PDA

View Full Version : "I'd Pick Matt Barkley Over Andrew Luck"


The Alex
11-09-2011, 09:18 PM
Steve Sarkisian (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Sarkisian-I-8217-d-take-Barkley-over-Luck?urn=nfl-wp11463) uttered these words today at a press conference and in doing so, sparked a bunch of columns all over the web about the statement. What do you think?

Personally, I think it's a completely asinine statement on par with saying "I'd pick Mark Sanchez over Matthew Stafford" in 2009. There isn't a single thing that Barkley does better than Luck.

descendency
11-09-2011, 09:21 PM
There isn't a single thing that Barkley does better than Luck.

Puts zip on the ball.

The Alex
11-09-2011, 09:25 PM
Puts zip on the ball.

I'd say their arm strengths are about equal with Luck having the slight advantage. Even if Barkley were better than Luck in arm strength, Luck still has him beat in every other attribute.

StudentBodyLeft
11-09-2011, 10:15 PM
I'd say their arm strengths are about equal with Luck having the slight advantage. Even if Barkley were better than Luck in arm strength, Luck still has him beat in every other attribute.

If you think Luck has even slightly more arm strength than Barkley, you obviously haven't been paying attention.

Barkley is not Matt Stafford, but he's closer to Carson Palmer in throwing power than he is Matt Leinart.

Barkley can make every throw. I would question whether Luck can hit the deep out route like Barkley can.

I'll back this up with evidence:

See the throws at :17 and at :55

PMOz3xseoYA

49erNation85
11-09-2011, 10:19 PM
What happens if Matt Barkley stays for his Senior year eh?I think should he could be a much higher pick even the number one in 2013.Just needs perfect his game some more.

Caulibflower
11-09-2011, 11:07 PM
I'm thinking that's a highlight video of Seattle's next QB. I've never been a huge fan of Barkley's, but it might be more of a bias against USC QBs. I think he's going to be more athletic than people expect at the combine, and I do like his arm. He's got enough strength there to get the ball to his receivers quickly, and yes, he can throw the deep out. At this point, I also feel that the Andrew Luck Hype is bigger than Andrew Luck.

descendency
11-10-2011, 12:32 AM
What happens if Matt Barkley stays for his Senior year eh?I think should he could be a much higher pick even the number one in 2013.Just needs perfect his game some more.

He's #1 pick material most years. He's Eli Manning-esque. I think he stays a 4th year to try to win a national championship.

jsa230
11-10-2011, 12:40 AM
Kiffen thinks Barkley's gonna stay if that means anything. Life has to be pretty sweet at USC, Barkley has the chance to go #1 if he stays, and the chance to win a championship. I think he stays.

RaiderNation
11-10-2011, 02:15 AM
Luck is the clear favorite, but Barkley isn't a bad consolation prize to the Luck sweepstakes. I think he is as good of a prospect as Sam Bradford when he came out.

nobodyinparticular
11-10-2011, 02:24 AM
Kiffen thinks Barkley's gonna stay if that means anything. Life has to be pretty sweet at USC, Barkley has the chance to go #1 if he stays, and the chance to win a championship. I think he stays.

Chance to win a championship? Really? The team that has already lost 2 games (and one of them to ASU) with a 3rd loss on the way in a couple weeks at Autzen stadium is a championship contender?

USC will be 3rd best team in Pac 12 next year--at best. I wouldn't put it past UW to pass USC next year as well.

HorusKing
11-10-2011, 04:33 AM
After watching them in a head to head battle they are about even in every category with Matt Barkley having an edge in arm strength but luck being a better athlete overall. I like Andrew Luck a lot but he is no where close to John Elway or the greatest prospect ever that was a stupid comment by the guy on ESPN who said Cam Newton would have to sit and learn for at least 2 seasons and right now he is the #2 QB in total passing yards in the NFL.

Halsey
11-10-2011, 12:35 PM
I'm not saying Barkley is better than Luck, but I don't see any reason Barkley can't develop into an above average starter or better. I'd have no problem with Barkley being the #1 pick if it wasn't for Andrew Luck.

Punisher
11-10-2011, 12:39 PM
Chance to win a championship? Really? The team that has already lost 2 games (and one of them to ASU) with a 3rd loss on the way in a couple weeks at Autzen stadium is a championship contender?

USC will be 3rd best team in Pac 12 next year--at best. I wouldn't put it past UW to pass USC next year as well.

Are you serious? Look at the way SC has improved since their first loss. This team is starting a BUNCH of freshman who will be even better next year. In fact, every linebacker starting now is a freshman.

Yeah, 2 losses, 1 being from one of the top teams in the nation. Your post doesn't add up.

keylime_5
11-10-2011, 12:51 PM
newsflash: college coaches are homers.

Punisher
11-10-2011, 01:00 PM
newsflash: college coaches are homers.

Yeah, and you have to imagine Sark was also saying this to get in Matt's head as well.

gpngc
11-10-2011, 01:32 PM
The idea that "Andrew Luck can't make all the throws" is utterly RIDICULOUS and just proves that you probably live on the East Coast (Phil Simms) and don't actually watch the games. Even the youtube videos people post on this very site show examples of tough NFL throws. No, he doesn't throw the deep out (which is the lowest percentage/highest risk intermediate throw in football), but that's by design. Peyton Manning never throws it either (his version is the deep comeback that is a route based on timing more than brute arm strength). I honestly don't even know why I need to defend his arm strength - it's beyond adequate. Is he Stafford or Russell? No. But he absolutely has the pre-requisite arm strength needed to be an NFL QB. LOOK AT ANDY DALTON RIGHT NOW. ANDY DALTON COULDN'T EVEN THROW A NON-DUCK POST AT THE SENIOR BOWL.

Watch Andrew Luck for one game. He'll throw a lot of short passes (displaying his insane accuracy and quick-decision making), and sprinkle in some intermediate stuff. Once in a while, he'll go deep. And the offense will be ridiculously effective. Don't confuse touch with not having a strong arm.

Would the hype be this out-of-control if it wasn't warranted? Is this some elaborate West coast scam hyping up a guy who really doesn't have an NFL arm? Phil Simms caught it!? That's ridiculous. Watch a game.

I really hope Barkley goes pro but the Seahawks are going to have to do a lot of losing to hold off MIA, WAS, even CLE, etc. At this point I'd be just as excited if they landed Barkley. While I think Luck is a superior prospect, I believe both QBs can and will develop into players you can win a Super Bowl behind. Go get 'em SeaMen - *Blow for Barkley* because the Colts won't win 3 games...

jsa230
11-10-2011, 01:44 PM
Chance to win a championship? Really? The team that has already lost 2 games (and one of them to ASU) with a 3rd loss on the way in a couple weeks at Autzen stadium is a championship contender?

USC will be 3rd best team in Pac 12 next year--at best. I wouldn't put it past UW to pass USC next year as well.

I agree that its not likely at all for USC to win a NC next year, but im sure Matt Barkley thinks otherwise.

jsa230
11-10-2011, 02:31 PM
Not really thread worthy so ill just post here . .

Where do you want Luck, Barkley, Jones, RG3 to go given that they are all in this draft.

I really dont want Luck to go to the Colts. Its just not fair. Im praying that the Colts dont get the #1. Another franchise should have a shot at having a top 5 QB for 10-15 years. The colts are looking at like 25 years of great qbs(if luck doesn't pull a leaf and live up to the expectations. I would like to see Luck in Miami. They have talent on offense, all pro LT, a legit #1, and a good TE. They would be very competitive very fast.

As for Barkley, I want to see him go to Seattle. The Seahawks need a qb in a bad way and might trade up to reunite Barkley/Carroll

I am a Shanahan fan and would like to see him have success in D.C. That being said, Jones actually fits in very well in Shanahans offense.

RG3 would be just be sexy in KC. Moeaki, Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, Charles and McCluster. That's tons of diverse athleticism on one offense.

So I WANT
Luck to Miami
Barkley to Seattle
Jones to Washington
Griffin III to Kansas City
Not all of these dreams will come true but I would love to see Luck in Miami and RG3 in KC.

SickwithIt1010
11-10-2011, 02:37 PM
Chance to win a championship? Really? The team that has already lost 2 games (and one of them to ASU) with a 3rd loss on the way in a couple weeks at Autzen stadium is a championship contender?

USC will be 3rd best team in Pac 12 next year--at best. I wouldn't put it past UW to pass USC next year as well.

I dont think you've watched enough of USC this year. They are a very young and very talented team. Next year their offense will be able to score with anyone in the country. ASSUMING Matt comes back. If not, thats when it gets tricky. Barkley, Woods, Lee, Farmer, McNeal, and a young offensive line this year would be coming back, looking to light you up every saturday.

The 56 points given up to Stanford looks a lot worse than it really was, triple OT doesnt help that either. The defense has been improving great strides week in and week out. They had Luck confused most of the night and got great pressure on him. Like Punisher mentioned, 3 of our linebackers in the rotation right now are freshman. Perry definitely needs another year before he leaves for the pros and Kennard will be back as ends. Might lose McDonald at safety but could see the rest of the secondary back.

This USC team that is competing every week is a very young and talented team and they will only get better. Barkley knows that, Kiffen knows that. Knowing that Barkley is very big on getting his degree, and I feel like deep down he wants to be the top guy in the draft. People have been hyping him up since his freshman year in high school, why would he want to be second best for cryin out loud? He would be going into next year as the top guy, and with a chance to win a NC. Sounds like a decent set up.

jsa230
11-10-2011, 02:57 PM
If Barkley comes back they have a chance, but its a little early to start talking about whos going to win next years NC.

SickwithIt1010
11-10-2011, 03:03 PM
If Barkley comes back they have a chance, but its a little early to start talking about whos going to win next years NC.

People mentioned the fact he might come back for the chance to try and win a NC. Thats why its came up.

killxswitch
11-10-2011, 03:06 PM
I've been hesitant to say this because Luck hype is beyond out of control but I actually think Barkley will end up a roughly similar pro in terms of success when compared to Luck. People have seriously lost their minds over Luck IMO. That isn't Luck's fault, he's a great prospect and I don't agree that his arm strength is a valid concern. But people are expecting him to be some sort of alien defense-destroying robot QB and it's just not realistic.

nepg
11-10-2011, 03:27 PM
I'd say their arm strengths are about equal with Luck having the slight advantage. Even if Barkley were better than Luck in arm strength, Luck still has him beat in every other attribute.
Distance, yeah...they're about the same. But I like the zip Barkley puts on his short and intermediate throws. He's got a slight, but clear advantage over Luck in that department.

vidae
11-10-2011, 04:30 PM
RG3 would be just be sexy in KC. Moeaki, Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, Charles and McCluster. That's tons of diverse athleticism on one offense.


Griffin III to Kansas City
Not all of these dreams will come true but I would love to see Luck in Miami and RG3 in KC.

Oh yes, I want that too friend.

RaiderNation
11-10-2011, 04:37 PM
Luck in Miami, Barkley to Seattle, Jones to Washington/Seattle and RG3 to KC all seem like the best fits.

niel89
11-10-2011, 05:51 PM
Watch Andrew Luck for one game. He'll throw a lot of short passes (displaying his insane accuracy and quick-decision making), and sprinkle in some intermediate stuff. Once in a while, he'll go deep. And the offense will be ridiculously effective. Don't confuse touch with not having a strong arm.



I like the point you brought up here. The offense isn't geared to be explosive and push the ball deep a lot. Stanford wants to run the ball, throw to keep the chains moving and attack deep a few of times a game (mostly off PA.) Luck is out there making the offense efficient and keeping his defense off the field with long controlling drives.

To be honest, who is going to be that deep threat anyways for Stanford? We just don't have the speedy athletes. We had Owusu but he is out for a good while, and he also doesn't look like he has the speed he used to a few years back.

I have no issues with Lucks arm. He can make all the throws. One thing I do notice that he does is to try to lay the ball in instead of drilling it like he can. I've seen Luck fire off some bullets many times, but he normally just tries to drop it in instead and give a more catchable ball. He really does it when he tries to go deep. Most of the time he tries to land the deep ball in like touch pass. I think that Luck can definitely throw it harder but he throws a softer ball because it works just as fine at this level. It's something that he will correct for the next level.

CC.SD
11-10-2011, 06:42 PM
Odds are pretty good that Barkley will be better because the popular opinion on top draft quarterbacks is inevitably epically wrong.

SenorGato
11-10-2011, 07:33 PM
He should stay for 2012/2013.

FUNBUNCHER
11-10-2011, 07:40 PM
I like the point you brought up here. The offense isn't geared to be explosive and push the ball deep a lot. Stanford wants to run the ball, throw to keep the chains moving and attack deep a few of times a game (mostly off PA.) Luck is out there making the offense efficient and keeping his defense off the field with long controlling drives.

To be honest, who is going to be that deep threat anyways for Stanford? We just don't have the speedy athletes. We had Owusu but he is out for a good while, and he also doesn't look like he has the speed he used to a few years back.

I have no issues with Lucks arm. He can make all the throws. One thing I do notice that he does is to try to lay the ball in instead of drilling it like he can. I've seen Luck fire off some bullets many times, but he normally just tries to drop it in instead and give a more catchable ball. He really does it when he tries to go deep. Most of the time he tries to land the deep ball in like touch pass. I think that Luck can definitely throw it harder but he throws a softer ball because it works just as fine at this level. It's something that he will correct for the next level.

Throwing soft, catchable balls at the next level won't work. Luck has to be able to drill a football based on timing and anticipation of where the WR is going to break open in coverage.

Every throw can't be a 'touch pass'.

Iamcanadian
11-11-2011, 12:02 AM
Well Barkley will go #2 in the draft after Luck so there are obviously high expectations for him as well, but Luck will go #1 and the expectations will be a lot higher and I think he has at least 2 Super Bowl rings in him. That is the kind of ceiling Luck has. Who reaches their ceiling is anybody's guess?

The Alex
11-11-2011, 01:22 PM
Not really thread worthy so ill just post here . .

Where do you want Luck, Barkley, Jones, RG3 to go given that they are all in this draft.


As a Titans fan, I don't want to deal with Luck twice a year in the division. However, I also want Luck to land in the best situation possible; with weapons already in place, a solid offensive line, a decent coaching staff and a relatively competent front office. Sadly, the Colts have most of those qualities. My fandom wins in the end and I wanna see Luck in Miami or something unexpected in a trade-up scenario like Kansas City.

BuddyCHRIST
11-12-2011, 12:03 AM
He should stay for 2012/2013.

I disagree with this notion, he's pretty much a guaranteed top 5 pick.

But this taking Barkley over Luck stuff will probably be the cool thing to say for a little while, as Luck will start to get over analyzed like they all do.

bucfan12
11-20-2011, 07:23 AM
I don 't know if I'd take Barkely over Luck, but after watching last night, Barkley has impressed me. He has not had a bad performance this year I don't think.

He's clearly the number 2 QB and probably will be a top 3-5 pick come next April.

SolidGold
11-20-2011, 10:51 AM
Barkley should be right up their in the Heisman conversation. He was very impressive vs a good Oregon defense. The main difference between Barkley and Luck is how Luck is able to move around a little bit more while keeping his eyes down field. Both are damn impressive though. Luck will go first overall and Barkley would go either 2nd or 3rd after him.

socentre44
11-20-2011, 12:15 PM
Chance to win a championship? Really? The team that has already lost 2 games (and one of them to ASU) with a 3rd loss on the way in a couple weeks at Autzen stadium is a championship contender?

USC will be 3rd best team in Pac 12 next year--at best. I wouldn't put it past UW to pass USC next year as well.

After watching the SC - Oregon game, SC is very much a championship contender if Barkley stays. SC will definitely have a solid defense next year and the rest of the offense remains largely intact. If Barkley leaves this year, whoever takes over at QB will be in possibly the best situation to succeed from day 1 since AP started as a freshmen running back on a senior laden Oklahoma offense with a Heisman QB.

Babylon
11-20-2011, 12:52 PM
After watching the SC - Oregon game, SC is very much a championship contender if Barkley stays. SC will definitely have a solid defense next year and the rest of the offense remains largely intact. If Barkley leaves this year, whoever takes over at QB will be in possibly the best situation to succeed from day 1 since AP started as a freshmen running back on a senior laden Oklahoma offense with a Heisman QB.


First off i dont see a real improvement in that defense next year especially with their two best players (Perry, McDonald) moving on. Offensively you're losing your best offensive lineman in Matt Kalil so not sure what you come back for unless you want to risk dropping like Matt Leinart or Jake Locker did.

As for the Luck/Barkely comparison i would take Luck for everything he brings to the position but have to admit Barkely has had the better year in all the games i've seen and probably has a chance to have a better pro career if he ends up in the right situation. It's almost like if you dont take Luck and he's a Peyton Manning type you end up defining your career on that one move, too risky.

BaLLiN
11-20-2011, 01:17 PM
He's #1 pick material most years. He's Eli Manning-esque. I think he stays a 4th year to try to win a national championship.

I see this too. nice comparison

Duffman57
11-20-2011, 01:18 PM
At this point, Barkley has much bigger upside. He's got a cannon of an arm, and his 3 years of being a starter is a big thing.

After watching both face my ducks the past two weeks, i have to say that Barkey was absolutely more impressive than Luck. But the thing is, while Barkley was making great throws, he is more of a passer than a QB at this point. Luck's mental part of the game is so freakishly good that it is enough to have his stock higher than Barkley's.

Barkley just made some throws last night that were fit in so tightly that it was ridiculous. A couple could've been picked if they were a couple inches in any direction.

Babylon
11-20-2011, 01:34 PM
At this point, Barkley has much bigger upside. He's got a cannon of an arm, and his 3 years of being a starter is a big thing.

After watching both face my ducks the past two weeks, i have to say that Barkey was absolutely more impressive than Luck. But the thing is, while Barkley was making great throws, he is more of a passer than a QB at this point. Luck's mental part of the game is so freakishly good that it is enough to have his stock higher than Barkley's.

Barkley just made some throws last night that were fit in so tightly that it was ridiculous. A couple could've been picked if they were a couple inches in any direction.

I agree with most of what you say but Luck against Oregon was under pressure all night and his WRs got zero seperation. Barkely had a pretty clean jersey at the end of the game last night and the Ducks really couldnt cover those SC wideouts.

I think in a combine situation Luck will probably stand out a little better in terms of accuracy, size and athletecism. I just like Barkely's ability to make every NFL throw a tad better.

keylime_5
11-20-2011, 01:45 PM
At this point, Barkley has much bigger upside. He's got a cannon of an arm, and his 3 years of being a starter is a big thing.

After watching both face my ducks the past two weeks, i have to say that Barkey was absolutely more impressive than Luck. But the thing is, while Barkley was making great throws, he is more of a passer than a QB at this point. Luck's mental part of the game is so freakishly good that it is enough to have his stock higher than Barkley's.

Barkley just made some throws last night that were fit in so tightly that it was ridiculous. A couple could've been picked if they were a couple inches in any direction.


he doesn't have a cannon. he has a good arm but it's not above average by NFL standards. He's closer to Mark Sanchez in that regard than Joe Flacco, Jay Cutler, Matt Stafford, Mike Vick, or Cam Newton.

and i completely disagree that he has more upside. Not being a good athlete, not having good size, and not having a great arm are the biggest detractors from Barkley's game. His upside is limited b/c of these things. Luck is a very good athlete and very mobile and has the mental capabilities that make his upside very high.

Luck has the potential to be a Manning, Brady, Brees, Rodgers type QB. Barkley doesn't have that kind of upside.

Barkley can make the throws and has a lightning release, I think he can be a pro bowl QB at the next level. But there is good reason that Luck is viewed in such high regard while some people are questioning Barkley as a franchise QB still.

Halsey
11-20-2011, 01:54 PM
There's more to a QBs upside than arm strength and athleticism. Barkley has all the talent of a guy like Drew Brees. Will he be that good? Probably not, but the point is it's not all about physical tools.

keylime_5
11-20-2011, 02:22 PM
There's more to a QBs upside than arm strength and athleticism. Barkley has all the talent of a guy like Drew Brees. Will he be that good? Probably not, but the point is it's not all about physical tools.

i agree, and barkley has upside, but it's not luck upside.

TheSlinger
11-20-2011, 02:22 PM
There's more to a QBs upside than arm strength and athleticism. Barkley has all the talent of a guy like Drew Brees. Will he be that good? Probably not, but the point is it's not all about physical tools.

People really need to stop bring up Brees like this. He has a good arm. If a prospect came out throwing like Brees everybody would be complimenting him on his arm strength.

Halsey
11-20-2011, 02:28 PM
People really need to stop bring up Brees

No.

Drew Brees, Drew Brees, Drew Brees! ahahahaha! In your face!

BRAVEHEART
11-20-2011, 02:32 PM
First off i dont see a real improvement in that defense next year especially with their two best players (Perry, McDonald) moving on. Offensively you're losing your best offensive lineman in Matt Kalil so not sure what you come back for unless you want to risk dropping like Matt Leinart or Jake Locker did.

As for the Luck/Barkely comparison i would take Luck for everything he brings to the position but have to admit Barkely has had the better year in all the games i've seen and probably has a chance to have a better pro career if he ends up in the right situation. It's almost like if you dont take Luck and he's a Peyton Manning type you end up defining your career on that one move, too risky.

Who said Perry, McDonald, and Kalil are going pro?

SickwithIt1010
11-20-2011, 06:07 PM
First off i dont see a real improvement in that defense next year especially with their two best players (Perry, McDonald) moving on. Offensively you're losing your best offensive lineman in Matt Kalil so not sure what you come back for unless you want to risk dropping like Matt Leinart or Jake Locker did.

As for the Luck/Barkely comparison i would take Luck for everything he brings to the position but have to admit Barkely has had the better year in all the games i've seen and probably has a chance to have a better pro career if he ends up in the right situation. It's almost like if you dont take Luck and he's a Peyton Manning type you end up defining your career on that one move, too risky.

Perry could use another year of development before he goes to the pros. Mcdonald could possibly be leaving because hes pretty damn solid back there so who knows about him. 3 freshman linebackers in the rotation will be back and a year older/stronger. Corners are young so they are in the same boat.

Lose Kalil on the O Line and just about everyone else is back. This team is going to be better next year.

keylime_5
11-20-2011, 06:13 PM
unless Barkley bolts for the $, in which case they'll be back to square one on offense. If I were a betting man I'd say it's probably about 55/45 tops that he leaves after this great year he's having.

Punisher
11-21-2011, 12:59 PM
One thing to factor into Barkley leaving for the NFL is he doesn't need the money. His parents are loaded, and his uncle Les is a billionaire and owns water front residence in Balboa Island.(Among the most expensive homes in the U.S.)

killxswitch
11-21-2011, 01:09 PM
One thing to factor into Barkley leaving for the NFL is he doesn't need the money. His parents are loaded, and his uncle Les is a billionaire and owns water front residence in Balboa Island.(Among the most expensive homes in the U.S.)

Isn't Luck's family also pretty loaded?

Babylon
11-21-2011, 01:10 PM
One thing to factor into Barkley leaving for the NFL is he doesn't need the money. His parents are loaded, and his uncle Les is a billionaire and owns water front residence in Balboa Island.(Among the most expensive homes in the U.S.)

That argument sure didnt work for Matthew Stafford.

To me Barkely is in that category of a Mark Sanchez, Jimmy Clausen, guys who were groomed at a young age in Calif. to be pro QBs. SC is just a stopover for Barkely on his way to the NFL. You factor in that he's probably a lock to go in the top 5 and i'll be personally shocked if he comes back.

WCH
11-21-2011, 01:17 PM
One thing to factor into Barkley leaving for the NFL is he doesn't need the money. His parents are loaded, and his uncle Les is a billionaire and owns water front residence in Balboa Island.(Among the most expensive homes in the U.S.)

I see this argument every year, and 90% of the time the player ultimately declares for the draft.

Your parents money != Your money.

Punisher
11-21-2011, 01:30 PM
I see this argument every year, and 90% of the time the player ultimately declares for the draft.

Your parents money != Your money.

This argument is valid. A player with a wealthy background can be comfortable taking another year in college to be around his friends, win a national championship, and earn his degree. Where as a player like Jurrell Casey last year left early because he wanted to help his parents out.

90% of the time? ha go grab that evidence!

bucfan12
11-21-2011, 02:48 PM
Isn't Luck's family also pretty loaded?

Luck's situation was different. He said prior to his RS Soph. season that his main goal was to get his degree. He'll get that after this year, so he'll have no reason to come back next year, in my opinion.

Punisher
11-21-2011, 06:58 PM
I see this argument every year, and 90% of the time the player ultimately declares for the draft.

Your parents money != Your money.

"One factor that could be in USC's favor as Barkley mulls his decision in the coming weeks: financial need. Barkley is from Newport Beach, a wealthy Orange County community, and said he won't go pro for the money.

"I'm completely happy with where I am right now," Barkley said. "I think college is one of the most abundant times of your life, living off your parents pretty much. You get a stipend, which arguably can be raised. I get fed, have all the clothes I need and I'm living the life, I feel like. So I don't think that's going to be one of the big issues of me leaving, which I think is a good situation to be in." "

http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7266425/usc-trojans-matt-barkley-let-fans-make-nfl-decision

murdamal86
11-22-2011, 07:23 AM
Something weird i've come to appreciate more w/Barkley is that he has NO filter with what he says. Just about every interview i've seen/read about him has him answering every question honestly.

Prowler
11-24-2011, 09:19 AM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7274217/usc-trojans-ad-pat-haden-regrets-no-matt-barkley-heisman-push

"Generally, we try to let guys win it on the field, but we probably should have done something more for him," Haden said. "We just owe it to him as a kid, too.

"We're hopeful Matt's going to have a great shot."

Barkley, a junior who is considered a likely top pick in the 2012 NFL draft if he chooses to declare early, has thrown for 3,105 yards, 33 touchdowns and seven interceptions this season with a 67.6 completion percentage. He'd be in position to break all of USC's career passing records if he came back for his senior season.

Haden added Wednesday that the campaign would be a "little different" if the Trojans knew Barkley was returning in 2012.

Some bs. It shouldn't be "a little different". The dude stayed with the program through the bad times. Nobody should fault someone for leaving to be a top 5 pick.

Trogdor
11-24-2011, 09:28 AM
LOL. The Luck hype train has been out of control for a while now. Pretty much mirrors the Jake Locker hype train aside from Locker managed to derail his with an appalling year.

Better deep ball? Barkley and it isn't even close.

Better overall QB? I'll take Luck but he isn't a once-in-a-lifetime prospect.

J-Mike88
11-24-2011, 10:15 AM
Kiffen thinks Barkley's gonna stay if that means anything. Life has to be pretty sweet at USC, Barkley has the chance to go #1 if he stays, and the chance to win a championship. I think he stays.
If idiot Lienart stayed at USC when he was going to be the #1 overall pick had he left (2005), then Barkley might too.
You're right, life is sweet at USC when you're the star QB. Everything's "open & available" to him there.

http://www.hottestgirlsofcheerleading.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/usc_cheerleaders_9.jpg
http://www.hottestgirlsofcheerleading.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/usc_cheerleaders_9.jpg
http://sportscracklepop.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/song-girls.jpg
http://beatsc.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/swim-225sg.jpg

stl705
11-26-2011, 11:19 PM
Barkley is a legitimate QB prospect and I'm not so sure after watching this UCLA game that Luck is the "clear-cut" qb... Looks more like draft of 04 than 10. Eli and Luck as the gem prospect. Rivers kind of came out late and Big Ben came from a small school. Personally I like the Luck/Barkley combo more than most previous draft classes.

Luck, Barkley, and Griffin III are looking like real nice QB prospects this year. (Haven't watched a whole lot of Wilson from Ark, but I think he stays in school; haven't seen much of Tannehill either).

kalbears13
11-26-2011, 11:49 PM
First off i dont see a real improvement in that defense next year especially with their two best players (Perry, McDonald) moving on. Offensively you're losing your best offensive lineman in Matt Kalil so not sure what you come back for unless you want to risk dropping like Matt Leinart or Jake Locker did.

As for the Luck/Barkely comparison i would take Luck for everything he brings to the position but have to admit Barkely has had the better year in all the games i've seen and probably has a chance to have a better pro career if he ends up in the right situation. It's almost like if you dont take Luck and he's a Peyton Manning type you end up defining your career on that one move, too risky.

He's also returning Robert Woods and Marqis Lee. USC has had a consistently good offensive line so I don't think he has to worry too much.

bruschis4all
11-27-2011, 07:40 AM
Luck-Barkley-RG3 are going 1-2-3 if they come out. Big franchises like Miami, Washington and KC aren't going to sit idly by waiting for a quarterback to fall to them. Ya know Seattle and Pete Carroll would die to get Barkley too. I think Barkley is crazy if he stays another year. I thought Leinart was too. But, I never dated any of those USC song girls. ha ha

Babylon
11-27-2011, 10:56 AM
Luck-Barkley-RG3 are going 1-2-3 if they come out. Big franchises like Miami, Washington and KC aren't going to sit idly by waiting for a quarterback to fall to them. Ya know Seattle and Pete Carroll would die to get Barkley too. I think Barkley is crazy if he stays another year. I thought Leinart was too. But, I never dated any of those USC song girls. ha ha

Carroll has shown no loyalty to USC players so not sure if that was your point.

Luck is struggling a little right now. He seems to be short arming a lot of his throws. At the end of the day you dont want to be the GM that passes on Andrew Luck and i think the combine setting will actually seal the deal for him to be the top QB taken.

SickwithIt1010
11-27-2011, 08:52 PM
Carroll has shown no loyalty to USC players so not sure if that was your point.

Luck is struggling a little right now. He seems to be short arming a lot of his throws. At the end of the day you dont want to be the GM that passes on Andrew Luck and i think the combine setting will actually seal the deal for him to be the top QB taken.

I still think Luck is the top guy, but Barkley finished the season as well as any QB I've ever watched in CFB.

Raiderz4Life
11-27-2011, 08:55 PM
Luck-Barkley-RG3 are going 1-2-3 if they come out. Big franchises like Miami, Washington and KC aren't going to sit idly by waiting for a quarterback to fall to them. Ya know Seattle and Pete Carroll would die to get Barkley too. I think Barkley is crazy if he stays another year. I thought Leinart was too. But, I never dated any of those USC song girls. ha ha

There are a lot of incentives for him to come back.

-USC will be bowl eliglble
-Can compete for a NC, USC has a lot of talent
-Possibility to go #1.

Breed
11-27-2011, 09:00 PM
never trust a USC QB

TACKLE
11-27-2011, 09:00 PM
At this point, the only thing I really see separating Luck from Barkley is his size and athleticism.

stl705
11-27-2011, 10:28 PM
At this point, the only thing I really see separating Luck from Barkley is his size and athleticism.

Do you think this becomes even less substantial with barkleys ARM just as strong as lucks?

Usc is in championship game and barkley is number 1 next yr most likely... I see the argument but is the risk of that not happening worth the difference from being drafted #5 this yr? I won't knock him either way, and would pry stay if it were me... but as a draft fan and Usc hater I want him to turn pro!! Haha.

FUNBUNCHER
11-28-2011, 01:20 AM
From a professional standpoint there's very little incentive to stay in college to become the 1/1 pick. There's no $50+ mil guaranteed payout to QBs taken first overall.
Luck will probably sign for a $25-28 mil contract total, which won't be much different that Barkley's contract if he's taken in the top 4.

Barkley's still in college so maybe things like winning a NC/Heisman mean more to him right now than where he's picked in the draft.

Wrathman
11-28-2011, 02:05 AM
From a professional standpoint there's very little incentive to stay in college to become the 1/1 pick. There's no $50+ mil guaranteed payout to QBs taken first overall.
Luck will probably sign for a $25-28 mil contract total, which won't be much different that Barkley's contract if he's taken in the top 4.

Barkley's still in college so maybe things like winning a NC/Heisman mean more to him right now than where he's picked in the draft.

Good point on the rookie contract and it's hard to believe that people still bring it up as a "valid" point to get drafted higher a year after the rookie salary scale was put into place. If you are going to move up half a round or more, that might make sense. To move from Top 5 to No. 1 would be financially stupid to stay in for.

The goal for the kids coming out of school now is to get to their second contract as quickly as possible because that is where the real money is at. If that is their motivation, then they need to come out early and get the clock started towards that next contract.

That said, if a kid is enjoying school and wants to stay for whatever reason they choose, I'm good with that. I respect Luck immensely for staying in to get his degree. If Barkley opted to go the same route, I'd be good with that as well...unless it was my team on the clock at No. 2 with a dire QB need.

SolidGold
11-28-2011, 08:27 AM
Barkley is living out his dream playing for USC. Next year they have legit NC aspirations and are bowl eligible. He will be a preseason favorite for the Heisman, rewrite the USC record books, be the first overall pick instead of competing with Luck.

The only legit threat in the PAC 12 will be Oregon. USC is a top 10 team right now and could give Alabama and LSU a run for their money, its a shame the kids playing for the school now get penalized while Bush is making millions and Pete Carroll sneaks off to Seattle to coach in NFL obscurity. I think the NCAA needs to rethink how it handles these types of cases.

Babylon
11-28-2011, 01:32 PM
Barkley is living out his dream playing for USC. Next year they have legit NC aspirations and are bowl eligible. He will be a preseason favorite for the Heisman, rewrite the USC record books, be the first overall pick instead of competing with Luck.

The only legit threat in the PAC 12 will be Oregon. USC is a top 10 team right now and could give Alabama and LSU a run for their money, its a shame the kids playing for the school now get penalized while Bush is making millions and Pete Carroll sneaks off to Seattle to coach in NFL obscurity. I think the NCAA needs to rethink how it handles these types of cases.

I don't know what makes any of these guys tick but my guess is his dream out of highschool was to play in the NFL. For me, coming back for a 4th season to play for Lane Kiffin doesnt have the appeal of being a top 2 or 3 pick in the NFL.

bucfan12
11-28-2011, 01:37 PM
Barkley is living out his dream playing for USC. Next year they have legit NC aspirations and are bowl eligible. He will be a preseason favorite for the Heisman, rewrite the USC record books, be the first overall pick instead of competing with Luck.

The only legit threat in the PAC 12 will be Oregon. USC is a top 10 team right now and could give Alabama and LSU a run for their money, its a shame the kids playing for the school now get penalized while Bush is making millions and Pete Carroll sneaks off to Seattle to coach in NFL obscurity. I think the NCAA needs to rethink how it handles these types of cases.

Yeah./ Punishing student atletes of the present is stupid for what happened in the past. I'm all for taking away there National Championships and all achievements during the Bush era.

stl705
11-28-2011, 03:05 PM
Barkley could be greedy, not for the money but to prove that he is better than luck.

If he declares*
-will get the media pub of ''luck vs barkley'', manning/leaf style... we all know it. ESPN has their scripts written already.

-want to prove hes better than Luck. Look what harbaugh has done with Alex smith!? Overanalyzation a must once draft comes.

-Nfl... that means pro, maybe barkley is so competitiv3 he will pass on an easy route to the Nat'l champ game and will want to prove himself against the big boys.

Whatever he chooses will b a fun choice.. not easy but comon id take it in an instant.

descendency
11-28-2011, 03:11 PM
Do you think this becomes even less substantial with barkleys ARM just as strong as lucks?

Lol. No.

Try watching. Barkley's velocity > Luck's. It's painfully obvious in the USC vs Stanford game.

WCH
11-28-2011, 05:09 PM
USC is a top 10 team right now and could give Alabama and LSU a run for their money, its a shame the kids playing for the school now get penalized while Bush is making millions and Pete Carroll sneaks off to Seattle to coach in NFL obscurity. I think the NCAA needs to rethink how it handles these types of cases.

It's the only move the NCAA has, though. The idea is that these schools will be so afraid of losing as much money as USC has lost the past few years, that they won't hire guys like Carroll. Obviously this strategy has mostly failed in regard to USC. It worked much better with with SMU -- or in basketball, with the Michigan/Webber/Fisher situation, where Michigan's basketball program spent almost 15 years being irrelevant, and Fisher spent more than a decade doing very little that was noteworthy.

And the kids have the option of transferring.

D-Unit
11-28-2011, 07:53 PM
It's the only move the NCAA has, though. The idea is that these schools will be so afraid of losing as much money as USC has lost the past few years, that they won't hire guys like Carroll. Obviously this strategy has mostly failed in regard to USC. It worked much better with with SMU -- or in basketball, with the Michigan/Webber/Fisher situation, where Michigan's basketball program spent almost 15 years being irrelevant, and Fisher spent more than a decade doing very little that was noteworthy.

And the kids have the option of transferring.
My gripe is more related to how SEC schools come away clean. What the NCAA did with Auburn and Cam is clearly a sweep under the rug.

Xenos
11-28-2011, 11:09 PM
People really need to stop bring up Brees like this. He has a good arm. If a prospect came out throwing like Brees everybody would be complimenting him on his arm strength.
Are you talking about Brees the prospect or Brees the player now? Because the former had a very weak arm, and the latter developed his arm strength through hard work, especially after the injury at the end of 2005. In fact, that injury and the recovery period to make it better probably made his arm must stronger. That being said, Brees' arm is more an example of anticipation than physical strength.

keylime_5
11-28-2011, 11:16 PM
At this point, the only thing I really see separating Luck from Barkley is his size and athleticism.

too bad those are two things that it is impossible to improve upon.

Luck just so happens to have elite intangeables as well. There is a definite, conclusive gap between Luck and Barkley as prospects.

SolidGold
12-01-2011, 07:40 AM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7301490/usc-trojans-quarterback-matt-barkley-takes-step-filing-paperwork-nfl

Barkley submitted paperwork to the NFL Draft advisory board - probably doing his due diligence.

He has to know he is a Top 5 prospect though.


From PFT:

USC quarterback Matt Barkley has submitted paperwork to the NFL draft advisory board to help him decide whether he’ll go pro this year, according to ESPNLosAngeles.com.

This is a normal procedure, but it’s the logical next step for the USC junior. Barkley joined NBC SportsTalk on Thursday and admitted that he’s “possibly” played his last game at USC.

Mike Mayock joined Peter King’s NFL podcast this week that Barkley was better than he expected. Mayock pointed out that Barkley does a great job making quick decisions, while avoiding sacks and interceptions despite playing behind a mediocre offensive line.

Mayock said Barkley’s physical skill set isn’t overwhelming, but he looks like a first round pick. Barkley was compared to a more “polished” Andy Dalton coming out of school.

Considering the sanctions against USC, we’d guess that Barkley will go pro if the draft advisory board agrees with Mayock as expected and says Barkley’s a first round pick.

I wouldn't call USC's o-line mediocre...surprised Mayock did.

FUNBUNCHER
12-01-2011, 09:26 AM
"...a more polished Andy Dalton.' -Mike Mayock.

Exactly what I see too. Physically these guys look like clones to me. Exact same arm.

If you surround Barkley with talent and put him behind an okay Oline, he should thrive IMO.

More heady and poised than Sanchez. I hope.

SolidGold
12-01-2011, 09:45 AM
"...a more polished Andy Dalton.' -Mike Mayock.

Exactly what I see too. Physically these guys look like clones to me. Exact same arm.

If you surround Barkley with talent and put him behind an okay Oline, he should thrive IMO.

More heady and poised than Sanchez. I hope.

I never understood how Sanchez was the 5th overall pick. I like Barkley so much more than I did Sanchez.

Prowler
12-01-2011, 12:25 PM
http://www.televisioninternet.com/news/pictures/mark-sanchez-gq.jpg

DraftSavant
12-01-2011, 12:28 PM
"...a more polished Andy Dalton.' -Mike Mayock.

Exactly what I see too. Physically these guys look like clones to me. Exact same arm.

If you surround Barkley with talent and put him behind an okay Oline, he should thrive IMO.

More heady and poised than Sanchez. I hope.

I believe we both said this earlier this season and got yelled at.

DraftSavant
12-01-2011, 12:30 PM
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/story/_/id/7301490/usc-trojans-quarterback-matt-barkley-takes-step-filing-paperwork-nfl

Barkley submitted paperwork to the NFL Draft advisory board - probably doing his due diligence.

He has to know he is a Top 5 prospect though.


From PFT:

USC quarterback Matt Barkley has submitted paperwork to the NFL draft advisory board to help him decide whether he’ll go pro this year, according to ESPNLosAngeles.com.

This is a normal procedure, but it’s the logical next step for the USC junior. Barkley joined NBC SportsTalk on Thursday and admitted that he’s “possibly” played his last game at USC.

Mike Mayock joined Peter King’s NFL podcast this week that Barkley was better than he expected. Mayock pointed out that Barkley does a great job making quick decisions, while avoiding sacks and interceptions despite playing behind a mediocre offensive line.

Mayock said Barkley’s physical skill set isn’t overwhelming, but he looks like a first round pick. Barkley was compared to a more “polished” Andy Dalton coming out of school.

Considering the sanctions against USC, we’d guess that Barkley will go pro if the draft advisory board agrees with Mayock as expected and says Barkley’s a first round pick.

I wouldn't call USC's o-line mediocre...surprised Mayock did.

Other than Kalil, their line is doggy doo doo.

Iamcanadian
12-01-2011, 12:36 PM
USC has a very solid OL with a great LT. Surprised Mayock stated it that way.

DraftSavant
12-01-2011, 12:41 PM
USC has a very solid OL with a great LT. Surprised Mayock stated it that way.

No, they really don't. Their guards are mediocre at best, they have a terrible center, and an overmatched freshman right tackle. Their foundation quick passing game (with the screen/smoke wrinkles to Woods) is run for a reason. They only go deep off three step drops or max protect play action for a reason.

Iamcanadian
12-01-2011, 12:42 PM
I never understood how Sanchez was the 5th overall pick. I like Barkley so much more than I did Sanchez.

Sanchez went #5 because of his potential and the demand for QB's in the NFL.
Barkley is obviously more experienced than Sanchez was at a similar stage and more polished at this point.
As soon as the Jets find a real stud to play RB in Ryan system, IMO, Sanchez is quite capable of taking them all the way. Considering how inexperienced Sanchez was coming out of college, you would expect a much longer learning curve before he reached his potential.

Babylon
12-01-2011, 01:16 PM
USC has a very solid OL with a great LT. Surprised Mayock stated it that way.

I'm with you on this one. Obviously Kalil is great but i like Holmes and Graf too. Just watch them play if you want to know how good they are. They give Barkely all day back there to throw the ball.

Punisher
12-01-2011, 01:25 PM
I'm with you on this one. Obviously Kalil is great but i like Holmes and Graf too. Just watch them play if you want to know how good they are. They give Barkely all day back there to throw the ball.

John Martinez and the true freshman Marcus Martin are not slouches either. That is a great college O-Line. Don't know how Mayock drew that conclusion up. In the beginning of the year they were a little shaky, but when they started to gel there was no looking back.

soybean
12-01-2011, 01:29 PM
Considering the sanctions against USC, we’d guess that Barkley will go pro if the draft advisory board agrees with Mayock as expected and says Barkley’s a first round pick.


What does this have to do with him leaving?

SolidGold
12-01-2011, 02:05 PM
What does this have to do with him leaving?

I don't know, that is what Mayock said...not me.

SickwithIt1010
12-01-2011, 02:49 PM
Please stay one more year, Matt.

Prowler
12-01-2011, 03:34 PM
I'd leave...the sanctions would have left a sour taste in my mouth so I don't think I'd owe USC anything. Especially if they were dragging their feet at heisman talk to try and get me to stay. Add in the desire to get out from under daddy's shadow and I don't know how a person couldn't leave. I'd have to want to vaccinate myself against most stds and then do every decent looking cheerleader, track, and gymnastics team member on campus in order to stay.

soybean
12-01-2011, 03:58 PM
I'd leave...the sanctions would have left a sour taste in my mouth so I don't think I'd owe USC anything. Especially if they were dragging their feet at heisman talk to try and get me to stay. Add in the desire to get out from under daddy's shadow and I don't know how a person couldn't leave. I'd have to want to vaccinate myself against most stds and then do every decent looking cheerleader, track, and gymnastics team member on campus in order to stay.

That's possible. He could have a "hangover" effect from the whole thing. But then you can look at it another way. He's on the cusp of leading (potentially) the best team in the country next year and be annointed the BEST player in all of college football.

Sometimes it's hard to leave something that you worked so hard to build.

But who knows what's in his mind and where his priorities lie.

RaiderNation
12-01-2011, 04:49 PM
Currently have Barkley rated the #3 overall prospect, and 2nd QB behind Luck. He is clearly the top QB behind Luck and is as good of a prospect as Sam Bradford coming out. Top pick type prospect that could either stay and go #1 next year or go top 5 to a team like Miami, Washington or Seattle.

vidae
12-01-2011, 10:31 PM
"...a more polished Andy Dalton.' -Mike Mayock.

Exactly what I see too. Physically these guys look like clones to me. Exact same arm.

If you surround Barkley with talent and put him behind an okay Oline, he should thrive IMO.

More heady and poised than Sanchez. I hope.

So a team like, say, the Kansas City Chiefs? :D

I_C_DeadPeople
12-01-2011, 11:30 PM
Well, other than possibly Newton, Dalton is the best QB in the 2011 draft so if Barkley is as good or better what is the issue?

descendency
12-02-2011, 12:33 AM
"...a more polished Andy Dalton.' -Mike Mayock.

Exactly what I see too. Physically these guys look like clones to me. Exact same arm.

Dalton's arm in college was inconsistent. Some throws would have zip and some would hang forever. A lot of people saw this and just assumed Dalton's arm was weak.

DraftSavant
12-02-2011, 12:51 AM
Dalton's arm in college was inconsistent. Some throws would have zip and some would hang forever. A lot of people saw this and just assumed Dalton's arm was weak.

I've noticed the same thing with Barkley. Usually happens because his front leg will get stiff and he won't transfer his weight properly, leading to an all-arm throw. Those are the little things that can get fixed in the pros and make velocity more consistent.

KCStud
12-02-2011, 12:59 AM
You put Barkley in KC with Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, Moeaki and Charles at RB and the Chiefs are a playoff team.

FUNBUNCHER
12-02-2011, 05:04 AM
You put Barkley in KC with Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, Moeaki and Charles at RB and the Chiefs are a playoff team.


Truth. All the pieces are there. KC needs a QB who can get the ball to the Chiefs playmakers.

Caulibflower
12-02-2011, 05:26 AM
You put Barkley in KC with Bowe, Breaston, Baldwin, Moeaki and Charles at RB and the Chiefs are a playoff team.

Only if Barkley and his receivers form a gang called "The B-Team."

Iamcanadian
12-02-2011, 11:58 AM
too bad those are two things that it is impossible to improve upon.

Luck just so happens to have elite intangeables as well. There is a definite, conclusive gap between Luck and Barkley as prospects.

I totally agree, Luck's intangibles are off the charts and the gap between the 2 is significant as prospects. However, Barkley will have a shot at the next level to prove us both wrong because he is talented and there is always the chance that he could turn out to be great.

Hellisan
12-03-2011, 08:56 PM
Put me in the Barkley is at least as good as Luck category. I am not a fan of either team (or really, either player either). I do like that Luck plays in a pro-style offense where he is under center and throwing play action passes and such... But USC asks Barkley to do a lot more than Luck is required to do at Stanford, and yet he's having as good or better a season. If you watch a whole Stanford game you might see Luck do a straight drop back and look for a target more than 5-7 yards down the field maybe 1-4 times in the entire game.

It's run (60% of the time) and play action to fullbacks or TE's on at LEAST 50% of their passes. I like both guys, but I prefer Barkley over him.

Admittedly, Barkley has the better supporting cast as far as the WR's go, but still... I've seen one guy do it, and not the other guy.

Last thing I'd like to say is that I do find it amusing that when somebody comes out and says something like this, everybody recoils, because all the talking heads have been telling them for two years that Luck will be the #1 pick. And the next reaction is that the guy must be an idiot. As if the vast majority of the people that have been saying this even really know what they're talking about.

descendency
12-03-2011, 09:20 PM
blech. matt barkley is marginally better then mark sanchez. i haven't seen a single thing in him that suggests a better than average nfl qb (ok, ok, "marginally better" was probably gross understatement in lieu of "average nfl qb").

Mark Sanchez is the worst starting QB in the NFL. You can't be an average NFL player and be just "marginally better" than him.

Hellisan
12-03-2011, 10:12 PM
blech. matt barkley is marginally better then mark sanchez. i haven't seen a single thing in him that suggests a better than average nfl qb (ok, ok, "marginally better" was probably gross understatement in lieu of "average nfl qb").


At least we agreed on Gabbert

http://www.draftcountdown.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47556&highlight=Gabbert

Brent
12-03-2011, 10:52 PM
i was there, so it's possible i was taking a pull/involved in a riot on his best play
possible? please, we all know you were tanked before even walking into Folsom.

Vinny Chase
12-04-2011, 09:00 PM
Seriously? How could anyone say that they would draft Barkley over Luck. Barkley is a complete product of the system he plays in. He's got a Kalil to protect him and two of the better WR in all of college football. Along with that he plays in an offense that gives him a ton of quick simple throws that are basically guaranteed completions. Not only would I take Luck over Barkley but I would also rather have RG3 or Landry Jones.

DeepThreat
12-04-2011, 09:05 PM
Seriously? How could anyone say that they would draft Barkley over Luck. Barkley is a complete product of the system he plays in. He's got a Kalil to protect him and two of the better WR in all of college football. Along with that he plays in an offense that gives him a ton of quick simple throws that are basically guaranteed completions. Not only would I take Luck over Barkley but I would also rather have RG3 or Landry Jones.

The simple fact that Barkley is surrounded by talented players does not mean he is a product of the team. With that logic, Aaron Rodgers isn't an elite QB either.

As for the scheme, the two guys you mention play in schemes that provide even easier throws. RG3 and Jones have tons of quick, easy throws a game. Barkley's offense is much less of a concern than those two's.

ElectricEye
12-04-2011, 09:06 PM
Seriously? How could anyone say that they would draft Barkley over Luck. Barkley is a complete product of the system he plays in. He's got a Kalil to protect him and two of the better WR in all of college football. Along with that he plays in an offense that gives him a ton of quick simple throws that are basically guaranteed completions. Not only would I take Luck over Barkley but I would also rather have RG3 or Landry Jones.

Hey I guess we can each have our own opinion on the matter, to me Barkley pretty much makes Woods and Lee what they are. I just personally think that all of Griffin's accomplishments can be attributed to the system he plays in and the conference he plays in. And you can't tell me that Baylor isn't talented, they just put up over 48 points on Texas. Also Griffin's receivers make Griffin look a ton better than he actually is, if it weren't for them he would be pretty mediocre if you ask me.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs44/f/2009/063/b/2/lolwut_bananas_by_lolwutbanana.jpg

SickwithIt1010
12-04-2011, 09:08 PM
Seriously? How could anyone say that they would draft Barkley over Luck. Barkley is a complete product of the system he plays in. He's got a Kalil to protect him and two of the better WR in all of college football. Along with that he plays in an offense that gives him a ton of quick simple throws that are basically guaranteed completions. Not only would I take Luck over Barkley but I would also rather have RG3 or Landry Jones.

You realize that RG3 and Jones throw about 2,000 middle screens/bubble screens per game right?

TitansCJftw
12-04-2011, 09:09 PM
He's got a Kalil to protect him and two of the better WR in all of college football

a situation like Matt Barkley where he is playing against top notch talent week in and week out without a single receiver to throw to he would be putting up about half the stats that he is.

so who does Barkley have to throw to then???? SC hasn't had a real go to wide out since Dwayne Jarrett. All I'm saying is that Barkley has had a tremendous season with an extremely weak supporting cast.

to me Barkley pretty much makes Woods and Lee what they are.

Something is uh ... EDIT:DAMNIT EE! ;)

TACKLE
12-04-2011, 09:12 PM
Although it would be the first time in the history of his internet, maybe he was convinced to change his mind.

ElectricEye
12-04-2011, 09:14 PM
Although it would be the first time in the history of his internet, maybe he was convinced to change his mind.

Changing your mind is incredibly underrated as an evaluation tool, but it should take at least a bit more than like 20 minutes haha.

Iamcanadian
12-04-2011, 11:45 PM
Mark Sanchez is the worst starting QB in the NFL. You can't be an average NFL player and be just "marginally better" than him.

I disagree, Sanchez came to pro ball with very limited experience and may only be on the verge of being special. He may need another year to have a breakout season. Ryan fully believes Sanchez has the potential to be a Super Bowl winning QB.
When I look at the Jet's offense, I see a team that has a one sided offense with little talent at RB to make their offense more than 1 dimensional. Their rushing yards per game has fallen off substantially this year as Tomlinson's age takes its toll and Greene has proved he isn't a lead RB but only a backup type. I believe Ryan and the Jets will go all out at the draft to find a lead RB who is capable of being really effective in Ryan's offense and when that RB forces defenses to defend the run and opens up more passing lanes for Sanchez, he could have a real breakout year next season.

Prowler
12-05-2011, 02:51 PM
Sanchez is still money in the playoffs. He ownz Carson Palmer.

I wouldn't have a problem with a team drafting Barkley #2 overall this year. #1 would require Barkley to put up some kind of ridiculous combine performance and an epic choke job by Luck.

Complex
12-05-2011, 03:34 PM
You realize that RG3 and Jones throw about 2,000 middle screens/bubble screens per game right?

You realize that RGIII throws 2,000 deep balls per game to receivers not named Robert Woods or Marquise Lee right?

keylime_5
12-05-2011, 03:46 PM
Put me in the Barkley is at least as good as Luck category. I am not a fan of either team (or really, either player either). I do like that Luck plays in a pro-style offense where he is under center and throwing play action passes and such... But USC asks Barkley to do a lot more than Luck is required to do at Stanford, and yet he's having as good or better a season. If you watch a whole Stanford game you might see Luck do a straight drop back and look for a target more than 5-7 yards down the field maybe 1-4 times in the entire game.

It's run (60% of the time) and play action to fullbacks or TE's on at LEAST 50% of their passes. I like both guys, but I prefer Barkley over him.

Admittedly, Barkley has the better supporting cast as far as the WR's go, but still... I've seen one guy do it, and not the other guy.

Last thing I'd like to say is that I do find it amusing that when somebody comes out and says something like this, everybody recoils, because all the talking heads have been telling them for two years that Luck will be the #1 pick. And the next reaction is that the guy must be an idiot. As if the vast majority of the people that have been saying this even really know what they're talking about.


there's waaaaaaay more to QB evaluation than what offense they run, who they are throwing to, and what they are asked to do. There is a ridiculous gap between Luck and Barkley as prospects. Maybe not as college QBs (you could debate which one is better as a college QB), but the fact is Luck is an elite rare breed of QB while it is arguable that Barkley is a franchise QB at the next level. He is not big (probably 6'1") and his athleticism and arm strength are nothing special. Let's make it clear that there have been a lot of QBs putting up big numbers at USC this decade (Palmer, Leinart, John David Booty, Sanchez) and only Palmer was really good as a pro at one time. Sanchez is mediocre and he has better physical tools than Barkley. I laugh everytime I see this thread title on the main forum page. Right now it would be a much more interesting discussion arguing RGIII vs Barkley for 2nd best QB prospect behind Luck right now.

soybean
12-05-2011, 05:53 PM
there's waaaaaaay more to QB evaluation than what offense they run, who they are throwing to, and what they are asked to do. There is a ridiculous gap between Luck and Barkley as prospects. Maybe not as college QBs (you could debate which one is better as a college QB), but the fact is Luck is an elite rare breed of QB while it is arguable that Barkley is a franchise QB at the next level. He is not big (probably 6'1") and his athleticism and arm strength are nothing special. Let's make it clear that there have been a lot of QBs putting up big numbers at USC this decade (Palmer, Leinart, John David Booty, Sanchez) and only Palmer was really good as a pro at one time. Sanchez is mediocre and he has better physical tools than Barkley. I laugh everytime I see this thread title on the main forum page. Right now it would be a much more interesting discussion arguing RGIII vs Barkley for 2nd best QB prospect behind Luck right now.

how does this favor luck? his arm is nothing special either.

DraftSavant
12-05-2011, 06:03 PM
there's waaaaaaay more to QB evaluation than what offense they run, who they are throwing to, and what they are asked to do. There is a ridiculous gap between Luck and Barkley as prospects. Maybe not as college QBs (you could debate which one is better as a college QB), but the fact is Luck is an elite rare breed of QB while it is arguable that Barkley is a franchise QB at the next level. He is not big (probably 6'1") and his athleticism and arm strength are nothing special. Let's make it clear that there have been a lot of QBs putting up big numbers at USC this decade (Palmer, Leinart, John David Booty, Sanchez) and only Palmer was really good as a pro at one time. Sanchez is mediocre and he has better physical tools than Barkley. I laugh everytime I see this thread title on the main forum page. Right now it would be a much more interesting discussion arguing RGIII vs Barkley for 2nd best QB prospect behind Luck right now.

I agree with every single word in this post.

Soybean, Luck's arm isn't special, true. The way he manipulates space in the pocket is special. That has always been his best attribute, and it's not one that people easily quantify.

Now...what about Matt Barkley is special? He's the Joseph Addai of QB prospects. Pretty solid at everything, doesn't do anything particularly well (RZ accuracy is pretty damn superb, though - that's his best attribute by far), and he can be a hell of a contributing piece to your offense, but will likely never be the foundation. I look at him and I see Matt Hasselback.

SickwithIt1010
12-05-2011, 06:38 PM
I agree with every single word in this post.

Soybean, Luck's arm isn't special, true. The way he manipulates space in the pocket is special. That has always been his best attribute, and it's not one that people easily quantify.

Now...what about Matt Barkley is special? He's the Joseph Addai of QB prospects. Pretty solid at everything, doesn't do anything particularly well (RZ accuracy is pretty damn superb, though - that's his best attribute by far), and he can be a hell of a contributing piece to your offense, but will likely never be the foundation. I look at him and I see Matt Hasselback.


If Matt Hasselbeck ever stayed healthy he would have had a pretty solid career lol.

SickwithIt1010
12-05-2011, 06:39 PM
You realize that RGIII throws 2,000 deep balls per game to receivers not named Robert Woods or Marquise Lee right?

Kendall Wright may very well be a 1st rounder? lol.

DraftSavant
12-05-2011, 06:41 PM
If Matt Hasselbeck ever stayed healthy he would have had a pretty solid career lol.

I don't disagree with that. But he also wasn't ever the foundation of that Seattle offense. The power running game was, and he complimented it perfectly.

Again, I'm not trying to say Barkley is awful. But you have to clearly distinguish whether a guy is projected to be a foundation player or if he's just a complimentary piece.

keylime_5
12-07-2011, 11:02 AM
Here's an interesting podcast tidbit from National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Draft-Talk-120.html

(I stole this summary from a Browns board)

Some sound bites on Tannehill:
- Both analysts feel Tannehill will leap frog Barkley by draft time.
- Agree Barkley is probably a better prospect today - but Tannehill's ceiling is much higher.
- Concerned with Barkley's height - suspect 6'2, and limited physically
- Spoke to some of RT's issues this season was a combination of coaching on its way out, Fuller's bad season, and his development.
- Love RT's arm, smarts and intelligence - while agree needs development, but in the right system could be a top NFL QB.

Some sound bites on Kendall Wright:
- Explosive
- Should sneak into the first round - potentially the first half
- Shifty, polished route runner, has developed well from last year, has learned how to beat press coverage
- Can make impact outside and in the slot
- Comparisons: Mike Wallace, Steve Smith

SickwithIt1010
12-07-2011, 11:43 AM
Here's an interesting podcast tidbit from National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Draft-Talk-120.html

(I stole this summary from a Browns board)

Some sound bites on Tannehill:
- Both analysts feel Tannehill will leap frog Barkley by draft time.
- Agree Barkley is probably a better prospect today - but Tannehill's ceiling is much higher.
- Concerned with Barkley's height - suspect 6'2, and limited physically
- Spoke to some of RT's issues this season was a combination of coaching on its way out, Fuller's bad season, and his development.
- Love RT's arm, smarts and intelligence - while agree needs development, but in the right system could be a top NFL QB.

Some sound bites on Kendall Wright:
- Explosive
- Should sneak into the first round - potentially the first half
- Shifty, polished route runner, has developed well from last year, has learned how to beat press coverage
- Can make impact outside and in the slot
- Comparisons: Mike Wallace, Steve Smith

Tannehill just didnt really impress me at all this year.

SolidGold
12-07-2011, 11:54 AM
Here's an interesting podcast tidbit from National Football Post

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Draft-Talk-120.html

(I stole this summary from a Browns board)

Some sound bites on Tannehill:
- Both analysts feel Tannehill will leap frog Barkley by draft time.
- Agree Barkley is probably a better prospect today - but Tannehill's ceiling is much higher.
- Concerned with Barkley's height - suspect 6'2, and limited physically
- Spoke to some of RT's issues this season was a combination of coaching on its way out, Fuller's bad season, and his development.
- Love RT's arm, smarts and intelligence - while agree needs development, but in the right system could be a top NFL QB.

Some sound bites on Kendall Wright:
- Explosive
- Should sneak into the first round - potentially the first half
- Shifty, polished route runner, has developed well from last year, has learned how to beat press coverage
- Can make impact outside and in the slot
- Comparisons: Mike Wallace, Steve Smith

I was also somewhat disappointed with Tannehill but still like him as a prospect and can see how his season can be attributed to the issues addressed above. I think Fuller's subpar senior campaign hurt RT. I can't really blame the coaching on it's way out though since the coaching staff would of stayed in place if they won. I do blame the coaching staff for not being able to protect double digit leads. I also do not think the coaching staff did it's best to help Tannehill grow as a QB. I think Sherman showed himself to be a pretty mediocre head coach which hurt RT as well.

I won't be surprised if he ends up going in the first round and I wouldn't consider it much of a reach either. Luck, Barkley, Griffin and Tannehill are all likely first round picks. Luck and Barkley are probably as at their max potential right now and Griffin/Tannehill are the guys that a team drafts based on upside/potential.

ULT
12-07-2011, 12:07 PM
barkley mentioned in an interview a while back that he has been measured at around 6'2 1/2.

keylime_5
12-07-2011, 12:12 PM
Obviously scouts/evaluators feel that Tannehill's problems can be fixed with coaching and that he can be a great QB if he corrects those flaws. They were talking mostly about how good Tannehill is (they freaking love RT over on NFP to death) moreso than hating on Barkley. I don't think people are gonna crap on Barkley like they did on Quinn or Clausen, but his tools are closer to Andy Dalton or Christian Ponder than they are other top QB prospects so his stock might be limited, though teams really loved Ponder and Dalton a lot last year and caused them to rise despite not playing at USC like Dalton did or not putting up Barkley's #s in Ponder's case.

TACKLE
12-07-2011, 12:26 PM
On the topic of Tannehill, for all the struggles Tannehill had down the stretch, remember this....there was a QB taken last year who in his senior year had 4 games with less than 75 yards passing and finished the season with a 55% completion percentage who still went in the Top 10 because of his superior physical tools. I still wouldn't rule Tannehill out as a potential top 15 pick as he should be very impressive in his workouts leading up to the draft.

Iamcanadian
12-07-2011, 12:28 PM
As the last combine showed, QB's have a lot to prove when they get there and anything can happen. Luck probably stays home since he is practically guaranteed to go #1 overall but Barkley, RG111 and Tannehill will all get a shot to show where they belong in the rankings away from their systems and college talent.
I like them in this order but it certainly isn't set in stone:

RG111 - besides his obvious physical tools, his intangibles are right there with Luck's
Barkley, - You don't downgrade a player for having great talent around him but it raises a few concerns vis a vie his overall talent level. The combine should solve that.
Tannehill may have a high ceiling but will he ever get there. The QB's above him currently have far less questions but again, the combine could bring him to the forefront.
As for guessing the height and weights of prospects, we'll just have to be patient until the Senior Bowl and the Combine before we know, it is senseless guessing.

SolidGold
12-07-2011, 12:50 PM
As the last combine showed, QB's have a lot to prove when they get there and anything can happen. Luck probably stays home since he is practically guaranteed to go #1 overall but Barkley, RG111 and Tannehill will all get a shot to show where they belong in the rankings away from their systems and college talent.
I like them in this order but it certainly isn't set in stone:

RG111 - besides his obvious physical tools, his intangibles are right there with Luck's
Barkley, - You don't downgrade a player for having great talent around him but it raises a few concerns vis a vie his overall talent level. The combine should solve that.
Tannehill may have a high ceiling but will he ever get there. The QB's above him currently have far less questions but again, the combine could bring him to the forefront.
As for guessing the height and weights of prospects, we'll just have to be patient until the Senior Bowl and the Combine before we know, it is senseless guessing.


We can't know that for sure. By all accounts he is a bright kid as well who has no character concerns. If he gets paired up with a QB guru I am sure he can tap into his potential.

killxswitch
12-07-2011, 12:55 PM
Tannehill has thrown a ton of INTs this year. I have not watched him. For those that have, how does coaching or surrounding talent account for those? Bad WR routes? Passes bouncing off receiver's hands?

TACKLE
12-07-2011, 01:01 PM
Tannehill has thrown a ton of INTs this year. I have not watched him. For those that have, how does coaching or surrounding talent account for those? Bad WR routes? Passes bouncing off receiver's hands?

Not too say that he hasn't made some poor decisions with the football, but I can think of several INT's off the top of my head that fit that description.

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 01:10 PM
Not too say that he hasn't made some poor decisions with the football, but I can think of several INT's off the top of my head that fit that description.

Yup. He's also not very nuanced in his reads and going through an entire progression. When the primary and secondary aren't open, he tends to throw blind into coverage.

Not to say I think he'll end up the best, but he's still my favorite QB in this class.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 02:41 PM
This conversation has gotten so ridiculous that my head is starting to hurt. There is aparently a group of posters who are trying to lead the sheep into believing Tannehill will be a better NFL QB than Barkley and that's just crap.

Wouldn't doubt it if those people were Jake Locker over Cam Newton fans last season either. Don't buy the hype!

This is the time of year where people want to build their foundations for their "I told you so" statements down the line.

Barkley is the superior QB now and will be in the future.

Here's a rule: Never buy the hype for the QBs who have high potential over the guy that can do it now. Never.

You'll always have guys who hype up the Ryan Leaf's over Peyton Manning's at draft time. But they'll lead you off a clifff into overrating guys like Akili Smith, David Carr, Kyle Boller, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, and worst of all... Jamarcus Russell (the icon poster boy for the "QB potential" hypers)!

That's why Blaine Gabbard gets taken early in Round 1 and a guy with less upside like Andy Dalton gets slid to Round 2. I tried to tell you that Cam was superior to Locker last year, but the Locker supporters have lost.... and lost badly.

This year, don't believe those who want to sway you to believe Tannehill will be better than Barkley.

...then again, I'm a USC homer who told you that Taylor Mays is a God. :D

Have fun! Choose your sides wisely!

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 02:53 PM
I feel like I have a pretty good track history with USC players.

Again, I don't think Barkley is a terrible prospect. I think he's Matt Hasselback. There's nothing wrong with that.

TACKLE
12-07-2011, 03:05 PM
Here's a rule: Never buy the hype for the QBs who have high potential over the guy that can do it now. Never.

Huh? You say this and then spend the rest of your post telling everyone how much you liked Cam? Cam was the ultimate high risk/high reward QB whoes biggest knock was his lack of perceived pro-readiness.

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 03:08 PM
Huh? You say this and then spend the rest of your post telling everyone how much you liked Cam? Cam was the ultimate high risk/high reward QB whoes biggest knock was his lack of perceived pro-readiness.

The entire Locker vs. Cam argument doesn't make sense. They were both that. Dalton, I can see. Or Mallett (he fell for off-the-field reasons, but a lot of people really didn't like him pre-draft - he was my favorite QB of last year's crop).

I also don't understand how Jason Campbell is a high-upside guy. There was nothing elite about his game as a prospect.

SolidGold
12-07-2011, 03:13 PM
This conversation has gotten so ridiculous that my head is starting to hurt. There is aparently a group of posters who are trying to lead the sheep into believing Tannehill will be a better NFL QB than Barkley and that's just crap.

Wouldn't doubt it if those people were Jake Locker over Cam Newton fans last season either. Don't buy the hype!

This is the time of year where people want to build their foundations for their "I told you so" statements down the line.

Barkley is the superior QB now and will be in the future.

Here's a rule: Never buy the hype for the QBs who have high potential over the guy that can do it now. Never.

You'll always have guys who hype up the Ryan Leaf's over Peyton Manning's at draft time. But they'll lead you off a clifff into overrating guys like Akili Smith, David Carr, Kyle Boller, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, and worst of all... Jamarcus Russell (the icon poster boy for the "QB potential" hypers)!

That's why Blaine Gabbard gets taken early in Round 1 and a guy with less upside like Andy Dalton gets slid to Round 2. I tried to tell you that Cam was superior to Locker last year, but the Locker supporters have lost.... and lost badly.

This year, don't believe those who want to sway you to believe Tannehill will be better than Barkley.

...then again, I'm a USC homer who told you that Taylor Mays is a God. :D

Have fun! Choose your sides wisely!

I like Barkley alot, I think you can plug him in and he is going to be a very good starter in this league. He is the second best QB behind Luck. He is a polished prospect, Tannehill on the other hand is raw so their is that untapped potential which makes him alluring.

soybean
12-07-2011, 03:19 PM
I feel like I have a pretty good track history with USC players.

Again, I don't think Barkley is a terrible prospect. I think he's Matt Hasselback. There's nothing wrong with that.

How does this make sense, though? I mean the entire staff is different, the players are different. The schemes, and even the strength and conditioning coach is dfferent. The only thing these players have in common is the school they went to.

So it's like saying, I knew Matt Leinart was going to bust so i have credentials to say Matt Barkley will bust.

ElectricEye
12-07-2011, 03:22 PM
Tannehill has thrown a ton of INTs this year. I have not watched him. For those that have, how does coaching or surrounding talent account for those? Bad WR routes? Passes bouncing off receiver's hands?

As Tackle already pointed out, there's some of the bad routes and tough breaks that I can think of off the top of my head. Tannehill has made the type of mistakes you would expect from a guy with a year and a half of starting experience under his belt, but some of it hasn't been his fault. Jeff Fuller has disappeared off the face of the earth this year and has cutting off his routes, to point out one guy is specific.

In spite of that, I would still put Tannehill fairly firmly behind Griffin and Barkley, in that order. There's some things I'm not sure quite check out about Barkley and I've been up and down on him, but at the very least he's got a very high floor and is a great bet to be an average starter in the NFL, which is certainly worth a first round pick if you're sure about it. Still has potential to be a lot more as well.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 03:51 PM
Huh? You say this and then spend the rest of your post telling everyone how much you liked Cam? Cam was the ultimate high risk/high reward QB whoes biggest knock was his lack of perceived pro-readiness.
No his biggest knocks were his shady dealings which made people question his character, in addition to knocks on his smarts and accuracy. But I tried to tell people that his shady dealings were not equated to his personality character traits/leadership/charisma/etc etc. He was born pro ready in that department. His readiness as far as what he could accomplish on the football field was no doubt. His size and ability to be successful as a runner from the start was never in question, and in fact his arm strength was MORE THAN pro ready.

The high risk/high reward label was only there for the doubters who believed in the risk. He was high reward all the way.

Locker did NOTHING on the field and has the persoanlity of a dead fish on a slab...yet everyone praised his attributes. Very few things about him was pro ready.

So that's where I'm coming from.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 03:56 PM
The entire Locker vs. Cam argument doesn't make sense. They were both that. Dalton, I can see. Or Mallett (he fell for off-the-field reasons, but a lot of people really didn't like him pre-draft - he was my favorite QB of last year's crop).

I also don't understand how Jason Campbell is a high-upside guy. There was nothing elite about his game as a prospect.
Campbell's arm strength was raaaaved about. He was all hype coming off of Auburn's perfect season. That's why he landed in Round 1. If he was 5'10, he wouldn't have had a second look. His size, arm strength and throwing motion had scouts fixated when he started hitting his targets in predraft activities. Bleh.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 03:57 PM
because cam had a big rookie season and locker's being brought along slowly? what is this, 'reggie bush is the best rb in the nfl' part 2?

and who is blaine gabbard?
You believing in Locker is going to be your version of my Reggie Bush story. LOL.

Babylon
12-07-2011, 04:06 PM
This conversation has gotten so ridiculous that my head is starting to hurt. There is aparently a group of posters who are trying to lead the sheep into believing Tannehill will be a better NFL QB than Barkley and that's just crap.

Wouldn't doubt it if those people were Jake Locker over Cam Newton fans last season either. Don't buy the hype!

This is the time of year where people want to build their foundations for their "I told you so" statements down the line.

Barkley is the superior QB now and will be in the future.

Here's a rule: Never buy the hype for the QBs who have high potential over the guy that can do it now. Never.

You'll always have guys who hype up the Ryan Leaf's over Peyton Manning's at draft time. But they'll lead you off a clifff into overrating guys like Akili Smith, David Carr, Kyle Boller, JP Losman, Jason Campbell, and worst of all... Jamarcus Russell (the icon poster boy for the "QB potential" hypers)!

That's why Blaine Gabbard gets taken early in Round 1 and a guy with less upside like Andy Dalton gets slid to Round 2. I tried to tell you that Cam was superior to Locker last year, but the Locker supporters have lost.... and lost badly.

This year, don't believe those who want to sway you to believe Tannehill will be better than Barkley.

...then again, I'm a USC homer who told you that Taylor Mays is a God. :D

Have fun! Choose your sides wisely!

See this is what bothers me. Why cant we just say Cam Newton has had a great year and Jake Locker hasnt played per Tennesse's strategy. Why does a positive have to be offset by a negative?

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 04:09 PM
Campbell's arm strength was raaaaved about. He was all hype coming off of Auburn's perfect season. That's why he landed in Round 1. If he was 5'10, he wouldn't have had a second look. His size, arm strength and throwing motion had scouts fixated when he started hitting his targets in predraft activities. Bleh.

I don't necessarily remember Campbell being raved about universally by scouts. I thought most people were pretty perplexed when the reports started surfacing that the Redskins were really set on him in late round one. Dunno how many other teams were, but with the draft, it only takes one team to fall in love.

He had size and above average arm strength. His release was and still is horrendously slow. I dunno, I never saw him as one of those ridiculous upside guys.

WCH
12-07-2011, 04:19 PM
Again, I don't think Barkley is a terrible prospect. I think he's Matt Hasselback. There's nothing wrong with that.

The thing is, when you look at the entire set of 227 QBs drafted during the 20 year period from 1983 to 2002, Hasselback has had a top-25 career. The top-40 includes guys like Steve Beuerlein, Aaron Brooks, and Mark Rypien. Most years there won't be more than one guy who puts together a better career than Hasselback.

Casual draftniks (and usually professional scouts, as well) seriously overestimate the floor of prospects. Hasselback would have been a top-5 pick and the 2nd QB drafted in 1998, if teams had known what they know now.

I guess that my point is that we should temper our enthusiasm about all of these guys. Most of them will be doing well if they can make it to journeyman status in the NFL.

FUNBUNCHER
12-07-2011, 04:20 PM
The only reason Jason Campbell went in the first is because Joe Gibbs thought he was the second coming of Doug Williams. Campbell wasn't a lock first rounder or even graded out to be one.

descendency
12-07-2011, 04:29 PM
Campbell's arm strength was raaaaved about. He was all hype coming off of Auburn's perfect season. That's why he landed in Round 1. If he was 5'10, he wouldn't have had a second look. His size, arm strength and throwing motion had scouts fixated when he started hitting his targets in predraft activities. Bleh.

So basically, if he were Russell Wilson.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 04:50 PM
that doesn't really make any sense. it's like suggesting that aaron rodgers was never going to amount to anything because alex smith had better stats his rookie year. jake locker's future success has nothing to do with cam newton's current success, and suggesting that he's already a failure for it is pretty akin to suggesting that a player is a hall of famer prior to his playing a down. just on the opposite end.

and i say all of that knowing that i was way off on cam's ability to keep his head on straight and make nfl reads.
You have a really interesting way of making 1 + 1 = 2. What you said was neither here or there, but I'll make it simple. When Jake Locker fails, I'll remember to call you out on it every chance I get like you do with me and Reggie Bush. k? hahaha.

SickwithIt1010
12-07-2011, 04:51 PM
I love how this just became a Jake Locker vs Cam Newton thread

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 04:53 PM
See this is what bothers me. Why cant we just say Cam Newton has had a great year and Jake Locker hasnt played per Tennesse's strategy. Why does a positive have to be offset by a negative?
Don't blame me. I mentioned it amongst many other names, but people chose to pick that one out. Guess it's a sensitive subject....

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 04:56 PM
Don't blame me. I mentioned it amongst many other names, but people chose to pick that one out. Guess it's a sensitive subject....

No, it's because you used Locker v. Newton as an example in a post about ceiling vs. floor, which makes no sense at all.

Iamcanadian
12-07-2011, 05:06 PM
To be fair, I was only putting Tannehill at #4 on my chart and I really have no idea how he will respond to the combine testing. There are no guarantees any of them will reach their ceilings just that Tannehill has a longer route to follow which is why he is #4. He could just as easily end up at #2 behind Luck if he blows the combine up.

Iamcanadian
12-07-2011, 05:09 PM
You have a really interesting way of making 1 + 1 = 2. What you said was neither here or there, but I'll make it simple. When Jake Locker fails, I'll remember to call you out on it every chance I get like you do with me and Reggie Bush. k? hahaha.

Actually with Reggie playing in a new offensive system with Miami, he has a legit shot to reach 1000 yard season.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 05:11 PM
No, it's because you used Locker v. Newton as an example in a post about ceiling vs. floor, which makes no sense at all.
Newton was more NFL ready than Locker. I'm sorry that doesn't make sense for you.


BTW, I know you created that fake keak account, so who were you before? A previously banned member?

descendency
12-07-2011, 05:22 PM
Actually with Reggie playing in a new offensive system with Miami, he has a legit shot to reach 1000 yard season.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GreeBe00/gamelog/2010/

soybean
12-07-2011, 05:26 PM
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/G/GreeBe00/gamelog/2010/

can you be a little less vague in what you're trying to say?

descendency
12-07-2011, 05:31 PM
can you be a little less vague in what you're trying to say?

1000 yards is a nice target, but just because you get 1000 yards, doesn't mean you are worth anything near a top 2 pick. Reggie Bush will never be anything other than a bust. People viewed him as a more dynamic Marshall Faulk.

soybean
12-07-2011, 05:42 PM
1000 yards is a nice target, but just because you get 1000 yards, doesn't mean you are worth anything near a top 2 pick. Reggie Bush will never be anything other than a bust. People viewed him as a more dynamic Marshall Faulk.

i guess what iamcanadian said could loosely be tied to that but he didnt really say that.

San Diego Chicken
12-07-2011, 05:45 PM
Barkley's my clear #2 and very close to Luck on my personal board. Barkley's intangibles are off the charts. He understand passing concepts extremely well, is a great team leader, gifted intellectually. This is a guy who started from day one in his college career, unheard of at USC. 2 games later he leads a game winning drive on the road at Ohio State. He deserves a lot of respect and praise in guiding his program the past two years while his team was sanctioned and going through regime change.

If he declares he's an ideal fit in many NFL systems and teams like KC, MIA, WAS, CLE, JAX, and SEA should be looking to move up into the top 3 to secure him. It's a damn shame he was snubbed as a Heisman finalist...

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 06:03 PM
Newton was more NFL ready than Locker. I'm sorry that doesn't make sense for you.


BTW, I know you created that fake keak account, so who were you before? A previously banned member?

It makes sense, but if you're going off pre-draft analysis of both it's splitting hairs. Yes, most people underrated how NFL-ready Newton was. But we're still talking about two incredibly raw prospects who were seen as all-ceiling/no-floor by pretty much everyone. There was a group of high-ceiling guys in Newton, Locker, Gabbert, and Kap and a group of high floor guys in Ponder, Dalton, and Mallet.

I mean, I guess if you want to compare the floor of Newton vs. Locker, go ahead. It's a bit of a non-sequitor and comes off as hypocritical since the entire premise of your post was people drumming up Tannehill vs. Barkley as a future "I told you so"...and then lead into an "I told you so" that's not even really comparable to the discussion at hand.

And I am Keak's spiritual successor.

Prowler
12-07-2011, 06:17 PM
I don't remember Keak knowing what non-sequitor meant.

You need to mention "MJD's thick thighs" or De La Salle every third post.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 06:25 PM
It makes sense, but if you're going off pre-draft analysis of both it's splitting hairs. Yes, most people underrated how NFL-ready Newton was. But we're still talking about two incredibly raw prospects who were seen as all-ceiling/no-floor by pretty much everyone. There was a group of high-ceiling guys in Newton, Locker, Gabbert, and Kap and a group of high floor guys in Ponder, Dalton, and Mallet.

I mean, I guess if you want to compare the floor of Newton vs. Locker, go ahead. It's a bit of a non-sequitor and comes off as hypocritical since the entire premise of your post was people drumming up Tannehill vs. Barkley as a future "I told you so"...and then lead into an "I told you so" that's not even really comparable to the discussion at hand.

And I am Keak's spiritual successor.
That's cool Eric.

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 06:28 PM
That's cool Eric.

Amazing detective work, Officer D. Did you have to go through peoples' PMs and rep comments, or did a simple IP scan work?

Iamcanadian
12-07-2011, 06:29 PM
i guess what iamcanadian said could loosely be tied to that but he didnt really say that.

I wouldn't rate Bush a bust, his best years may still be ahead of him. New Orleans used him in a way that opened up passing lanes for their other receivers, Miami is choosing to have him carry the ball a lot more. Now that they have a partially functional QB, we will get to see what Bush can accomplish as a runner. If he can put 1000 yard seasons back to back, he'll open a lot of eyes from those who labeled him a flop. Faulk didn't really bloom till he was traded to St. Louis, maybe that's all Bush needed.

D-Unit
12-07-2011, 06:33 PM
Amazing detective work, Officer D. Did you have to go through peoples' PMs and rep comments, or did a simple IP scan work?
Look, I know your exodus didn't work, but I'm glad you guys are making it back.

That said... I don't dislike Tannehill. I just like Barkley better. In fact, Tannehill might go in a draft spot close to where the Cowboys will be drafting and I would welcome a developmental project like him.

DraftSavant
12-07-2011, 06:49 PM
Look, I know your exodus didn't work, but I'm glad you guys are making it back.

That said... I don't dislike Tannehill. I just like Barkley better. In fact, Tannehill might go in a draft spot close to where the Cowboys will be drafting and I would welcome a developmental project like him.

It's the internet, the magical land where everyone takes themselves way too seriously (myself included).

I don't dislike Barkley, either. If I was picking in the top ten, I'd select him before Tannehill. That being said, I greatly favor Tannehill's skillset to almost every QB prospect in this class. I said earlier in the year that I think he's the prospect Locker should have been.

deepthoughtlife
12-11-2011, 03:47 AM
As a big fan of USC, I always have to be careful rating prospects from there; it would be easy to gloss over their flaws if I wasn't careful. That said, there is very little wrong with Barkley's game. His footwork is excellent. He has a nice, tight throwing motion. He hits his target almost every time, though a bit less so on the deep balls. He is careful with the ball, but still makes the big plays. He sees just about every eligible receiver. There is almost never a reason to scratch your head, and wonder why he did something.

He does have two amazing talents at receiver in Robert Woods and Marquise Lee, but they are just a Sophmore, and a Freshman, which showed in their play at times. Many times, Barkley would throw them a perfect pass, and they would drop it. Neither is amazingly fast, nor amazingly strong. They would consistently beat their guys, but rarely were they wide open.

Sometimes, a QB will come out of a big time school having seen almost no pressure, but that isn't the case with Barkley. The offensive line did not do a good job protecting Barkley most of the time, and he had to get the ball out in short order.

In his mock, Scott Wright claims Barkley isn't elite, but I completely disagree. Barkley is a better prospect than any QB in the last several drafts. He is just unlucky enough to have Luck in the same draft.

There are legitimate reasons an individual could decide they would take Barkley before Luck. Luck's footwork is not that good, though it isn't horrible. Luck hasn't quite lit the world on fire like you might expect. Barkley has often been more spectacular. He has done more with less, and a year less in the program, than Luck has. At this point, I'm probably 60-40 on taking Luck before Barkley, but it isn't crazy to go the other way. Luck is a legitimate first overall prospect, but so is Barkley. My opinion of Barkley actually went up after scouting him, as opposed to just watching.

Barkley is by far the best QB USC has had since I started watching them (admittedly, that only goes back to the Leinart days). The size of that gap is as large as the difference between a Peyton Manning, and a Jon Kitna (who, don't forget, could put up big numbers, but is a long time journeyman for a reason.) He is what made USC great this season. Obviously, I don't want Barkley to go pro, since he won't end up on one of my teams (that would require an epic fall)(go niners!), but he should. There is nothing left for Barkley to prove at the college level.

TheFinisher
03-05-2013, 07:24 PM
Bump

Interesting to see the general opinion on Barkley last year as opposed to this year.

raphael
03-05-2013, 08:07 PM
I don't know that the pro scouts opinion of Matt has changed all that much over the year. If his shoulder tests out O.K. he'll be at the same spot on their lists. I think they base their opinion on about five years worth of research on each player, going right back to their high school days. It's only on media boards and mocks that players rise and fall dramatically.

cajuncorey
03-05-2013, 08:08 PM
barkley is the american dream, and will fail as such.

WCH
03-05-2013, 08:36 PM
I'm not convinced that Barkley was ever as highly regarded by pro scouts as he was by the national media and fans.

descendency
03-05-2013, 09:10 PM
Bump

Interesting to see the general opinion on Barkley last year as opposed to this year.

Honestly, Barkley has regressed. I usually am a firm believer that players that aren't ready should return to college so I thought it was a good move for Barkley, but it seems he didn't learn anything from it.

Brothgar
03-05-2013, 09:16 PM
I'm also not sold on Barkley does it have to do with not trusting USC prospects? Slightly but I'm unsure on his skill set namely arm strength for starters..

fatso
03-05-2013, 10:56 PM
Do you guys think the deflated ball fiasco is hurting his stock at all?

JRTPlaya21
03-05-2013, 11:27 PM
Lmao no not really. He just isn't that great.

Roddoliver
03-06-2013, 12:35 AM
What a difference. It used to be: "arm strengths are about equal with Luck having the slight advantage" and "if you think Luck has even slightly more arm strength than Barkley, you obviously haven't been paying attention" and "I like the zip Barkley puts on his short and intermediate throws. He's got a slight, but clear advantage over Luck in that department"... And one year later, Barkley suddenly does not have an arm and can't play in the NFL. I don't see much difference between Luck and Barkley in terms of arm strength and as you can see his arm was not an issue until people had to create something negative about Barkley.

TheFinisher
03-06-2013, 08:18 AM
What a difference. It used to be: "arm strengths are about equal with Luck having the slight advantage" and "if you think Luck has even slightly more arm strength than Barkley, you obviously haven't been paying attention" and "I like the zip Barkley puts on his short and intermediate throws. He's got a slight, but clear advantage over Luck in that department"... And one year later, Barkley suddenly does not have an arm and can't play in the NFL. I don't see much difference between Luck and Barkley in terms of arm strength and as you can see his arm was not an issue until people had to create something negative about Barkley.

+rep

that's what I'm seeing too.

killxswitch
03-06-2013, 09:48 AM
I've been hesitant to say this because Luck hype is beyond out of control but I actually think Barkley will end up a roughly similar pro in terms of success when compared to Luck. People have seriously lost their minds over Luck IMO. That isn't Luck's fault, he's a great prospect and I don't agree that his arm strength is a valid concern. But people are expecting him to be some sort of alien defense-destroying robot QB and it's just not realistic.

Hrm. This doesn't seem like such a good take right now. I hope it's not, anyway.

JT Jag
03-06-2013, 06:22 PM
The biggest negative with Barkley is that he had a statistical regression in his senior year, where you want to see improvement from year to year. You also have to be concerned about how much of his production can really be attributed to him, considering the elite talent he had around him at the skill positions.

Beyond that, he has an NFL-calibur set of physical tools. I don't think his arm is necessarily elite, but I don't think Tom Brady's arm is elite either, and he certainly gets by.

Iamcanadian
03-06-2013, 06:32 PM
I cannot believe some of the comments posted here.

Matt Barkley has below average arm strength and is nowhere near Luck in that aspect. His deep ball tends to float and that is why he is only considered a late round 1 possibility. He really only has round 2 talent.
He might and I stress, might, possibly be a decent WCO QB where the deep pass isn't a high priority but he could never play in the Colt's system.

raphael
03-06-2013, 06:35 PM
I cannot believe some of the comments posted here.

Matt Barkley has below average arm strength and is nowhere near Luck in that aspect. His deep ball tends to float and that is why he is only considered a late round 1 possibility. He really only has round 2 talent.
He might and I stress, might, possibly be a decent WCO QB where the deep pass isn't a high priority but he could never play in the Colt's system.

Luck doesn't have a great arm. He throws floating ducks up all the time.

Iamcanadian
03-06-2013, 06:42 PM
Luck doesn't have a great arm. He throws floating ducks up all the time.

His arm may only be average but it makes Barkley's arm strength look pitiful.

hockey619
03-06-2013, 06:49 PM
He might and I stress, might, possibly be a decent WCO QB where the deep pass isn't a high priority but he could never play in the Colt's system.

WCO does not equal rarely throws deep. Its embarrassing to see someone post that while posing as though they know what they are talking about...

WCO is an offense where the run game is supplemented by a short passing game to get the ball out of the box to playmakers. They still run deep routes, often, and still attack downfield, its just that they throw short/horizontally to spread the defense to open holes for big runs/passes.



Im more concerned that barkley started forcing throws a lot this year than with his arm. Not having a great arm doesnt help his pro future, but throwing the ball into tight windows like you have a gun when you DONT is a bigger issue to me. If hes seeing these tiny windows and thinking 'oh i can hit that' but cant in college then hes going to be a train wreck going forward.

Iamcanadian
03-06-2013, 06:56 PM
WCO does not equal rarely throws deep. Its embarrassing to see someone post that while posing as though they know what they are talking about...

WCO is an offense where the run game is supplemented by a short passing game to get the ball out of the box to playmakers. They still run deep routes, often, and still attack downfield, its just that they throw short/horizontally to spread the defense to open holes for big runs/passes.

WCO teams do not attempt a lot of deep patterns, it is mostly a short passing game where the receivers pick up a lot of yardage after the catch, of course, they will occasionally throw a deep pattern relying on surprise to fool CB's and Safeties but it is not a main ingredient of the offense and that is why weak armed QB's are always mentioned as possible WCO QB's.

raphael
03-06-2013, 06:59 PM
Arm strength is more important throwing across the field than down the field. Most quarterbacks can get it deep enough if they wind up. It's getting those sideline balls out on time and to the right spot that brings arm strength into play.

Iamcanadian
03-06-2013, 07:09 PM
Arm strength is more important throwing across the field than down the field. Most quarterbacks can get it deep enough if they wind up. It's getting those sideline balls out on time and to the right spot that brings arm strength into play.

This is quite true but Barkley's deep balls also tend to float which is why NFL.com is saying he is a 2nd round talent who likely gets drafted in round 1 because of the huge need at the position but I doubt any team not employing a WCO offense will draft him.

BallerT1215
03-07-2013, 01:20 AM
Arm strength is more important throwing across the field than down the field. Most quarterbacks can get it deep enough if they wind up. It's getting those sideline balls out on time and to the right spot that brings arm strength into play.

Exactly.

The out patterns and comeback throws are just as important for arm strength as the deep ball.

BigBanger
03-09-2013, 04:47 AM
I like Barkley, but he reminds me of the Jimmy Clausen types. Guys who seem to peak when they're 18 years old and never really show any improvement in college. Barkley looks like the same player that he did three years ago. Some players (Tom Brady) physically mature when they're in their mid 20s. Others seem to max out in their late teens / early twenties. It's hard / impossible to predict the Tom Brady types.

deepthoughtlife
03-13-2013, 12:58 PM
Barkley had a rough year, but now he is seriously underrated. He still throws an excellent ball. His arm strength is still better than average. He is still accurate. The amount of pressure he had to deal with this year was insane, and the game plans sucked. His decision making wasn't great, but I believe that is due to the severe lack of time to make those decisions.

When I watched him play live, I was very disappointed by the results. Then I rewatched the passing plays more carefully to evaluate him, and I was shocked by how horrible the situations he was in were. Rarely have I ever seen a person produce at all under such conditions. Barkley did as well in them as anyone I have ever seen, excepting a few legendary quarterbacks already several years into their NFL careers.

As to BigBanger's belief that Barkley didn't improve in college, that is completely inaccurate. He was far better as a sophomore than as a freshman, and as a junior than as a sophomore. The only time he didn't was going from a junior to a senior, and I've reluctantly concluded that it wasn't really his fault at all. Reluctantly because whoever wins the job this year is going to be massively worse, even though I expect them to be in a far better situation.

At this point, it is far more likely that Barkley will be a steal than a bust, even if he is picked far more highly than most people rate him. You can never know that for sure, but he is an excellent college player with all of the abilities necessary for a good transition to the pros. His upside isn't nearly as low as some people think either.

So I guess this is a long winded post to say I'm doubling down. If I was in the QB market, I'd take Barkley in a heartbeat. I'd take him top five. I'd expect him to be my Franchise QB for the next decade. Even after Griffin had such a successful season, I'd still take Barkley over him. I understand why many wouldn't take him early, since I was prepared to massively downgrade him myself, but I was persuaded by what I saw on closer examination.

Roddoliver
03-14-2013, 12:02 AM
After Barkley's throwing session, people will say they were impressed and he had great interviews, shows leadership skills, USC had problems at the OL, defense allowed a lot of points, Barkley was pressured to do too much, junior tape is really good, etc. Barkley will be a top 10 pick, might go before Geno Smith.

deepthoughtlife
03-14-2013, 01:00 PM
After Barkley's throwing session, people will say they were impressed and he had great interviews, shows leadership skills, USC had problems at the OL, defense allowed a lot of points, Barkley was pressured to do too much, junior tape is really good, etc. Barkley will be a top 10 pick, might go before Geno Smith.

This seems very likely to me as well. Almost every year people are very down on the quarterbacks well before the draft, but they always move up in the consensus. A good example was Griffin last year.

Barkley is far better than players like Glennon, Manuel, or Nassib, and people will realize that, they just need an excuse for changing their minds again, and it is almost certain that Barkley will give them just that.

NMfootball85
03-18-2013, 12:05 AM
After Barkley's throwing session, people will say they were impressed and he had great interviews, shows leadership skills, USC had problems at the OL, defense allowed a lot of points, Barkley was pressured to do too much, junior tape is really good, etc. Barkley will be a top 10 pick, might go before Geno Smith.

You may be right or the story will be his arm is stronger than people thought.. I hope not I think Barkley will be USC Quarterback fail 4.0 after Sanchez Linart and Castle.. He is shorter with out arm strength or athleticism.. Leadership and intangibles doesn't make up for lack of ability to throw the ball... 30 percent of Barkley's passes are screens..

Landry Jones threw the ball 600 times more than Barkley for 4,000 more total yards and only 3 more Interceptions and Less Sacks.. Barkley doesn't sound like he was all that good with pressure.. Jones has more wins and the same completion percentage.. Jones had 123 TD's despite being taken out of the Red Zone the last too years.. Luck fell apart with his stats this year when he had to throw it more... Luck went from throwing it 350 times a year to throwing it 619 times and only completed 54% What will Barkley do when he goes from 384 throws to 564 like Jones or 619 like Luck did this year.. Barkley is a product of hype and marketing... I would take Jones over both of them..

FUNBUNCHER
03-18-2013, 12:30 AM
You may be right or the story will be his arm is stronger than people thought.. I hope not I think Barkley will be USC Quarterback fail 4.0 after Sanchez Linart and Castle.. He is shorter with out arm strength or athleticism.. Leadership and intangibles doesn't make up for lack of ability to throw the ball... 30 percent of Barkley's passes are screens..

Landry Jones threw the ball 600 times more than Barkley for 4,000 more total yards and only 3 more Interceptions and Less Sacks.. Barkley doesn't sound like he was all that good with pressure.. Jones has more wins and the same completion percentage.. Jones had 123 TD's despite being taken out of the Red Zone the last too years.. Luck fell apart with his stats this year when he had to throw it more... Luck went from throwing it 350 times a year to throwing it 619 times and only completed 54% What will Barkley do when he goes from 384 throws to 564 like Jones or 619 like Luck did this year.. Barkley is a product of hype and marketing... I would take Jones over both of them..


Can you make a pro or con argument for Landry Jones that doesn't begin and end with.....STATS?

Just reviewing my mental notes, Barkley is a much better pressure QB than Jones, although Jones has the superior arm.

BTW no good OC is going to ask his rookie QB to throw the ball 600+ times as a rookie. WHat Arians asked of Luck was abnormal.

It's crazy to assume the 564 balls Landry Jones threw last season are equivalent to the 600+ attempts Andrew Luck had against pro defenses as a rookie.

You do know that Barkley's season with his highest number of attempts(446) was his best season by far as a Trojan; his highest yardage total, most TDs, fewest INTs and highest completion percentage(69%)??

Ride Jones' jock all you want, but your 'stat' argument really just doesn't hold up when you try to argue why you believe Landry Jones is not only the best QB available in this draft, but the best QB prospect in a generation(which is what you're saying when you contend you'd take Landry Jones over Luck too).:facepalm:

FUNBUNCHER
03-18-2013, 12:35 AM
So I guess this is a long winded post to say I'm doubling down. If I was in the QB market, I'd take Barkley in a heartbeat. I'd take him top five. I'd expect him to be my Franchise QB for the next decade. Even after Griffin had such a successful season, I'd still take Barkley over him. I understand why many wouldn't take him early, since I was prepared to massively downgrade him myself, but I was persuaded by what I saw on closer examination.


RG3 has a much, much better deep ball than Barkley and he blows him away in arm strength.

Why would you have taken Barkley over Griffin again???

NMfootball85
03-18-2013, 11:33 AM
Can you make a pro or con argument for Landry Jones that doesn't begin and end with.....STATS?

Just reviewing my mental notes, Barkley is a much better pressure QB than Jones, although Jones has the superior arm.

BTW no good OC is going to ask his rookie QB to throw the ball 600+ times as a rookie. WHat Arians asked of Luck was abnormal.

It's crazy to assume the 564 balls Landry Jones threw last season are equivalent to the 600+ attempts Andrew Luck had against pro defenses as a rookie.

You do know that Barkley's season with his highest number of attempts(446) was his best season by far as a Trojan; his highest yardage total, most TDs, fewest INTs and highest completion percentage(69%)??

Ride Jones' jock all you want, but your 'stat' argument really just doesn't hold up when you try to argue why you believe Landry Jones is not only the best QB available in this draft, but the best QB prospect in a generation(which is what you're saying when you contend you'd take Landry Jones over Luck too).:facepalm:

I am not saying that Luck is not good or Barkley isn't good.They both are. I wasn't comparing Luck in the NFL to Jones in College either. I argue stats cause they are fact and not opinion or hype.. Evaluating QB's their talent or lack of talent shows up in their stats.. They are most responsible for completing passes moving the ball and scoring TD's.. I think the likely hood that Barkley will be really good in the NFL is slim with his limitations size mobility and arm strength those are a common factor in every NFL FLop... Yes Luck had a good stats in college but i think he was way over hyped he only threw the ball only 1064 times. A QB can look better when you have a good run game and don't throw it much. Ej Manuel is a good example. I defend Landry because he is unfairly maligned based on antidotes of a few plays not based on reality of stats. No one is saying Luck cant handle the pressure with his 54.1 completion 18 int's and 41 sacks.. I think that Landry has the potential to be just as successful as Luck. I do think the ultimate test of what QB is going to be the most successful is what Arians (who saw luck and and manning)does in this draft..
A non stat argument for Jones is that he is a High Character guy very Religious, a very hard worker, he is married and mature and has no off field issues.. He leads by example.

tjsunstein
03-18-2013, 12:15 PM
I am not saying that Luck is not good or Barkley isn't good.They both are. I wasn't comparing Luck in the NFL to Jones in College either. I argue stats cause they are fact and not opinion or hype.. Evaluating QB's their talent or lack of talent shows up in their stats.. They are most responsible for completing passes moving the ball and scoring TD's.. I think the likely hood that Barkley will be really good in the NFL is slim with his limitations size mobility and arm strength those are a common factor in every NFL FLop... Yes Luck had a good stats in college but i think he was way over hyped he only threw the ball only 1064 times. A QB can look better when you have a good run game and don't throw it much. Ej Manuel is a good example. I defend Landry because he is unfairly maligned based on antidotes of a few plays not based on reality of stats. No one is saying Luck cant handle the pressure with his 54.1 completion 18 int's and 41 sacks.. I think that Landry has the potential to be just as successful as Luck. I do think the ultimate test of what QB is going to be the most successful is what Arians (who saw luck and and manning)does in this draft..
A non stat argument for Jones is that he is a High Character guy very Religious, a very hard worker, he is married and mature and has no off field issues.. He leads by example.

Seth Doege > Landry Jones, right!?

badgerbacker
03-18-2013, 12:38 PM
Looking back at the college stats, I've discovered that Joe Montana was not nearly as good as a pro as we thought he was. Turns out the guy only had 515 pass attempts in his CAREER at Notre Dame! Given that Landry Jones had more attempts than that in 3 out of his 4 seasons it is safe to see that Landry has a 75% chance of surpassing Montana's career NFL numbers in just his rookie season. Pretty shocking when you remove the hype and opinion, huh?

Just the facts, ma'am.

NMfootball85
03-18-2013, 01:41 PM
Seth Doege > Landry Jones, right!?

Seth dodge did great but he's short 6'1 198 with low arm strength which is why Barkley is over hyped.. all the stat kings who didnt make it in the NFL have those three things in common.... Jones is 6'4 230 excellent arm strength

NMfootball85
03-18-2013, 02:03 PM
Looking back at the college stats, I've discovered that Joe Montana was not nearly as good as a pro as we thought he was. Turns out the guy only had 515 pass attempts in his CAREER at Notre Dame! Given that Landry Jones had more attempts than that in 3 out of his 4 seasons it is safe to see that Landry has a 75% chance of surpassing Montana's career NFL numbers in just his rookie season. Pretty shocking when you remove the hype and opinion, huh?

Just the facts, ma'am.

LOL Good point about Montana but that is an absurd example to prove your point.. cause the Game has changed since then.. The top 10 QB's in the NFL all throw it 550-600 plus times a year for over 4000 yards and 30 plus TD's.. Very few QB's in College who have crappy stats, become really good in the NFL.. If your good you have good stats if your not you don't. In Science, a study that has 1000's of test's is given a lot more weight than a study that has 100's.. Would you prefer a QB who had 75% of 150 passes or a guy who completes 65% 1500 passes.. the 75% QB might be better than the other QB, but its hard to say.. to say the 65% qb is not as good as the first is stupid too. Landry shouldn't have his accomplishments totally discounted by a "So Call" fatal flaw (bad under pressure) his sacks and Int's are low looking at his attempts..

G Mobile
03-18-2013, 02:28 PM
There is. I've been waiting for more people to go crazy over their favorite QB. Sometimes its painful, but its at least something to debate.

Taking Landry Jones over over Barkley is a bolder call but I could see it. Jones over Luck is a joke though. There is no rational argument for it. Luck out performed Jones in college. Just because his offense didn't force him to throw it 60 times a game doesn't mean he wasn't better. Jones is in an offense that passes a ton and puts up stats. It substituted skill for volume. Landry Jones isn't even close to Bradford.

Luck was put in a very difficult position for a rookie last year. The offense put it all on him. With a bad run game and bad OL play, the forced him to sink or swim with deep drops and a very vertical offense. The number of pass attempts was just stupid honestly but the Colts were lacking as a team so their best chance to win was having Luck carry them basically. He forced throws because he had to. It worked sometimes and it bit him on the ass often too. There are very few rookies who are decently successful on that team, even fewer that get them a winning record and even fewer than get them to the playoffs. Put Landry on that team and they don't get more than 5 wins at best.

deepthoughtlife
03-18-2013, 02:56 PM
RG3 has a much, much better deep ball than Barkley and he blows him away in arm strength.

Why would you have taken Barkley over Griffin again???

First off, I agree that Griffin has a much better deep ball. I was certain before the draft that Griffin's greatest strength, by far, was his deep ball. Barkley's deep ball hardly compares. Griffin is not the most accurate passer at the shorter distances due to a few minor issues that could very well be correctable, but he has very minimal falloff in accuracy with distance, and a strong enough arm that receivers don't outrun his range. Barkley's deep ball isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people seem to think, however. I'd peg Barkley's deep ball accuracy as above average for future NFL starters, and I'd do the same with his arm strength. This is clearly not the reason I'd take Barkley over Griffin.

Secondly, even though I believe Matt Barkley is a much better athlete than he's given credit for, he is nowhere near the athlete Griffin is. Barkley is easily a good enough athlete for any need a traditional offense requires of a QB, and I would run an offense that does not particularly call for an athlete at QB, most likely.

So why would I take Barkley? Intermediate accuracy and trajectory control, along with great calmness under pressure. When I saw what positions Barkley was put in this year, I have never seen a QB prospect that would have any kind of success, yet Barkley did, excepting a few terrible decisions. In other words, I give him a lot of credit for the situations he was in. On the other hand, I give Griffin large demerits for the lack of difficulty in his situation. I honestly didn't see a lot of the Redskins this year, but what I did see was receivers who were immediately wide open because of defenses that were terrified of the run, yet hadn't figured out how to play it. I saw some of the same thing as a niners fan when Kaepernick ran wild on some of our opponents. That said, I do see Griffin as a potential all-star QB, though I do think he hasn't proven it yet.

In yet another set of words, after reviewing all the evidence, I'm forced to rate Barkley pretty much where I did last year, which is as a potential all-time great. I know most people don't agree with me this time around, but I think he would be a worthy first overall player, though not for KC. I see all the warning signs for why he might not be where I rate him, but I'm not going to change my mind just to look like less of an idiot if I'm wrong.

FUNBUNCHER
03-18-2013, 04:31 PM
First off, I agree that Griffin has a much better deep ball. I was certain before the draft that Griffin's greatest strength, by far, was his deep ball. Barkley's deep ball hardly compares. Griffin is not the most accurate passer at the shorter distances due to a few minor issues that could very well be correctable, but he has very minimal falloff in accuracy with distance, and a strong enough arm that receivers don't outrun his range. Barkley's deep ball isn't nearly as bad as a lot of people seem to think, however. I'd peg Barkley's deep ball accuracy as above average for future NFL starters, and I'd do the same with his arm strength. This is clearly not the reason I'd take Barkley over Griffin.

Secondly, even though I believe Matt Barkley is a much better athlete than he's given credit for, he is nowhere near the athlete Griffin is. Barkley is easily a good enough athlete for any need a traditional offense requires of a QB, and I would run an offense that does not particularly call for an athlete at QB, most likely.

So why would I take Barkley? Intermediate accuracy and trajectory control, along with great calmness under pressure. When I saw what positions Barkley was put in this year, I have never seen a QB prospect that would have any kind of success, yet Barkley did, excepting a few terrible decisions. In other words, I give him a lot of credit for the situations he was in. On the other hand, I give Griffin large demerits for the lack of difficulty in his situation. I honestly didn't see a lot of the Redskins this year, but what I did see was receivers who were immediately wide open because of defenses that were terrified of the run, yet hadn't figured out how to play it. I saw some of the same thing as a niners fan when Kaepernick ran wild on some of our opponents. That said, I do see Griffin as a potential all-star QB, though I do think he hasn't proven it yet.

In yet another set of words, after reviewing all the evidence, I'm forced to rate Barkley pretty much where I did last year, which is as a potential all-time great. I know most people don't agree with me this time around, but I think he would be a worthy first overall player, though not for KC. I see all the warning signs for why he might not be where I rate him, but I'm not going to change my mind just to look like less of an idiot if I'm wrong.

Are you comparing RG3's rookie season in the NFL to Barkley's at USC?
I thought you were comparing them as PRO PROSPECTS, when both were collegians.

That was my question.

Barkley faced adversity at USC in 2012??
That was RG3's regular at Baylor for 3 years as a starter.

Barkley may end up a good NFL QB, but I'll be honest his being a Trojan/Lane Kiffin product cools me on him a lot.

deepthoughtlife
03-18-2013, 11:48 PM
Are you comparing RG3's rookie season in the NFL to Barkley's at USC?
I thought you were comparing them as PRO PROSPECTS, when both were collegians.

That was my question.

Barkley faced adversity at USC in 2012??
That was RG3's regular at Baylor for 3 years as a starter.

Barkley may end up a good NFL QB, but I'll be honest his being a Trojan/Lane Kiffin product cools me on him a lot.

Actually, I am comparing Griffin as a prospect and as a rookie versus Barkley as a prospect. Basically, I am supplementing my opinions on Griffin when he was drafted with what I saw of him this last year. I went pretty far in-depth scouting him last year, so that is where most of my opinion comes from, but one must always update with the latest information if it is applicable to the comparison. For Griffin this gives a significant boost, since he proved he can make the transition.

The situations I saw for Griffin at Baylor in his last year were far easier for him than the situations I saw Barkley in. I have no basis for comparing Griffin's previous years, however. First, both of them had great receivers, but Griffin's tended toward being more open, perhaps because of the paucity of defense in that conference. Kendall Wright is a great receiver, and I desperately hoped his slow 40 would have gotten him to fall, but it didn't. Secondly, Griffin faced minimal pressure, while Barkley was constantly under siege. This was partially due once again to Baylor scheduling a lot of teams with horrible defenses. USC's o-line was overrated in Barkley's junior year, but they were much worse this last year, especially when Khaled Holmes was hurt. Third, Barkley's receivers dropped a surprisingly high number of easy catches, quite a few of them for interceptions. Fourth, Lane Kiffin's play calling was crap.

In other words, Griffin got easier throws, easier decisions, more time, and better play calling. Obviously, Griffin also did better. Weighing those factors against each other, as well as all of the other factors is obviously a difficult task, but when I do, I pick Barkley.

I understand being leery of a Kiffin QB, it only makes sense, but the same statement could have legitimately been made about Tedford QBs before Aaron Rodgers. Barkley has that kind of talent, and the situation here is very reminiscent of that. He is so far beyond the Leinarts and Sanchezes, that it is hilarious to hear the comparisons. He could still fail, drafting QBs is a crapshoot, but it wouldn't have anything to with those two.

You can take Griffin, I'll take Barkley. Taking Barkley might not be the right move, but I think it will be.

Iamcanadian
03-19-2013, 12:33 AM
Actually, I am comparing Griffin as a prospect and as a rookie versus Barkley as a prospect. Basically, I am supplementing my opinions on Griffin when he was drafted with what I saw of him this last year. I went pretty far in-depth scouting him last year, so that is where most of my opinion comes from, but one must always update with the latest information if it is applicable to the comparison. For Griffin this gives a significant boost, since he proved he can make the transition.

The situations I saw for Griffin at Baylor in his last year were far easier for him than the situations I saw Barkley in. I have no basis for comparing Griffin's previous years, however. First, both of them had great receivers, but Griffin's tended toward being more open, perhaps because of the paucity of defense in that conference. Kendall Wright is a great receiver, and I desperately hoped his slow 40 would have gotten him to fall, but it didn't. Secondly, Griffin faced minimal pressure, while Barkley was constantly under siege. This was partially due once again to Baylor scheduling a lot of teams with horrible defenses. USC's o-line was overrated in Barkley's junior year, but they were much worse this last year, especially when Khaled Holmes was hurt. Third, Barkley's receivers dropped a surprisingly high number of easy catches, quite a few of them for interceptions. Fourth, Lane Kiffin's play calling was crap.

In other words, Griffin got easier throws, easier decisions, more time, and better play calling. Obviously, Griffin also did better. Weighing those factors against each other, as well as all of the other factors is obviously a difficult task, but when I do, I pick Barkley.

I understand being leery of a Kiffin QB, it only makes sense, but the same statement could have legitimately been made about Tedford QBs before Aaron Rodgers. Barkley has that kind of talent, and the situation here is very reminiscent of that. He is so far beyond the Leinarts and Sanchezes, that it is hilarious to hear the comparisons. He could still fail, drafting QBs is a crapshoot, but it wouldn't have anything to with those two.

You can take Griffin, I'll take Barkley. Taking Barkley might not be the right move, but I think it will be.

I really think you need to reevaluate your assessment of college teams. There is no way Baylor comes close to USC in overall talent, coaching yes but talent no. Using that as a reason to put Barkley ahead of Griffin is absurd in my opinion.

Anybody who claims any of this year's crop of college QB's comes anywhere near the talent level of last year's college QB's, simply needs to study a lot more film because they don't know what they are talking about. It isn't even close.

The people who are banging it out for Smith, Barkley, Manual, Jones, Wilson and Glennon and trying to compare them to last year's crop, are in some kind of dreamland. This year's crop is extremely mediocre, there isn't a standout among them.

FUNBUNCHER
03-19-2013, 01:16 AM
No QB who's ever played for USC is 'so far beyond' Matt Leinart. Not even Barkley.
People tend to forget just how good Leinart was for the Trojans because he's been a bust as a pro.

Baylor's oline was very poor in pass pro when RG3 was there. I don't want to get into it but it doesn't make sense IMO to suggest Barkley played under greater duress in college than Griffin did at Baylor.

No matter where Barkley is drafted, he has a lot to prove. I don't see many givens with him or upside as an NFL QB.

NMfootball85
03-19-2013, 12:05 PM
There is. I've been waiting for more people to go crazy over their favorite QB. Sometimes its painful, but its at least something to debate.

Taking Landry Jones over over Barkley is a bolder call but I could see it. Jones over Luck is a joke though. There is no rational argument for it. Luck out performed Jones in college. Just because his offense didn't force him to throw it 60 times a game doesn't mean he wasn't better. Jones is in an offense that passes a ton and puts up stats. It substituted skill for volume. Landry Jones isn't even close to Bradford.

Luck was put in a very difficult position for a rookie last year. The offense put it all on him. With a bad run game and bad OL play, the forced him to sink or swim with deep drops and a very vertical offense. The number of pass attempts was just stupid honestly but the Colts were lacking as a team so their best chance to win was having Luck carry them basically. He forced throws because he had to. It worked sometimes and it bit him on the ass often too. There are very few rookies who are decently successful on that team, even fewer that get them a winning record and even fewer than get them to the playoffs. Put Landry on that team and they don't get more than 5 wins at best.

I am not knocking Lucks year he did great.. He made the play offs and thats the ultimate standard of success in the NFL. I'd take luck over Barkley any day.. Luck is a great quarterback.. Luck Out performed Jones in College??? Luck had like 9000 plus yards in college and 84 touchdowns... Yes he had 70 plus completion percent but only on 350 passes.. Landry 16646 yards and 123 TD's.. They both won a lot of games. Landry had 66% on 560 passes.. Luck threw 3500 yards Landry 4700 yards best year. Teams go with what works, the pass run ratio is based on success of either. The Colts went with Luck cause their run game sucked. OU went with Jones more often cause he was good and averaged 328 yards a game. Luck is a better leader, both I think struggle with pressure, but Landry is a better passer more accurate passes with more zip or arm strength. yes I am a homer fan of Landry's.. However the Cream rises to the top, and Geno and Luck are good QB's and deserve the accolades but my Point is that to take what Landry did and his talent, and then to discount everything and put behind dysert, Scott, Glennon, Wilson, Nessib and all the rest is ridiculous.. I have seen mediocre players hyped but have never seen someone so accomplished who set so many records, be so maligned over a handful of bad plays and not winning the National championship... Bruce Arians knows great QB's in Luck and Manning what he does in the Draft will be the ultimate in what he thinks the QB's He already didn't send anyone to Geno's.. My Bet is on Landry over Barkley.

NMfootball85
03-19-2013, 12:20 PM
No QB who's ever played for USC is 'so far beyond' Matt Leinart. Not even Barkley.
People tend to forget just how good Leinart was for the Trojans because he's been a bust as a pro.

Baylor's oline was very poor in pass pro when RG3 was there. I don't want to get into it but it doesn't make sense IMO to suggest Barkley played under greater duress in college than Griffin did at Baylor.

No matter where Barkley is drafted, he has a lot to prove. I don't see many givens with him or upside as an NFL QB.

My Complaint about Griffin is that he took 79 Sacks in 1100 passes. Jones took 54 in 2183.. I havent watched every play of every game.. but it raises questions. If a guy has a high completion rate and a low int rate but a really high sack rate.. It could mean that they don't try to get rid of the ball, throwing it away lowers the completion percentage and ups the ints, or it could mean that their Oline sucked bad but they should still have a lower sack Rate. QB's shouldn't be rewarded for just taking the sack, that's selfish and doesn't help the team win and that doesnt mean they are better at dealing with pressure. I think Jones was good at avoiding pressure, with a 2.44 sec snap to release but also did everything to get rid of the ball and on occasion he looked bad threw a few int's and made mistakes.

FUNBUNCHER
03-19-2013, 01:18 PM
My Complaint about Griffin is that he took 79 Sacks in 1100 passes. Jones took 54 in 2183.. I havent watched every play of every game.. but it raises questions. If a guy has a high completion rate and a low int rate but a really high sack rate.. It could mean that they don't try to get rid of the ball, throwing it away lowers the completion percentage and ups the ints, or it could mean that their Oline sucked bad but they should still have a lower sack Rate. QB's shouldn't be rewarded for just taking the sack, that's selfish and doesn't help the team win and that doesnt mean they are better at dealing with pressure. I think Jones was good at avoiding pressure, with a 2.44 sec snap to release but also did everything to get rid of the ball and on occasion he looked bad threw a few int's and made mistakes.


79 sacks in 1100 attempts roughly averages to a little over 2 sacks per 30 attempts. I don't know how you're evaluating that sack number, but from a game standpoint, taking 2 sacks over 4 quarters is fine for a QB who scrambles like Grif did behind the LOS at Baylor letting WRs get open and make plays.

In practical terms, the only thing Landry Jones' lower sack number means to is that he played behind a much better Oline in college and threw the ball away instead of taking the hit.
How many plays did Jones give up on because he knew he was about to get smacked??

Your sack argument in favor of Landry Jones is kind of irrelevant.

deepthoughtlife
03-19-2013, 02:16 PM
I really think you need to reevaluate your assessment of college teams. There is no way Baylor comes close to USC in overall talent, coaching yes but talent no. Using that as a reason to put Barkley ahead of Griffin is absurd in my opinion.

Anybody who claims any of this year's crop of college QB's comes anywhere near the talent level of last year's college QB's, simply needs to study a lot more film because they don't know what they are talking about. It isn't even close.

The people who are banging it out for Smith, Barkley, Manual, Jones, Wilson and Glennon and trying to compare them to last year's crop, are in some kind of dreamland. This year's crop is extremely mediocre, there isn't a standout among them.

I didn't ever say that Baylor had more talent than USC. I said that Baylor played horrible defenses, and were able to completely dominate them. The quality of the defense matters a hell of a lot. All of Griffin's games from which I saw footage involved teams that could not possibly cover his receivers, and couldn't rush the passer either. Most the defenses I saw Barkley play were capable of covering his receivers to an extent, and the pass rush was constantly in his face.

I agree that this year's crop of QBs is mediocre at best. Glennon is horrible. Geno is good, but nothing special, and had a hard time against decent defenses. Besides Barkley, none of the others are even worth mentioning. That said, Barkley is going to be great, and is worthy of a high selection. I would not be surprised if he ends up being the steal of the early rounds. (Hard to compete with whatever sixth or seventh rounder becomes an all star for steal status).

DrewyVuitton
03-19-2013, 02:34 PM
No QB who's ever played for USC is 'so far beyond' Matt Leinart. Not even Barkley.
People tend to forget just how good Leinart was for the Trojans because he's been a bust as a pro.

Baylor's oline was very poor in pass pro when RG3 was there. I don't want to get into it but it doesn't make sense IMO to suggest Barkley played under greater duress in college than Griffin did at Baylor.

No matter where Barkley is drafted, he has a lot to prove. I don't see many givens with him or upside as an NFL QB.

Leinart was clutch too, Barkley always floundered in big moments.

I still remember Leinart vs Quinn. 4th down play, game on the line, Leinart makes a perfect pass to Dwayne Jarrett down the sideline. Then gets helicoptered out of bounds a few plays later. Then calls the QB sneak and Reggie pushes him in. Great game.

Barkley on the other hand... Lol.

I'm a huge USC fan. Major homer. In terms of prospects coming out of USC I'd rank them Sanchez, Leinart, Barkley.

Sanchez had the best physical tools, Leinart had the mentality of a winner and clutch performer but didnt have the athleticism or the arm Sanchez had.. Barkley has neither the arm or athleticism of Sanchez and doesn't have the intangibles of Leinart.

Barkley is a 2nd-3rd rd QB that's being overhyped for "smarts" and "played in pro system" and "good kid"

Edit: and the Barkley over RG3 comp is absurd. RG3 is not only a better athlete with a better arm but has the mentality you want in a QB.

Barkley's own teammates called him out for being a girl last season and the team was divided heading into the bowl game. If you can't lead guys in college, you definitely can't lead them as Pro's.

NMfootball85
03-23-2013, 01:56 PM
79 sacks in 1100 attempts roughly averages to a little over 2 sacks per 30 attempts. I don't know how you're evaluating that sack number, but from a game standpoint, taking 2 sacks over 4 quarters is fine for a QB who scrambles like Grif did behind the LOS at Baylor letting WRs get open and make plays.

In practical terms, the only thing Landry Jones' lower sack number means to is that he played behind a much better Oline in college and threw the ball away instead of taking the hit.
How many plays did Jones give up on because he knew he was about to get smacked??

Your sack argument in favor of Landry Jones is kind of irrelevant.


79 sacks per 1100 attempts would be like landry taking 158 Sacks at 2100 attempts.. Landry had a decent O line but it was not that great cause the run game got bogged down enough so they created the need for the Bell Dozer package in the red zone. Landry was pressured plenty but it was his arm and operating out of the gun that helped avoid pressure. Bill Polian said that high sack numbers was not a good thing for a QB and it was their responsibility to get rid of it quickly. Each Sack is a loss of 7-10 yards and usually equals a punt or turn over.. Landry Should be ranked equal or ahead of Geno Smith but this whole pressure argument has him ranked 5th-10th.. I think over 4 years only a handful of bad plays getting rid of the ball under pressure gave him this reputation.. Any QB with the worst line can and should throw it away rather than take the sack.. Just taking the sack can make a QB's stats better but doesn't make a QB good at pressure and doesn't help the team win.

FUNBUNCHER
03-23-2013, 03:15 PM
Taking sacks in college also means a QB is pressing to make plays.

One of the reasons Stoops took the ball out of Landry Jones' hands in the redzone(think about that for a moment, OU's HC benched his starting QB in critical scoring situations near the endzone. Look around the NCAA and tell me when that EVER happens), was because he knew Landry Jones if given the choice to hang in the pocket and complete a pass just as he's about to get blasted by a rushing DE, was more likely to throw the ball away.

When RG3 beat OU in 2011, he got blown up several times in that game.
The last hit he took in that contest was at the end of scramble that resulted in a game winning TD over two Sooners defenders in the back of the endzone.

All sacks aren't created equal and have to viewed in context.
Is the QB routinely holding on to the ball too long and out of rhythm with the offense???
Is the QB being chased out of the pocket the minute he plants at the top of his dropback??

Or is the QB scrambling around trying to make a play??

Landry Jones' fewer number of sacks didn't result in a greater level of efficiency or production for him. In fact with all those extra attempts, his yardage and TD totals weren't much different than any other top rated QBs.

Landry Jones may have taken less sacks per attempt, but he also had more wasted plays per snap where there was no gain at all.

Black Bolt
03-28-2013, 03:47 PM
Leinart was clutch too, Barkley always floundered in big moments.

I still remember Leinart vs Quinn. 4th down play, game on the line, Leinart makes a perfect pass to Dwayne Jarrett down the sideline. Then gets helicoptered out of bounds a few plays later. Then calls the QB sneak and Reggie pushes him in. Great game.

Barkley on the other hand... Lol.

I'm a huge USC fan. Major homer. In terms of prospects coming out of USC I'd rank them Sanchez, Leinart, Barkley.

Sanchez had the best physical tools, Leinart had the mentality of a winner and clutch performer but didnt have the athleticism or the arm Sanchez had.. Barkley has neither the arm or athleticism of Sanchez and doesn't have the intangibles of Leinart.

Barkley is a 2nd-3rd rd QB that's being overhyped for "smarts" and "played in pro system" and "good kid"

Edit: and the Barkley over RG3 comp is absurd. RG3 is not only a better athlete with a better arm but has the mentality you want in a QB.

Barkley's own teammates called him out for being a girl last season and the team was divided heading into the bowl game. If you can't lead guys in college, you definitely can't lead them as Pro's.

I can't believe the endless amount of excuses I have seen made for USC QBs. You are one of the few admitted USC fans who can say no to Kool Aid.

From Rotoworld:

At least two NFL scouts were concerned with the way USC QB Matt Barkley's deep passes "fluttered" amid a "gentle breeze" at the Trojans' Pro Day.
"If he thinks this is windy, wait until he gets to Philly or New York or Buffalo," one coach said. "But he's working his way back from that injury. Hopefully he'll get stronger as he goes." Asked if Barkley answered questions about his arm, Raiders GM Reggie McKenzie replied, "to a point." Per SI's Jim Trotter, Barkley's performance "was not pristine." He forced receivers to make "acrobatic catches," and at other times would-be pass catchers "had to wait for the ball to arrive."

BobTheCowboysTroll
03-28-2013, 06:43 PM
OT: Didn't they legalize medical marijuana in Washington???

49erNation85
03-28-2013, 11:04 PM
OT: Didn't they legalize medical marijuana in Washington???

Yes they did and also Oregon. However, most places are still treating it as illegal in the work place etc. Cops just can't bust your ass now .