- Thread starter
- #1
kam.
Mr. Blackmon
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 13,451
- Reaction score
- 1,577
Something I found from a Mizzou fan for those Doubting Gabbert.
Also http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Au.s2vAc3._1XD073lqSsL1DubYF?slug=ys-farrar_blaine_gabbert_jaguars_makes_sense_051211
Talks about why Gabbert will Succeed with the Jags.
Why does everybody hate the kid?
I've read a lot of pre and post draft analysis of the Gabbert pick from the media and message boards. I was surprised to see a lot of negative comments about Gabbert on both fronts, message boards more so than media. I think the main media guy that was not high on Gabbert was Kiper. I don't know how others feel about Kiper, but I think he was more accurate about players when no one took him seriously. Now, it almost seems like he does his analysis with an axe to grind. I think it's interesting that he still wants to talk about the potential of Clausen in Carolina. Why, because Mel loved him as a Golden Domer and hyped him constantly. I've never really heard Mel come out and admit he's completely missed on someone and I don't expect him to say it about Clausen. Also, in regard to Kiper's assessment of Gabbert, he was Mel's top rated QB in the draft, coming in as the 14th best player overall. He may have had Newton and Locker rated as first round picks as well, but it was at least well past 20, Newton may have been 24 on Mel's big board. And yet, when Carolina picks Newton first overall, there's really no criticism from Mel even though they take a guy well ahead of where Mel has him ranked and over a guy Mel clearly evaluated, Gabbert, as being better. Likewise, when Tennessee takes Locker at 8, nothing from Mel about reaching or not getting value for the pick or the fact they took Locker ahead of a guy he had personally rated higher. Why, once again, Mel likes to play favorites. He's been a Locker fan for a while, he admitted on one his podcasts during the season that he finally had to move Locker down due to his horrible play in his last season at Washington. When the Jags move up to pick Gabbert, it's not so much what Kiper says, although that wasn't in the least bit positive, it's the way he says it. He's clearly got a negative impression of Gabbert and said, "I'm not sold on his as a franchise QB." This was by far the most negative thing he said about any QB pick in the entire draft. Compare that to his comment on KC's pick of Ricky Stanzi in the fifth round, "I think this guy has the potential in a few years to beat out Cassel and be a very good NFL QB." Once again, Mel was high on Stanzi but was later forced to back off of his man crush because Stanzi's play never got any better. Check out how Stanzi played against Mizzou in the bowl game for a good comparison of the two. If you just read those comments, you would be forced to believe Mel thinks Stanzi was the better QB. The point of this rather long off topic diatribe is that these "draft experts" are not always the objective observers they make themselves out to be so you have to take what they say with a rather large grain of salt. And, in the spirit of full disclosure, I tend to think Mel is an DELETED and I DELETED hate Notre Dame.
Now, as far as fans being negative on Gabbert, I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that until Gabbert actually declared for the draft, most people never heard of the guy. Then when a lot of media guys start hyping him, I think fans who basically didn't know anything about him just didn't buy it. I mean realistically, how often is it that some guy gets hyped predraft and turns out to be a huge bust? So you really can't blame fans for being skeptical.
But the question for Jags fans isn't what media types and random fans think about this pick. I'm sure you want to know if this guy will be a franchise QB? Being a Mizzou fan and someone that has seen every game Gabbert has played that's been televised, I honestly don't know. I will say that when you consider all the attributes you want your QB to have, there's much more there to like in Gabbert than there is to dislike.
First of all he's a leader and not a fake kind of corny rah rah guy. In his first year as starting QB at Mizzou, he had a quiet kind of confidence about him but he wasn't assertive about taking the team over and getting in people's faces or that kind of thing. Gabbert understood that even though he was the starting QB, he was a sophomore and a brand new starter taking over for the most successful QB in Mizzou history, Chase Daniel. I think he understood he had to earn the right to be the vocal leader of the team. That opportunity came in a home game against Nebraska. Midway through the game, he was nailed by N. Suh. The play resulted in a high ankle sprain, which if you know anything about ankle injuries, it's one of the worst kinds, very painful and takes a long time to heal. Not only did he finish the game, he played in every game the rest of the year. He struggled with the ankle sprain, it limited his mobility greatly and affected his delivery.
The Coaching staff asked him if he felt that it might be better if he sat out and waited for it to heal and he told them he recognized he wasn't a hundred percent but that he also understood we didn't have any QB on the roster at that point in time that had any realistic ability to win any games for us in the middle of the conference season. The coaching staff agreed and he kept playing.
Even with the ankle sprain, Gabbert's stats were actually better in 09 than they were in 10, but if you watched enough Mizzou football you could certainly see that he was a much improved QB in his second season even if the stats were down. He had become a vocal leader, the image of the program. He did what was necessary to win games. He realized we were down in talent at the receiver positions but that we had an improving offensive line and talent at tailback. So even though his numbers dipped, you could see he was more in control of the game and of the team and that it was HIS team.
Now what are the main criticisms of Gabbert? He has happy feet and he comes from a gimmicky spread offense. On the first count, he did at times have happy feet, bailing out of the pocket early and running right into trouble when simply stepping up would have bought him extra time. If you want to see a good example of this, watch the Illinois game. However, if you watch his progression over the rest of the season, you can see that he goes a long way towards overcoming that tendency and in several cases does an excellent job of stepping up in the pocket and buying extra time without just taking off.
Gimmicky offense. Guilty as charged. To be honest, Mizzou runs one of the more gimmicky offenses you'll see with wild formations and tons of five receiver empty backfield sets. However, unlike Florida and Auburn, Mizzou's spread is a pass first run second whereas the others mentioned are run first. He threw the ball a lot. He didn't have to make progressive reads because he was coached to get rid of the ball very quickly, initial read and throw. Another thing as a Mizzou fan that's true although a lot of fans don't like it, our whole spread offense is based on the bubble screen, sexy huh? Why's that important, not a lot of down the field routes and passes. The offense Gabbert ran was the one we had tweaked to get the most mileage out of what we had when Chase Daniel was the QB and we had Jeremy Maclin, Martin Rucker and Chase Coffman on the team. In 2007 our #3 wide receiver was probably better than any receiver we had last year. Also, although Gabbert is pretty accurate on short passes, Daniel was deadly accurate and he had guys that if they had any space and caught the ball in stride, they were gone. Daniel's completion percentage was over 70% for his career.
Gabbert has a much stronger arm than Daniel, but not his uncanny accuracy. Gabbert would actually have been better to go to a team that ran a more traditional play action passing based offense. If he would have been the QB at Alabama, they would have won every game by 20 points or more. So, even though his skill set was more toward running a traditional offense, he was able to turn himself into a very effective spread QB. That's something else you will get from Gabbert, he's definitely a first there last to leave kind of guy. If he doesn't succeed, it will not be because of any lack of effort or ability to understand what the offense is trying to do. My point here is that Gabbert was able to run an offense designed for a QB with a different skill set and was able to do it successfully in terms of wins and losses with much less talent at the crucial WR and TE positions than what his predecessor had to work with.
If you want to see a good sample of the kind of QB Gabbert was able to become, you should watch the 2010 TAMU game, the OU game and the bowl game against Iowa. The TAMU game was in College station and we went into the game as a clear underdog. TAMU had 2 losses and could ill afford another. Their first loss was to OSU in Stillwater losing on a last second field goal. They also lost a very close game to Arkansas on a neutral field. Gabbert destroyed their much hyped defense and we romped 30-9. It should also be noted that Mizzou didn't get any turnovers to fuel that thumping. OU was a seesaw battle that showed great grit and determination from Gabbert. He made some great throws in that game and made them at crucial times. You can also see in that game that he has worked hard to overcome the happy feet issue.
However, if you want to see Gabbert at his very best, you should watch the bowl game against Iowa. Mat Millen was announcing the game and I thought he was going to go down on the field and try and have Gabbert's baby. If you watch that game, you will see a guy make every throw you have to be able to make to play QB in the NFL. Most importantly, he throws the 20 yard out as well as anyone you will see. That throw is the signature NFL throw. QB's who either can't throw it hard enough or accurately enough don't make it in the NFL. He throws it on a rope with great accuracy. Now I understand that he made a horrible mistake in throwing the late INT that ended up costing us that game, but that throw was so out of character for Gabbert both for his career and for that game that I simply have to write it off as an anomaly. Sort of like the bone headed INT Peyton Manning threw in the super bowl loss to the Saints. It was completely out of character, but a dreadful throw and a horrible mistake. Does that mean Manning is a bust, hardly, so don't base your evaluation of Gabbert on one mistake against Iowa.
Bottom line on Gabbert is you have a guy with a lot of integrity, a fire to be the best, a willingness to work hard to achieve it and all the physical tools to do it. That doesn't necessarily mean he will become a franchise QB. There's only one guy I've seen that I guaranteed myself "this guys going to be great" and that was Peyton Manning.
Anybody else and it's still a crapshoot. But, as I stated to begin this piece, he certainly has more to like than to dislike. I would not bet against him.
Also http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news;_ylt=Au.s2vAc3._1XD073lqSsL1DubYF?slug=ys-farrar_blaine_gabbert_jaguars_makes_sense_051211
Talks about why Gabbert will Succeed with the Jags.
Why does everybody hate the kid?
