Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Redskins Forums > Redskins Locker Room > NFL Draft Central


IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

NFL Draft Central


View Poll Results: What QB Do You Want at #10?
Jake Locker 44 34.38%
Ryan Mallett 18 14.06%
Cam Newton 23 17.97%
Other (who?) 19 14.84%
Blaine Gabbert 24 18.75%
Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-19-2011, 04:04 PM   #136
Uncle Phil
 
SmootSmack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 44,684
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I'd like to go 6,000 words on the existence and role of the draft fairy, but only if you'll oblige.
I'm afraid you actually would
__________________
You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You
SmootSmack is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 01-19-2011, 04:05 PM   #137
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
I don't think much of Taylor's success as a QB in the NFL. I've watched enough of both he and Newton to realize the two are quite indistinguishable from each on the field other than their height.

But taking a flyer on Taylor in the 4th (I knew and know we don't have one) seems like a helluva better deal than drafting Cam Newton at 10. We don't have the luxury of drafting players with gigantic potential downsides like he does.
Your bottom line is why Newton probably isn't a good investment at number ten. We have one other example of a Gus Malzahn QB going to the next level, with Mitch Mustain going from high school to division I college. Mustain couldn't get to the top of the depth chart at two different schools.

Newton, from the pocket, is probably the strongest player in the draft. He's got a quick release, and is accurate. He does not make particularly great decisions, and for a guy who played in a one-two read system in college, he's not as good before the snap as I would like. I think he's good enough, but if I'm using the 10th overall pick, I'd like more than "good enough" to possibly make it at the pros.

Gabbert, to me, gives me everything I'm looking for in a top ten quarterback. If he's gone, I think we need to look elsewhere. Ryan Mallett would be a small reach at no. 10 and I see no reason to think Shanahan interested, but Mallett would be defensible if Gabbert is gone. I'd find it hard to get too excited if we drafted Mallett. I'd rather have Ponder.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 04:16 PM   #138
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsowilso View Post
The bust rate for top tier NFL prospect QB's has always been and will always be high.

Why is that?

Professional evaluators f this transition up at an astronomical rate.

Me thinks the evaluation PACKAGE for half of these talent projecting clowns is terribly flawed.
Methinks you're right.

Some guys who are drafted high were just poor college players (Ryan Leaf, David Carr, Matt Stafford). QB Demand usually exceeds the number of quality prospects. That's the other reason.

There are good prospects in this draft. I just feel like of the 3 or 4 first rounders, you're really going to take 1 or 2 who deserve to go that high, and 2 others who just don't measure up because teams NEED someone who can be the face of their organization and can't wait.

Which is to say, there are better players later on in the draft, but those players aren't always distinguishable from each other (and I think teams know this), and so teams with needs shrink the supply to just 3 or 4 guys, and don't give anyone else a chance. I could say "Cam Newton's body of work says third-fourth round pick", and I'd probably be right. But you take one look at Cam Newton, and you KNOW he's going in the first round. Some team will fall in love with him. He brings tangible skills that you can't get later.

That's why a draft is usually only going to produce 1, maybe 2 guys who get second contracts with their teams.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 04:50 PM   #139
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotus View Post
I wonder if we should be thinking about the 3rd or 4th rounds, where we have no picks. Certainly we might get more picks in trades. But with the CBA uncertainty, there is a chance that there will be no trading of players until after the draft. What this means is that we might get only 2012 draft picks in trades.
All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 04:51 PM   #140
Impact Rookie
 
Son Of Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Posts: 643
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Jake Locker

I think this guy will be our franchise QB and the undisputed leader on offense within a couple of years!!!
__________________
RG3 or bust!!!!!!!!!!
Son Of Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 05:11 PM   #141
Registered User
 
SBXVII's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,766
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

also for those who just don't get it, if you selected "other" we were to explain who and why. My other choice was Dalton, I explained why. He's clearly a 3rd or 4th round pick unless something changes. So I explained that I'd take a different position so I wouldn't get blasted with "that's too high to take him."
SBXVII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 05:14 PM   #142
Special Teams
 
Texanskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Skins fan in the Dallas area
Posts: 187
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cdskins26 View Post
Locker or newton will be successful on the redskins if they are properly coached by shannahans. If either are subject to what campbell went through, they probably will do the same thing, and be a mediocre starter. Start them when they are ready, and build the team around them.
hear hear...well...maybe not Locker...because he didnt perform well against top competition...while Cam Newton did.....See the Alabama game....on the road!
__________________
We are finally looking like a respectable opponent.....Lets keep it going!!!
Texanskin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 05:38 PM   #143
Living Legend
 
skinsfaninok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oklahoma City (Originally from Biloxi, Ms)
Age: 27
Posts: 16,104
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Studs and duds picked at No. 10
__________________
THUNDER UP

"if you're good at something, never do it for free"- The Joker

skinsfaninok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 05:40 PM   #144
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
I don't think we can just ignore what Locker's statistics say just because they don't always match up with the film. It's hard to make any completely conclusive statements based on only statistics, but I would argue that "Jake Locker is not worthy of the 10th overall selection" is one of those statements.
The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade.
The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?
Quote:
I can isolate a single statistic from the rest of the picture and show how rare it is for someone who can't complete passes to be successful.
You think you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.

Quote:
If a GREAT team were to take a flyer on Jake Locker and then tear him down and try to rebuild his mechanics, maybe you get a different player entirely.
This is another empty statement that could be used for any QB w/o support.
One could insert Gabbert's name in place of Locker above and the statement would still be valid.

BTW-You seem to value stats correct? Well look at the efficiency.
Gabbert and Locker despite the void in their team's talent levels have about the same efficieny rating.

I'm gonna let this discussion go b/c its pointless.
But, you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
He does not make particularly great decisions, and for a guy who played in a one-two read system in college, he's not as good before the snap as I would like. I think he's good enough, but if I'm using the 10th overall pick, I'd like more than "good enough" to possibly make it at the pros.

Gabbert, to me, gives me everything I'm looking for in a top ten quarterback. If he's gone, I think we need to look elsewhere. Ryan Mallett would be a small reach at no. 10 and I see no reason to think Shanahan interested, but Mallett would be defensible if Gabbert is gone. I'd find it hard to get too excited if we drafted Mallett. I'd rather have Ponder.
Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 06:46 PM   #145
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SBXVII View Post
All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.
This isn't rocket science. Players 5-15 on Mel Kiper's Big Board are:

5. Marcell Dareus, DE, Alabama
6. Prince Amukamara, CB, Nebraska
7. Robert Quinn, DE/OLB, North Carolina
8. Blaine Gabbert, QB, Missouri
9. Von Miller, OLB, Texas A&M
10. Julio Jones, WR, Alabama
11. Nate Solder, OT, Colorado
12. Akeem Ayers, OLB, UCLA
13. Ryan Kerrigan, DE, Purdue
14. Aldon Smith, OLB, Missouri
15. Cam Newton, QB, Auburn

And there you have it. 11 players will can realistically be available at no. 10, but wouldn't be a reach at the same spot. The internet can do this!
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 07:08 PM   #146
The Starter
 
TheSmurfs22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Staunton, VA
Posts: 1,122
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Trade down and focus on our offensive line.
__________________
F#$% the Cowpukes!
TheSmurfs22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 07:32 PM   #147
Living Legend
 
GTripp0012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Evanston, IL
Age: 26
Posts: 15,994
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

I have not said that you are wrong or I am (unconditionally) right, just that I feel I have no reason to change my opinion of Locker based on anything you've argued.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut View Post
The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade. The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?
Ugh. This is a particularly shameless post because it came after you criticized me for being more concerned with being right on the bottom line grade than being thorough. I told you that criticism was fair, but you might as well not bother being surprised when a struggling college player becomes a bad pro.
Quote:
You think you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.
You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.

It's simply not a convincing methodology. I've been adamant that people need to realize that you've interpreted the evidence one way, but that I still feel it points strongly in another direction. I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.
Quote:
you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.
Look, I know you asked me point-blank how many Washington games I watched and didn't give an answer, but I've also given you no reason to believe this which you have stated above. I could have answered your loaded question, but decided that the debate would be better if I was treated as neither an expert nor an amateur on the subject. I didn't want to say "I've seen 11 complete Washington games," or "I've just watched watched the bowl game and jumped to conclusions". Neither statement is true, nor particularly relevant.

The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.

I claim not to be an expert, just very good at what I do. You're desire to try to get information solely for the desire of labeling me (as you did above when I didn't answer) was probably more shameless than I think you intended. It is my only personal criticism in this exchange.
Quote:
Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.
Fine. Well argued.

There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.
__________________
according to a source with knowledge of the situation.
GTripp0012 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 07:35 PM   #148
Playmaker
 
SkinzWin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 2,725
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SmootSmack View Post
And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?
I'll tell you where. Via ___________________ in a draft day trade of either McNabb or Haynesworth for a 4th round pick. Tyrod Taylor in B & G?

I have also been saying I DO NOT want Cam Newton. I still think I don't but I feel like I may be on the verge of starting to talk myself into it. As far as raw skill and upside, Newton is most likely at the top of the list. However, as we have seen, that doesn't always translate into a winning QB, and that is what scares me about drafting him. It is one of those big risk/big reward type of picks. You could win big or bust big with this pick.
__________________
Sean Taylor #21 a Redskin forever...

Draft winners, not stars.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail victory
Braves on the warpath
Block for RG3
SkinzWin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 07:46 PM   #149
Special Teams
 
Shadowbyte's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 397
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

This has probably been mentioned but Mel Kiper has Newton going to skins. Charles Davis of the NFL Network has Newton going to the skins too. I believe Shannahan see's Cam as a challenge, something that will reap great benefits if he reaches his full potential.
Shadowbyte is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2011, 08:13 PM   #150
The Starter
 
30gut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,099
Re: IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012 View Post
You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.
One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

Quote:
I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.
Nice.
First strawman then profanity.
Wrong again, unless pointing out some obvious flaws in your theory is 'bitching'.

Quote:
I could have answered your loaded question
No.
A loaded question would be: does your insecurity cause you to view normal questions as loaded?
But, i digress.
I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game.
To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP.

Quote:
The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.
The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

Quote:
There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.
I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

HTTR!
__________________
No longer were NFL coaches dealing inflexibly with spread [QBs] in ways that caused stunted development for players like [A. Smith and Vick] now, the idea is to bring what the quarterback can do, and what he should do, together as an organic whole
30gut is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.39148 seconds with 10 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25