Superman

I don't think aversion to Richardson is about Year 1. I think it's legitimate concern that he can become a good QB in the NFL, at any point. It's the same concern I have with Richardson. In fact, that concern exists for virtually every QB prospect, every year. So at what point does an evaluator say 'this guy has too many red flags for a top five pick'? In Ballard's case, his comments have acknowledged that any QB prospect will need significant development. Someone asked him at the Combine about drafting a guy who needs a lot of work, and his answer was that they all need a lot of work. So I don't think he's viewing any of these guys as a Year 1 solution, nor should he, IMO. In that way, I think Keefer is off the mark in this article. It's not about the idea that Richardson might need more time than other prospects; it's about the idea that Richardson just might be fatally flawed and never work out in the NFL. And that possibility is real, despite his obvious physical talent.

I think his body composition is going to undermine his ability to hold up in the NFL. After watching him closely, I don't believe he has the athleticism to avoid contact. I'm not sure he has the arm strength to really exploit defenses to all levels. He's smooth and has a nice amount of polish, but I question whether his game and ability will work in the NFL. So at the top of the draft, I personally don't think he's a good enough prospect. It's just where I land. No doubt many people -- including NFL GMs -- will see it differently, and someone will take him in the top 5. But I think there are some teams that won't be willing to draft him, and other teams that have him at QB2 or QB3, and if one of those teams wants Stroud, for instance, they can trade with the Bears at #1. IMO, for these reasons, Stroud is more likely to go #1 than Young.

Yeah I think I would.

I think maybe it's more like 'we don't want Young, we'd take Stroud or Levis, and think one of them lasts to #4.' But that's probably me projecting because I've decided Young isn't a great prospect at the top of the draft.

But Houston is at #2. What if Unknown Team sells the farm for #1, and they take Stroud? Houston takes Young at #2, and Carolina moves up to #3 to take Levis. If we really want Stroud -- like krunk said -- then it's a big gamble to wait around for someone else to set the board. I personally don't want to give up a huge chunk for Stroud. I've been on the record for a long time saying I'd be fine with trading back and picking up an extra 2024 first rounder, but I know I'm in the very small minority on that, and I don't think the Colts will play that game. I'd rather trade back than take Richardson at #4.

I have Stroud as QB1, and IMO if you want him, you have to go to #1 to get him. And if we're not willing to do that, then what options are we open to at #4?

In other words, "tell the Bears we're not selling the farm to move up to #1, we'll sit back and draft Hendon Hooker or Stetson Bennett if we have to." Would you trade up to #1 for Stroud?

I like Levis, but it's a salient comparison, at least on the field. There are a lot of similarities in play style, and even their mechanics issues are very similar. But just because Wentz didn't work out doesn't mean Levis would be a bad fit for us.

Agreed.

Gonna come back to this later, I want to find this play from the broadcast angle. If it's the one I'm thinking it is -- and I'm pretty sure it is -- he has more room in the pocket than it seems from this angle.

It's definitely an example of his ability to throw off platform. But he was off platform because he was bouncing all over the place. I think he had a pocket to settle into, at least for a moment. Also, to his credit, he keeps his eyes downfield and doesn't tuck and scramble. But if that receiver doesn't come open, he's probably taking on that spy defender right in front of him, right? I do think he panics, but the fact that he doesn't immediately commit to running is a positive. The result of this play is basically a matter of luck. If you put him in this situation 100 times, it will end badly 99 times. I think it's dangerous to elevate his standing on the basis of 1% plays like this.

Brian Johnson is, coincidentally, presently the QB coach for the Eagles, and rumored to be Steichen's replacement at OC. He left Florida after 2020, but Richardson didn't actually play that season. So there's only a short overlap for them, and Richardson probably didn't get the benefit of working daily with him, reviewing film, etc., especially with how limited teams were in 2020. However, it's likely that Johnson and Steichen had some conversations about Richardson over the last couple seasons. Maybe some advance scouting that we'd benefit from.

When have you ever seen a QB in the NFL successfully slalom laterally through the pocket, and complete a pass down the field? He looks more like Bode Miller than Jalen Hurts. Look at how drastically his head/eye level is changing with each bounce; how can you expect good vision, let alone good accuracy? Target practice 101 -- throwing, shooting, archery, bowling, pitching, batting, serving, you name it -- is about lining your body up to your target. From the time he hits his back foot, his body is all over the place, and his feet are a mess. He takes two steps at the top to line up and throw, but the rest of the time he's in no position to throw in any direction. If not for a blown coverage, where is he gonna throw? He'd have to take on the spy defender. And after the first two moves, the rest is totally unnecessary. He's now evaded the immediate pressure, and has a pocket, but he had no awareness of that fact because he panicked after the initial pressure. By the way, yes, footwork and mechanics can be improved, but the real question is whether a guy will revert back to bad habits specifically when he's under pressure. They call it 'things you can't teach.' I think it's more things you would never teach. Maybe even things you would actively discourage. Patrick Mahomes and Josh Allen have some reckless plays on tape, because they're so physically gifted that they can get away with a lot more than other players. Even they don't try this kind of stuff, not because they're not physically capable, but because it's much more likely to end in a turnover than a completion. It's a display of his outstanding physical gifts, but plays like this make my stomach hurt, because as promising as it is from a physical standpoint, it's twice as problematic from a technical standpoint.

Outstanding athleticism. Dreadful QBing.

Merged.

Yeah that's what it seems like. But not only did the ESPN crew report it on TV, other outlets (Spanish, and radio) were saying the same thing. Maybe they're repeating what ESPN said? Or maybe someone on the field was saying 'we have five minutes to warm up' because that's protocol, while the refs and coaches were still figuring out what to do. But if we're taking Troy Vincent at his word, the coaches never discussed resuming play. So it was all likely a miscommunication.

It took a while to make an official statement, but it sounds like the game being postponed was the obvious outcome pretty early on...

Could be some people were saying that on the field, and it made it up to the booth. But we never saw any of the players warming up, right? I think maybe Burrow threw a couple warm up passes, but everyone else was just standing around from what I saw.

The "five minutes" thing is starting to look like a misunderstanding...

I don't even think the refs were 'instructed' to give them five minutes. I that was just their initial 'how do we handle this' reaction -- five minutes after an extended stoppage -- and the coaches immediately said 'that won't work.' Taylor and McDermott talked, and said 'we're going to the locker room,' and at that point there wasn't really any decision to be made. It was done, they weren't playing. The way it was presented on social media was like the NFL was trying to get them to keep playing and the teams had to win an argument to get the game postponed. I mean, it might technically be accurate that the teams made the decision, but that doesn't mean they were opposed in any way.

Yeah, the fact that the statement included the update on Hamlin's condition -- he's in critical condition -- shows that they wanted to provide that information in an official capacity. Had to wait for it, though.

Between ESPN, the Internet, and social media, I'd guess that nothing like this has ever been viewed by such a wide audience, all at the same time, with access to so much real time information yet not getting any real updates on the situation. I don't think this winds up having a harmful effect on the NFL, but I do think the situation is unlike anything we've seen before.

Agreed. There are an unknown number of moving parts that they (rightly, IMO) wanted to button down before saying or doing anything officially. The freak out mob started speculating, pointing fingers, and perpetuating the idea that there was a villain in the picture, when that was totally unnecessary, given the situation. There were comments on Reddit and Twitter during the ordeal, with people at the stadium commenting that concessions were shutting down, etc., well before the official announcement was made. It's my assumption that the coaches knew they weren't playing when they went to the locker rooms, which makes everything else irrelevant.

9-11, they did not play. All games that weekend were cancelled. Edit: "Postponed," not cancelled. https://www.si.com/nfl/talkoffame/nfl/tagliabue-and-2001-decision-not-to-play

I don't. I think they buttoned down all the different technicalities and informed all the parties, and then put together a sanitized statement as the first official league response. But when the refs told the coaches 'five minutes,' and the coaches looked at their players standing in shock and said 'nah, we're going to the locker room,' it was obvious the game was not going to continue.