Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV)

The Goat · 12-29-2011, 01:53 AM

Luck in a Skins uniform is worth almost any cost in terms of picks IMO. However, I think it only makes sense if we're very active in FA as well. We need to provide Luck w/ a top tier WR and continue to add quality depth on the oline and probably look to replace J Brown. And we need to improve markedly on defense. If Luck somehow lands in DC I think replacing Haslett with the best defensive mind available is necessary. Haslett doesn't know how to help the QB/offense with his defensive scheme on a play by play basis like the Steelers, Ravens and Niners (and the Colts up to this season).
And we need (still) need to add talent to the secondary.

skinsguy · 12-29-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I think they've done a good job with Grossman. But the offensive upside is limited. Because it's Rex Grossman.

I think you've really touched on a number of bottom line things here.

One thing I would add is that the "pro-style" offense in college doesn't typically involve a lot of pro reads. That's what makes Luck so different from everyone else, because one of the biggest limitations on QBs coming from college to the pros (the abilities to use coverage reads and to work a progression) is something Luck is already doing. Because of that, you don't risk a situation like you have with Sanchez where three years down the line you need a fall guy because your quarterback isn't improving.

Andrew Luck could still fail. He could play inconsistently in his first season, get hurt and miss the entire second season and then have another injury in his third preseason. Then it really doesn't matter what you have invested in Andrew Luck: you didn't get return on it. Andrew Luck could end up being the next Greg Cook. But Andrew Luck is not going to fail because of the nuances of pro offenses. He's already doing that in college.

Anyway, whether or not someone is running pro style formations in offense doesn't mean they are reading defenses. If the receiver is determined by the playcall, then the receiver is determined by the playcall. And that's the norm in college. Spread/pro/wishbone doesn't matter when projecting quarterbacks.

That's what I've been trying to say in this thread. While I think it's a plus to have been in a pro style offense in college, MY thoughts are on how well the quarterback can read coverages straight out of college. If he's already doing that before he even gets into the NFL, that is a HUGE advantage over the other QBs being drafted.

30gut · 12-29-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by skinsguy

MY thoughts are on how well the quarterback can read coverages straight out of college. If he's already doing that before he even gets into the NFL, that is a HUGE advantage over the other QBs being drafted.

That's where I disagree.
I think its an advantage but not a huge advantage.
All the QBs will have to learn how to read defenses which are far more sophisticated then any they've every seen in college.
But the advantage of having 'read' defenses before could end up being a very short lived advantage i.e. it might not matter past training camp.

30gut · 12-29-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

That's what makes Luck so different from everyone else, because one of the biggest limitations on QBs coming from college to the pros (the abilities to use coverage reads and to work a progression) is something Luck is already doing. Because of that, you don't risk a situation like you have with Sanchez where three years down the line you need a fall guy because your quarterback isn't improving.

I don't think that what Luck is doing is that different from other 'pro-style- QBs.
Ryan Mallett, Ricky Stanzi, Scott Tolzien even McElroy were all high efficiency 'pro-style' QBs that made pre-snap reads and followed post snap progressions.
Personally I think a lot of the special skills that are attributed to Luck are more a function of his offense and Harbaugh's outstanding coaching at the QB position. (See Josh Johnson in college, see Alex Smith now).
I just don't see Luck as a special, once in a decade talent, that guy was in last yeas draft.
I see Luck like a more athletic, playmaking Matt Ryan.

SmootSmack · 12-29-2011, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehard

Give me the guy who's gonna be forced to sit in the green room longer than anticipated because the fans and so-called experts underestimate him. That's who I want!

Brady Quinn has no idea what you're talking about

Dirtbag59 · 12-30-2011, 12:51 AM

Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game? I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky.

GTripp0012 · 12-30-2011, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game? I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky.

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

CultBrennan59 · 12-30-2011, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

I understand where both of you are coming from. But one thing a buddy of mine pointed out is that the WR's RG3 was throwing to were WIDE open, like no one around them, I still think RG3's a great player and would be satisfied with getting him, BUT I still ask myself "Can he read a defense?" "Can he change to the right play if he thinks a blitz is coming?" Cam answered those questions last year hopefully RG3 can do the same.

I'd still take Luck over him though.

Dirtbag59 · 12-30-2011, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

How is it gimmicky? Because they hand the ball to receivers? We do that. Because they use predominantly zone blocking? We do that. Because they determine the primary receiver based on the playcall? We do that.

Ironically part of my reservation comes from the outright outlandish score that resembles that of an average college basketball game. I don't know it's not really based in logic but more of a gut feeling.

GTripp0012 · 12-30-2011, 01:44 AM

Well, yeah, but that's the Washington defense for ya. Texas covered a lot better than that, and TCU is a very good defense, and he put 40 plus on both of them.

Baylor would have been a high powered offense no matter who their QB was this year, but Griffin did unbelievable things all season. This was not his best throwing game. He made a ton of difficult throws, and was a bit off on the ball location. But boy can he throw the touch pass well. If he's going to complete 4 out of every 6 passes that he really doesn't lay in there perfectly (as he did in this game), that profiles excellently at the next level.

GTripp0012 · 12-30-2011, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Ironically part of my reservation comes from the outright outlandish score that resembles that of an average college basketball game. I don't know it's not really based in logic but more of a gut feeling.

Oh, because they don't play defense. Yeah, that actually is kind of gimmicky.

30gut · 12-30-2011, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game?

Nope.
Why would anyone wonder that after this game?

Quote:

I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky.

I thought we were evaluating Griffin's skillset not Baylor's offense.

Either way I don't see how Baylor's offense is anymore 'gimicky' then any other collegiate offense spread or non-spread all offenses scheme to get their primary receiver open in the first progression read.
Look at Stanford for example they use power running formations and play-action with a lot of motions and shifts to get favorable match-ups that favor their personnel (TEs).
Consequently Luck is often throwing to a wide open Fleener.

Ditto:Barkley, Weeden etc...

This game re-affirmed what I've been seeing all season:

o a playmaking QB; comfortable in the face of pressure and has the ability to extend the play with ease

o ability to pick up yards running

o can make throws on the run going right or left

o above average velocity and above average distance throwing deep

o can throw from different angles

o solid decision maker

....etc

SmootSmack · 12-30-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 30gut

Nope.
Why would anyone wonder that after this game?

I thought we were evaluating Griffin's skillset not Baylor's offense.

Either way I don't see how Baylor's offense is anymore 'gimicky' then any other collegiate offense spread or non-spread all offenses scheme to get their primary receiver open in the first progression read.
Look at Stanford for example they use power running formations and play-action with a lot of motions and shifts to get favorable match-ups that favor their personnel (TEs).
Consequently Luck is often throwing to a wide open Fleener.

Ditto:Barkley, Weeden etc...

This game re-affirmed what I've been seeing all season:

o a playmaking QB; comfortable in the face of pressure and has the ability to extend the play with ease

o ability to pick up yards running

o can make throws on the run going right or left

o above average velocity and above average distance throwing deep

o can throw from different angles

o solid decision maker

....etc

Total respect for you and your opinions on QBs...but you gotta take John Dalton Beck off your sig, because it's lowering your credibility on QBs

mredskins · 12-30-2011, 08:30 AM

I watched the game last night Almo Bowl. Great game. What I saw in RGIII was ATL Vick. Lots of running very little actual QBing. Based on that game only and I know that is stupid to do but I would pass on him. I don't see him working in this O.

30gut · 12-30-2011, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mredskins

I watched the game last night Almo Bowl. Great game. What I saw in RGIII was ATL Vick. Lots of running very little actual QBing. Based on that game only and I know that is stupid to do but I would pass on him. I don't see him working in this O.

Imo the only limitations that would prevent him from working in this offense would come more from scheme rigidity and inability to quickly teach the scheme, his skillset is such that Griffin would be a fit in this offense or any other.

And even if all you saw from RGIII in that game was ATL Vick its still an overwhelming compliment.
Lets not forget that Mike Vick's skillset made him the unquestioned 1st pick in his draft class.

About the running: If his coach calls a zone-read and the DE takes the RB what do you want him to do? Not run?
He can only execute the plays that are called.
If the pocket is collapsing and a QB is about to get sacked, what do you want them to do? Get sacked simply so they won't be running?

His ability to run is a bonus not a negative.

Also there was plenty of 'actual QBing' going on, you just need to know what you're looking at.

But you're right though judging him from this game alone is stupid even if you didn't understand what you saw.

12-29-2011, 01:53 AM	#226
The Goat Pro Bowl Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 5,020	Re: Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV) Luck in a Skins uniform is worth almost any cost in terms of picks IMO. However, I think it only makes sense if we're very active in FA as well. We need to provide Luck w/ a top tier WR and continue to add quality depth on the oline and probably look to replace J Brown. And we need to improve markedly on defense. If Luck somehow lands in DC I think replacing Haslett with the best defensive mind available is necessary. Haslett doesn't know how to help the QB/offense with his defensive scheme on a play by play basis like the Steelers, Ravens and Niners (and the Colts up to this season). And we need (still) need to add talent to the secondary. __________________ Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes he eats you.

12-30-2011, 12:51 AM	#231
Dirtbag59 Naega jeil jal naga Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Atlanta, Georgia From: Silver Spring, Maryland Age: 27 Posts: 13,954	Re: Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV) Anyone else wondering if RG3 is destined to be a bust after this game? I mean, not that I didn't notice it before but that offense is so gimicky. __________________ Flacco is 1337 Fanclub President

12-30-2011, 01:44 AM	#235
GTripp0012 Living Legend Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Age: 25 Posts: 15,143	Re: Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV) Well, yeah, but that's the Washington defense for ya. Texas covered a lot better than that, and TCU is a very good defense, and he put 40 plus on both of them. Baylor would have been a high powered offense no matter who their QB was this year, but Griffin did unbelievable things all season. This was not his best throwing game. He made a ton of difficult throws, and was a bit off on the ball location. But boy can he throw the touch pass well. If he's going to complete 4 out of every 6 passes that he really doesn't lay in there perfectly (as he did in this game), that profiles excellently at the next level. __________________ Shanahan: “The bad thing is he's [Sav Rocca] probably our best offensive weapon and that’s not good.”

12-30-2011, 08:30 AM	#239
mredskins Franchise Player Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 7,944	Re: Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV) I watched the game last night Almo Bowl. Great game. What I saw in RGIII was ATL Vick. Lots of running very little actual QBing. Based on that game only and I know that is stupid to do but I would pass on him. I don't see him working in this O. __________________ When life gives you paper jams, turn them into paper footballs!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Matt Barkley Stays (QB Draft Prospect Thread-Episode IV)

NFL Draft Central