-
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.
-
-
Thread of the Week
-
-
Topics
-
-
Posts
-
I don't completely write them off, but I'm highly skeptical of them, especially when they don't match the tape. And with Jones they don't. In my opinion. You can find the odd play here and there by pretty much any QB, where makes a play with his feet. Even the least athletic QBs in the league have some base level of athleticism to even reach that level and in perfect of circumstances, when the defense takes a bad angle or whiffs on a tackle you can look mobile. This is not the norm for Jones. Those types of plays are the exception when the pocket collapses. Agree. Being an athletic QB doesn't guarantee success and being non-athletic doesn't doom you. He's good enough athlete to play NFL QB. He's not good enough athlete to make plays out of structure and on the move consistently. Which doesn't mean he won't be a good QB... but it means he won't make those types of plays if/when needed. I don't think we disagree on that. I think he's gifted enough to play well... I don't think he's athletically gifted to be an off-structure playmaker with any sort of consistency in the league. -
I don't get this. First, if you're skeptical of the pro day numbers, then just throw out all of this year's testing. I think that's unreasonable. If you want to bump him up a tenth of a second, that still puts him in the same range as those other guys. Second, watching him play, he has more than adequate movement ability. This has become a meme. He's not Fields or Lance. But even in today's NFL, you don't have to be freakishly athletic to play QB at a high level. He's athletic enough. Another one. We agree, if I identified Jones as "my guy" in this draft, I wouldn't be moving up to #3 for him. But he's a different kind of prospect than Lance and Fields, and as much as there is to like about those guys, they have question marks of their own. And if they were to struggle in the NFL, it wouldn't be the first time that a tools-y athletic QB prospect fell short of expectations. But I'm not taking issue with Lance or Fields, at all. They should be ranked high this year. Just pointing out, again, that some of the Mac Jones coverage is unfair. He's being written off as an unathletic, physical dud, and that's nonsense. He has similar or better physical ability as several other guys who have gone top five in recent seasons. Dwayne Haskins and Teddy Bridgewater were physically uninspiring. Mac Jones is a good enough athlete to play NFL QB. It's fair to say he'll be overdrafted if he goes in the top ten. I'm disagreeing with the idea that he's not gifted enough to play well. -
By LJpalmbeacher2 · Posted
Maybe to #21? With Wentz as our QB, I wonder if Ballard would consider him? .... And Wentz will say "oh boy, here we go again". -
By DeepseaColt · Posted
I certainly understand the Ingram intrigue but I'd have to go with Kerrigan here. His body has a lot more left in the tank than Ingram and his body is as healthy as can be due to Washington's dominant young d-line. Kerrigan could certainly give us 1-2 years of above average play! -
By WentzinRome · Posted
I remember it like yesterday, then read the reasons shortly after the selection, and they made sense. Edge played at The U, which ran the stretch, and the Colts were running it as well. Edge also had fewer miles on his legs, due to being in running back by committee for most of his career there. Lastly, Edge was the better receiver and pass blocker. I sometimes wonder if Ditka thought about making that insane offer to the Colts first?
-
-
Members
-
Recommended Posts