PDA

View Full Version : McShay Says 5 QBs Could Go in Round 1


Shane P. Hallam
01-19-2012, 09:10 AM
About Osweiler: "More tape I've watched, more impressed I am. Unbelievable tools. Could move into late 1st rd."

Also mentioned Tannehill and Foles as first round possibilities.


I'll say this, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Foles/Osweiler rise during offseason with the need at QB.

TACKLE
01-19-2012, 09:12 AM
I believe it'll be four but I'm still not buying Foles.

SchizophrenicBatman
01-19-2012, 09:18 AM
About Osweiler: "More tape I've watched, more impressed I am. Unbelievable tools. Could move into late 1st rd."

Also mentioned Tannehill and Foles as first round possibilities.


I'll say this, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Foles/Osweiler rise during offseason with the need at QB.

wat

I guess the new rookie deals have changed the way teams approach drafting that position

bucfan12
01-19-2012, 09:26 AM
I say 3.

Luck

Griffen

And some one will reach for Tanehill to develop him.

bruschis4all
01-19-2012, 09:28 AM
Ryan Mallett>>>>Tanneyhill,Foles and Osweiler. Offer Belichick your 2013 1st. I'm sure he'll listen.

bucfan12
01-19-2012, 09:30 AM
About Osweiler: "More tape I've watched, more impressed I am. Unbelievable tools. Could move into late 1st rd."

Also mentioned Tannehill and Foles as first round possibilities.


I'll say this, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Foles/Osweiler rise during offseason with the need at QB.

McShay probably watched Osweiler and saw one pass that was like WOW and forgot the rest of his footage and thought if he can do that more, he'd be great.

Osweiler is 6'7 with a big arm. Thats it.

SolidGold
01-19-2012, 09:41 AM
wat

I guess the new rookie deals have changed the way teams approach drafting that position

I think last year's draft changed the approach in how to draft QBs. It's a QB driven league now, the position is at a premium more than ever. The rules have been skewed heavily in the offense's favor.

I don't see Foles as a first rounder though. He reminds me of Josh Freeman physically and skillset wise. Both are big guys with good but not huge arms.

killxswitch
01-19-2012, 09:46 AM
Good. It pushes good talent down that much farther. Keep reaching, losers!

ElectricEye
01-19-2012, 09:48 AM
I just don't get how this Foles thing won't go away. I absolutely don't see it on tape.

Osweiler is going to be overdrafted based on tools, but at least he has that going for him.

keylime_5
01-19-2012, 09:48 AM
I don't think there will be 5. I think Luck and Griffin obviously go at the top of the draft, and Tannehill finds his way into the first round (probably not top 15 if he doesn't ever really workout with his foot injury). Osweiller might go high b/c of his tools like a lot of QBs have done. I don't see Osweiller and Foles both sneaking into round 1. Foles seems like a classic 2nd rounder. Then again a few analysts and scouts I've heard love Foles, so you never know.

killxswitch
01-19-2012, 10:18 AM
What teams need a QB (or at least may believe they do)?

Colts - They'll take Luck
Browns - They'll take RG3 unless someone leapfrogs them
Redskins - They'll try to leapfrog the Browns or get Flynn
Dolphins - Probably don't have what it takes to get RG3, will they really spend a 1st on a lower-end 1st round QB like Tannehill?
Seahawks - I have no idea
Broncos - Elway wants a real QB but can they spend a 1st on one?

I think the Colts, Browns, and Skins are the ones that will for-sure start 2012 with a new QB in place, with at least two of them drafting one. Of the final three teams, one of them will probably take Tannehill. Beyond that, I have a hard time seeing any other QB go in the 1st this season.

thefridge15
01-19-2012, 10:22 AM
If Blaine Gabbert can be a top 10 pick.....

DraftSavant
01-19-2012, 10:26 AM
I knew it was only a matter of time before McShay started ringing the Osweiler bell. They're both represented by CAA (same with Gabbert and Sanchez - McShay's two previous love affairs).

ellsy82
01-19-2012, 10:43 AM
If Blaine Gabbert can be a top 10 pick.....

This pretty much says all that needs to be said.

Babylon
01-19-2012, 10:47 AM
Ryan Mallett>>>>Tanneyhill,Foles and Osweiler. Offer Belichick your 2013 1st. I'm sure he'll listen.

You may not be that far off on that prediction.

Of the two i like Osweiller better but Foles might look the part with a good combine, he's probably not too far skill wise from Gabbert.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 10:47 AM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/facepalm.jpg

I'm glad my team doesn't need a QB. All I can say...

Those guys in the first round. Makes my head hurt.

bruschis4all
01-19-2012, 11:06 AM
You may not be that far off on that prediction.

Of the two i like Osweiller better but Foles might look the part with a good combine, he's probably not too far skill wise from Gabbert.

I'm thinking Cleveland if they don't trade up for RG3 or sign Flynn. Get all of your weapons with your early picks this year. Mallett has had a year to study under Brady. Could probably step right in and play. Pretty sure Cleveland can make it to 8-8. Wouldn't be a Top 12 pick. I know some guys without a strong arm have done well in Cleveland. Sipe and Kosar. But, having a big arm wouldn't hurt given the conditions they play in sometimes.

holt_bruce81
01-19-2012, 11:30 AM
It should be three. But the way teams overvalue Quarterbacks these days, it wouldn't surprise me to see six go in the first.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 11:33 AM
It should be three. But the way teams overvalue Quarterbacks these days, it wouldn't surprise me to see six go in the first.

I was unable to find, via internet search, an adequate picture to express my feelings on that statement.

There are two, TWO! first round worthy QBs this year, and they're going to be gone within the top 4 picks.

To anyone else whose team needs a QB and doesn't get one of those two...may the football gods have mercy on your soul.

Lil Quip
01-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Sounds like McShay as usual.

I don't see their being more QB's in the first than last year. Maybe this is because a knee jerk reaction to last year, where Dalton fell a bit far.

The Mallett pick seems even more opportune now. I agree that why not throw an offer to the Pats? Is he much worse that these unproven guys a year older with a year of Pats system?

raynman
01-19-2012, 11:34 AM
Good. It pushes good talent down that much farther. Keep reaching, losers!
same thing i'm thinking.

good. panthers can reap the rewards.

maybe some dumb team will trade up and give the panthers picks like the falcons were dumb enough to give up for julio.

mcshay is a moron, but i hope he's right with this.

holt_bruce81
01-19-2012, 11:42 AM
I was unable to find, via internet search, an adequate picture to express my feelings on that statement.

There are two, TWO! first round worthy QBs this year, and they're going to be gone within the top 4 picks.

To anyone else whose team needs a QB and doesn't get one of those two...may the football gods have mercy on your soul.

I think Tannehill is first round worthy. But after him and the obvious other two, that's it.

We all know the steal will come later in the draft from whoever selects Russell Wilson.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 11:50 AM
I think Tannehill is first round worthy. But after him and the obvious other two, that's it.

We all know the steal will come later in the draft from whoever selects Russell Wilson.

Wilson might be able to be a slightly better Seneca Wallace. That's about all.

rawdawg
01-19-2012, 01:26 PM
Ryan Mallett>>>>Tanneyhill,Foles and Osweiler. Offer Belichick your 2013 1st. I'm sure he'll listen.

Mallett also >>>> Gabbert, Locker, Ponder....but that didn't help him go ahead of them.

Oilers4ever
01-19-2012, 01:35 PM
Mallett also >>>> Gabbert, Locker, Ponder....but that didn't help him go ahead of them.

Mallett is going to be the back up next year when Hoyer splits. He is not >>>>>> Locker

Raiderz4Life
01-19-2012, 01:37 PM
I wanted Osweiler to like....go into free fall and somehow get drafted by Oakland.

ThePudge
01-19-2012, 01:46 PM
McShay is a dope. He's not at all respected in the NFL Draft community. His evaluations have been historically awful and he flip-flops with the best of them. I really do not understand why his opinion means anything to anyone.

That said... Osweiler is going to make a first round push. Scratch that; agent Tom Condon (who also represented Blaine Gabbert) is going to make a first round push FOR Osweiler. This guy is more physically gifted than Ryan Mallett in the sense that he can actually move. He was recruited to play basketball by numerous D-1 schools.

note: I did not say Osweiler is a better prospect than Ryan Mallett (I had Mallett second among QBs last year,) but the former Sun Devil will likely be drafted more highly based on mobility and the absence of character concerns,

For now, I think he's blowing smoke around to generate some attention. No team in the late first is in the market for a QB and I don't see any of the above breaking into the Top 15. My guess: three QBs in the first with Osweiler sneaking in late with a trade. The Patriots, with two picks in the late first, would be your most obvious partner.

JHL6719
01-19-2012, 01:53 PM
Jeezus. Apparently all you have to do anymore to be a 1st round quarterback is not throw any of your 3480605836 bubble screens into the stands.

"OMGZ dude'z got mad skillzzz"

Razor
01-19-2012, 02:05 PM
I believe it'll be four but I'm still not buying Foles.

Yeah, this is where I stand as well. Foles is much like Gabbert, just less of a *****.

Caulibflower
01-19-2012, 03:09 PM
With the wage scale, we're going to see way more QBs drafted high. If you don't have a good one, you're going to keep rolling the dice until you get one. It is easily the most important position in the NFL, so teams are going to keep picking them high. I think over the next few years all of us draftniks are just going to accept that. When I look at Osweiler, I actually kind of think of Colin Kaepernick. Raw passer, good athlete, went at the top of the second. Kaepernick was a runner; Osweiler is probably just as far along in his development. Teams have shown that they're going to take those guys high when they've got a need at the position. Christian Ponder was not impressive to me last year, but he knows the position pretty well, is a good athlete, is pretty accurate, and that was enough to get him drafted 12th overall. Think it's time to stop comparing a QB's skill level to other players and just acknowledge that they go higher because of the position they play, not necessarily how well they play it relative to other players.

Iamcanadian
01-19-2012, 03:34 PM
McShay is a dope. He's not at all respected in the NFL Draft community. His evaluations have been historically awful and he flip-flops with the best of them. I really do not understand why his opinion means anything to anyone.

That said... Osweiler is going to make a first round push. Scratch that; agent Tom Condon (who also represented Blaine Gabbert) is going to make a first round push FOR Osweiler. This guy is more physically gifted than Ryan Mallett in the sense that he can actually move. He was recruited to play basketball by numerous D-1 schools.

note: I did not say Osweiler is a better prospect than Ryan Mallett (I had Mallett second among QBs last year,) but the former Sun Devil will likely be drafted more highly based on mobility and the absence of character concerns,

For now, I think he's blowing smoke around to generate some attention. No team in the late first is in the market for a QB and I don't see any of the above breaking into the Top 15. My guess: three QBs in the first with Osweiler sneaking in late with a trade. The Patriots, with two picks in the late first, would be your most obvious partner.

This makes a lot of sense. Supply and demand still control a draft in a # of ways. Last year's crop filled a large demand and those teams are off the market for at least another season. That means the market has shriveled and makes the likelihood of 5 more QB's going in round 1 extremely unlikely.
This is just McShay's way of garnering some interest for himself but as Pudge said, his track record doesn't warrant acceptance.

MetSox17
01-19-2012, 03:44 PM
I knew it was only a matter of time before McShay started ringing the Osweiler bell. They're both represented by CAA (same with Gabbert and Sanchez - McShay's two previous love affairs).

This x1000.

Not enough is said about how McShay pimps out certain prospects out of the blue with little merit, and makes it seem as if other teams are dying to have them and causes them to be over drafted. I wouldn't be surprised if he had some share of ownership in that talent firm.

Brent
01-19-2012, 04:31 PM
McShay is a dope. He's not at all respected in the NFL Draft community. His evaluations have been historically awful and he flip-flops with the best of them.put an ESPN logo in front of anyone and people will listen.

Dangermouse
01-19-2012, 05:02 PM
Luck will go 1 overall.


RG3 will go 2, 3 or 4.(the Browns will take him if he slides, but I think somebody trades with STL or MIN.)

Tannehill could go as high as Washington at 6, but I don't think he will get past Seattle at 12.

Foles will be the guy that gets traded up for in the late first/early second. Think Freeman/Tebow/Kaepernick.

In my opinion:

Cleveland get their man when RG3 falls.

Washington sign Matt Flynn.


The Seahawks take Tannehill.

Jets sign Peyton Manning

And Miami trades into the late first for Foles.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-19-2012, 05:03 PM
I'm glad my team doesn't need a QB. All I can say...

Those guys in the first round. Makes my head hurt.


I told you it was coming with Osweiler. I never doubted he'd be a first rounder (for god knows why) by the end of the process.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 05:15 PM
I told you it was coming with Osweiler. I never doubted he'd be a first rounder (for god knows why) by the end of the process.

I give Osweiler a better chance of succeeding that I give/gave Blaine Gabbert. At least Osweiler doesn't appear to play completely terrified.

Still doesn't mean I'd ever be comfortable with taking him in the first round though.

ATLDirtyBirds
01-19-2012, 05:20 PM
I give Osweiler a better chance of succeeding that I give/gave Blaine Gabbert. At least Osweiler doesn't appear to play completely terrified.

Still doesn't mean I'd ever be comfortable with taking him in the first round though.


Oh, Osweilder>Gabbert for sure, but this unnecessary rise was just so apparent. "Oh yeah, he needs a lot of work, but I'd love to take a flier on him in Round 3-4" Nope. Try middle of round one.

DraftSavant
01-19-2012, 06:01 PM
Oh, Osweilder>Gabbert for sure, but this unnecessary rise was just so apparent. "Oh yeah, he needs a lot of work, but I'd love to take a flier on him in Round 3-4" Nope. Try middle of round one.

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

We called it since the day he declared.

ElectricEye
01-19-2012, 06:16 PM
Yeah, I was with you guys. The "Oh I would love to get him in the 3rd or 4th" nearly always means a guy is going in the first. Clay Matthews was the ultimate proof of concept of that.

Doesn't hurt that Osweiler has a ton of ability either. Guys like that tend to rise as the draft gets closer and we have more time to realize the limitations of other quarterbacks.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 06:33 PM
Yeah, I was with you guys. The "Oh I would love to get him in the 3rd or 4th" nearly always means a guy is going in the first. Clay Matthews was the ultimate proof of concept of that.

Doesn't hurt that Osweiler has a ton of ability either. Guys like that tend to rise as the draft gets closer and we have more time to realize the limitations of other quarterbacks.

This is true, but he needs a LOT of work to be able to use it in a way helpful to an NFL team.

And "sitting a guy for a year or two" to let that development occur almost never, ever, ever, ever happens anymore.

2011:
Cam Newton - Started every game
Jake Locker - Played sparingly
Blaine Gabbert - Started most games
Christian Ponder - Started most games
Andy Dalton - Started every game

4/5 of the top 5 QBs drafted started most, if not all of the games.

2010:
Sam Bradford - Started every game
Tim Tebow - Started a few games late
Jimmy Clausen - Started most games
Colt McCoy - Started half the games

3 of the QBs drafted in the top 3 rounds started at least half the season, and Tebow, probably the rawest passer ever, started games.

2009:
Matt Stafford - Started most games
Mark Sanchez - Started 15 games
Josh Freeman - Started most games

All three first round QBs started at least half the games.

2008:
Matt Ryan - Started every game
Joe Flacco - Started every game
Brian Brohm - Out of football
Chad Henne - No starts

Both first rounders started every game, including Flacco who was a guy most people thought should sit, especially coming from D-1 AA. Henne (along with Locker above) now makes 2 QBs so far who didn't get any starts. 2/16 so far.

So out of the past 4 drafts, we've had 2/16 guys drafted with the intention of being that team's franchise QBs actually sit their whole rookie year. And beyond them, all but Tebow started at least half their teams games as rookies, including some guys who were considered very raw as prospects, like Newton, Gabbert, Sanchez (limited college starts remember), and Flacco with mixed results.

No one sits anymore. Someone taking Osweiler or Tannehill or...ugh...gah...blegh...Foles...in the first round is probably going to end up playing him.

Now there were a few guys I left off the above list, like Kevin O'Connell and Ryan Mallett who went in behind Tom Brady, so they weren't going to play.

And out of the first rounders? Only Locker didn't start even one game in these 4 years.

BlindSite
01-19-2012, 06:47 PM
Nearly every year there's that wtf? Qb pick in the first round, last year it was Ponder, in the past there was Tebow and Losman and all manner of dudes. It won't surprise me if either Foles, Tannehill or Os.

Giantsfan1080
01-19-2012, 06:47 PM
If any NFL team is taking advice from McShay or Condon's firm instead of doing their own due diligence then the system has failed. I don't like McShay that much but I find it hard to believe that he wasn't just echoing what some teams think. We said ourselves here that Osweiler has the looks for an NFL 1st rounder and McShay is basically coming to the same conclusion that many of us had here.

FUNBUNCHER
01-19-2012, 07:32 PM
Like Gabbert last year, I find it difficult to believe any NFL scout is blown away by Osweiler's game film.

Spotty accuracy and suspect decision making.
McShay is a shady dude IMO when it comes to his declarations about prospects this early in the draft process.

holt_bruce81
01-19-2012, 08:19 PM
Wasn't everyone on Osweiler's dick earlier in the year?

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 08:21 PM
Wasn't everyone on Osweiler's dick earlier in the year?

As a guy to watch for 2013 maybe.

fenikz
01-19-2012, 08:26 PM
Wasn't everyone on Osweiler's dick earlier in the year?

I don't really know but he didn't seem to improve at all this year, could just be the lack of any real coaching though

Could be scary to see him, Burfict, Bolden and Robinson with nfl coaching

Spaceboy1
01-19-2012, 10:14 PM
Someone is going to get a steal in the kid from Houston.

holt_bruce81
01-19-2012, 10:17 PM
Someone is going to get a steal in the kid from Houston.

Not really.

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 10:19 PM
Someone is going to get a steal in the kid from Houston.

Not really.

Yeah, not really. I think he'll fair about as well as Colt Brennan.

DrAbaddon
01-19-2012, 10:27 PM
I'm sorry, as someone who hasn't seen Foles play at all and hasn't had the motivation to go scrounging for tape...why does this place seem to hate him so much? What makes him worse than say, Landry Jones?

BeerBaron
01-19-2012, 10:30 PM
That's a poor comparison because I also don't like Landry Jones. I'm also a QB elitist, so I like very few people...

Foles problem, for me having seen like 4-5 games this past season, is that he throws lots of screens, and when he does attack further down the field, his read was scripted. He'd look at one receiver and if that guy wasn't open, check down.

It's basically what Blaine Gabbert did last year. People (read: idiots) are mesmerized by a big guy who threw for umpteen billion yards. He doesn't translate well and I personally wouldn't draft him.

DraftSavant
01-19-2012, 10:41 PM
If any NFL team is taking advice from McShay or Condon's firm instead of doing their own due diligence then the system has failed. I don't like McShay that much but I find it hard to believe that he wasn't just echoing what some teams think. We said ourselves here that Osweiler has the looks for an NFL 1st rounder and McShay is basically coming to the same conclusion that many of us had here.

Unfortunately, the guys who do the most legwork (the scouts) often have the smallest voice in the War Room on draft day.

Giantsfan1080
01-19-2012, 10:50 PM
Unfortunately, the guys who do the most legwork (the scouts) often have the smallest voice in the War Room on draft day.

Thankfully the Giants aren't run that way.

DrAbaddon
01-19-2012, 11:13 PM
That's a poor comparison because I also don't like Landry Jones. I'm also a QB elitist, so I like very few people...

Foles problem, for me having seen like 4-5 games this past season, is that he throws lots of screens, and when he does attack further down the field, his read was scripted. He'd look at one receiver and if that guy wasn't open, check down.

It's basically what Blaine Gabbert did last year. People (read: idiots) are mesmerized by a big guy who threw for umpteen billion yards. He doesn't translate well and I personally wouldn't draft him.

I think it's a good comparison really, as Foles draws much more scrutiny around here than Jones does/(did before he decided to come back) and from what I have read about Foles, seen from Jones, and seen from the numbers they seem rather close as players.

Thank you for the reply, as a like-minded "QB elitist" I feel bad not having seen Foles last year after reading about him forever...his press-clippings make me feel like I missed out on something. Quick question though, if Foles came out say, 3 years ago, would you have the same reservations about him?

Caulibflower
01-20-2012, 01:12 AM
The way I see it, there's only about 5 teams that would want to draft a QB in the first to begin with: Indy, Cleveland, Washington, Miami and Seattle. I doubt every one of them ends up drafting a QB in the first round. I'm going to go "under" on five first-round quarterbacks. Whether Miami or Cleveland ought to draft a QB is debatable, in my opinion. It depends who's on the board. They've both got young guys they're trying to develop, and you can't just ditch your current project every time a new one that hasn't had the opportunity to fail yet comes along. Really nothing to suggest Foles or Osweiler will be any better than Moore or Colt McCoy, except that they're bigger.

FUNBUNCHER
01-20-2012, 03:51 AM
I'm sorry, as someone who hasn't seen Foles play at all and hasn't had the motivation to go scrounging for tape...why does this place seem to hate him so much? What makes him worse than say, Landry Jones?

I like Foles. He really has a chance to solidify himself as the 4th QB taken in this draft, but I also don't think he's a first rounder.

It bugs when someone sees a college QB make one read before throwing the football, that suddenly it means they ALWAYS make one read before throwing the ball.

People around here really under sell how QBs are coached at the college level.
If there's more than one WR out running patterns, any half decent college OC is going to put some emphasis on going through their progressions/reads.

Foles is streaky but if he can be coached out of some of the flaws in his game, what couldn't he have a chance to start in the pros???

BeerBaron
01-20-2012, 05:58 AM
I like Foles. He really has a chance to solidify himself as the 4th QB taken in this draft, but I also don't think he's a first rounder.

It bugs when someone sees a college QB make one read before throwing the football, that suddenly it means they ALWAYS make one read before throwing the ball.

People around here really under sell how QBs are coached at the college level.
If there's more than one WR out running patterns, any half decent college OC is going to put some emphasis on going through their progressions/reads.

Foles is streaky but if he can be coached out of some of the flaws in his game, what couldn't he have a chance to start in the pros???

He's not particularly accurate (completion percentage is inflated by the screens and one-read-or-check-down) and his arm strength is somewhat overrated.

It's far more comforting to see QBs doing things at the college level that they will need to do in the pros than trust that every aspect of their game can be improved via coaching.

Like I said on the previous page, highly drafted QBs very rarely get to sit anymore to improve and it's hard to teach a guy on the fly who is basically making a full blown transition from a simple college offense. Nearly all of them have ended up starting at least half their games as rookies, including 4/5 last year.

If Foles ends up being highly drafted and plays as a rookie, we're more likely to see another Blaine Gabbert than anyone productive.

BeerBaron
01-20-2012, 07:10 AM
i don't think foles is quite that bad. osweiler might be.

It'd be a challenge for ANYONE to be that bad, but I think some of these guys will be closer to that than to good NFL QBs.

I've at least seen Osweiler do slightly more than Foles in terms of things an NFL QB will need to do. I still wouldn't want either guy in the first round.

descendency
01-20-2012, 09:25 AM
Todd McShay was diagnosed with early onset dementa. RIP.

If Foles ends up being highly drafted and plays as a rookie, we're more likely to see another Blaine Gabbert than anyone productive.

I'd feel so bad if the Jaguars did that to themselves twice in a row.

brat316
01-20-2012, 10:04 AM
S6YODMPNgSA
mlUOBAY8iRc
Uc_j2b_7lPM

form some opinions now.

DraftSavant
01-20-2012, 10:52 AM
I like Foles. He really has a chance to solidify himself as the 4th QB taken in this draft, but I also don't think he's a first rounder.

It bugs when someone sees a college QB make one read before throwing the football, that suddenly it means they ALWAYS make one read before throwing the ball.

People around here really under sell how QBs are coached at the college level.
If there's more than one WR out running patterns, any half decent college OC is going to put some emphasis on going through their progressions/reads.

Foles is streaky but if he can be coached out of some of the flaws in his game, what couldn't he have a chance to start in the pros???

Problem is that the NFL, especially it's passing game, is a completely different game than college.

Most, if not all, college QBs are taught to go through progressions. NFL QBs are taught to read based off coverages. There might be some sort of pre-defined progression, but nowhere near as explicit as it is in college. It's a completely different animal.

I agree with you, though, that just because a guy's college offense is rudimentary or simple in terms of how difficult the progressions are to go through doesn't mean that he's going to be a one-read quarterback for his entire life. Put me in the group that think Foles gets a little more flack than he deserves on here.

Then again, media people are saying he could go in the first, so I get the backlash.

Shane P. Hallam
01-20-2012, 11:35 AM
I actually like Foles quite a bit more than Osweiler. Does Osweiler have more upside? Sure, but Foles a bit more polished now and really led his team. I've seen him float balls, have bad games, and get bailed out by his WRs, but he was no worse in college than Andy Dalton.

Dangermouse
01-20-2012, 11:36 AM
The way I see it, there's only about 5 teams that would want to draft a QB in the first to begin with: Indy, Cleveland, Washington, Miami and Seattle. I doubt every one of them ends up drafting a QB in the first round. I'm going to go "under" on five first-round quarterbacks. Whether Miami or Cleveland ought to draft a QB is debatable, in my opinion. It depends who's on the board. They've both got young guys they're trying to develop, and you can't just ditch your current project every time a new one that hasn't had the opportunity to fail yet comes along. Really nothing to suggest Foles or Osweiler will be any better than Moore or Colt McCoy, except that they're bigger.



Basically give the Colts Luck, and one of the other 4 will sign Matt Flynn. That leaves 3 teams.

> I doubt Miami spends a first on a QB unless they successfully trade up for RG3.

> Mike Holmgren prefers day two QBs. I can see him looking at Weeden if they take Blackmon at 4.

> I do think Seattle will take a QB.

> Washington is the Flynn front runner.



Colts - Luck
Dolphins - RG3
Seahawks - Tannehill

Round 2
Browns - Weeden
Chiefs - Foles

ElectricEye
01-20-2012, 11:54 AM
I've seen nothing from Foles to suggest that he can throw the ball down the field competently at the NFL level. His arm is a tick or two below average, he doesn't throw a tight spiral...he just throws a floaty ball that isn't really all that accurate at the second and third level either. That's not even getting into how easy a target he is sitting back in the pocket. He doesn't possess the athletic talent to evade the rush and I don't see consistently good footwork or enough presence to bail him out either. I'm just really, really down on what he brings to the table. BeerBaron already got into some of the other things about him I don't like.

The thing that really kills him for me is that he doesn't have the tools to get any better. He's being touted as a low ceiling, high floor guy...but the floor isn't even as high as people seem to think it is. Even if you're able to teach Foles to read coverages down the field, you're still getting a guy who doesn't have the arm to run an NFL offense at a high level. Based on the smoke, it seems like the NFL is determined to overdraft him because he looks the part in terms of size and statistical performance though. Confuses the hell out of me, really. We've seen guys like him get passed on and get drafted late/not at all before. I'm really not sure what people see in Foles that separates him from some of those older Texas Tech quarterbacks everyone used to be down on, besides a different uniform.

DrAbaddon
01-20-2012, 11:57 AM
Newton was in the ultimate "one-read" offense...

BeerBaron
01-20-2012, 12:02 PM
Newton was in the ultimate "one-read" offense...

And a great number of people called him out, and rightfully so. He adapted extremely well to a more pro-like offense and is a very, very, very major exception.

Most QBs who come from a system like that tend to look more like Blaine Gabbert than Cam Newton.

ElectricEye
01-20-2012, 12:25 PM
Newton was in the ultimate "one-read" offense...

...and had crazy physical ability. Foles doesn't.

DrAbaddon
01-20-2012, 12:37 PM
And a great number of people called him out, and rightfully so. He adapted extremely well to a more pro-like offense and is a very, very, very major exception.

Most QBs who come from a system like that tend to look more like Blaine Gabbert than Cam Newton.
I know, I felt a bit silly even typing it. It's just hard to correlate hasn't made pro reads with can't make pro reads, but I realize I'm arguing a losing point here.

DraftSavant
01-20-2012, 12:43 PM
I know, I felt a bit silly even typing it. It's just hard to correlate hasn't made pro reads with can't make pro reads, but I realize I'm arguing a losing point here.

I get your point, because nobody is really making "reads" in CFB (really, Andrew Luck is the first guy I distinctly remember doing actual coverage-reading; I'm sure there are others in the past, but it's not coming to me off the top of my head). Like I said, most of the college stuff is progression-based, which is pre-determined.

BeerBaron
01-20-2012, 12:48 PM
Also, a big part of the problem is that "doesn't do it" leads to "can't do it" far more often than not.

So when you see a guy actually making "reads" pro-style, like Luck, it tends to build him up as one of those "can't miss" prospects.

As in, I'll be shocked and mortified if Luck isn't a successful pro QB because he's already doing things that pro QBs have to do while the vast majority of college QBs do not.

And it's why I roll my eyes when people say things like "yeah, he's not elite, he doesn't have a great deep ball!"

descendency
01-20-2012, 12:49 PM
form some opinions now.

A midround QB is a mid round QB, no matter what youtube videos there are.

Caulibflower
01-20-2012, 04:58 PM
...and had crazy physical ability. Foles doesn't.

Evaluating Newton always seemed to be more like, "I don't care if he didn't have to make any reads..."

bored of education
01-20-2012, 05:15 PM
If I was picking someone in the 2nd or 3rd and had the understanding that this player is project and you do not need to force him in to starting then I take Brock. IN addition to that understanding I would also need ownership back up as a Gm that we have a long term plan in place. You need have a strong HC, OC and QB coach in place with a good starter to help him along in the process.

But how often are teams at the liberty to do that? If you don't have a top 5 QB in the game you are **** out of luck. You could be without a Qb with in a year. If Matt Schaub shits the bed next year he is toast, same with Bradford maybe.

The turnover rate in the front office and HC position is almost as quick as the QB turnover rate. That rate plus the need to win now rather than establish a competitor year in year out with a 3-4 year building up of a team forces players like Locker, Ponder, Gabbert, Osweiler, Foles, Rg3 to be over drafted. it is an unfortunate way the NFL works but once in a while a team will strike gold with a Qb.

Caulibflower
01-20-2012, 05:33 PM
it is an unfortunate way the NFL works but once in a while a team will strike gold with a Qb.

And it's why New England continues drafting QBs every year even though they have Tom Brady. They're always developing somebody.

BuddyCHRIST
01-22-2012, 11:30 AM
And the general public wonders why there's so many busts...there's two Qb's worth drafting in the top 2 rounds, and maybe one who deserves to go in the 3rd. Tannehil in the top 10? Osweiller in the 1st? How on earth are these guys getting paid.

bored of education
01-22-2012, 11:35 AM
And it's why New England continues drafting QBs every year even though they have Tom Brady. They're always developing somebody.

They stole that from the Packers who drafted Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Aaron Rodgers and Matt Flynn while having a franchise quarterback at the time of their drafting.

BeerBaron
01-22-2012, 11:40 AM
They stole that from the Packers who drafted Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Aaron Rodgers and Matt Flynn while having a franchise quarterback at the time of their drafting.

To be fair, Rodgers hadn't started a game yet when they drafted Flynn (and Brian Brohm.)

bored of education
01-22-2012, 11:42 AM
To be fair, Rodgers hadn't started a game yet when they drafted Flynn (and Brian Brohm.)

they had a franchise qb while they were drafted sir.

BeerBaron
01-22-2012, 11:45 AM
they had a franchise qb while they were drafted sir.

They didn't yet know that, yet. He hadn't started a game yet.

vidae
01-22-2012, 11:52 AM
They didn't yet know that, yet. He hadn't started a game yet.

They had Favre is what he's saying..

bored of education
01-22-2012, 11:55 AM
They had Favre is what he's saying..

thank you sir :)

BeerBaron
01-22-2012, 11:56 AM
Yeah...well...they were looking to move on from him asap and were in the middle of his flip-flopping retirement streak.

He wouldn't go on to start any more games for the Packers.

Babylon
01-22-2012, 12:11 PM
They stole that from the Packers who drafted Hasselbeck, Aaron Brooks, Aaron Rodgers and Matt Flynn while having a franchise quarterback at the time of their drafting.

Add Mark Brunell to that list of guys the Packers drafted when Favre was there, albeit in his first year.

PossibleCabbage
01-23-2012, 12:51 PM
I don't really understand the mechanism by which quarterbacks are supposedly "moving into late round 1."

The way I see it, teams either have a QB or they don't. If you don't have a QB, you probably draft high, and if you have a QB you probably draft much later. Teams that have quarterbacks are unlikely to take a QB late in round 1, unless it's like a Favre situation where the starting QB is not long for this game. But even then, you probably don't take a QB with your first pick, when you have a QB, unless someone falls to you. Aaron Rodgers can fall to you at #24. Brock Osweiler would not be falling to anybody at #24.

So is McShay projecting that teams will be trading up into the back of the first round in order to acquire these second tier quarterbacks? Didn't we talk about how that was certain to happen last year, and then it didn't? It seems to me that the only real reason to trade up into the back of the first round to get a quarterback is if someone else is trying to trade up to the same spot and get your guy. Barring having to grab the top spot in the second round, it's just going to be cheaper to trade up for a high second than a late first.

Guys who pretty much everybody can use (LBs, DBs, DL, OL) can "move into late round 1" I get that, but how are quarterbacks supposed to do it?

BeerBaron
01-23-2012, 12:55 PM
So is McShay projecting that teams will be trading up into the back of the first round in order to acquire these second tier quarterbacks? Didn't we talk about how that was certain to happen last year, and then it didn't? It seems to me that the only real reason to trade up into the back of the first round to get a quarterback is if someone else is trying to trade up to the same spot and get your guy. Barring having to grab the top spot in the second round, it's just going to be cheaper to trade up for a high second than a late first.

Key sentence.

To me, Blaine Gabbert shouldn't have been a first round pick and neither should Christian Ponder have been.

Yet they not only got pushed up in to the first, they got pushed damn near into the top 10.

Teams who are desperate for a QB and can't get Luck or Griffin may do insane things. Would it absolutely shock anyone here to see the Redskins take Tannehill right where they are? Or have Osweiler pull off a Gabbert style meteoric rise?

Hell no. Because you need a QB in this league and the teams know that. If there is a guy who even has the slightest shot, they'll take him.

PossibleCabbage
01-23-2012, 01:02 PM
Key sentence.

To me, Blaine Gabbert shouldn't have been a first round pick and neither should Christian Ponder have been.

Yet they not only got pushed up in to the first, they got pushed damn near into the top 10.

Teams who are desperate for a QB and can't get Luck or Griffin may do insane things. Would it absolutely shock anyone here to see the Redskins take Tannehill right where they are? Or have Osweiler pull off a Gabbert style meteoric rise?

Hell no. Because you need a QB in this league and the teams know that. If there is a guy who even has the slightest shot, they'll take him.

Well, I agree with that. Taking Ponder as high as he went, for example, seemed insane to me last year.

But McShay didn't say "some team drafting in the low teens will surprise everybody when they reach for a QB"... he said that the QBs are "moving into late round 1."

So unless the Redskins (for example) are going to trade back into the 20s to get a quarterback, I can't see how a Tannehill or a Foles or an Osweiler could possibly go late in round 1.

I do think, though, that some of the silliness about QBs last year was that there wasn't a free agency period before the draft, and that teams were uncertain when or if they would be able to sign FAs that year. This year, I think some of the QB hungry teams are going to sign a Matt Flynn, Alex Smith, Jason Campbell, Brian Hoyer, Josh Johnson, or Kyle Orton as an alternative to drafting Osweiler high.

Dangermouse
01-23-2012, 01:21 PM
I don't really understand the mechanism by which quarterbacks are supposedly "moving into late round 1."

The way I see it, teams either have a QB or they don't. If you don't have a QB, you probably draft high, and if you have a QB you probably draft much later. Teams that have quarterbacks are unlikely to take a QB late in round 1, unless it's like a Favre situation where the starting QB is not long for this game. But even then, you probably don't take a QB with your first pick, when you have a QB, unless someone falls to you. Aaron Rodgers can fall to you at #24. Brock Osweiler would not be falling to anybody at #24.

So is McShay projecting that teams will be trading up into the back of the first round in order to acquire these second tier quarterbacks? Didn't wetalk about how that was certain to happen last year, and then it didn't? It seems to me that the only real reason to trade up into the back of the first round to get a quarterback is if someone else is trying to trade up to the same spot and get your guy. Barring having to grab the top spot in the second round, it's just going to be cheaper to trade up for a high second than a late first.

Guys who pretty much everybody can use (LBs, DBs, DL, OL) can "move into late round 1" I get that, but how are quarterbacks supposed to do it?



Two things re: QBs in late first


Teams can get "so far" without a franchise QB. You won't win a superbowl, but you could make the playoffs. Seattle was rumoured to be interested in Dalton at 25 last year, Denver might take a QB this year, hell SF might even be tempted.

Also you sometimes see teams trade back into the late first if they miss out on top tier QBs.