Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best QB Class in Years?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Best QB Class in Years?

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

  • #2
    Originally posted by the natural View Post
    Contrary to the prevailing wisdom. This year's group put up some of the best Combine test numbers in years at the position. Most of them can throw the ball as well. I think there could be half a dozen solid starting NFL QBs from this group in a few years.
    The fact that how well the QBs can throw the ball was tossed in as an afterthought tells people everything they need to know about this thread...


    www.minnesotavikingsnation.com

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by akvikefan89 View Post
      The fact that how well the QBs can throw the ball was tossed in as an afterthought tells people everything they need to know about this thread...
      Well, there aren't definitive quantitative measurements for throwing ability. If there were, (in terms of ball speed, accuracy, etc.) the 2011 guys would be up there with anyone over the past decade as well.

      Comment


      • #4
        This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

        I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.
        Scott Wright, President
        Draft Countdown.com
        www.draftcountdown.com

        Twitter: twitter.com/DraftCountdown

        Draft Countdown Podcast, Every Tuesday at 8 PM EST
        www.blogtalkradio.com/draftcountdown and on iTunes

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Scott Wright View Post
          This is as major Boom or Bust crop.

          I wouldn't be surprised if 2 or 3 of the "Big 4" wind up busting.
          I agree that there is some bust potential in this group which is clearly shown in that none of them is getting solid top 5 consideration although a couple could go in that area.
          Getting a real solid ranking on them is very difficult because so many of the top ones are juniors and hardly finished products.
          Nevertheless, it is a pretty deep crop with lots of boom potential as well. After all, this is a superb draft year which is very talented and deep, so the QB's may turnout to be real surprises when all is said and done.
          And proud of it!!!

          Comment


          • #6
            I tend to disagree in the complete way. I think this class is superiorly overrated at the quarterback position. The only player I would feel absolutely 100% comfortable with taking in the 1st round alone is Blaine Gabbert.

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

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

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

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

            Comment


            • #7
              With the spread becoming more prominent, I think we're going to start seeing a lot more QBs run for 300-400 yards a year. Channeling my inner Nostradamus, I'm going to say that scrambling QBs are on their way in in a major way. in ten years, teams are going to be specifically looking for QBs who can scramble a couple of times a game. And I'm not talking option QBs, just to be clear, I'm talking about the kind of running Aaron Rodgers does, or the way the Chiefs used Tyler Thigpen a couple years ago.

              Comment


              • #8
                The '11 class of porn stars was great. They could all jump out of the gym, some of them could even **** a mean **** as well.

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

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Rabscuttle View Post
                  The '11 class of porn stars was great. They could all jump out of the gym, some of them could even **** a mean **** as well.

                  My team already has a reasonably athletic quarterback, making him run .2 faster in the 40 wouldn't keep him from throwing high and late now would it? Would jumping higher help him see the that his receiver is about to come open? Just shoot me.
                  It's pretty hilarious how people continue to somehow spin athleticism at the quarterback position as a bad thing. Like being able to run and being able to competently throw are mutually exclusive. Let's just drop that angle, shall we? It's dumb.

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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    From the top 4 there will be 1 HOFer and 3 busts. Which QB becomes the HOFer is anyone's guess.
                    I'm a state.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I completely disagree not a single one of them is worth a top five pick.
                      "The liberator who destroys my property, is fighting to save my spirit. The teacher who clears all possessions from my path will set me free."-Tyler Durden

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If Locker, Newton, Gabbert and Mallet play to their potential it would turn out be very, very good.

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

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Calubflower View Post
                          It's pretty hilarious how people continue to somehow spin athleticism at the quarterback position as a bad thing. Like being able to run and being able to competently throw are mutually exclusive. Let's just drop that angle, shall we? It's dumb.

                          More specifically, "No, running faster wouldn't solve your quarterbacks accuracy and decision-making issues." But if you could have a guy who could throw and not run versus a guy who could throw and run, which would you rather have? And don't give me some BS about how they might look to run too soon, or what have you. It's about ability and potential, and trying to play off a prospect's athleticism like it's not ever going to help the team he's on makes no sense.
                          Lord thunderin' Jesus, Mary. How did I spin athletisicm as a bad thing? It's just nowhere near as important to the position as some people seem to make it out to be.

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

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

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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I like the QBs in this draft a lot. I don't know why people are so down on them. They could all go in the Top 10 - easily.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Rabscuttle View Post
                              Lord thunderin' Jesus, Mary. How did I spin athletisicm as a bad thing? It's just nowhere near as important to the position as some people seem to make it out to be.
                              You indicated that you think it is trivial. Aaron Rodgers, Roethlisberger, Vick, Cutler, and others are considered franchise QBs, and you're kidding yourself if you think that coaches ignored their ability to extend plays when they were evaluating them. All of these guys had athletic ability that made them stand out against their peers at their respective combines, and it's evident in the way that they play.

                              Where do you rank the track and field skills in level of importance of a quarterback's makeup?
                              Do you really think that there's some sort of sequential list that scouts and coaches look at? You look at the aggregate abilities of each prospect, and take the guy who looks like he's got the best chance of turning his ability into actual success.

                              Where do you think scouts and coaches rate these things? I'm curious, perhaps you will give me some insight as to who my team will pick? We just picked up this Harbaugh guy. Do you think he will be going "Holy ****, that Locker kid ran a 4.5 40 let's get him"
                              No, but since Locker was known as a guy who could run, I think his stock would definitely have dropped if he had ran, say, a 4.82 instead. Taking off with the ball is something he's able to do well. We wouldn't be talking about him as a first round prospect if he had a weak arm or came across as a dunce.

                              Or do you think he will be saying "Can that Locker kid learn to hit a receiver from the pocket and feel pressure a helluva a lot better?" I can guarantee you he won't even consider drafting Locker if he doesn't think the accuracy issues can't be fixed no matter how athletic he is.
                              Again, you're going the either/or route as if the coach has to take one side or the other. I guarantee you he's going to say something like, "That Locker kid's got some real speed and an arm. We'll have to check out his accuracy and pocket presence, though, because he didn't show that he was great at either in college." In other words, their going to take the pros as pros and the cons as cons. Accuracy being important doesn't make his running ability irrelevant.

                              If a guy can't read a defence and is dumb as a post, does his 40 time matter when evaluating him as a quarterback prospect? What if he has huge accuracy issues? No pocket presence? Doesn't like the film room?
                              Show me the direct correlation between having open-field running skills and being dumb, inaccurate, unaware and lazy. If a guy really is one or more of those things, fine.

                              Again, nobody says athleticism at the position is a bad thing. Overvalueing it is. It's even more foolish than getting wowed by a big arm when the important pieces aren't there.
                              And it's foolish to undervalue it just because you prefer Matt Schaub to Michael Vick.
                              Last edited by Caulibflower; 02-27-2011, 07:57 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X

                              Debug Information