Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Andrew Luck is old school but as NFL fans, do we need to prepare ourselves for different kind of QBs?


Recommended Posts

Sure, I agree with that but HCs are looking for mobility as much as passing. Not Kaep or Newton type of mobility as they are rare but def. Luck, Rodgers, Wilson type of mobility. The statue QBs will be few going forward.

 

 

They won't though. They're not now. Look at the guys who will go early in this draft for instance.

 

Teddy B, Blake Bortles, Derek Carr, Jimmy G, ect.... vs Johnny Manziel. 

 

That's a 4 "pocket guys" vs 1 "running guy" 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They won't though. They're not now. Look at the guys who will go early in this draft for instance.

 

Teddy B, Blake Bortles, Derek Carr, Jimmy G, ect.... vs Johnny Manziel. 

 

That's a 4 "pocket guys" vs 1 "running guy" 

Would you categorize those four as statues in the vein of a Brady or Manning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you categorize those four as statues in the vein of a Brady or Manning?

 

No, but Manning and Brady aren't the norm either in terms of mobility. Even way back when those guys would have been considered slow/unathletic. 

 

Their mobility was never the norm. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but Manning and Brady aren't the norm either in terms of mobility. Even way back when those guys would have been slow/unathletic. 

 

There mobility was never the norm. 

Bu that has been my point. Guys like them will not be looked at unless someone is able to accurately access their cerebral capabilities which seems to be impossible to do at the college level trying to project them at the pro level.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I agree with that but HCs are looking for mobility as much as passing. Not Kaep or Newton type of mobility as they are rare but def. Luck, Rodgers, Wilson type of mobility. The statue QBs will be few going forward.

 

Pretty much agree with this. I think the Peyton Manning's and Tom Brady's are done. Flacco is a good example. He's not a "mobile" QB but he has enough to escape pressure and scramble to the side and make a play. His catch to Anquan Boldin in the AFC Championship game last year is a perfect example. But like I said, Luck is the new age QB and the ideal prospect. I'm sure coaches will be looking for QB's in his mold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I agree with that but HCs are looking for mobility as much as passing. Not Kaep or Newton type of mobility as they are rare but def. Luck, Rodgers, Wilson type of mobility. The statue QBs will be few going forward.

 

States as fact but is merely opinion, and I disagree wholeheartedly with it.  I think the #1 most important factor when evaluating a QB is their ability to throw the ball with accuracy, timing and velocity.  Ability to read a defense would be near the top as well.  These traits, imo, are far more important than a QB's mobility.

 

Bu that has been my point. Guys like them will not be looked at unless someone is able to accurately access their cerebral capabilities which seems to be impossible to do at the college level trying to project them at the pro level.

 

Why do you think scouts, GM's and all other player personnel people get paid so much?  Of course pocket passers are going to be looked at.  If anything I think it is more accurate to say that mobile QB's will not be looked at if they can't prove to be able to play the QB position from the pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

States as fact but is merely opinion, and I disagree wholeheartedly with it.  I think the #1 most important factor when evaluating a QB is their ability to throw the ball with accuracy, timing and velocity.  Ability to read a defense would be near the top as well.  These traits, imo, are far more important than a QB's mobility.

 

 

Why do you think scouts, GM's and all other player personnel people get paid so much?  Of course pocket passers are going to be looked at.  If anything I think it is more accurate to say that mobile QB's will not be looked at if they can't prove to be able to play the QB position from the pocket.

What I am saying is that mobility will be factored in as well as passing. Passing will always be king as that is the position but mobility will allow a guy like Kaep to be looked at more over a guy like Ryan Mallett.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that mobility will be factored in as well as passing. Passing will always be king as that is the position but mobility will allow a guy like Kaep to be looked at more over a guy like Ryan Mallett.

not if mallet is better reading defenses and getting the ball there on time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying is that mobility will be factored in as well as passing. Passing will always be king as that is the position but mobility will allow a guy like Kaep to be looked at more over a guy like Ryan Mallett.

 

No, that is not what you were saying.  Do you see how the 2 underlined portions contradict each other?

 

 

 

Sure, I agree with that but HCs are looking for mobility as much as passing
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is not what you were saying.  Do you see how the 2 underlined portions contradict each other?

If QB A has very good passing and no mobility and QB B has good passing with good mobility.

 

QB B will be taken ahead IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2013 stats:

Smith: 23 TDs, 7 picks, 60.6 percent completion, 3.300 yards passing

Kaep: 21 TDs, 8 picks, 58 percent completion percentage, 3,100 yards passing

those are kc vrs san fran stats. Go back and look at his san fran stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was merely showing you why your logic was inconsistent especially by your own standards. I could not have thought of a better way to demonstrate that than by that example. 

 

Why do you get so upset when I am contributing? Chill out.

You think you achieved that by asking one question? You need to re-read the thread as I already answered that earlier in the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because I already answered it earlier in the thread.

lol exactly. Then right after you said this

 

If QB A has very good passing and no mobility and QB B has good passing with good mobility.

 

QB B will be taken ahead IMO.

So why are you getting upset that I am pointing out youre on both sides of the fence?

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol exactly. Then right after you said this

 

So why are you getting upset that I am pointing out youre on both sides of the fence?

Because Brady is one of the best ever pocket passers. But he would not have gotten a chance to come out in today's game if he looked like he did in 2000. So Luck would go ahead of him for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Brady is one of the best ever pocket passers. But he would not have gotten a chance to come out in today's game if he looked like he did in 2000. So Luck would go ahead of him for sure.

We arent talking about what would happen. We are talking about what you think SHOULD happen.

 

You cant have it both ways. "I would take this qb over that one, but Tom Brady is just so good he is able to completely warp the physics and reverse the gravity of my fake realm of football philosophy."

Also that is not true at all. Tom Brady had just a good of chance now as he did coming out as a rookie lol. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We arent talking about what would happen. We are talking about what you think SHOULD happen.

 

Also that is not true at all. Tom Brady had just a good of chance now as he did coming out as a rookie lol. 

We have hindsight on Brady. If no hindsight and he was coming out like he did in 2000 in that type of shape with no speed, then I would not draft him in 2014. Luck would still go first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have hindsight on Brady. If no hindsight and he was coming out like he did in 2000 in that type of shape with no speed, then I would not draft him in 2014. Luck would still go first.

What does this have to do with what I was talking about lol? :lol:

When was I comparing who wouldve been drafted if drafted at a different era?

 

If QB A has very good passing and no mobility and QB B has good passing with good mobility.

 

QB B will be taken ahead IMO.

 

this rule is applicable to every situation Brady is not involved. If that is the case he trumps all of this, because he is one of the best passers ever.

The point I was making was the bolded, and how it looks buffoonish to play both sides of the fence on your system for judging a QBs worth. You are not philosophically consistent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What does this have to do with what I was talking about lol? :lol:

When was I comparing who wouldve been drafted if drafted at a different era?

 

The point I was making was the bolded, and how it looks buffoonish to play both sides of the fence on your system for judging a QBs worth. You are not philosophically consistent.

Did you read my comparison? I said a very good passer with no mobility vs a good passer with mobility. Brady is one of the best ever passers so of course you would take him over QB B. But like I said, we have hindsight on Brady. Without hindsight and the ability to project him at the pro level you go with Luck all day every day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my comparison? I said a very good passer with no mobility vs a good passer with mobility. Brady is one of the best ever passers so of course you would take him over QB B. But like I said, we have hindsight on Brady. Without hindsight and the ability to project him at the pro level you go with Luck all day every day.

You dont get it

 

Im showing you why your rule for judging QBs coming out of college wouldnt work by your standards. You are admitting it doesnt. That rule you made up is bogus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont get it

 

Im showing you why your rule for judging QBs coming out of college wouldnt work by your standards. You are admitting it doesnt. That rule you made up is bogus.

Sure, I agree. I would miss on Brady, one of the best ever. I am not saying it is a rule BTW, I am saying that is the way GMs and HCs are evaluating QBs. Mobility is factoring in more then it ever has in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am saying that is the way GMs and HCs are evaluating QBs. Mobility is factoring in more then it ever has in the past.

But thats just the thing, they arent using your rule to evaluate QBs. I think they have their own system for that. It is probably a lot more complex than you realize if you think that is how any GM evaluates ANY position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But thats just the thing, they arent using your rule to evaluate QBs. I think they have their own system for that. It is probably a lot more complex than you realize if you think that is how any GM evaluates ANY position.

Of course. I would hope it is more complex. lol. I was just talking about the passing vs the mobility factor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If QB A has very good passing and no mobility and QB B has good passing with good mobility.

 

QB B will be taken ahead IMO.

 

I am stunned that you think that's a fair comparison.  If you give each QB a number grade of 1-5 each for mobility and passing ability while taking nothing else into account and weighing both mobility and passing equally (which I don't believe is the case) then you would get the following:

 

QB A: passing-A mobility-F - average grade C

QB B: passing-B mobility-B - average grade B

 

If you want this to be an equal comparison then the final grade would need to come out as the same for both QB's but that's definitely not the case here.  

 

So how about a more fair comparison:  QB A has great passing ability (A) but average mobility © while QB B has average passing ability © but great mobility (A).  I'm taking QB A every time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am stunned that you think that's a fair comparison.  If you give each QB a number grade of 1-5 each for mobility and passing ability while taking nothing else into account and weighing both mobility and passing equally (which I don't believe is the case) then you would get the following:

 

QB A: passing-A mobility-F - average grade C

QB B: passing-B mobility-B - average grade B

 

If you want this to be an equal comparison then the final grade would need to come out as the same for both QB's but that's definitely not the case here.  

 

So how about a more fair comparison:  QB A has great passing ability (A) but average mobility © while QB B has average passing ability © but great mobility (A).  I'm taking QB A every time.

Sure but you are doing the extremes. I agree that great passing with always win out but lets face it most QBs are average passers in the NFL. My point was if you have someone like Kaep who is average in the passing game but brings very good mobility he will be taken over a better passer which Alex Smith was in San Fran before being benched for Kaep. Now obviously if Manning had gone to San Fran then Kaep sits as Manning is an exceptional passer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure but you are doing the extremes. I agree that great passing with always win out but lets face it most QBs are average passers in the NFL. My point was if you have someone like Kaep who is average in the passing game but brings very good mobility he will be taken over a better passer which Alex Smith was in San Fran before being benched for Kaep. Now obviously if Manning had gone to San Fran then Kaep sits as Manning is an exceptional passer.

 

How am I the one that took things to extremes?  YOUR first example was QB A with very good passing but NO MOBILITY compared to QB B with GOOD passing and GOOD mobility.  You handicapped QB A but gave QB B good marks in both categories.  Of COURSE QB B is going to get chosen but only because his passing ability was only one grade behind QB A.  And THAT is the only way the more mobile QB is going to get taken.  If the mobile QB's passing ability is more than one grade below a better pocket passer then the pocket passer is going to get taken every time by anyone not named amfootball.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How am I the one that took things to extremes?  YOUR first example was QB A with very good passing but NO MOBILITY compared to QB B with GOOD passing and GOOD mobility.  You handicapped QB A but gave QB B good marks in both categories.  Of COURSE QB B is going to get chosen but only because his passing ability was only one grade behind QB A.  And THAT is the only way the more mobile QB is going to get taken.  If the mobile QB's passing ability is more than one grade below a better pocket passer then the pocket passer is going to get taken every time by anyone not named amfootball.

Because that has been my contention all along. A QB like Brady who is the extreme in both passing and lack of mobility will not get the same consideration now as he did back in 2000. Unless scouts and mgmt. are able to accurately project cerebral capabilities from the college to the pros which they always seem to fail at because it is so difficult to do.

 

Taking Kaep and Smith are not extremes though. Smith is the better passer AND is also mobile. But Kaep has much better mobility and therefore supplanted Smith even though Smith has been very successful for the year and a half in San Fran under Harbaugh and has been even more successful passing in KC under Reid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that has been my contention all along. A QB like Brady who is the extreme in both passing and lack of mobility will not get the same consideration now as he did back in 2000. Unless scouts and mgmt. are able to accurately project cerebral capabilities from the college to the pros which they always seem to fail at because it is so difficult to do.

 

Taking Kaep and Smith are not extremes though. Smith is the better passer AND is also mobile. But Kaep has much better mobility and therefore supplanted Smith even though Smith has been very successful for the year and a half in San Fran under Harbaugh and has been even more successful passing in KC under Reid.

 

The difference in passing ability between Smith and Kaep is not that much, and that's why Kaep's advanced mobility allowed him to supplant Smith.  That and the fact that Smith's days became numbered the second Kaep was drafted.

 

Let's use a different example...Alex Smith or Nick Foles?  I don't care how much more athletic Smith might be, I think Foles' passing ability is superior to Smith's to the point I would take Foles over Smith without hesitation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference in passing ability between Smith and Kaep is not that much, and that's why Kaep's advanced mobility allowed him to supplant Smith.  That and the fact that Smith's days became numbered the second Kaep was drafted.

 

Let's use a different example...Alex Smith or Nick Foles?  I don't care how much more athletic Smith might be, I think Foles' passing ability is superior to Smith's to the point I would take Foles over Smith without hesitation.

Sure but still a better passer was benched for a QB with better athletic ability. And IMO I think we will see more and more of that. That dual threat is something that coaches are looking more and more at not just because it makes the offense harder to defend but also because it can help a QB take less sacks/get injured less if he is able to get away from pressure and be smart and get down the way Kaep, Wilson and Luck do.

 

I like Foles a lot too but I thought Smith looked great in KC last year. His playoff game vs the Colts was sick. It probably does not hurt either QB that both play for innovative, offensive minded coaches. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...