It is like if you go to a garage sale and you find a rare (insert your own) item you feel is worth a lot of money. at the moment nobody else seems to pay it any attention, are you going to pay the owner the pittance he is asking or you going to pay him market you feel he is worth? Nobody is going to pay 1st rd money if they are confident they can get him in say 4th thu 6th rd.
And, if it is so blatantly obvious that even drunken armchair QB's can see it, its a pretty big problem. Now.then, what's all this nonsense about Protons and ignotrons?
I say you didn't see it. I say its not possible for you to have seen it under the circumstances given.
And I say you are actually a 9 year old girl that never goes to school and spends the day in your parents basement smoking your moms Virginia Slims........
Maybe in your mind, but I have offered nothing in which to come to that conclusion. The Pats should get credit that they took the chance and got lucky. However, they shouldn't get credit for what you think. And that is fooling everyone else into not taking Brady so they could with the 200th pick. That is just asinine.
IIRC, our QB coach on Hard Knocks made a Tony Romo comparison with Pat Devlin. EDIT: It was Tight Ends coach, Dan Campbell who said that.
The point being, there's many folks in an organization, with many different evaluations of a player. It's not hard to believe that things with Brady went down with folks thinking hey, Brady could be a damn good QB for us, but we can get him later so we'll sit on it. It's also not hard to believe that they just got lucky.
Any idiot can tell when a QB is staring down his targets. It's not rocket science so don't be ridiculous.
A thousand times, this. I'm not in the NFL and I'm not a scout. I've been following it closely for a decade and a half or thereabouts and been trying to evaluate players for a decade. I'm not privy to a lot of things. But in my opinion the NFL almost has this universal translation when it comes to talent. A set of ideals, something along those lines. Some kind of Rosetta Stone that guides what players are worth, based on a set of identifiable, quantifiable, isolatable traits and circumstances. Because the fact of the matter is when you get to the heart of which players you "like" and which ones you want to play for you, how valuable they'll actually be, if you have 5 scouts look at 5 players, you could get 5 different distinct set of preferences, depending on how glaring the talent differences are. Make them 5 different positions and suddenly it might not even matter how glaring the talent differences are, you'll get 5 different preference lists, no two alike. Identifying and evaluating traits in players seems like pure chaos. Disagreement is unbelievably rampant. People watch the same play, the same set of movements, one evaluator says it's "quick" and the other one says it's "slow". It's unbelievably polarizing at times. The NFL naturally wants to apply order to the chaos, though. They don't want to take Stedman Bailey at 12 overall if nobody else is taking him until the 3rd round. So you go back to their Rosetta Stone of standards for grading players...grading that, quite frankly, many many many many people could do if they were asked and given training. The most explicitly I've seen this described was by a former scout who once worked for the Arizona Cardinals and said that their General Manager had them come up with two grades for a player. One was their team grade, the grade that player should have for their team based on preferences, fit, etc. The other was an "NFL grade". That was the universal grade. Between that and the rumor mongering teams do in order to see who is onto who, yeah they get a pretty fair idea of where most guys are likely to go. So even though in John Schneider's eyes Russell Wilson was I believe he said the 2nd or 3rd best college football player he saw in 2011 period (he said this before Russell's rookie season, btw), he had an idea that he could get Russell Wilson in the 3rd round...because he knew his "grade".
Essentially what I'm saying is that if you work in the NFL then you know that players have a "grade" and a "Grade".
No, you're simply wrong. The average person cannot with any degree of certainty, tell when a QB is staring down their receivers in real time on a TV broadcast.
IMO, had Garrard not gotten hurt, he'd have been the opening day starter. So, I'll just agree to disagree with you on this topic.
This is a classic case of a layman overestimating their abilities to understand what they're seeing on the field. The typical camera angle used for football broadcasts allows for you to be able to tell if the QB is looking at one side of the field or the other. There is not enough info in the broadcast angle to tell what target the QB is looking at with any degree of certainty. You are wrong. Sorry.
That is right, and they even admit they got lucky. There is no way the Pats were so clever compared to the rest of the league that only they knew Brady was a future HOF QB, and that with their confidence no other team saw that in him, that they could just wait till the 6th round.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion relating to these two QB's. All I know is that Wilson was a much better QB than Tannehill at the college level and his play at the QB position in 2012 season far exceeded Tannehill's play. The knock on Wilson prior to the 2012 draft was his size. Just as Drew Brees has shown over his career, size doesn't mean anything if you make the plays on a consistent basis. Wilson showed in 2012 that he could make the plays and he continued to improve as the season went along in 2012. Tannehill MAY eventually show that he is as good as Luck, RG3, and Wilson, but right now he has a long way to go to become the QB these three players are in the NFL. I certainly hope Tannehill becomes a quality starter in the NFL, but if I woke up tomorrow morning and read in the paper that the Dolphins and the Seahawks had made a trade of their starting QB',s. I would feel like the Dolphins got the better player in the trade. Unfortunately, I don't see the Seahawks making that trade. My summary:Wilson>Tannehill
Actually, you are quite wrong in context. We most certainly did predict who Tannehill was looking at prior to snap. It most often wasn't that hard to do. Whether or not you believe me matters about as much as I value a Jests fans input on whether we should carry 5 receivers or 6. Do you want to guess how much that is? You are missing the entire point. We watched A&M every weekend (we still do, very very tired of Johnny Football). It was often very easy for us to tell where he was going well before he went there. Often enough that we made a game out of it. It waS a beer drinking game. Nothing more nothing less. Don't know why that's so hard to believe? And, I really don't care anymore.
I agree and disagree at the same time..agree that one can feel very confident in an evaluation and understand where the consensus grade is and take advantage of those misevaluations, but, if a team is in search of a Qb, and you have identified in your opinion, a star, I think you have to move him way up relative to the consensus grade, way up. I don't think anyone who felt as strongly as some of us did on the player would of waited til the 3rd/4th round where the consensus grade was..way too much of a risk on an elite prospect.
I agree in part and disagree in part. I believe I can tell when a QB is looking off players or not. I think even layman can tell where a QB is looking. However, I also believe that fans have very little understanding of how many plays a QB is not supposed to look off his receiver. In most plays in a quick passing attack, the QB is not supposed to look off anybody. That is the kind of offense RT is in and IMO most of the criticism against him staring down his WRs was unfounded by the second half of the season.
But there's a difference between a singular opinion and a team opinion that is made up of several voices with varying amounts of conviction. In reality, outside of a few situations like Al Davis or Matt Millen there isn't one guy making the call all on his own. There's usually one guy who makes the call, but he is weighing multiple opinions. He will absolutely consider the NFL grade in deciding where to get his QB. He wouldn't just act like a fan with a man crush.
Nice back-to-back posts. With this reply, I'm not trying to prove anything (or argue anything) by pointing out the exception. Crazy exceptions don't create rules. That said, the exception I point out below might further illustrate the truth of your post: What the hell happened in Denver when they traded to get Tebow in the 1st? I'm guessing that Tebow was enough of a wild card that they threw their grades out the window.
Brady was a 6th round pick, because he was slow, weak and never lifted a day in his life. One of the worst bodies in the history of the combine and had awful combine numbers....
If Brady had been drafted by nearly any other team he would have been a back-up journey man. He's smart and has great determination and work ethic. However, he's weak, slow, gets rattled too easily and is the definition of a system QB. That last part is not a knock. Joe Montana was a system QB too. Brady will retire as a top 10-15 All Time great... IMO. It is amusing to me that some people still don't think there was more luck than anything else where Brady is concerned. Again, if the Pats thought "very, very highly" of him they would have drafted him before pick 199.
A good deal of those sacks were due to Tannehill not stepping up into the pocket, which is something he needs to work on. But I don't see how that applies to the discussion we were having.
BB said himeself he was surprised that Brady was there when The Patriots were picking in the 5th but red flags about why he kept getting benched came up. so they waited. http://nesn.com/2011/04/bill-belich...ng-on-tom-brady-in-fifth-round-of-2000-draft/
All I can do is put myself in the GM shoes of the Miami dolphins, Qb starved for decades, totally futility in making correct evaluations on the decisions up this last year.. If its my conviction, I would take into account the consensus grade, but it's really not gonna be close if I feel the prospect is a star......if the consensus is 3rd/4th round grade like Wilson, maybe a slight trade down from your first pick, but that's it Rafs..I just don't see the need to play the game at that point with that position, at other positions sure, I will play it to a degree and take advantage of what I perceive as better evaluating skills than my opponents.
Because GMs are human beings, they make mistakes all the time, sometimes it blows me away the mistakes made at the position at the NFL level..there are legit reasons why their fired.. Tebow was a classic case of a coach wanting to implement a new style of system, and thinking that he was the trigger man to run it, but maybe didn't have quite the vision from a personnel standpoint to make it work, or quite the vision schematically to know exactly what tebow would thrive in most. I stated many times that someone would take tebow in the first round, not because I would have, but I felt that some team would view the whole package as first round quality..took a lot of grief for those statements..
I'd have a hard time putting him in the top 5 or even 10. And for him to be top 2 or 3, well, do you think he's better than graham, Unitas, or Marino?
What did Luck do better than Tanny? Their performances where nearly identical. I'm not saying that Lucks ceiling is or isn't higher, but he and Tanny played similar last season
There are some SERIOUS exaggerations on exactly how well Tannehill did last year within these boards. Once again, and these are purely numbers, but they are very telling: TD/INT Andrew Luck 23/18 Ryan Tannehill 12/13 Yards AL 4374 RT 3294 Rushing TD AL-5 RT-2 Fumbles AL-10 RT-9 Sacked AL-41 RT-35 Some like to point out that Tannehill had not much to work with. Well, Andrew Luck had exactly 1 receiver worth mentioning and NOTHING else. He also didn't have nearly the defense that Tannehill did and somehow, STILL willed his team to the playoffs. To say that Tannehill did what Luck did is the exact common sentiment that urged my "Homer Goggles" comment. If it doesn't apply to everybody, sobeit, but while I still see comments like this, I stick with the "Homer Goggles" statement.
