http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/spo...2012/04/draft_winds_breaking_down_bran_1.html Brandon Weeden special
Garden of Weeden. LOL. Clever title guys. As always, can't ruin my workday productivity reading this piece so will def. check it out in the evening.
After Luck and RGIII there is not a QB in this draft good enough to be a 1st round pick. Do not care what the experts say, Weeden, Tannehill and the kid from ASU are all not very good QBs.
There is plenty of good WRs that will fit Philbins offense in the mid rounds, that if we took a QB in the 1st, we could be good for a lot of years.
I'm going to single out your post. I'm not a guru. So I don't know if X QB is going to be great or not. Hell, gurus don't*know either and it is a crapshoot.....but good godamn, CK has an article the length of a small book, and to counter what he said all you could muster is a, "nope, Weeden sucks." I mean that is just idiotic. If he's wrong at least put some effort into explaining why you think he's wrong or support your stance with something more than herp derp. First the black lineman suck thread you started and now this.........weaksauce.
I have RG3, Tannehill and Weedon all rated in the same range and in the first round. Cousins would be next with a second round grade. I have Russell Wilson rated higher than the consensus with a third round grade. I wouldn't consider Foles, Osweiler or any of the others before the fourth. Although Lindley would be intriguing as project that you developed over the next three years.
Yeah you did. And I don't care what your opinion of Weeden/Tanny/or Winston Churchill is, its just if its in response to a novel long article that had facts, research and effort, I'd think your rebuttal should have those things too. That's what is supposed to make this site better than the others. CK maybe wrong, but you damn sure did nothing intelligent or meaningful to counter him.
Weeden's 2nd-3rd round draft advisory grade was last year when he was a year younger; therefore, IMO, being a year older will counterbalance the improvements he made in 2011 since every extra year counts greatly in his case.
I agree with CK that the year of age is secondary to the talent displayed. That should always be the primary analysis.
I am wondering who will be the biggest surprise in the draft. Every year there is always one in the top 15.
That's making it kind of black and white, isn't it? If age is secondary to talent in the way you seem to be suggest, then Weedon would be a top 8 pick. However, we all know that's not happening; therefore, age does matter. How much his age matters is basically in the eye of the beholder. It's subjective. IMO judging him on his talent is unrelated to how much you'd like to invest in him. Personally, I wouldn't pay retail price for a car with roughly half the warranty remaining no matter how well it performs. Drop the price a bit and I might be sold. I would almost bet my only can of Blue Diamond 'Soy Wasabi' almonds that half the NFL feels the same way.
There is no link I know of because no one to my knowledge, including myself, ever said Black Lineman suck. As I told the other poster, the words came out of his post, not out of any I ever put up. I gave opinion on who I thought made up the best offensive lines. There is nothing anywhere, anyplace where I ever said anything even remotely related to black lineman suck. Have the other poster dig it up, he can't because it never happened.
Neither did Brady's, no? IMO he's one of those QBs you look for every reason to not draft b/c nothing is really eye-popping even though he's a winner and finds ways to win. If I had to pick one non first rounder of the past few years to become the next Brady, I'd say Cousins. He has the it factor in my eyes.
Where would you draft Weeden if he were the exact same age as Ryan Tannehill? Where would be the highes position you'd draft him? #8 overall? If you were Cleveland at #4 overall, would you draft him there?
I don't have to look very far to see reasons not to draft Kirk Cousins. He's extremely jumpy in the pocket, not poised at all, doesn't show instincts for managing the pocket (e.g. will float right into pressure instead of away from it). He makes really bad, alarmingly risky decisions on a regular basis. He's Mark Sanchez without the pocket poise.
FYI, I just responded to the post in question on another item and again, I find nowhere in it where I put it up that any particular type of lineman sucks.
IMO Tannehill is jumpy to an extent in the pocket also. Even at his pro day film he jumped around like a jelly bean. Crazy feet.
Been ringing that bell for months! As another poster wrote "Bleedin for Weeden" Imagine a trade back scenario that nets us Fleener/Weeden and any one of the following 3: Jefferies Perry or Ingram WOW!!
Great work. Didn't get through all of it, but I will when I get home. I'd be thrilled with Tannehill or Weeden. I just worry about Weeden's age. I skimmed the part about value and age, but I still think it would be a big mistake to think the difference in age isn't a big factor.
Brandon Weeden is Chris Weinke. Wouldnt touch this guy any earlier than the 3rd, by then some team will snatch him up and regret it in 2 years.
UMMMMM no. Other than age there are no similarities. Did you read the article? Making that comparison is like saying RGIII is like vick because they are both african american QBs who can run.
You never used the word suck but you did say that you didn't want black offensive lineman. You said that you wanted to put together a white offensive line because they are more successful. You implied a black offensive line would be unsuccessful in comparison.
Like Weinke, he could be decent until, he realizes the NFL is far faster then he could imagine and he takes a few good hits. I agree with you.
Main arguments on age factor: 1. Chris Weinke. Same age. He went in the 4th round. But he was a 4th round prospect. Watch him play football in 2000. He was big and strong, had great NFL size and strength (body strength, not arm strength). He could move around. But he was inaccurate, and the ball came off his hand real inconsistently (ducks all aflutter). That's the kind of guy that goes in the 3rd or 4th round, despite Heisman and National Championship. Nowhere near Weeden's throwing ability (velocity, spin, consistency, accuracy). This is not a matter of dispute or difference of opinion. It's fact. So if a 4th round QB went in the 4th round despite age, how should that affect a 1st round QB? 2. Trent Richardson. Where would you take him? Tailbacks, even elite ones, don't affect the game as much as quarterbacks, but they do affect the game a lot. But the longevity isn't there for that position. A tailback goes downhill at 30-31 years old. A quarterback doesn't go downhill until 35-36 years old. The estimate for Trent Richardson's effective career should be about the same as Weeden's. So, if you'd take Richardson in top 10, why wouldn't you take Weeden? 3. Ryan Tannehill. Is 4 years younger than Weeden. Where would you take Tannehill? #8 overall? Would you take him #4 overall if you're Cleveland? If Weeden and Tannehill were the same age, which would you like more? If we assume Tannehill's career to be 12 years, 10 of them quality (post-learning curve), therefore we assume Weeden's career to be 8 years (12 minus 4), and if we assume same learning curve for both (not safe assumption, Weeden's should be shorter), then that's 6 quality years from Weeden as opposed to 10 quality years from Tannehill. Does that mean 28 year old Weeden is 60% as valuable as 24 year old Tannehill (6 / 10 = 60%)? How do you account for the fact that the 4 years that Weeden is missing are the expensive ones, since he'll still enter the league on a rookie contract? Logic dictates that years where the QB is highly talented yet highly paid are less valuable than years where the QB is highly talented yet low paid. Therefore, shouldn't the 6 quality years Weeden has be worth more than the 4 quality years he's missing, relative to Tannehill? Doesn't that change that 60% to something more akin to 75%?