If you're going to evaluate Ryan Tannehill, that game was probably his worst of the season...so I wouldn't evaluate him solely off that. That would be like evaluating Barkley off his Arizona State game or Luck off his Oregon game. Aside from Alabama and LSU, Texas has the best pass defense I've seen this year.
Personally, I do like to see a QB's worst games. It's important for me to know how bad their bad is. Some guys you'd be surprised, their "bad" games impress the hell out of me. Brandon Weeden's performance against Iowa State is like that. People call that a "poor" performance which cracks me up. He gets intercepted twice off balls that were tipped at the line. Otherwise he's dotting the i with precision and pace in tight man to man windows. It's "poor" only because of the result and as Nick Saban liked to say, people get way too caught up in the final result. On the other hand, evaluate this Tannehill game against Texas up and down and this was a pretty poor game. And it does concern me. I don't agree that in the NFL you have three or four years to get your sh-t straightened out. That's not how it works nowadays. The Texas secondary was the closest he'll find to an NFL secondary and if he played like that in the NFL, he'd get benched. He's had good games though. This game just kind of nudged him significantly below Landry Jones in my book. I wasn't sure before, I thought maybe even I'd put Tannehill over Jones, but I've been watching a lot more Landry lately, and as I also watch more Tannehill...it's becoming more clear that Tannehill comes after Landry Jones. Brock Osweiler would give Landry a valid run for his money if he came out. He could be special.
Fair enough.....I'll take another look. How do you compare hime to guys like Barkley, Jones, Griffin and Weeden?
Purely on talent... 1. Andrew Luck 2. Brandon Weeden 3. Matt Barkley 4. Brock Osweiler 5. Landry Jones 6. Ryan Tannehill 7. Nick Foles 8. Robert Griffin
That's understandable. He definitely needs some polishing (including mechanics & footwork) so I wouldn't be surprised to hear he has a few random poor showings (I wasn't able to see the Texas game). One of the things that makes Aaron Rodgers so consistent is how outstanding his feet are. He has light, quick, coordinated feet that allow him to set and reset with ease & precision; because of this, he rarely to never has an off day. IMO Tannehill has some of this potential but needs more coaching and repetition to develop it. That alone should improve his accuracy and make him more consistently accurate. I just think he has a natural feel for the position, and I like that he's a natural passer with a live arm, athleticism, brains, and mobility..... and he understands the WR position b/c he recently was one. IMO you just have to keep in mind that a some of what he's doing is just from natural talent, which is impressive. When you watch throws where his mechanics & footwork are more solid, he often puts the ball right on the numbers (even on difficult deep outs from the far hash), and these passes arrive with some authority, as you can hear them pop upon reception all game long. Plus his velocity when accurate allows his receivers a spit second more time to make plays after the catch. His accuracy is impressive on the move, and he has the hips and lower body to generate great torque. Touch definitely needs improvement though.
As an athlete at QB, Tannehill is totally a Matt Jones clone IMO, but with skills as a passer to work with and develop. Something Jones did not have at all. I don't know if I'd take him over Locker, we may have to have one our rare disagreements there.
Respectfully, how is Barkley ranked 3rd on "purely talent" with Griffin 8th and Tannehill 6th? IMO his arm is weaker; he's no more of a natural passer IMO; his athleticism is poorer; his feet are slower; and it's possible that he's no more intelligent.
How high Tannehill goes will depend totally on which juniors declare. If Jones and Griffin both do, and they are less likely than Barkley IMO, who is more experienced and developed overall, then I could see both of them going ahead of Tannehill, as well as Weeden, and I don't expect 6 QBs in round 1. JMO
IMO, after watching more of them, Barkley is totally my solid without a doubt #2 QB in the draft. Should be a lock top 5. So, between all the aforementioned alternatives to Luck, Matt is my man. He sure looks different than his father Charles though. I think Charles maybe should keep an eye on the family butler or chauffeur. hehehe
I actually liked the promise he displayed during the Arkansas game. The ending sucked, but his offense did put up the most points vs Arkansas all season, so that's gotta count for something.
I really do see Matt Barkley potentially becoming another Drew Brees. Some real similarities there. Love how much experience he has with the roll-out and throwing from the run, how he's able to keep his balance and shoulders square, stay real accurate. In the NFL he'll have to scramble more and that training and ability will pay off as he's able to throw strikes on the run after being pressured. I can see where Simon doesn't like his arm, but to me that's also a work in progress, his arm is still evolving. You can see it just in this year. He's throwing with more zip in the second half of the year than the first half. If Andy Dalton is fine in the pros then Matt Barkley will be more than fine.
I can see the Matt Jones thing, and with a better head on his shoulder than Jones, too. IMO Locker is more of an engineered passer than a natural passer, which is why I personally give the edge to Tannehill; however, Locker has tons of intangibles, so it would definitely make for a great debate.
It looks to me like he is very well developed as for vision and ability to quickly process what he sees into what he does. His passing mechanics appear me to be above reproach.
Absolutely. His mechanics are very natural and quick and it leads to tremendously consistent accuracy. He doesn't have to think about those things. He just has to think about the defense and what he's seeing. The throwing part of it all is at a professional level, he doesn't have to think about his throws. That's one of the things I'm drawn to about Brandon Weeden as well. His throwing is just natural and easy, second nature, the only things he has to think about are the hard things, the things he should be thinking about...the defense and how to attack it. Those are qualities that to me separate Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley and Brandon Weeden from the others.
Maybe we're on a different page regarding our individual definition of "talent". I was under the impression that talent was separate from intangibles (like great accuracy from years of coached up mechanics..... as well as great decision making from years of preparation). I say this because no one can accurately say that someone of Tannehill's brains & natural ability would be any less polished mechanically & mentally if afforded the same about of coaching, repetition, and preparation. However, no amount of coaching & preparation will give Barkley Tannehill's arm strength, size, athleticism, speed, quickness, and mobility. It's also arguable that Barkley's heavier feet (than Tannehill or Griffin) might some day lead to him being surpassed in accuracy & consistency at the NFL level by Tanne & Griff. Barkley looks great in designed roll outs and when he has time to throw, but under pressure IMO he doesn't have the same potential as Tannehill & Griffin to effectively set and reset his feet with the same degree of consistency.
That's just b/c Charles doesn't follow his diet as strictly. I'd be happy with Barkley; however, a bigger part of me wants to roll the dice with Griffin or Tannehill. I know Barkley has a higher floor which makes him a safer pick, but I'd take my chances with those two's higher ceiling in this instance.
What I meant by talent is their ability to play the game and the position. It's separating out the red flag stuff like age for Weeden, or injury history, etc. You seem obsessed with Matt Barkley's years of coaching and training. They're not a weakness. They're a strength. A quarterback's game in the NFL is way more mental than it is physical. Their progression is a mental progression. You would like to pass off this notion that Barkley is already on the top floor mentally, and so he can't really progress, while Ryan Tannehill is physically superior but on a lower rung mentally, and therefore Tannehill can climb higher. I don't really buy, at all, that way of thinking where it concerns the quarterback position. A quarterback's game is primarily mental. It's about decision making, information processing, vision, accuracy...these are not physical qualities. And Matt Barkley is not on the top floor of anything where those are concerned. He's still at the base of the mountain. The most advanced quarterbacks in the game today still get better 6, 7, 10 years into their NFL career. You'd like to say that because Ryan Tannehill is an intelligent person then he must have the same ability as Barkley to be a good decision maker, process information, etc. But that's not really true. The potential for athletic mental performance on a football field under pressure and at blinding speed cannot be measured by a GPA or a wonderlic.
IMO Barkley has "near Brees-like" potential, but he doesn't have Brees's quick, light feet, which IMO is a deal breaker for Barkley becoming Brees 2.0 at the NFL level. I also feel that Barkley isn't the type of player who will make the guys around him better to the degree that Luck, Griffin, Tannehill, or Weeden will be capable of in time. I can't help but seeing nothing more than "great game manager" as his NFL title 5 years from now, and IMO much of his future success will be more dependent upon the team around him than Luck, Griffin, or Tannehill. I also see Barkley's future offense being more passive in nature than an attacking style, one not quite as capable of going for the jugular or overcoming deficits.
I think Brees is absolutely more athletic than Matt Barkley. However, Brees is also more athletic than Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, and those are two of the best to ever play the game. So no, I don't see Barkley's having less athletic prowess than Brees as being some sort of deal breaker. And I'm not sure I see where the criticism comes from that Barkley won't elevate the level of play of the guys around him. He's been doing that since he was a freshman.
Personally, I don't see Barkley as having the same natural throwing ability as Weeden. He had to have some decent natural ability for Steve Clarkson to even consider coaching him in the first place, but IMO we don't know how much of his mechanics & accuracy are natural vs how much are coaching & preparation related. My belief is that Clarkson took on a kid who was physically & mentally matured ahead of his time (an early bloomer) and drilled him with mechanics, preparation, and x's and o's, making him well ahead of guys from smaller schools or towns where the coaching, competition, and exposure were inferior. Barkley's once larger size & stronger arm began being surpassed by QBs who bloomed later. At the college level, with better coaching and a slightly more even playing field, we began seeing these other QBs make up some ground..... and in the NFL with further coaching and experience, we'll eventually see some of these talented QBs surpass Barkley IMO.
I see your point however certain QBs could be considered a safer pick or a sure thing based the offense they are in, how many games they started, how long they have been playing QB, ETC.
I didn't watch any Sanchez in college. How does Barkley compare to Sanchez coming out? Snatchez did end up the 5th pick that year.
I don't feel it's a weakness at all. Quite the opposite actually. It's just that IMO, what's good for the goose is also good for the gander, and I cant reasonably say that one of Barkley's strengths that resulted in part from great coaching & preparation (while having the aptitude to do so) cant also be achieved by a guy like Tannehill who is highly intelligent and has shown a natural ability to process information, b/c if he didn't have that natural ability, IMO we would've seen him struggle much more often and with less success considering his lack of experience and level of competition. Tannehill having the kind of success he's had while being so raw is a testament to his natural ability regarding decision making, processing, and vision IMO..... and the decent accuracy he possesses considering both the lack of repetition and less exposure to great coaching leads me to believe there's much natural accuracy & natural throwing ability involved. I also don't see his feet, brains, or degree of athleticism affecting his ability to fine tune his mechanics in order to increase his accuracy & consistency. Tannehill makes quick & often accurate decisions on the run when he's in "natural mode", so I don't see why that type of mental ability won't permeate the rest of his game/decision making in time when the game slows down for him.
I had a problem with Sanchez' experience level because there was a lot you did not, and could not know about him when it comes to handling game pressure, the pressure of being a franchise quarterback, handling adversity, all that. I saw him put through adversity basically one time against Oregon State and I really did not like his body language, attitude or performance in that situation. That was a hint to me of a guy that is not nearly as mature as all these talking heads insisted when you hear guys like Steve Young talking about how if all the QBs in the class were on a bus together, Sanchez would be driving the bus, etc. Aside from that what I didn't like was his accuracy. He just did not have a real high level of accuracy. I questioned how well he was seeing the field from the pocket as well, as he was only 6'2" but his posture and pocket mechanics made him even shorter than that. He seemed to have to get real deep behind the line to be comfortable. I don't think Matt Barkley compares with Mark Sanchez, truthfully. I think it wouldn't even be brought up if they didn't wear the same colors. But it's human nature to not want to process a lot of information and so people want to think about Matt Barkley in terms of his relationship with Mark Sanchez when there truly isn't one. He stands taller inside the pocket, he's got better and more consistent mechanics, he's been through far more adversity and come out on the other side, he throws better on the run, he processes information better and most importantly he's far and away a more accurate passer.
This is another example of a way of thinking about the quarterback position that makes no sense to me. Well, that's certainly one theory. I don't agree with it though.
He's also been extremely prepared & coached to have a great understanding of the game, which IMO leads to great decision making at the college level, which in turn elevates the play of his teammates at the college level, especially when guys on his offense are more talented than most of the guys they go up against (an advantage he'll see much less in the NFL). It's not that I don't think he'll be able to elevate the play of those around him, but rather I feel this might be limited to a certain type of player, and IMO his influence could be more greatly due to the particular circumstance than Luck, Griffin, or Tannehill. If they're cerebral type WRs/TEs with great route running ability, then I feel he'll absolutely have the potential to elevate their level of play; however, if I have guys who excel at the deeper level of the passing tree, then I know their ability is most likely not being maximized.
IMO, Barkley is a far superior prospect than Sanchez was. If Sanchez was really worth the 5th overall, then Barkley is well worth any pick 5th or higher.
Man, I really like Barkley's receiver, Marqise Lee. Only a true freshman. He could turn out to be a very special player, top ten in the draft by 2014 or 15, whenever he comes out.
I think it makes sense b/c IMO it correlates to his NFL potential. If his mechanics & accuracy are more "natural" than they are coaching related, then IMO he'll have an easier time keeping up with a faster NFL where he'll be forced to set and reset more often and at a quicker pace. However, if it's more related to coaching, then IMO we could see him become slightly more error prone and lose some of the consistency that has made him such a great college QB. I'm not saying it will happen; I'm saying that it should be nearly as much of a concern as what you bring up about assuming Tannehill's mental game will blossom b/c of his intelligence. I don't mind if you disagree. I'm not saying it's definite, but examples of this are prevalent over history, so it can't be ruled out either.
I get what you are saying I think, and it is a good point. If Tannehill could have been coached by Clarkson too, then his physical tools could have him ahead of Barkley by now. Unfortunately he didn't, and is this really something a pro team is going to show the patience with him about to give him the extra time to try and catch up. Barkely is going to be a rookie with 3 full years of starting experience in college, while Tannehill will be a rookie with a year and a half experience as a starting QB. Past history has shown us this is a red flag that only a few 1st and 2nd round QBs overcome...having over 30 college starts and at least a 60% completion pct both.
Yeah I said this at the beginning of the year a lot but while I know I was supposed to be looking at and really impressed with Robert Woods, it was Marqise Lee that kept jumping out at me big time. But just think what that means for Barkley. Last year Robert Woods did things as a freshman that are either uncommon at USC, or flat out unheard of. Woods is better than ever of course, with 99 catches for 1179 yards and 13 TDs...but Marqise Lee, yet another freshman, has outperformed what Robert Woods did last year as a freshman. So two years in a row you have freshmen making huge impacts at a school where that's either highly uncommon, or unheard of. The common denominator between the two is Matt Barkley.
Great point, and IMO that's the million dollar question of the draft right there. If we could have a quality bridge who is capable of playing as good or better than Barkley during Barkley's first 2 seasons, then I'd give much thinking to choosing Tannehill or Griffin b/c the last thing I'd want to do is ruin either of those 2 guys b/c they were prematurely forced into the lion's den.
