress/getting hit. Delivery reminds of Phillip Rivers but I still see a giant Mark Sanchez-as a prospect coming out-before Rex sat on him.

Looking forward to seeing Luck, Griffin and Osweiler throw at the combine. Osweiler likely the consensus #3 guy afterward. But it's too bad Tannehill can't show that he's easily got the strongest arm of the group.

A Perfect Score
02-13-2012, 06:10 PM
You can improve a guy's concentration on catching the ball and you can improve his route running. You can't teach 6'8 4.2.

Matt Jones was 6'6 and 4.3...That's pretty close...

DraftSavant
02-13-2012, 06:13 PM
http://www.gifsoup.com/view/658594/kobe-uninterested-o.gif

How I feel about Kiper and McShay right about now.

HOW THE **** IS OSWEILER OVERLOOKED AND/OR RISKIER THAN TANNEHILL.

D-Unit
02-13-2012, 06:13 PM
I pity the team that drafts Osweiler.

A Perfect Score
02-13-2012, 06:15 PM
I pity the team that drafts Osweiler.

It's not about who drafts him, but where. There's nothing wrong with taking a guy like Osweiler in the second if you really believe he can be a franchise QB one day. It's more about the fact that it's looking more and more like he has a legit shot at the first round that's disturbing.

DraftSavant
02-13-2012, 06:15 PM
I pity the team that drafts Osweiler.

He's going to be a "flame out of the league before his rookie contract is up" type of guy like I expect Gabbert to be.

CAA blows in those ESPN ears hard, man. They pump those guys up every ******* year.

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 06:21 PM
The Gabbert = Osweiler thing is getting tired.

It's not about who drafts him, but where. There's nothing wrong with taking a guy like Osweiler in the second if you really believe he can be a franchise QB one day. It's more about the fact that it's looking more and more like he has a legit shot at the first round that's disturbing.
But if you believe that, then why not in the first?

A Perfect Score
02-13-2012, 06:24 PM
The Gabbert = Osweiler thing is getting tired.


But if you believe that, then why not in the first?

Honestly? Risk assessment. Why draft someone who can bust in the first when you can draft a much safer player and a developmental guy later?

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that not everyone adheres to it. That's why Osweiler might not be there for the team thinking like this in the second, because some dumbass went ahead and pulled the trigger 40 picks too early.

DraftSavant
02-13-2012, 06:27 PM
The Gabbert = Osweiler thing is getting tired.


But if you believe that, then why not in the first?

It makes sense in that they're both big, fleet-footed guys with big arms, terrible ball-placement, bad mechanics, one-read offense that picked up passing yards on flat routes.

And they declared a year earlier than they should have, signed with CAA (who always gets QBs hyped up into first round discussions when they have no business there).

Osweiler's pocket presence is slightly better and he's not constantly taking off to the sideline. It's as much of a situational comparison than a pure playing style comparison.

BeerBaron
02-13-2012, 06:33 PM
He'll be in the top 15 by draft day. Book it. (And no, not deservingly so.)

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 06:42 PM
It makes sense in that they're both big, fleet-footed guys with big arms, terrible ball-placement, bad mechanics, one-read offense that picked up passing yards on flat routes.

And they declared a year earlier than they should have, signed with CAA (who always gets QBs hyped up into first round discussions when they have no business there).

Osweiler's pocket presence is slightly better and he's not constantly taking off to the sideline. It's as much of a situational comparison than a pure playing style comparison.

If Gabbert had gone to the Bengals there wouldn't be any "flame out" talk. He wasn't ready on a team like the Jaguars last season. end story.

Experience and college offense. The only things comparable. Fleet-footed with a big arm, bad mechanics, accuracy, "slightly" better pocket presence are all pretty far off.
Honestly? Risk assessment. Why draft someone who can bust in the first when you can draft a much safer player and a developmental guy later?

The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that not everyone adheres to it. That's why Osweiler might not be there for the team thinking like this in the second, because some dumbass went ahead and pulled the trigger 40 picks too early.
Dumbass or genius. Not particularly for Osweiler, but for anyone.

A Perfect Score
02-13-2012, 06:46 PM
If Gabbert had gone to the Bengals there wouldn't be any "flame out" talk. He wasn't ready on a team like the Jaguars last season. end story.

Experience and college offense. The only things comparable. Fleet-footed with a big arm, bad mechanics, accuracy, "slightly" better pocket presence are all pretty far off.

Dumbass or genius.

I'd go 80% former, 20% latter. If you want to gamble on those odds in the first, take your shot. I'll draft the elite prospect you let slip in order to reach a round on a QB, and then take a developmental guy later who has an equal shot to pan out. There are a ton of them in this draft. They might not have the overwhelming physical tools of Osweiler, but I'd be willing to bet Kirk Cousins has just as good of a shot at succeeding in the NFL as Osweiler, and I can get him 3 rounds later. And give him Kendall Wright or Malcolm Floyd to throw to.

ATLDirtyBirds
02-13-2012, 06:47 PM
If Gabbert had gone to the Bengals there wouldn't be any "flame out" talk. He wasn't ready on a team like the Jaguars last season. end story.


This made me imagine all the Gabbert face pictures we'd have as the Steelers and Ravens brought pressure on him.

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 06:51 PM
Whoa ************....whoa ************...whoa ************!

A Perfect Score
02-13-2012, 06:57 PM
This made me imagine all the Gabbert face pictures we'd have as the Steelers and Ravens brought pressure on him.

No no, you've got it all wrong. They wouldn't have to bring pressure. Gunshy Gabbert will run from the passrush whether it's imaginary or otherwise, so just send 3 and enjoy the free interceptions.

D-Unit
02-13-2012, 07:05 PM
The best was when Osweiler went animal and waived off Coach Ericsson in this year's bowl game to go for it on 4th down... and then he failed to convert it on an overthown ball to his receiver. I LOL'd. ^_^

fenikz
02-13-2012, 07:15 PM
To be fair no one on that team has ever listened to a word Erickson said

But if Gabbert can go in the 1st Osweiler certainly can, at least he knows what pressure is and when to actually run instead of taking off after completing his 2 step shotgun drop

Matthew Jones
02-13-2012, 07:21 PM
Say hello to the next Derek Anderson! Osweiler may be able to run fast in a straight line for a guy his size, but he has the coordination of Mel Gibson after a night or three on the town.

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 07:29 PM
Say hello to the next Derek Anderson! Osweiler may be able to run fast in a straight line for a guy his size, but he has the coordination of Mel Gibson after a night or three on the town.
No and no.

Brown Leader
02-13-2012, 07:30 PM
Osweiler scouting reports:

Good accuracy overall, including excellent accuracy on short timing routes to backs and receivers, placing the ball slightly in front to lead receivers to potential yardage gained after the catch. Flashes good anticipation and is willing to release passes before the receiver has made his break. Good zip and ball placement on the quick slant.

Efficient set up and a quick release. Typically releases passes with a 3/4 delivery that almost shot-puts the ball and doesn't take advantage of his natural height advantage. Too often stares down his primary target. Demonstrated improved ability to manipulate the defense with his eyes in 2011 though he remains under-developed in this area and does telegraph his throws.

Courageous in the pocket. Willing to take the hit to complete the pass. Has been known as a hard worker throughout his career. Graduated high school early to join the team for spring practices in May of 2009. Earned the team's Hard Hat Award for his work in the off-season conditioning program in 2010 - Rang

For a tall quarterback, Osweiler is fairly coordinated and stands well in the pocket, only scrambling at appropriate times. All of his problems begin with an unreliable release.

Osweiler is 6'7", but his inconsistent release point is equal to a 6'3" passer. Osweiler lacks a consistent motion, even side-arming some throws, which leads to unpredictable accuracy. He rarely leads his receivers in full stride. Just because Osweiler is a big quarterback does not mean he has a big arm; in fact, his velocity is adequate at best.

Above all, Osweiler's accuracy and ball placement are some of the worst in this class. The one-year starter should have returned for more seasoning. Osweiler is not worth more than a third-day pick, despite some talk of him cracking the late first. Erratic is an understatement. - J.Norris

hoosker doos or hoosker don'ts ?

Babylon
02-14-2012, 11:15 AM
Say hello to the next Derek Anderson! Osweiler may be able to run fast in a straight line for a guy his size, but he has the coordination of Mel Gibson after a night or three on the town.

I think he's a better athlete than you give him credit for. He was going to go to Gonzaga to play hoops and they don't recruit stiffs there.

Shane P. Hallam
02-14-2012, 11:31 AM
I think he's a better athlete than you give him credit for. He was going to go to Gonzaga to play hoops and they don't recruit stiffs there.

I understand that, but watching him play, I would never have predicted he got a basketball scholarship. He doesn't exactly have the sidestep and athleticism. It may be more pocket presence based than athletic ability, but it doesn't translate. Let's just say he doesn't look like Ben Roethlisberger did in college.

I wouldn't be overly surprised if he moves up draft boards pretty rapidly when he gets the chance to showcase his big arm.

A Perfect Score
02-14-2012, 11:51 AM
I understand that, but watching him play, I would never have predicted he got a basketball scholarship. He doesn't exactly have the sidestep and athleticism. It may be more pocket presence based than athletic ability, but it doesn't translate. Let's just say he doesn't look like Ben Roethlisberger did in college.

I wouldn't be overly surprised if he moves up draft boards pretty rapidly when he gets the chance to showcase his big arm.

Jboobie, question for you: Osweiler or Tannehill?

I'm a big Tannehill fan, so naturally I'd say him, but I've the sneaking suspicion both of these guys go much higher then people are predicting and I'm curious to hear which you prefer.

LonghornsLegend
02-14-2012, 08:57 PM
I understand that, but watching him play, I would never have predicted he got a basketball scholarship. He doesn't exactly have the sidestep and athleticism. It may be more pocket presence based than athletic ability, but it doesn't translate. Let's just say he doesn't look like Ben Roethlisberger did in college.

I wouldn't be overly surprised if he moves up draft boards pretty rapidly when he gets the chance to showcase his big arm.


I'm keeping with him going to the Jets in a trade up with their 2nd round pick as my surprise prediction. Just really like the fit all around.



I think he has a chance to be a Joe Flacco type, not a lot more, but I see the talent to be a starter.

PoopSandwich
02-14-2012, 10:16 PM
Say hello to the next Derek Anderson!

I hope to ******* god the Browns move up to #1 to secure him then.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/Defiantmac/DA4MVPPPP.jpg

LonghornsLegend
02-14-2012, 10:59 PM
Honestly? Risk assessment. Why draft someone who can bust in the first when you can draft a much safer player and a developmental guy later?


That's easy. Because those "safer" players don't have the upside that Osweiler does, nor can they make the same throws that he can. That's why they are safer picks going a few rounds later. And while everyone will have a good time chuckling thinking about him reaching that potential, I seem to remember a majority feeling pretty confident in JPP busting last year as well. In fact it was a pretty strong crowd.


But we saw the upside of that all season, and that's why high upside guys go much sooner then the solid, safe picks who at their best are just solid. Guys that seperate themselves a few rounds have the difference maker upside to them.

Shane P. Hallam
02-14-2012, 11:17 PM
Jboobie, question for you: Osweiler or Tannehill?

I'm a big Tannehill fan, so naturally I'd say him, but I've the sneaking suspicion both of these guys go much higher then people are predicting and I'm curious to hear which you prefer.

It's not a question for me, Tannehill by leaps and bounds.

A Perfect Score
02-15-2012, 10:44 AM
It's not a question for me, Tannehill by leaps and bounds.

Yeah, that's where I'm at too. I just don't see it with Osweiler. He makes some absolutely god awful throws at times.

fenikz
02-15-2012, 11:00 AM
Not like Tannehill doesnt do the exact same, gotta have a better reason than that

DraftSavant
02-15-2012, 11:01 AM
Not like Tannehill doesnt do the exact same, gotta have a better reason than that

Tannehill is better in, quite literally, every facet of playing the position.

BeerBaron
02-15-2012, 11:02 AM
Regardless, both are going to be grossly overdrafted.

fenikz
02-15-2012, 11:09 AM
Regardless, both are going to be grossly overdrafted.

^^^^^^

I'd still take Weeden over both

DraftSavant
02-15-2012, 11:19 AM
Regardless, both are going to be grossly overdrafted.

Meh, Tannehill would solidly be a top-15 guy for me in almost any year, but I like him much more than most do. He's solidly the #2 behind Luck for me.

I like Weeden, but he's got a lot to iron out mechanically. He's got a pitcher's feet and release. Leaves him off-balance on a lot of his throws, leading to some really, really poor ball placement.

A Perfect Score
02-15-2012, 11:21 AM
Meh, Tannehill would solidly be a top-15 guy for me in almost any year, but I like him much more than most do. He's solidly the #2 behind Luck for me.

That is blasphemy. RGIII is going to take the league by storm. I love Tannehill, but he's definitely behind RGIII for me. I'm going to pimp Kirk Cousins too, because I like what I've seen from him.

DraftSavant
02-15-2012, 11:26 AM
That is blasphemy. RGIII is going to take the league by storm. I love Tannehill, but he's definitely behind RGIII for me. I'm going to pimp Kirk Cousins too, because I like what I've seen from him.

I don't dislike RG3 (like him quite a bit, actually), but his frenetic and uncomfortable movement with bodies around him in a muddies pocket concerns me.

I like Cousins as well, and I think he's the perfect developmental backup who you can try to groom into something (a la Kolb, Flynn, etc). Keep him as a great backup for your system or trade him to some stupid team for more than he's worth.

ATLDirtyBirds
02-15-2012, 11:45 AM
I'm going to go ahead and completely agree with the past two posts.

fenikz
02-15-2012, 11:49 AM
But they contradict each other how is that possible :p

ATLDirtyBirds
02-15-2012, 12:35 PM
But they contradict each other how is that possible :p


Similar general feelings, different verbiage.


Probably closer to APS on Griffin though, and on board with the Tannehill and Cousins pimping.