- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
Talent prevails. If your game translates, it translates. You can iron out problems while starting.
2014 Prospect Talk Thread
- Thread starter Teagz
- Start date
That is absolutely ridiculous, disagree with that 1,000,000%. Different things can be "ironed out" on the field and off. And it's a big difference in what that is.
Talent prevails?! If talent prevailed, Logan Thomas would be the #1 pick. He is purely the most physically talented QB in the draft. As a natural thrower and athlete, he is in on par with Cam Newton. The point is, having all the talent in the world isn't all you need to be successful, and translation has nothing to do with it. If that were the case every 6'5, 230 pound QB with a big arm would be a Pro Bowler, and no college spread QB would ever pan out in the NFL.
It's about developing and moulding your talent to fit the NFL. Some things you need to sit to fix. Sometimes experience is what you need. But experience isn't going to fix footwork and accuracy issues. Practice does, and an NFL game isn't the place to do that. That's when a QB's confidence gets ruined. Why do you think Locker was going to sit? Because he had accuracy issues that needed to be fixed, that's what had him sliding down the boards. That's why he was the only one who sat. And guess what? Carr is often compared to Locker. Carr needs to sit, because currently, what he does won't slide in NFL; but in time it can. It's all about how he's handled.
For proof of this, watch his USC game. That's the closest thing he's played to NFL talent and he got overwhelmed, and his bad tendencies took over, and he stunk it up.
Mental aspects of the game is where experience helps. That is where you push your young QB to play, because there is no better substitute for game speed and reading defenses than doing it live.
Fixing footwork and balance isn't what you want to be doing when you have NFL D-lineman in your face. That's why you ten hear of guys "reverting" to bad tendencies under pressure.
Talent prevails?! If talent prevailed, Logan Thomas would be the #1 pick. He is purely the most physically talented QB in the draft. As a natural thrower and athlete, he is in on par with Cam Newton. The point is, having all the talent in the world isn't all you need to be successful, and translation has nothing to do with it. If that were the case every 6'5, 230 pound QB with a big arm would be a Pro Bowler, and no college spread QB would ever pan out in the NFL.
It's about developing and moulding your talent to fit the NFL. Some things you need to sit to fix. Sometimes experience is what you need. But experience isn't going to fix footwork and accuracy issues. Practice does, and an NFL game isn't the place to do that. That's when a QB's confidence gets ruined. Why do you think Locker was going to sit? Because he had accuracy issues that needed to be fixed, that's what had him sliding down the boards. That's why he was the only one who sat. And guess what? Carr is often compared to Locker. Carr needs to sit, because currently, what he does won't slide in NFL; but in time it can. It's all about how he's handled.
For proof of this, watch his USC game. That's the closest thing he's played to NFL talent and he got overwhelmed, and his bad tendencies took over, and he stunk it up.
Mental aspects of the game is where experience helps. That is where you push your young QB to play, because there is no better substitute for game speed and reading defenses than doing it live.
Fixing footwork and balance isn't what you want to be doing when you have NFL D-lineman in your face. That's why you ten hear of guys "reverting" to bad tendencies under pressure.
FWIW I think Bortles and Carr both need to sit, whereas I'd throw Bridgewater and Manziel into the fire and let them play. I understand most teams will not have the luxury of doing that, so I wish Bortles and Carr the best of luck.
EDIT
This is why you always hear about developmental QB's (Osweiler, Mallett etc). These are guys with NFL talent, but who are not ready from an accuracy or mechanical standpoint, and perhaps are so far behind in NFL routes, progressions and reads that these really can't be worked on in game and need to be practiced first.
EDIT
This is why you always hear about developmental QB's (Osweiler, Mallett etc). These are guys with NFL talent, but who are not ready from an accuracy or mechanical standpoint, and perhaps are so far behind in NFL routes, progressions and reads that these really can't be worked on in game and need to be practiced first.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
Physical talent =/ actual talent.
As I've noted, I prefer to take gambles on guys with overwhelming physical talent, but it isn't everything.
It's not as if these QBs who get thrown in the fire right away don't practice as well as play in games. If you're good, you're good. These QBs didn't fail because they didn't sit. The NFL game was too much for them, too fast, etc.. Sitting won't fix that. Coaches aren't going to stop working on their footwork and mechanics in practice just because they're starting games.
1 year of sitting and fixing mechanics isn't going to suddenly make a guy not revert back if he isn't mentally and physically strong enough.
As I've noted, I prefer to take gambles on guys with overwhelming physical talent, but it isn't everything.
It's not as if these QBs who get thrown in the fire right away don't practice as well as play in games. If you're good, you're good. These QBs didn't fail because they didn't sit. The NFL game was too much for them, too fast, etc.. Sitting won't fix that. Coaches aren't going to stop working on their footwork and mechanics in practice just because they're starting games.
1 year of sitting and fixing mechanics isn't going to suddenly make a guy not revert back if he isn't mentally and physically strong enough.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
I will reiterate, no one who takes a QB in the first round has that luxury, because they're taking a QB in the first round. Second and third round? Sure, we saw it with the Broncos, Patriots, Seahawks (had just given Matt Flynn a lot of money). You brought up the Cardinals situation, I don't agree. I think Palmer gets replaced by mid-season at the latest if it happened.TiTAN said:
WTF is actual talent? There's physical talent, and then there's the work that was put in to be great at something. Talent is natural, the rest is developed (ie the mental and weight room stuff).
If you're good you're good is an awful concept; all of these guy are "good" at what they did in college. It's about fixing the issues to make them work in the pros.
The classic example is Rodgers and Smith. Rodgers was allowed to sit and fix his issues, whereas Smith wasn't and lost his confidence. Both guys had all the tools to work in the NFL. But only 1 is a Pro Bowl QB, because he was allowed the opportunity to learn and fix what he needed to fix.
Again, not saying teams are going to give guys the time to learn, but it could absolutely affect how they turn out in the future.
If you're good you're good is an awful concept; all of these guy are "good" at what they did in college. It's about fixing the issues to make them work in the pros.
The classic example is Rodgers and Smith. Rodgers was allowed to sit and fix his issues, whereas Smith wasn't and lost his confidence. Both guys had all the tools to work in the NFL. But only 1 is a Pro Bowl QB, because he was allowed the opportunity to learn and fix what he needed to fix.
Again, not saying teams are going to give guys the time to learn, but it could absolutely affect how they turn out in the future.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 36,768
- Reaction score
- 1,153
The Cardinals don't need to draft any specific position:
WR: they have Fitz & Floyd
TE: Housler is worldly underrated
There will probably be nobody that can play OT in Rd1 at 20. You think throwing a developmental QB right in is a bad idea? How about a developmental LT?
They could maybe use an OLB but outside Dee Ford and maybe Barr, nobody is worth a mid-late 1st as a 3-4 pass rushing OLB.
No need to draft a corner in the 1st
Go for the project QB. Just because he is a 1st rounder does NOT mean he has to start. Bruce Arians is one of the best QB geniuses in the NFL, he would know if Carr was ready or not.
You say that all 1st round QBs have to start right away? Look at the situations they were in. The QB with the most competition around them was probably Tannehill, and he was a top 10 pick. There has been 3 teams in the mid-late 1st that's drafted a QB that didn't need a starter right away since 05: Rodgers, Quinn, and Tebow. Tebow was adored by JMD, but he sat in the 1st year till late in the season. Orton was the starter. The next year the Tebow-led Broncos won their division and a playoff game. Quinn sucked, never won the starting job...typical Cleveland making poor FO moves. Rodgers didn't start right away either
No need for Zona to start Carr in Yr1 unless Palmer blows, which he wont
WR: they have Fitz & Floyd
TE: Housler is worldly underrated
There will probably be nobody that can play OT in Rd1 at 20. You think throwing a developmental QB right in is a bad idea? How about a developmental LT?
They could maybe use an OLB but outside Dee Ford and maybe Barr, nobody is worth a mid-late 1st as a 3-4 pass rushing OLB.
No need to draft a corner in the 1st
Go for the project QB. Just because he is a 1st rounder does NOT mean he has to start. Bruce Arians is one of the best QB geniuses in the NFL, he would know if Carr was ready or not.
You say that all 1st round QBs have to start right away? Look at the situations they were in. The QB with the most competition around them was probably Tannehill, and he was a top 10 pick. There has been 3 teams in the mid-late 1st that's drafted a QB that didn't need a starter right away since 05: Rodgers, Quinn, and Tebow. Tebow was adored by JMD, but he sat in the 1st year till late in the season. Orton was the starter. The next year the Tebow-led Broncos won their division and a playoff game. Quinn sucked, never won the starting job...typical Cleveland making poor FO moves. Rodgers didn't start right away either
No need for Zona to start Carr in Yr1 unless Palmer blows, which he wont
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
Accuracy is talent, footwork is talent, everything involving the game is talent.
This has nothing to do with what they did in college. If you have the mental capacity to go with the talent, you're probably going to succeed, or show significant flashes of brilliance on bad teams in which it's impossible to succeed. Most of the guys who fail can't recognize a blitz in game speed, can't properly go through progressions, and shit the bed when pressured. I'd say the majority of failures have more to do with mental aspects of the game that aren't that coachable.
The classic example is the example involving the guy who sat for 3 full years?
This has nothing to do with what they did in college. If you have the mental capacity to go with the talent, you're probably going to succeed, or show significant flashes of brilliance on bad teams in which it's impossible to succeed. Most of the guys who fail can't recognize a blitz in game speed, can't properly go through progressions, and shit the bed when pressured. I'd say the majority of failures have more to do with mental aspects of the game that aren't that coachable.
The classic example is the example involving the guy who sat for 3 full years?
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 36,768
- Reaction score
- 1,153
He's a better example than the QBs that were Top 15 picks you listed...
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
List of first round QBs since 1999 who sat most of the year:
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Brady Quinn
JaMarcus Russell
JP Lossman
Aaron Rodgers
Philip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Rex Grossman
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
7 of the 11 who sat busted/weren't successful. I included Culpepper as one of who didn't bust, although his prime was short lived. Sitting can help, but I am of the belief that the help is marginal. I don't believe Rivers, Palmer or Rodgers bust if they played year one, but that's all subjective, as is the entire debate here.
Jake Locker
Tim Tebow
Brady Quinn
JaMarcus Russell
JP Lossman
Aaron Rodgers
Philip Rivers
Carson Palmer
Rex Grossman
Chad Pennington
Daunte Culpepper
7 of the 11 who sat busted/weren't successful. I included Culpepper as one of who didn't bust, although his prime was short lived. Sitting can help, but I am of the belief that the help is marginal. I don't believe Rivers, Palmer or Rodgers bust if they played year one, but that's all subjective, as is the entire debate here.
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2010
- Messages
- 36,768
- Reaction score
- 1,153
Pennington surely didn't bust. He was a very good QB who just got injured a bit and was overshadowed by NE, and has little talent to work with
Locker hasn't busted either, not at all
It's really just Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Tebow, and Russell that busted. Tebow was successful when properly utilized. Grossman, while never really any good, led his team to the Super Bowl. Losman & Quinn were never placed in situations to succeed in terms of coaching. Jamarcus was lasy as fuck
Again, Bruce Arians knows what to do with QBs. It's a completely different scenario
Locker hasn't busted either, not at all
It's really just Grossman, Losman, Quinn, Tebow, and Russell that busted. Tebow was successful when properly utilized. Grossman, while never really any good, led his team to the Super Bowl. Losman & Quinn were never placed in situations to succeed in terms of coaching. Jamarcus was lasy as fuck
Again, Bruce Arians knows what to do with QBs. It's a completely different scenario
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
Pennington was alright, nothing to get excited about.
You rationalizing all of these failures is the point of my argument. It has much more to do with than sitting for a year. Sit a guy all you want, but the bust rate is pretty much the same as any first round QB who plays right away.
You rationalizing all of these failures is the point of my argument. It has much more to do with than sitting for a year. Sit a guy all you want, but the bust rate is pretty much the same as any first round QB who plays right away.
Your contradicting yourself. You say the guys who fail, fail because they can't recognize blitzes. That's all the guys who busted on that list you just posted. I've already said, you sit a guy for mechanics, accuracy, etc. I also said mental aspects you should throw them in the game. You are basically supporting what I am saying.
I am not sitting Carr because he can't read a blitz. I'm sitting him to harness his accuracy, mechanics and footwork.
And how the fuck is footwork talent? You don't wake up and are suddenly able to do a 3-5-7 step drop. These things aren't natural. Accuracy is the same. It needs to be worked on, and it can be. Arm strength isn't one of those things. Sure, you can lift weights, strengthen your core etc, but you cannot teach someone how to spin the ball the way Mike Vick or Matthew Stafford do. It doesn't matter how big/strong you are. That's talent. That's why guys with a big arm are a hot commodity and guys with accuracy issues are viewed as fixable.
You don't seem to be understanding the difference between talent, and hard work. Both are needed.
Every single QB is different. Most QB's, I would be fine with playing them right away. That's the point your missing. I'm not saying EVERY QB needs to sit. In fact, out of my Top 7 QB's (in no order: Bortles, Carr, Manziel, Mettenberger, Bridgewater, Fales, and Murray), Carr and Bortles are the only ones I would sit for the first year. It's all about how raw the guy is. (Side: not saying I'd use a 1st on all of those guys. Just putting forth the scenario if they were a QB on my team in which I've intended to be my future)
Again, to reiterate, I wouldn't sit every guy. Just Carr and Bortles. I also feel like Tannehill would be a hell of a lot better if he had sat. He had/has the same issues as Carr, Bortles and Locker.
EDIT
And as I've said, Carr can be compared to Locker. IMO, Tannehill is the best Bortles comparison. I was never on the Tannehill bandwagon either. Wasn't a fan. Shouldn't have been a high pick. I see similar things in Bortles.
I am not sitting Carr because he can't read a blitz. I'm sitting him to harness his accuracy, mechanics and footwork.
And how the fuck is footwork talent? You don't wake up and are suddenly able to do a 3-5-7 step drop. These things aren't natural. Accuracy is the same. It needs to be worked on, and it can be. Arm strength isn't one of those things. Sure, you can lift weights, strengthen your core etc, but you cannot teach someone how to spin the ball the way Mike Vick or Matthew Stafford do. It doesn't matter how big/strong you are. That's talent. That's why guys with a big arm are a hot commodity and guys with accuracy issues are viewed as fixable.
You don't seem to be understanding the difference between talent, and hard work. Both are needed.
Every single QB is different. Most QB's, I would be fine with playing them right away. That's the point your missing. I'm not saying EVERY QB needs to sit. In fact, out of my Top 7 QB's (in no order: Bortles, Carr, Manziel, Mettenberger, Bridgewater, Fales, and Murray), Carr and Bortles are the only ones I would sit for the first year. It's all about how raw the guy is. (Side: not saying I'd use a 1st on all of those guys. Just putting forth the scenario if they were a QB on my team in which I've intended to be my future)
Again, to reiterate, I wouldn't sit every guy. Just Carr and Bortles. I also feel like Tannehill would be a hell of a lot better if he had sat. He had/has the same issues as Carr, Bortles and Locker.
EDIT
And as I've said, Carr can be compared to Locker. IMO, Tannehill is the best Bortles comparison. I was never on the Tannehill bandwagon either. Wasn't a fan. Shouldn't have been a high pick. I see similar things in Bortles.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 67,842
- Reaction score
- 2,208
I'm not supporting anything you are saying. I outlined a list of guys who busted after sitting a year, and bosox went off with reasons as to why they busted. You can use those same reasons to the guys who don't sit a year, instead of using the lazy reasoning of them being terrible because they were rushed into starting. Mechanics and accuracy can be worked on in practice, even in the midst of preparing for an opponent. They have an off-season as well. Getting into games as soon as possible is extremely valuable, even for a guy who needs to improve mechanics in accuracy. That way, once they correct or help remedy their flaws at least a little bit, they'll already have an idea of how the speed of the game, blitz recognition, and all that jazz is.
Yes, it takes talent in an individual to perfect footwork in the pocket. Hard work doesn't guarantee physical discipline.
Yes, it takes talent in an individual to perfect footwork in the pocket. Hard work doesn't guarantee physical discipline.
I'm done with that conversation lol. Agree to strongly disagree.
Side note: http://thebiglead.com/2014/03/14/when-blake-bortles-falls-on-nfl-draft-boards-will-it-be-because-of-this/
Side note: http://thebiglead.com/2014/03/14/when-blake-bortles-falls-on-nfl-draft-boards-will-it-be-because-of-this/
I'm starting to really love Fales, man. I'm going back and re-watching the QBs in case I missed things my first go through, and Fales has risen incredibly. Murray has fallen a bit due to it.
And I absolutely feel like none of the guys, as prospects, should be a top 15 pick, honestly. None of them are home-runs. But there is some serious potential with a lot of these guys, in terms of both high-ceilings and high floors. A lot of high floor guys, IMO, that are being overlooked because they don't have all of the classic franchise QB traits, and aren't flashy. If they ever get a shot they could be very good long term starters. I like the high floor guys as opposed to the high ceiling guys, which is pretty obvious I think. Traditionally, I'm quite the opposite.
I like what the Bucs GM had to say, which was basically: You can get a franchise QB in this draft, but not necessarily in the first round.
And I absolutely feel like none of the guys, as prospects, should be a top 15 pick, honestly. None of them are home-runs. But there is some serious potential with a lot of these guys, in terms of both high-ceilings and high floors. A lot of high floor guys, IMO, that are being overlooked because they don't have all of the classic franchise QB traits, and aren't flashy. If they ever get a shot they could be very good long term starters. I like the high floor guys as opposed to the high ceiling guys, which is pretty obvious I think. Traditionally, I'm quite the opposite.
I like what the Bucs GM had to say, which was basically: You can get a franchise QB in this draft, but not necessarily in the first round.