The Pro Days Thread

[alaskaN8]

so i see alot of comparison between rg3 and vick. but how would you guys rate him agianst some of the younger quarterbacks in the league? like matt ryan, sam bradford, matt stafford or cam newton?

[BabyLuku]

Originally Posted by alaskaN8

so i see alot of comparison between rg3 and vick. but how would you guys rate him agianst some of the younger quarterbacks in the league? like matt ryan, sam bradford, matt stafford or cam newton?

I'd rate him pretty highly among that group, would put his potential at this point higher than all except maybe Cam.

Do you think RG3 has a stronger more accurate deep ball arm then Cam Newton?
I would say I think RG3 is more accurate but not sure on the bigger arm.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by alaskaN8

so i see alot of comparison between rg3 and vick. but how would you guys rate him agianst some of the younger quarterbacks in the league? like matt ryan, sam bradford, matt stafford or cam newton?

Most everything I have found dismisses the comparisons to Vick. He's at a better place in his development than Vick was at this point. I get uncomfortable with the comparison because I think it has more to do with the fact that they're both African-American than anything. It's a lazy parallel to draw.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Most everything I have found dismisses the comparisons to Vick. He's at a better place in his development than Vick was at this point. I get uncomfortable with the comparison because I think it has more to do with the fact that they're both African-American than anything. It's a lazy parallel to draw.

I've also come to the conclusion that it's not even an accurate comparison. RGIII doesn't have anything close to Vicks agility (no one does at the QB position). Sure he has similar straight line speed and good agility but it's not like the cut Vick makes to escape.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Most everything I have found dismisses the comparisons to Vick. He's at a better place in his development than Vick was at this point. I get uncomfortable with the comparison because I think it has more to do with the fact that they're both African-American than anything. It's a lazy parallel to draw.

Well put, but something they do have in common is the deep ball. That was Vick's best pass at VT & sounds like it is for RGIII as well. I don't know enough about RGIII's accuracy in a variety of routes, but Vick needed quite a bit of fine tuning on some intermediate routes when he was drafted.

Plus, RGIII is sooo much smarter & much more comfortable w/the public attention & press. That's a big deal in these times & I think is often why some players, especially QBs, fail. See Ryan Leaf.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Most everything I have found dismisses the comparisons to Vick. He's at a better place in his development than Vick was at this point. I get uncomfortable with the comparison because I think it has more to do with the fact that they're both African-American than anything. It's a lazy parallel to draw.

I've been thinking this for a while but haven't had the balls to say it honestly. In essence, RGIII is nothing like Vick except for speed. The comparisons to Steve Young are more accurate because he's not so shifty as he is fast. And just like Young he uses his feet to move the pocket versus using his feet to run for the first down.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I've been thinking this for a while but haven't had the balls to say it honestly. In essence, RGIII is nothing like Vick except for speed. The comparisons to Steve Young are more accurate because he's not so shifty as he is fast. And just like Young he uses his feet to move the pocket versus using his feet to run for the first down.

yeah both are fast (Vick though is faster). the problem in that comparison, skillset of being fast is not comparable because one is a run-first, make plays with his feet another rarely leaves the pocket to scramble. 1 is a scrambler and 1 is a pocket passer. 2 VERY VERY DIFFERENT STYLES. This comparison is extremely poor

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by TheMalcolmConnection

I've been thinking this for a while but haven't had the balls to say it honestly. In essence, RGIII is nothing like Vick except for speed. The comparisons to Steve Young are more accurate because he's not so shifty as he is fast. And just like Young he uses his feet to move the pocket versus using his feet to run for the first down.

I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics.

I guess my point is, in all of my rambling, there's a tendency to attribute athletic prowess first when analyzing black quarterbacks over football acumen and mechanics, which are typically attributed to white quarterbacks. When a white QB scrambles well we hear words like, "he's mobile". When a black guy moves well outside the pocket, we here "he's athletic". Not that any of this is racist or people are willfully ignorant, I think we've sub-consciously absorbed a lot of "old thinking" when comparing certain positions.

Rant over. I hope you guys didn't take any of this the wrong way.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics.

"Natural reaction" is a good way of putting it, because I don't think it is racial or even conscious. People have a "natural" tendency to view others in groups, rather than as individuals. For example, if you support Ron Paul, then you must be some militiaman conspiracy whacko, or if you are an Eagles fan you are as dumb as a rock.

[SirClintonPortis]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I think it's a natural reaction to compare black quarterbacks with one another. For instance, last season I would hear commentators compare RGIII to Cam Newton frequently instead of, say, Matt Barkley who was/is still in college.

What's funny is that the reverse never happens. Football analysts don't compare white QBs to, say, Donovan McNabb or even Vince Young. It's usually Vince Young, McNabb, David Gerrard, Cam Newton -- they lump them together. Not always, but more often than not. But if you look at the top all-time leading rushing quarterbacks, off the top of my head, I would say it's Michael Vick, Randall Cunningham, Steve McNair, Steve Young in there somewhere, and Fran Tarkenton. John Elway has to be in the top ten, too. So it's actually pretty even once you remove race and look at statistics.

I guess my point is, in all of my rambling, there's a tendency to attribute athletic prowess first when analyzing black quarterbacks over football acumen and mechanics, which are typically attributed to white quarterbacks. When a white QB scrambles well we hear words like, "he's mobile". When a black guy moves well outside the pocket, we here "he's athletic". Not that any of this is racist or people are willfully ignorant, I think we've sub-consciously absorbed a lot of "old thinking" when comparing certain positions.

Rant over. I hope you guys didn't take any of this the wrong way.

Astute post. The behaviors you describe can be explained by schemas, and we don't like to have our schemas change. Info follows.

Schema - What Is a Schema

A schema is a cognitive framework or concept that helps organize and interpret information. Schemas can be useful, because they allow us to take shortcuts in interpreting a vast amount of information. However, these mental frameworks also cause us to exclude pertinent information in favor of information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and ideas. Schemas can contribute to stereotypes and make it difficult to retain new information that does not conform to our established schemas.

Schema (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The original concept of schemata is linked with that of reconstructive memory as proposed and demonstrated in a series of experiments by Bartlett (1932). By presenting participants with information that was unfamiliar to their cultural backgrounds and expectations and then monitoring how they recalled these different items of information (stories, etc.), Bartlett was able to establish that individuals' existing schemata and stereotypes influence not only how they interpret "schema-foreign" new information but also how they recall the information over time. One of his most famous investigations involved asking participants to read a Native American folk tale, "The War of the Ghosts", and recall it several times up to a year later. All the participants transformed the details of the story in such a way that it reflected their cultural norms and expectations, i.e. in line with their schemata. The factors that influenced their recall were:

Omission of information that was considered irrelevant to a participant;

Transformation of some of the details, or of the order in which events, etc., were recalled; a shift of focus and emphasis in terms of what was considered the most important aspects of the tale;

Rationalization: details and aspects of the tale that would not make sense would be "padded out" and explained in an attempt to render them comprehensible to the individual in question;

Cultural shifts: the content and the style of the story were altered in order to appear more coherent and appropriate in terms of the cultural background of the participant.

[KI Skins Fan]

If Luck has a great Pro Day today, I'll be on Cloud 9!

Even if he doesn't, I won't worry a bit about our future at QB. I sincerely believe that we can't lose by picking either Luck or RGIII.

[IrMitchell]

Originally Posted by KI Skins Fan

If Luck has a great Pro Day today, I'll be on Cloud 9!

Even if he doesn't, I won't worry a bit about our future at QB. I sincerely believe that we can't lose by picking either Luck or RGIII.

You can't, Luck is the best QB prospect most of us have ever seen (for the young guys).

I'm predicting a Matt Ryan impact from day 1.

[MTK]

RG3 is far superior as a passer than Vick ever was or ever will be. I agree, it's a lazy comparison. Not fair to RG3 at all.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

RG3 is far superior as a passer than Vick ever was or ever will be. I agree, it's a lazy comparison. Not fair to RG3 at all.

I called griffin a better Michael Vick with the disclaimer that I hated the comparison. In every respect, griffin is superior. However, you can't hate on the comparison too much because Vick is the closest thing to griffin that has ever been in the league. That's why I honestly prefer griffin to luck. A player with his athleticism, passing accuracy, intelligence, and leadership has never played the position. Never. Vick caused enormous problems for defenses because if his ability to make plays with his feet... And he wasn't as much of a passing theat. Imagine the problems griffin would create. He could be nearly unstoppable.

Luck is great, but he can be stopped with a tradition defense as long as players do their job. Griffin is going to require a lot of exotic defensive schemes. I he meets his potential, the only way defenses will be able to stop him is if he makes a mistake.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

I called griffin a better Michael Vick with the disclaimer that I hated the comparison. In every respect, griffin is superior. However, you can't hate on the comparison too much because Vick is the closest thing to griffin that has ever been in the league. That's why I honestly prefer griffin to luck. A player with his athleticism, passing accuracy, intelligence, and leadership has never played the position. Never. Vick caused enormous problems for defenses because if his ability to make plays with his feet... And he wasn't as much of a passing theat. Imagine the problems griffin would create. He could be nearly unstoppable.

Luck is great, but he can be stopped with a tradition defense as long as players do their job. Griffin is going to require a lot of exotic defensive schemes. I he meets his potential, the only way defenses will be able to stop him is if he makes a mistake.

before anyone compares RG3 to Vick let him get on the field. The line could wrap around the planet several times who called Vick a bust back then. 10 years later runner up to MVP. laughable. People already puttin RG3 in the HOF. I remember Jamarcus Russell claimed to have the best pro day ever as well. scout were drooling.

Comparing Vick to RG3 is flat out retarded. Vick is an atheletic freak, and no one can compare. Vick happened to play QB and as a passer is pretty average, but still much better than people ever believed he would be. There will never be a another Vick. RG3 is a quarterback and needs to be compared to top passers who have come out the draft in the last 10 years.