As the title suggests, who are the qb's to watch in college football this 2011 season. It just might be a relevant topic of discussion considering the potential for disaster this year. 1. Andrew Luck, Stanford 2. Matt Barkley, USC 3. Landry Jones, Oklahoma 4. Ryan Tannehill, Texas A&M 5. Kirk Cousins, Michigan State 6. Brandon Weedon, Oklahoma State 7. Ryan Lindley, San Diego State 8. Nick Foles, Arizona sleeper. Aaron Corp, Richmond (transfer from USC)
Like the list. I'd rank them as follows: 1. Andrew Luck 2. Matt Barkley 3. Landry Jones 4. Brandon Weeden 5. Ryan Lindley 6. Nick Foles 7. Ryan Tannehill 8. Kirk Cousins Though, having seen plenty of Cousins living in Big 10 country, I feel like he probably shouldn't be on this list. He's had some impressive games, but from what I remember, he's not had too much success against teams like Ohio State, Wisconsin, and Iowa, all who have generally pretty good defenses by Big 10 standards. Stephen Garcia of South Carolina seems like a headcase, but he intrigues me a little bit.
I still fail to see how everyone is so high on Weeden...guys gonna be 29 his rookie season. Had a chance to play against the best of the best this season at an already to old 28, decided to go back. And the fact that some are gonna rate Nick Foles under him is ludacris IMO....
Lindley's going to be interesting to watch this season without Al Borges. Borges is one f'n good play caller.
I concur , imho he won't sniff the first round and shouldn't ... if you have decent talent you SHOULD dominate being 7 or more years older than your competition ...
I like the challenge set before Lindley. It's not just Borges leaving, it's also his two receivers DeMarco Sampson and Vincent Brown graduating. They combined for like 2500 yards last year. Challenges are good when it comes to the Draft though. They let you know about a guy. The thing that I hear criticized about him most is accuracy. I wonder if that's not purely stats-based, because of his 58% completion. When I watch him, I don't necessarily see an inaccurate quarterback. In fact I see the potential for a very accurate quarterback. That deep ball is impressive. To make a 4.7 guy one of the most dangerous deep threats in the country, you have to have an accurate deep ball. He's aggressive, smart, I think he's accurate. He's bulked up to 235 lbs this season. He can move around and execute. I look forward to watching him. Ryan Lindley vs TCU [video=youtube;g4j3qI_g_Xs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4j3qI_g_Xs[/video] Ryan Lindley vs. Navy [video=youtube;0u_ucRw-rZQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u_ucRw-rZQ[/video][/QUOTE]
As for Brandon Weeden, the fact of the matter is he's damn talented. He's got as good backfield presence and ability to get the football out as I've seen, Dan Marino-esque. He has a howitzer for an arm. Receivers joke about how the ball does another revolution even after they catch it. He's very accurate. He only started this one year but the difference in him from the start of the year to the end was pretty incredible. He's another guy with a nice challenge ahead of him, Dana Holgorsen leaving. I don't even know that Mike Gundy ever bothered to learn Holgorsen's offense. Weeden supposedly has had to teach it to the new offensive coordinator. That's a good thing. I look forward to seeing how he does. If he were 22 years old instead of 27 years old, he'd be top 10 material.
I agree. But considering he is about to turn 28. And be 29 during his rookie season. Hes not that guy IMO. Again, he had a chance to come play in the NFL, as possibily a first round pick this year, more then likely around a 2nd round based on his age. and he chose to go back to the NCAA to play...Good talent. But just to old for my liking. Our Current starting QB is two years YOUNGER and is going on his 3rd season starting in the NFL. Do you expect Weeden to come into the NFL and dominate from the QB position when he comes in? because if so, then I would agree how everyone ranks him....but its not going to happen.
It should absolutely be 90% of your thought process though. It's a lot better to hit on a 28 year old than to miss on a 22 year old, especially at that position, which can change the destiny of your franchise for years.
1. I questioned Weeden's decision to stay in school, but the fact of the matter is Andrew Luck did the same thing. Also, there were two guys on Oklahoma State that were also thinking about coming out, and Mike Gundy convinced both of them to come out and take a shot at something special. This off season has been NUTS in the NFL, with the lockout screwing everything up. There's some extenuating circumstances involved. He wouldn't have been a 1st round pick this year. Not a chance. Not at 27 years old, with the wear and tear on his shoulder from his pitching career, with only one year of starting experience in Dana Holgorsen's modified Air Raid offense. That was never really a possibility. 2. Our current QB is two years younger and in his 4th year in the NFL, that's true. He's also not as good as Brandon Weeden and probably never will be. 3. You can't even say with certainty that Andrew Luck is going to come in and "dominate" the NFL. We're talking about prospects. You're muddying the issue. If Weeden were 22 years old with less wear and tear on his arm then he'd be up there with Luck and Barkley as a prospect for the NFL.
I agree it should be. I said nothing different. I said we dont go based on JUST talent. meaning there are many other factors. Including age. Again, for such a high investment(1st rounder), and at that position, its awful lot of investment for you to hope that the guy can play at a high level until he is late 30s. Considering his second season he will turn 30 before the halfway mark.
Ok, maybe were getting a little ahead of ourselves. If you rank Weeden that high as a prospect(which was what I was talking about from the beginning), hes a 1st round value. Which is my gripe about Weeden. I dont deny his talents, never have. However, I do argue repeatably that Weeden being ranked or valued or however you want to put it above some other prospects as ridiculous because he isnt. Well we can agree there, Weeden was better in his first season starting then any of Hennes college seasons. But when your playing QB at Michigan at 20,21, or 22 years old. Its a little bit different then starting at 27 at OSU. Do I think Henne is a great QB or will ever even be good in the NFL? No. But you cant compare because exactly like you said below, no one is guaranteed success in the NFL. All I was saying is 4 years of NFL experience and 2 years younger....that is all. I wasn't saying I want you to guarantee him to succeed. I just was actually asking your opinion on whether you thought he would come in and dominated right off the bat? In YOUR opinion will he? or is he going to take a year or 2 like most of the other QBs in the NFL did to get to that really high level?
Also, I just read some where else where you view Foles as a late round prospect when the dust settles...and I guess that is where were having this issue here. I think Foles will be in the first round at the end of the season. So obviously you would have Weeden ahead of him, and I wouldn't.
I've never said to take Weeden in the 1st round. In fact I've specifically said that nobody is going to do that. And in fact he might go pretty low in the Draft because of the shoulder and age. That's one of those things, the precedent isn't very well out there so you don't know how the league will treat it. I know what I would do, but I don't know what the rest of the league would do.
I think there's a general assumption behind your thinking and your questions that I disagree with. Brandon Weeden shouldn't be expected to be better than everyone just because he's 27 years old and they're all 20 and 21 years old. I don't buy that for one second. In fact, his long layoff from football should make him considerably worse than the guys that have been playing the position consecutively for years and years and years. From 2002 to 2007 he was off the football map completely. For all we know, he never even picked up a football even to just casually go play toss and catch with a friend, during that time. He redshirted in 2007 and was a backup in 2008 and 2009, not even the #2 QB. He was the #3 QB, until Zac Robinson missed a game against I believe it was Colorado, and the #2 QB went out there for a half and stunk up the joint, leading to Weeden coming in the second half and leading a comeback victory which basically sealed him as the starting QB when Zac Robinson moves on. I don't buy that age alone gives the guy some great advantage and therefore he should be ready to contribute in the NFL earlier than other guys. That doesn't make sense to me. It's all about your makeup. Being a quick learner helps you succeed earlier than later. Being a physical dynamo helps you succeed earlier than later. Having experience in a pro style offense helps you succeed earlier than later. Maturity and work ethic, which are NOT necessarily tied with age, will help you succeed earlier than later. Having polished mechanics will help you succeed earlier than later. Basically, being a talented quarterback helps you succeed earlier than later. There's no particular reason to believe Weeden will come in and have a rookie season that are rare for any QB not named Marino or Roethlisberger. If he's talented enough, he'll do that. If he's not, he won't.
I said it wouldn't surprise me if by Draft day we're talking about Foles as a later round guy. That's not the same as saying I currently have him as a later round guy. Yes I would draft Weeden above Foles. The bottom line for me is there are 6 guys whose talent I currently buy for the NFL. They are Luck, Barkley, Weeden, Lindley, Tannehill and Jones. That could change. The other guys, including Foles, I don't buy them as NFL starters. They're more chancy. That could mean they go anywhere from 7th round all the way on up to 2nd round, depending on what they show. But I'm not going to take one of those guys that I don't buy as NFL starters, while there's a guy that is available that I do buy as an NFL starter (Weeden). Some might. I wouldn't.
Luck Cousins Everyone else Luck looks legit, but we will see how he does without Harbaugh. I will reserve judgement on Cousins until I see him play, which is thankfully soon
ok...just because you want to go there your exact words were "I don't have Foles as a 1st round prospect. I think Simon does, but I don't see it. Come draft day we could be talking about him as a late round QB prospect, IMO.".... So since my comment was incorrect, I am assuming your saying(since I was so wrong before), that although you don't view Foles as a first round prospect or late round prospect, it is possible that its where he could go in the 2012 draft? Am I right?
Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. I think age does help Weeden, although you are correct, his time off hurt him. Chris Weinke took the same route in baseball then being the older QB in college. He won a Heisman and a National Championship. Although I am not comparing the two in terms of NFL talents, Weinke dominated college football for 2 seasons at the older age. I think the maturity factor helps some. Well here lies the problem. Other then you arguing the age factor(which you actually agree with like it or not), you have no clue with what my thinking is with Weeden. I think he would be a fantastic prospect had he be 22, just like you. I also think its false to think a 20 year old QB at Michigan should put up the same type of production of 27 year old at OSU. Also, I agree that there was a little uncertainly in entering the draft this season because of the lock out and such. It would still would of been in his best NFL interest to enter the draft. Unless of course, someone advised him not to because there would be no NFL season this year, which would of been asinine. There was talk that the draft board gave him a 4th round grade, thats why he went back. Although I would of drafted him in the late 2nd to 3rd round last draft. It wasnt his production or skill set behind that grade, it was the age for the most part. A year later and a year older...What his value now...So we are past you picking him in the 1st round, which is what I thought you were saying. Where would you pick him? 2nd or 3rd?
The word "could" being the operative word, as in "we could be talking about him as a later round pick come Draft day". I'm saying that Nick Foles is not in the top group. Slimm did a good job outlining why he believes people are talking about Foles where they're talking about him. He's big, has a good arm and a good completion percentage. Thing is, the draft process is really good at seeing through such superficial nonsense. So it wouldn't surprise me if by draft day the NFL is just not that high on the guy. There tends to be a gulf between 1st round caliber QBs and the rest of the QBs. There are 1st round QBs, occasionally some slip into the 2nd round, but after that the NFL tends not to start taking them again until the 4th and 5th rounds. I'm saying Foles could be closer to sliding down that slippery slope than to rising up into the 1st.
Two things: 1. I don't see what you're getting so testy about with me having "no clue" what your thinking on Weeden is. I correctly identified the assumption you make that I do not share. You believe a 27 year old QB should dominate college simply because he's older. I disagree. I could tell we disagree on this issue by the things you were asking me and the things you were saying, so I made sure you know that I disagree with that assumption, so that you would know where I'm coming from. 2. I didn't say anything about "production" comparisons between Weeden and Henne. I said that Henne is not as good a quarterback. If you want to steer the whole thing into irrelevance, then yeah start pulling out production comparisons between Henne and Weeden, when I didn't even say anything about that. Obviously Weeden's numbers are going to be better in an Air Raid offense of the Big 12 than Henne's numbers in the Big Ten. But you still make the assumption that Weeden is more productive because of age. That's not one I agree with. Easy to say in hindsight but at the time there were very well respected media personalities and 'experts' that were pitting the odds around 50/50, and both the NFL and NFLPA did all they could to feed that perception. As for where I would have picked Weeden in 2010...right where the Dolphins picked up Daniel Thomas. I would have drafted Mallett or Weeden. Where would I take him in 2011? Probably same spot. Not the 1st round, but in the 2nd round, if he's the last available of my guys that I think are NFL starters, and I'm worried that if I don't get him then I've got nobody...I'm taking him.
Fair Enough Didn't mean to sound testy, but this is exactly what I am talking about. "You believe a 27 year old QB should dominate college simply because he's older. I disagree". That is simply not true. Thats where your not understanding my thinking on Weeden even though ive said multiple times that I love Weedens skill set. Hes got an unbelievable skill set, no doubt. I just believe Weeden at 20 would not have the same production as Weeden at 27. Same skill set guys where age factors in. How much of a factor? probably not a HUGE different, but I believe there will be a difference. And we actually agree on Weedens placement last season. I would of picked him late 2nd as well. 3rd preferably. So dont get me wrong when I say I wouldn't pick Weeden in the first few rounds this draft, I guess I am just looking at age a little more then you are. I would wait until the 4th to look at him.
I honestly don't think it's much of a factor at all. You've been making statements about how Chris Weinke dominated the college scene because he was older, and how Weeden at 27 is not to be compared with Henne at 20, etc. I'm just saying I don't buy that. I don't buy that Weeden is significantly more productive at Oklahoma State because he's 27 as opposed to what he'd have been at 20 if he never went into baseball and just played football all the way through. To be honest, I'd be too desperate for a quarterback to wait until the 4th round. As soon as I see those other 5 guys go off the board, and I'm sitting there with Weeden the only guy left I have conviction on being a pro starter...I'll take a 28 year old before I take nobody at all, or someone I don't have conviction will be a good pro. But also keep in mind this all assumes that (somehow) I already struck out on my Plan A, B, C, D and E! If you're THIS regime, then striking out on your Plans A thru E at the quarterback position wouldn't be surprising. But I'd be running things differently, I think...and so chances are I wouldn't be put in position to have to take Plan F.
I haven't reviewed all of the QB prospects, but I have high hopes for Luck, Barkley. Jones and Weeden. I see all of them as likely first round worthy prospects. I would not drop Weeden out of the first b/c he'll be 29. I would take an equivalent 22 year old prospect over him but the key word is equivalent. I would not drop my value on a very good QB prospect simply b/c of his age.
I like this approach on the QB thing. More about Demand, rather than just talking about Supply. A- Definitely not looking for QBs: NWE (Tom Brady...34 years old on draft day...but they just drafted Mallett) NYJ (Mark Sanchez) BAL (Joe Flacco) PIT (Big Rapist) HOU (Matt Schaub) JAX (Blaine Gabbert) TEN (Jake Locker) SDG (Phil Rivers) NYG (Eli Manning) PHI (Michael Vick...Vince Young?) DET (Matt Stafford) GNB (Aaron Rodgers) MIN (Christian Ponder) ATL (Matt Ryan) CAR (Cam Newton) TAM (Josh Freeman) STL (Sam Bradford) CHI (Jay Cutler) KAN (Matt Cassel...some whispers, but the timing isn't quite there yet) B- Possibly looking for QBs: IND (Peyton Manning...36 years old on draft day?) DAL (Tony Romo...32 years old on Draft Day?) NOR (Drew Brees...a 33 year old free agent?) SEA (Tarvaris Jackson) OAK (Jason Campbell) ARI (Kevin Kolb...a total bust?) CIN (Andy Dalton...only a 2nd rounder) DEN (Tim Tebow?...TIM TEBOW???) SF (Colin Kaepernick...only a 2nd rounder) BUF (Ryan Fitzpatrick) C- Should be desperate for QBs: CLE (Colt McCoy...only a 3rd rounder and may not finish the year as starter, IMO) MIA (Chad Henne...a free agent?) WAS (John Beck...nuff said) Of groups B and C, I put in italics the ones that should be bad enough to be in contention for a QB in the top half of the round. So in other words, I actually see about 9 teams that could be competing for QBs at the top half of the 1st round come next year. I guess maybe I shouldn't put Arizona in there, given the huge contract they gave Kolb, but I wonder if that contract wasn't structured funny, and if they totally bottom out this year then I could see them just moving on quickly on that, trying to pretend that trade didn't happen, and/or taking a young stud that grooms and competes with Kolb who could continue to play while the young stud develops.
I know this... Id take him in the first .....because I believe the kid is gonna be THAT good. Id make damn sure I didnt risk losing him to another team..
OAK (Jason Campbell) ARI (Kevin Kolb...a total bust?) CIN (Andy Dalton...only a 2nd rounder) DEN (Tim Tebow?...TIM TEBOW???) SF (Colin Kaepernick...only a 2nd rounder) BUF (Ryan Fitzpatrick) CLE (Colt McCoy...only a 3rd rounder and may not finish the year as starter, IMO) MIA (Chad Henne...a free agent?) WAS (John Beck...nuff said) I wouldn't include Arizona in that list and local reports out here on the west coast are that Harbaugh did not pursue a QB b/c his review of Alex Smith's tape convinced him that there's talent there that simply was not developed. My gut says that Harbaugh may not be in suck for Luck mode, but that he may actually want to prove himself by developing another QB. Who knows, but I expect that for various reasons that list of teams who may be in the top half of the draft and looking for a QB will be cut in half by the end, some b/c they did better than expected and some b/c they decide not to take a QB.
That honestly sounds like the typical media spin you see in local markets, the kind of thing fans want to hear and so the team/media oblige in order to keep the fan base happy. As for the Cardinals...I guess it depends on just how BAD you think they'll be. I think they could very well be the team looking at having the #1 overall pick. This is a Dolphins board, not an Arizona Cardinals board, so you only hear me talking about the Dolphins and since I've liked little of what they've done this off season you only hear me complaining about the Dolphins. But, if you think I was down on trading a low round pick for Reggie Bush, then imagine how down I am on trading Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie and a 2nd round pick for Kevin Kolb, and then paying him a $60 million contract with like $22 million guaranteed. The single stupidest move of the off season, IMO. Of all draft picks that didn't make sense, or guys that I didn't like, of all free agent signings, of all trades, that was the single worst IMO. Luckily they're in a pretty weak division. But you know what? The Seahawks, Rams and 49ers are also saying "luckily we're in a weak division". The Cardinals to me are front and center among reasons I consider that division weak. Larry Fitzgerald can only do so much by himself, and I absolutely think he is by himself. I don't know that I see another #2 thru #5 in the league as bad as the Cardinals' receivers. I think there's a reason the Ravens jettisoned Todd Heap, and Rob Housler is the rawest and riskiest of what I considered the top TEs in the Draft. As long as Levi Brown is your left tackle, you have a problem there. The rest of the OL isn't impressing me, either. And the RBs include a rookie with some injury issues, and an underachiever in Beanie Wells that is already being soundly beaten in camp by that injury prone rookie. I don't see where the pass rush is coming from, and I think the duo of Richard Marshall and Patrick Peterson is real risky. As good as Peterson is, he's still a rookie. There's always been some sort of disconnect on that defense too, where the sum is never as great as the parts. If you want a team that is front and center in the Suck For Luck thing...the Cardinals are right there. That's a big reason why I listed them. If they're picking #1 overall, I don't think they pass on Andrew Luck just because they have a Kevin Kolb that just got done sucking (hence picking #1 overall).
I have Luck and Barkley 1A and 1B. They separate themselves on many levels for me. Their accuracy and pro style experience are only the beginning. Leadership, arm strength, pocket presence....Along with Bradford, Rodgers and Freeman those two are the future of the NFL at the QB position. Everyone else is secondary. Jones, Tannehill, Weeden and Foles all have a lot to prove to solidify first round spots. I think Jones and Foles get the job done. But i would trade my next two drafts for Luck or Barkley. Yeah, Id seriously one up Ditka on that. I might be nuts but if Henne fails, we're going to have a short window to keep this defense together and get it done
With SF, I'm not sure if it's just spin. I could see JH wanting to prove it with another QB. And they also just traded up and took CKap. He'll need time to develop, but there's more than a fair bit of excitement surrounding him as well. He may be needed b/c their OL looked like a sieve yesterday. I'm with you on the Kolb trade. I thought it was horrible. However, with all they gave up for him, I expect that they may give him a couple of seasons before going QB shopping again. And in that division they may win enough to keep the pressure for an upgrade at QB fairly low. Just looking at history, about half of those teams will drop out any QB chase. Like predicting which team's records will improve or worsen, it's just a guess. It may or may be the ones I listed, but odds are that only about half of those teams will be looking at a QB next draft.
I'd definitely do that for Luck. I'd trade less but probably still over pay for Barkley. The others are a step below. I expect that after the season we'll have 4 or 5 that are 1st round worthy, but maybe only 2 or 3 will be worth trading up for.
1. Simple yes or no question. If the Arizona Cardinals end up with the #1 overall pick next year, do they pass on Andrew Luck? 2. History might not apply in quite the way you'd think given that the top 10 picks cost teams about a quarter to a third of what they used to under the old system.
I'm not sure what side of the "Suck for Luck" debate you fall so this is not directed at you but rather to anyone advocating a Ditka like trade for a QB while simultaneously refusing to Suck for Luck. Personally I have no principles or theory of competitiveness in sport. It's a business (highly profitable one), masquerading as some noble civic venture. Fact: Phins won't make the playoffs this year and certainly won't be winning a Super Bowl in the near future without major changes (specifically, QB ... probably coaching). This year we will probably win 7 games. The #1 pick will go to a team that wins 2 - 3 games. If we choose to do everything in our power to win those extra 4 games, we lose Luck. To then turn around and give up multiple drafts to get him is the same as giving multiple drafts for the joy of 4 meaningless wins. I don't understand that. If anyone believes Luck is important enough for this franchise to give up enough draft picks to get him (it would be the priciest trade ever given the new rookie salaries), then we should just go ahead and lose the necessary games and guarantee the #1 pick. Every year teams basically throw games at the end of the season by pulling starters to avoid injuries after home-field playoff advantage is locked up. I'll never get why it's OK for New England and Indy to pull starters and not compete in order to have a better chance in the playoffs, but it's not OK for the Phins to do that to be relevant.
I think this is a fantastic point. I completely agree with everything you said... Yes I love seeing Miami win but 7-9 and 8-8 seasons are completely forgettable and don't leave me with any warm and fuzzy feelings. If they have to be bad for a chance to be a Super Bowl contender then so be it. If i could press a button to guarantee a 2-14 season for the Dolphins this year I would press it without hesitation. I've seen one playoff win in my lifetime. I want to see my team win a championship.
How are you two so sure sucking for Luck will get us where we want to be? Losing games for an unknown college player is quite possibly the stupidest thing I hear fans say. It's ridiculous.
