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

GTripp0012

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.

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

GTripp0012

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.

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

SBXVII

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.

Son Of Man

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!!!!!!!!!!

SBXVII

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."

Texanskin

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!!!

skinsfaninok

Studs and duds picked at No. 10

__________________

30gut

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?
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.

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.

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

GTripp0012

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!

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

TheSmurfs22

Trade down and focus on our offensive line.

__________________
F#$% the Cowpukes!

GTripp0012

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.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.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.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.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.

__________________
Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

SkinzWin

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

Shadowbyte

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.