Weeden in 1st Round? - Page 9

FUNBUNCHER · 04-19-2012, 03:43 PM

I agree with the 3rd scout except for the critique of his arm.

njx9 · 04-19-2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

No I did not. You cannot fault logic by disputing the assumptions. I gave you a straight forward line of reasoning, which is what you asked to receive. It does not matter if you accept or reject the evaluation. The reasoning is the thing.

cool, here are my assumptions:

1) weeden's arm is average
2) he has significant shoulder damage that will limit him later in his career (like, in 2 years)
3) he's older than most of the quarterbacks who have been in the league for 5-6 years, and with none of their experience.
4) he's average at best in 'qb intelligence'.
5) he kicks puppies on weekends.

therefore, he's an UDFA at best, and out of the league in two years.

according to your 'logic', i don't have to back up a single 'assumption', and you simply have to accept that i'm right. i think it's quite clear that you don't have the faintest clue how 'logic' works.

Quote:

If Weeden is evaluated as a top 10 talent, whether you would do it or not, then he is evaluated as a top 10 talent. Your opinion makes no difference. Everything else follows from there.

J

that's completely asinine and utterly irrelevant. i've asked repeatedly for YOUR opinion and YOUR backup of that opinion. you've repeatedly proven that you either lack the ability to give it, or don't have any and would rather act as a parrot for whatever scouts happen to agree with you (keep appealing to authority bro, that's awesome 'logic').

WCH · 04-19-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

When was he ever evaluated as a top 10 talent? When?

That's a good question.

onejayhawk · 04-19-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

cool, here are my assumptions:

1) weeden's arm is average
2) he has significant shoulder damage that will limit him later in his career (like, in 2 years)
3) he's older than most of the quarterbacks who have been in the league for 5-6 years, and with none of their experience.
4) he's average at best in 'qb intelligence'.
5) he kicks puppies on weekends.

therefore, he's an UDFA at best, and out of the league in two years.

according to your 'logic', i don't have to back up a single 'assumption', and you simply have to accept that i'm right. i think it's quite clear that you don't have the faintest clue how 'logic' works.

Based on your assumptions Weeden is probably a 3rd round pick. Of course you dont have to back up assumptions. That is why they are called assumptions. You assume them.

BTW I teach logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

that's completely asinine and utterly irrelevant. i've asked repeatedly for YOUR opinion and YOUR backup of that opinion. you've repeatedly proven that you either lack the ability to give it, or don't have any and would rather act as a parrot for whatever scouts happen to agree with you (keep appealing to authority bro, that's awesome 'logic').

My opinion is that you significantly undervalue his physical tools.The arm is very good, plus he has he height teams like. By observation, he is a very good rhythm passer. He is reported to have interviewed well, and appears to have earned the loyalty of his team mates. Intangibles, work ethic and desire first rate from what I can tell. In summary, a player who have a very good shot at being a starting QB by his third year.

It would be entirely appropriate to cite publications which have similar assessments. Indeed, in some cases I am forced to rely on third party opinion, since I have no direct access. However, I can say from personal observation that he can throw a ball with very good pace.

As for your own logic, when you assume that anyone with a different opinion is stupid, what is it you are demonstrating?

J

Rosebud · 04-19-2012, 05:53 PM

It's not an assumption if that's what the fact are showing, then it becomes a deduction.

njx9 · 04-19-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Based on your assumptions Weeden is probably a 3rd round pick. Of course you dont have to back up assumptions. That is why they are called assumptions. You assume them.

BTW I teach logic.

i pity your students. making assumptions based on no factual evidence, or worse, outright refusing to provide evidence for your assumptions is a waste of everyone's time. it provides no insight, and leads to no actual conclusions. we might as well all sit around and have a nice circle jerk.

Quote:

My opinion is that you significantly undervalue his physical tools.The arm is very good, plus he has he height teams like. By observation, he is a very good rhythm passer. He is reported to have interviewed well, and appears to have earned the loyalty of his team mates. Intangibles, work ethic and desire first rate from what I can tell. In summary, a player who have a very good shot at being a starting QB by his third year.

and you've done nothing but say "some people have said so", or "it doesn't matter if it's right because it's an assumption" to back any of that up. until you do, i'll continue to assume you didn't see him play a single down.

Quote:

It would be entirely appropriate to cite publications which have similar assessments. Indeed, in some cases I am forced to rely on third party opinion, since I have no direct access. However, I can say from personal observation that he can throw a ball with very good pace.

and when asked to provide video evidence (there's a wealth of youtube clips out there), you outright refused, or ignored the request repeatedly, or suggested that you didn't need evidence because, apparently, we should just take your word for it.

Quote:

As for your own logic, when you assume that anyone with a different opinion is stupid, what is it you are demonstrating?

no, i assume anyone who can't be bothered to or is otherwise incapable of backing up their opinion with anything remotely resembling fact ought not to have an opinion at all. your opinion on weeden is apparently about as relevant as my opinion on flying the space shuttle.

vidae · 04-19-2012, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Based on your assumptions Weeden is probably a 3rd round pick. Of course you dont have to back up assumptions. That is why they are called assumptions. You assume them.

BTW I teach logic.

My opinion is that you significantly undervalue his physical tools.The arm is very good, plus he has he height teams like. By observation, he is a very good rhythm passer. He is reported to have interviewed well, and appears to have earned the loyalty of his team mates. Intangibles, work ethic and desire first rate from what I can tell. In summary, a player who have a very good shot at being a starting QB by his third year.

It would be entirely appropriate to cite publications which have similar assessments. Indeed, in some cases I am forced to rely on third party opinion, since I have no direct access. However, I can say from personal observation that he can throw a ball with very good pace.

As for your own logic, when you assume that anyone with a different opinion is stupid, what is it you are demonstrating?

J

Neat, so by then you'll have a 31-32 year old QB who has a couple of years to play at any kind of level. Sign me up for using a first on him!

Rosebud · 04-19-2012, 06:00 PM

So the best case scenario is that he's older than Eli is now, by the time he's ready to start? And even then he doesn't move very well, his deep ball is lacking, his throwing motion's kinda slow and his balls flutter...So how good is he going to be once he's ready to really start his couple year career.

Raiderz4Life · 04-19-2012, 06:13 PM

I would like to congratulate onejayhawk for successfully trolling the living **** out of us. Congratulations sir.

onejayhawk · 04-19-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

When was he ever evaluated as a top 10 talent? When?

Nowhere that I am aware. However, there are numerous situations where the assessment stipulates it would be higher if he was younger.

Also, I am aware of no one that puts Ryan Tannehill in the top 10 of a Big Board, yet Tannehill is firmly established as a top 10 pick. It is not hard at all to find comparisons between Weeden and Tannehill. They are rather like those comparing Luck and Barkley, except the comparisons are not as clear cut.

I think it is reasonable to infer that Weeden would be a top 10 pick, or close to it, if he were 5 years younger. I will say this, a year ago, he probably would have had a leg up on Blaine Gabbert, except for his age. It is a much easier comparison, since styles are much more alike. Where did Gabbert get drafted?

J

onejayhawk · 04-19-2012, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vidae

Neat, so by then you'll have a 31-32 year old QB who has a couple of years to play at any kind of level. Sign me up for using a first on him!

That is the correct answer. "Rental" value for a starting QB is that high. Look what the Raiders paid for a 33 year old Carson Palmer. Look what he Chiefs paid for a 37 year old, physically failing Joe Montana.

J

Asteinebach · 04-19-2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

Look what he Chiefs paid for a 37 year old, physically failing Joe Montana.J

18 years ago with Christian Okoye in the backfield.

Raiderz4Life · 04-19-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

That is the correct answer. "Rental" value for a starting QB is that high. Look what the Raiders paid for a 33 year old Carson Palmer. Look what he Chiefs paid for a 37 year old, physically failing Joe Montana.

J

The Raiders are idiots...they let Hue run the show and he threw up a **** hail mary to save his ass.

njx9 · 04-19-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

That is the correct answer. "Rental" value for a starting QB is that high. Look what the Raiders paid for a 33 year old Carson Palmer. Look what he Chiefs paid for a 37 year old, physically failing Joe Montana.

J

and again, no one is saying some team won't draft him well before he should go. everyone's saying that doing so is a mistake.

this is so reminiscent of the gabbert threads last year, ugh.

onejayhawk · 04-19-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

and again, no one is saying some team won't draft him well before he should go. everyone's saying that doing so is a mistake.

this is so reminiscent of the gabbert threads last year, ugh.

If he starts 3+ years any pick after 20 is justified.

But, it may make you feel better that we can agree on Gabbert.

J

descendency · 04-19-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

If he starts 3+ years any pick after 20 is justified.

But, it may make you feel better that we can agree on Gabbert.

J

Because that's how long it will take the GM to be fired that thinks that way.

Any GM that invests a first rounder and doesn't expect to get a good 10 years from him is an idiot. Plain and simple.

Rosebud · 04-19-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by njx9

and again, no one is saying some team won't draft him well before he should go. everyone's saying that doing so is a mistake.

this is so reminiscent of the gabbert threads last year, ugh.

At least with Gabbert he was young and his tools where a little better. If you severily misunderestimated how badly his vagina quakes when defenders step onto the field, he actually looked like he could be a franchise guy, at least on par with Ponder. With Weeden, even if you ignore his most blatant redflag, he still grades out as a mediocre starter at best.

njx9 · 04-19-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rosebud

At least with Gabbert he was young and his tools where a little better. If you severily misunderestimated how badly his vagina quakes when defenders step onto the field, he actually looked like he could be a franchise guy, at least on par with Ponder. With Weeden, even if you ignore his most blatant redflag, he still grades out as a mediocre starter at best.

no disagreement, but to be fair, gabbert was viewed by some as a #1 overall pick. i don't think anyone's that deluded with weeden, even if he were the only qb in the draft.

to be more fair to weeden, i wouldn't have touched gabbert with any draft pick last year. i'd probably draft weeden in the 6th or 7th.

but a first/second round pick? there's something wrong with the gm that pulls that trigger.

jojo · 04-19-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

That is the correct answer. "Rental" value for a starting QB is that high. Look what the Raiders paid for a 33 year old Carson Palmer. Look what he Chiefs paid for a 37 year old, physically failing Joe Montana.

J

Damned expensive rental.

Didnt Montana take KC the playoffs?

YAYareaRB · 04-19-2012, 08:06 PM

these are guys who already had in-league experience.

P

Spectre · 04-19-2012, 11:10 PM

My God... I'm hoping some other team takes the Weeden bullet for the Browns.

The QB hype train has gone to sickening levels this year. There's pushing a QB up the charts and then there's creating a "franchise QB" out of thin air. If I hear someone make the "If Weeden was 22 instead of 29 he'd be a 1st round pick" argument to defend him again, my head might explode. Since when is it a legitimate point to say "Man, if this guy had _______ which is impossible to change, he'd be a stud. Let's draft him like he does!"

If you asked the question among NFL fans "How much time would you spend developing a 30 year old QB project?", most of them would laugh in your face. Yet, that's exactly what Weeden will be when he doesn't light the world on fire next year as a rookie with 2 measly years of college football experience. Nearly every rookie on earth struggles and has an adjustment period... but somehow Weeden being an old man makes him immune? ARGH.

This guy is Weinke all over again except that slightly better physical tools and an absurd QB frenzy are pushing him up higher. Unless he goes in the mid rounds where most picks don't carry real risk, he's going to be an epic mistake for whoever takes him.

Asteinebach · 04-20-2012, 06:13 AM

Yeah, I really don't see the advantage of taking a guy with limited upside, like Weeden, over a guy that has a great deal of potential like Cousins. I haven't been a huge Cousins supporter, but given the weakness of depth at the QB position in this class, his experience has to count for something. Even a guy like Brock Osweiler (who everyone here hates) has more upside. He's similar in physical ability to Tannehill, but will need to be coached up in the NFL.

Hell, another guy that hasn't yet been mentioned is Ryan Lindley. He's a 4-year starter and it could be argued that he's more NFL ready than Tanny. He's been, admittedly, inconsistent at times, but if you're not Indianapolis or Washington, then what else do you have to chose from?

onejayhawk · 04-20-2012, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteinebach

Yeah, I really don't see the advantage of taking a guy with limited upside, like Weeden, over a guy that has a great deal of potential like Cousins.

You do it if you think Weeden can develop into a starter, but Cousins cant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

This guy is Weinke all over again except that slightly better physical tools and an absurd QB frenzy are pushing him up higher. Unless he goes in the mid rounds where most picks don't carry real risk, he's going to be an epic mistake for whoever takes him.

Welcome to the NFL draft. "[A]bsurd QB frenzy" is the normal state of affairs. And it is impossible to make an epic mistake after the top 10.

One of the guys I talk to had an interesting comment about Weeden: he throws to spots. The system they had at OSU was very timing based. He knew in the huddle where the ball was going. In effect it was the old Air Coryell system. When its a bit off, it looks very bad, but when it clicks, it is almost unstoppable.

J

Asteinebach · 04-20-2012, 06:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onejayhawk

He knew in the huddle where the ball was going. In effect it was the old Air Coryell system.

What's his downside J? You have been defending this point that he may be a 1st round talent all this time, but you have to admit the guy isn't Andrew Luck. And it's not just because of his age.

onejayhawk · 04-20-2012, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asteinebach

What's his downside J? You have been defending this point that he may be a 1st round talent all this time, but you have to admit the guy isn't Andrew Luck. And it's not just because of his age.

Downside is that he is too dependant on pass protection to be able to be effective. In Air Coryell, Fouts had a lightning quick release and great receivers. Also, his college habit of not looking off will kill him in the NFL.

In any event, I have not been defending Weeden so much as the proposition that he should be taken seriously as a 1st round possibility. Check and see how many responses are nothing more than, " Too old. Next."

J