Which QBs to watch

[richard pallo]

38 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Because Ballard isn't the aggressive move type

Oh contrair !  Ballard traded up to get JT.  He traded a 1st for Buckner.  He traded this year’s 3rd to get Nick Cross in last year’s draft.  Those are definitely aggressive moves.  If you can’t see that I don’t know what to say.

[CR91]

3 minutes ago, richard pallo said:

Oh contrair !  Ballard traded up to get JT.  He traded a 1st for Buckner.  He traded this year’s 3rd to get Nick Cross in last year’s draft.  Those are definitely aggressive moves.  If you can’t see that I don’t know what to say.

 

That's not what I mean by aggressive. Bills trading up for Josh Allen was aggressive. Chiefs trading up for Mahomes from 24 was aggressive. Going after a DT or S or RB isn't exactly saying hit up at 15 in blackjack. Ballard just doesn't strike me as the type to take a giant chance. The guy hasn't taken a QB higher then the fourth round and Andrew has been retired since 2019

 

[Defjamz26]

On 1/1/2023 at 11:19 AM, stitches said:

Stroud showed some things in this game I didn't quite believe he had. He made some plays out of structure... he handled pressure well. AND in addition - every time he actually had time to throw, he dissected that vaunted Georgia defense. 

 

Even though it was just one game, I think the stage was big enough and the opponent strong enough that I feel like I need to put some extra weight on what he showed. He seems like a cerebral QB with accuracy, anticipation and... kind of... awesome pocket presence. We have been missing a QB with that type of pocket presence ever since Luck retired. So for me the final question would end up being - how much I trust him to be able to playmake out of structure, because he's not the most dynamic athlete in the world. Everything else seems to check out. 

 

Either way... I feel like I would be happy if we end up with him in the draft. Pretty much wherever we get him...

 

Oh and BTW, Marvin Harrison Jr is amazing. I would really really want to avoid giving up our next year's first rounder in case he ends up in our range. And for that we should really hope we lose out the next 2 games.

Yeah I was surprised as well. Everything that people said he couldn’t do, he did against a talented Georgia team in prime time. It shows he has the ability to rise to the occasion and can block the noise out. 
 

He also showed some mobility as well, which we’ve seen flashes of here and there. Not only does he have the talent, but it appears that he has the ability to adapt and get better as he goes along. I’m getting to the point where I’d be fine with him or Levis at 5.

[Stephen]

1 hour ago, Defjamz26 said:

Yeah I was surprised as well. Everything that people said he couldn’t do, he did against a talented Georgia team in prime time. It shows he has the ability to rise to the occasion and can block the noise out. 
 

He also showed some mobility as well, which we’ve seen flashes of here and there. Not only does he have the talent, but it appears that he has the ability to adapt and get better as he goes along. I’m getting to the point where I’d be fine with him or Levis at 5.

If somehow we miss on the top three Id go with richardson and draft another qb in the third

[Defjamz26]

27 minutes ago, Stephen said:

If somehow we miss on the top three Id go with richardson and draft another qb in the third

Only issue with Richardson is that he will need more time. He’s more raw than Stroud and Levis. His accuracy is basically non-existent right now and he’s only 20, so his mechanics are still a work in progress. He’s more of a gamble. But again, I’d much rather him than Bennett. 

[husker61]

5 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

That's not what I mean by aggressive. Bills trading up for Josh Allen was aggressive. Chiefs trading up for Mahomes from 24 was aggressive. Going after a DT or S or RB isn't exactly saying hit up at 15 in blackjack. Ballard just doesn't strike me as the type to take a giant chance. The guy hasn't taken a QB higher then the fourth round and Andrew has been retired since 2019

 

Why did you leave out all the trade ups for “franchise” qb’s that set the team back years? How did trading up for rg3 go for the skins? 

[crazycolt1]

17 minutes ago, husker61 said:

Why did you leave out all the trade ups for “franchise” qb’s that set the team back years? How did trading up for rg3 go for the skins? 

Bad example.  RG3 was the rookie of the year and had some very impressive numbers. His 3rd year he was injured and wasn't handled correctly.  Shanahan ruined him just like he did Turrell Davis's career.  

[CR91]

52 minutes ago, husker61 said:

Why did you leave out all the trade ups for “franchise” qb’s that set the team back years? How did trading up for rg3 go for the skins? 

 

Better then being scared of failure. You'll never succeed in anything if you don't take a chance.

[husker61]

19 minutes ago, crazycolt1 said:

Bad example.  RG3 was the rookie of the year and had some very impressive numbers. His 3rd year he was injured and wasn't handled correctly.  Shanahan ruined him just like he did Turrell Davis's career.  

There is always a excuse for something that doesn’t work out.

[husker61]

2 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Better then being scared of failure. You'll never succeed in anything if you don't take a chance.

A smart person weighs the risks to the rewards before making a decision. Dumb people just rush into something without doing that. But hey, people like you will praise them for not being scared. 
 

oh, until it doesn’t work. Then you will say they don’t know what they are doing.

[crazycolt1]

40 minutes ago, husker61 said:

There is always a excuse for something that doesn’t work out.

The truth is far from an excuse.  

[VikingsFanInChennai]

49 minutes ago, husker61 said:

There is always a excuse for something that doesn’t work out.

In this case, it worked out until injuries mounted and derailed his career. No one thought he would deserve to be drafted to be Manning one day, but knew he would be drafted high for his athleticism like Michael Vick type, hoping that he'd develop into a good passer as well. In case that didn't go well, Washington also drafted Kirk Cousins who was considered a pure pocket passer with upside in few years of development. And, the scouting reports and the franchise' faith proved to be right when RG3 became OROY. 

 

When you say it didn't work out, he went out of the league due to injuries. In the same vein, can we say drafting Andrew Luck was a mistake because it didn't work out? 

 

I think, in today's era of QBs that come up from the ranks, the league is shifting towards drafting QBs for their upside and unique traits even if it may not work out in long term. Teams know some QBs may not last for a decade but hope to cash in on their abilities as long as they take them, like it did for Cam Newton. 

[CR91]

1 hour ago, husker61 said:

A smart person weighs the risks to the rewards before making a decision. Dumb people just rush into something without doing that. But hey, people like you will praise them for not being scared. 
 

oh, until it doesn’t work. Then you will say they don’t know what they are doing.

 

You think there's an exact science to this? You can't play this game scared rathers that's on the field or off it. There are three positions you need to get right to be successful in the NFL. QB, Edge, and LT. Those are the positions you need to be aggressive about. Not DT. Not RB. Not S.

 

[stitches]

Nothing surprising but here it is official:

 

 

 

[twfish]

15 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

That's not what I mean by aggressive. Bills trading up for Josh Allen was aggressive. Chiefs trading up for Mahomes from 24 was aggressive. Going after a DT or S or RB isn't exactly saying hit up at 15 in blackjack. Ballard just doesn't strike me as the type to take a giant chance. The guy hasn't taken a QB higher then the fourth round and Andrew has been retired since 2019

 

He also traded a first and third for Wentz when he was supposed to save us from QB purgatory, traded Dorsett for Brissett to be our starting QB when Andrew was injured, traded for Ryan, traded Rock for Yannick. The only year we were in real striking range for a decent QB was 2020 when we thought we had a good enough roster to throw in Rivers to make a playoff push. 21 we had Wentz so it didn't make sense to try and trade up to get Jones or Fields and last year we didn't have a first round pick and the only decent QB was Kenny Picket that most weren't sold on. 

 

Did we screw up in 20 and not attempt to go all in and try and get Herbert? Absolutley but most didn't want him either nor what it was going to take to go from 13 to top 5. So while hindsight is a great tool it doesn't revise history. Just because he hasn't traded every 1st round pick for the next 5 years doesn't mean has hasn't been aggressive. His conservatism comes in free agency, not in draft capital.

[chad72]

4 minutes ago, twfish said:

He also traded a first and third for Wentz when he was supposed to save us from QB purgatory, traded Dorsett for Brissett to be our starting QB when Andrew was injured, traded for Ryan, traded Rock for Yannick. The only year we were in real striking range for a decent QB was 2020 when we thought we had a good enough roster to throw in Rivers to make a playoff push. 21 we had Wentz so it didn't make sense to try and trade up to get Jones or Fields and last year we didn't have a first round pick and the only decent QB was Kenny Picket that most weren't sold on. 

 

Did we screw up in 20 and not attempt to go all in and try and get Herbert? Absolutley but most didn't want him either nor what it was going to take to go from 13 to top 5. So while hindsight is a great tool it doesn't revise history. Just because he hasn't traded every 1st round pick for the next 5 years doesn't mean has hasn't been aggressive. His conservatism comes in free agency, not in draft capital.

 

True, and that is because draft picks are renewable and come back in full eventually every year. However, the impact of not having enough cap space affects you longer than trading away next year's draft picks. 

[Defjamz26]

10 hours ago, husker61 said:

Why did you leave out all the trade ups for “franchise” qb’s that set the team back years? How did trading up for rg3 go for the skins? 

You’re also leaving out the successful trades up for QBs that worked out? Like Mahomes and Goff. Josh Allen as well. 

[twfish]

Just now, Defjamz26 said:

You’re also leaving out the successful trades up for QBs that worked out? Like Mahomes and Goff. Josh Allen as well. 

Is Goff considered a success though? Not to argue the point you're trying to make, just a separate conversation with Goff.

[chad72]

9 minutes ago, twfish said:

Is Goff considered a success though? Not to argue the point you're trying to make, just a separate conversation with Goff.

 

Well, from a team point of view, Jared Goff was no different than Dan Marino though we know the prolific stats Dan Marino put up, including a win vs the vaunted 1985 Chicago Bears but just 1 SB appearance/loss to show for it. That is the problem with tying QB success to team success. 

 

If the Colts had Goff, we would have embraced him but time and time again, he came up short against pressure down the middle implemented by Pagano with the Bears as DC, Belichick every time he played Goff etc. and that is when you realized that he is a comfort zone QB that does well against zone coverage and front four rushes but against pressure in his face, finds it harder to be like an elite QB. He is still a good QB, just not elite. It didn't help his case when Stafford, just 3 years later after their lucky/opportunistic SB appearance (should have been Saints and Brees in 2018), with most of the same team plus OBJ added, won it all. Stafford has an elite arm and prolific production too but he is just short of elite if you look at his entire career but more in the close to elite category to me.

[CR91]

1 hour ago, twfish said:

He also traded a first and third for Wentz when he was supposed to save us from QB purgatory, traded Dorsett for Brissett to be our starting QB when Andrew was injured, traded for Ryan, traded Rock for Yannick. The only year we were in real striking range for a decent QB was 2020 when we thought we had a good enough roster to throw in Rivers to make a playoff push. 21 we had Wentz so it didn't make sense to try and trade up to get Jones or Fields and last year we didn't have a first round pick and the only decent QB was Kenny Picket that most weren't sold on. 

 

Did we screw up in 20 and not attempt to go all in and try and get Herbert? Absolutley but most didn't want him either nor what it was going to take to go from 13 to top 5. So while hindsight is a great tool it doesn't revise history. Just because he hasn't traded every 1st round pick for the next 5 years doesn't mean has hasn't been aggressive. His conservatism comes in free agency, not in draft capital.

 

Ballard did not want Wentz from the start. He didn't even wanna trade for him. Reich had to convince him that he could fix him. Ballard wanted instead to go after Fields. Band-aid QBs unless you have excellent talent in other areas don't work. 

 

[throwing BBZ]

9 hours ago, husker61 said:

A smart person weighs the risks to the rewards before making a decision. Dumb people just rush into something without doing that. But hey, people like you will praise them for not being scared. 
 

oh, until it doesn’t work. Then you will say they don’t know what they are doing.

 

   For all those like a CR that would look at Mac Jones AFTER last season and argued oh Ballard should have got him... what would they say today?

  For all of Irsays babbling bluster wanting to win another SB, he has shown more of a bent to be satisfied with just a winning season to keep the fans happy enough to fill the seats. 

 Combine that with Ballard and his talent searchers failure to build a well rounded roster over SIX YEARS, and we find ourselves Far from being a solid top ten SB contending team.

 Hopefully Ballard finds another job, or gets kicked upstairs so we can get a GM with a fresh and different plan for talent evaluation and roster building. 

 JIM, your meddling has killed the dream. It is time to zip it and throw away the key. You have become "bad Jerry"!! 

[richard pallo]

3 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Ballard did not want Wentz from the start. He didn't even wanna trade for him. Reich had to convince him that he could fix him. Ballard wanted instead to go after Fields. Band-aid QBs unless you have excellent talent in other areas don't work. 

 

This is why I think Ballard could work with Harbaugh.  He listens to the coach with an open mind.  It’s not his way or no way.  He wants the coach and team to succeed.  Choices don’t always work out.  Make a wrong one move on asap. 

[DaColts85]

On 1/3/2023 at 10:18 AM, richard pallo said:

This is why I think Ballard could work with Harbaugh.  He listens to the coach with an open mind.  It’s not his way or no way.  He wants the coach and team to succeed.  Choices don’t always work out.  Make a wrong one move on asap. 

Who’s to say Harbaugh doesn’t want some roster control though. After Ballard has been stepped on time and time again would he want that to continue? 

[crazycolt1]

2 hours ago, DaColts85 said:

Who’s to say Harbaugh doesn’t want some roster control though. After Ballard has been stepped on time and time again would he want that to continue? 

I'm pretty sure Ballard wants input from everyone involved.  He eventually is the one who pulls the trigger so he is the one taking the heat. 

[NewColtsFan]

On 1/3/2023 at 7:09 AM, CR91 said:

 

Ballard did not want Wentz from the start. He didn't even wanna trade for him. Reich had to convince him that he could fix him. Ballard wanted instead to go after Fields. Band-aid QBs unless you have excellent talent in other areas don't work. 

 

You're not the first poster here to make that claim, about Ballard not wanting Wentz,  but I’ve yet to see anything that supports that.   And I’ve asked for anything to back it up and no one has offered anything.  

[twfish]

2 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

You're not the first poster here to make that claim, about Ballard not wanting Wentz,  but I’ve yet to see anything that supports that.   And I’ve asked for anything to back it up and no one has offered anything.  

I've heard it from outside as well. It's like 98% of everything that's being talked about currently in the sense it's all rumors. This one I could see more so but I'm still not sold on it being fields and I think that took off because of Fields recent play. What we do know for a fact is Wentz wasn't Ballards first choice, shown by the fact we were in the Stafford mix and  Reich stating he put his neck on the line for Wentz. The HC doesn't have to stick his neck out for a player that the GM want's. So while Ballard will never come out and say it, I think some reading between the lines helps validate Wentz wasn't at the top of his list.

[DougDew]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:00 AM, twfish said:

Did we screw up in 20 and not attempt to go all in and try and get Herbert? Absolutley but most didn't want him either nor what it was going to take to go from 13 to top 5. So while hindsight is a great tool it doesn't revise history. Just because he hasn't traded every 1st round pick for the next 5 years doesn't mean has hasn't been aggressive. His conservatism comes in free agency, not in draft capital.

Not getting into the crux of the Ballard aggressive discussion, but its disingenuous to label the Herbert situation as hindsight just because the people who though Herbert wasn't going to be good were wrong.  Its now hindsight for the people who were wrong about Herbert back then.

 

Its not hindsight for a lot of us who thought that Herbert was going to be good.  Now, we call the failure to trade up just plain stupid.

[twfish]

27 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Not getting into the crux of the Ballard aggressive discussion, but its disingenuous to label the Herbert situation as hindsight just because the people who though Herbert wasn't going to be good were wrong.  Its now hindsight for the people who were wrong about Herbert back then.

 

Its not hindsight for a lot of us who thought that Herbert was going to be good.  Now, we call the failure to trade up just plain stupid.

Do you want me to go back and link a ton of articles and videos about all of the concerns that were had with Herbert? There was quite a few such as leadership, him already hitting his ceiling, being a game manager and not being tough enough. This is all well documented and while its laughable now he was still viewed as a gamble. I remember very well because I wanted him and I wanted the Colts to trade up for him before we traded our pick for Buckner, I'm sure I can go back to my post history and find that for you, as well as several other post that in fact didn't want him. Just because YOU wanted him doesn't make it the majority. Also with Rivers being signed prior to the draft and looked at being the starter for the next 2 years only weakens your case here.

 

So let's say we had a time machine and could go back and not trade for Buckner there is still absolutely zero guarantee that Detroit or the Giants would have traded out of where they were at. Carolina and Jacksonville weren't exactly set at QB and there were reports of Miami trying to go up in the draft to secure Tua but were rejected. So once again I'll say hindsight doesn't revise history so how can you call something that couldn't have happened a failure?

[DougDew]

33 minutes ago, twfish said:

Do you want me to go back and link a ton of articles and videos about all of the concerns that were had with Herbert? There was quite a few such as leadership, him already hitting his ceiling, being a game manager and not being tough enough. This is all well documented and while its laughable now he was still viewed as a gamble. I remember very well because I wanted him and I wanted the Colts to trade up for him before we traded our pick for Buckner, I'm sure I can go back to my post history and find that for you, as well as several other post that in fact didn't want him. Just because YOU wanted him doesn't make it the majority. Also with Rivers being signed prior to the draft and looked at being the starter for the next 2 years only weakens your case here.

 

So let's say we had a time machine and could go back and not trade for Buckner there is still absolutely zero guarantee that Detroit or the Giants would have traded out of where they were at. Carolina and Jacksonville weren't exactly set at QB and there were reports of Miami trying to go up in the draft to secure Tua but were rejected. So once again I'll say hindsight doesn't revise history so how can you call something that couldn't have happened a failure?

All I'm saying is that what is hindsight to one group isn't necessarily hindsight to another group.  Which group has the better credentials or greater population doesn't change that.

 

In 2013 through 2016 when Andrew Luck was in the midst of putting up near elite performances. I don't think many people would be using "hindsight" to say that it was a good pick.  A lot of people calculated that he would be successful, which is why he was picked number 1.

 

The Chargers thought Herbert would be good and picked him #6 because of it.  The fact that he's doing well is more like validation than it is hindsight.  If others had their doubts about Herbert, they are the ones using hindsight to now say that it was a good pick.  IMO, no, not everybody is using hindsight.

 

I don't get into the discussion about the potential trade up for Herbert because I don't know if it was even possible.  What I'm saying is that if it was on the table at a reasonable price,  it was stupid not to.  I'm not using hindsight to conclude that because I thought he was going to be a good NFL QB. 

[John Hammonds]

23 minutes ago, twfish said:

Do you want me to go back and link a ton of articles and videos about all of the concerns that were had with Herbert? There was quite a few such as leadership, him already hitting his ceiling, being a game manager and not being tough enough. This is all well documented and while its laughable now he was still viewed as a gamble. I remember very well because I wanted him and I wanted the Colts to trade up for him before we traded our pick for Buckner, I'm sure I can go back to my post history and find that for you, as well as several other post that in fact didn't want him. Just because YOU wanted him doesn't make it the majority. Also with Rivers being signed prior to the draft and looked at being the starter for the next 2 years only weakens your case here.

 

So let's say we had a time machine and could go back and not trade for Buckner there is still absolutely zero guarantee that Detroit or the Giants would have traded out of where they were at. Carolina and Jacksonville weren't exactly set at QB and there were reports of Miami trying to go up in the draft to secure Tua but were rejected. So once again I'll say hindsight doesn't revise history so how can you call something that couldn't have happened a failure?

Not to insert myself into what looks like is turning into an argument.  But I also remember that 2020 draft, and the opinions on Justin Herbert.  In fact, I still have my Lindy's draft magazines going back to 2015!  (Because I'm stupid that way.)  The way they put it in Lindy's was "his small-town soft spoken manner makes him the perfect guy to marry your daughter, but not necessarily to be the on-field general of your football team".  There was also some concern that he might be a bit of a product of the Oregon system.

So, we had a choice to make.  Do we try to trade up, ahead of both Miami and the Chargers, to try to get Herbert?  Do we spend our #13 pick on DT Javon Kinlaw, who would naturally fall at that place, and was long on raw power but short on intellect and processing?  Or do we try something else?

We tried something else.  We traded #13 for a proven commodity, DeForest Buckner, and signed Philip Rivers, who had a long history with both Reich and Sirianni.  I remember agreeing with the decision.  And in the short term, it worked out.  Ok, in the very short term.  Since Rivers retired after only a single year with us.

[DougDew]

12 minutes ago, John Hammonds said:

Not to insert myself into what looks like is turning into an argument.  But I also remember that 2020 draft, and the opinions on Justin Herbert.  In fact, I still have my Lindy's draft magazines going back to 2015!  (Because I'm stupid that way.)  The way they put it in Lindy's was "his small-town soft spoken manner makes him the perfect guy to marry your daughter, but not necessarily to be the on-field general of your football team".  There was also some concern that he might be a bit of a product of the Oregon system.

So, we had a choice to make.  Do we try to trade up, ahead of both Miami and the Chargers, to try to get Herbert?  Do we spend our #13 pick on DT Javon Kinlaw, who would naturally fall at that place, and was long on raw power but short on intellect and processing?  Or do we try something else?

We tried something else.  We traded #13 for a proven commodity, DeForest Buckner, and signed Philip Rivers, who had a long history with both Reich and Sirianni.  I remember agreeing with the decision.  And in the short term, it worked out.  Ok, in the very short term.  Since Rivers retired after only a single year with us.

Yes concern, from the Lindy writer.  He'd be using hindsight to now reevaluate what he wrote.  But that's only him, and others who agreed.

 

Maybe I'm wordsmithing the topic, but hindsight involves woulda, coulda, etc..  It has a negative element.  And that negative element is that a person was wrong back then.  Not everybody was wrong, especially the Chargers.

 

I hope this doesn't come off as being argumentative.  Its not the intent.   

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, twfish said:

I've heard it from outside as well. It's like 98% of everything that's being talked about currently in the sense it's all rumors. This one I could see more so but I'm still not sold on it being fields and I think that took off because of Fields recent play. What we do know for a fact is Wentz wasn't Ballards first choice, shown by the fact we were in the Stafford mix and  Reich stating he put his neck on the line for Wentz. The HC doesn't have to stick his neck out for a player that the GM want's. So while Ballard will never come out and say it, I think some reading between the lines helps validate Wentz wasn't at the top of his list.

I agree Stafford was the first choice.  But it didn’t last long.  The Colts quickly dropped out at the asking price.  
 

But I think your memory is a bit hazy otherwise.  Frank’s comment about sticking his neck out for Wentz didn’t come at the beginning when we traded for him.  It came at the end when Ballard and Irsay publicly said they weren’t sure that Wentz would be brought back in 2022.  Coming at the end doesn’t say anything about Ballard not wanting Wentz.

 

I agree that Frank had to convince CB that he could fix Wentz.   If you’re the GM and you’re going to trade a 1 and a 3 for the guy you hope might be your starter for 6-8 years then you have to be convinced he’s the right guy.   I think I’m just splitting hairs a bit over the wording used by the poster I responded to.

[crazycolt1]

Think about this. This stuff is all water under the bridge. Some of this stuff reads like a gossip column.  

Who cares?

[twfish]

22 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I agree Stafford was the first choice.  But it didn’t last long.  The Colts quickly dropped out at the asking price.  
 

But I think your memory is a bit hazy otherwise.  Frank’s comment about sticking his neck out for Wentz didn’t come at the beginning when we traded for him.  It came at the end when Ballard and Irsay publicly said they weren’t sure that Wentz would be brought back in 2022.  Coming at the end doesn’t say anything about Ballard not wanting Wentz.

 

I agree that Frank had to convince CB that he could fix Wentz.   If you’re the GM and you’re going to trade a 1 and a 3 for the guy you hope might be your starter for 6-8 years then you have to be convinced he’s the right guy.   I think I’m just splitting hairs a bit over the wording used by the poster I responded to.

If you remember their series With The Next Pick they had a big episode talking about how much conviction Reich had in getting Wentz here. As I'm typing this I actually went back and watched the episode again and Ballard talked about how it took a month for them to make the decision and how passionate Reich was about him.

 

I think you're searching for something where Ballard came out and said he didn't want him prior to making the trade and I don't think you'll ever get that unless you were a fly on the wall. I still think plenty can be inferred watching older videos and press conferences. However I do get where you are coming from.

[stitches]

 

 

Hendon Hooker declares for the draft. Again, nothing surprising but now official... 

[craigerb]

On 1/2/2023 at 5:08 PM, Defjamz26 said:

 Richardson accuracy is basically non-existent right now

53.8%

[Gigc]

19 hours ago, craigerb said:

53.8%

https://youtu.be/BqfO0527A5k

[buccolts]

2 hours ago, Gigc said:

https://youtu.be/BqfO0527A5k

If he's unable to refine his passing game, I'd consider it a wasted pick "cause I really don't want a QB who runs as often as he seems to want to. 

[Gigc]

49 minutes ago, buccolts said:

If he's unable to refine his passing game, I'd consider it a wasted pick "cause I really don't want a QB who runs as often as he seems to want to. 

Posted that link to show that he makes some pretty spectacular, accurate throws as well. Not sure we can write him off as "inaccurate."

[buccolts]

31 minutes ago, Gigc said:

Posted that link to show that he makes some pretty spectacular, accurate throws as well. Not sure we can write him off as "inaccurate."

Well, it also showed a lot of under throws as though he was afraid to over throw. "Cause he has the arm strength. 

 

Also, I I need to see film of more of the QBs coming out, but I don't want to see their highlight reels. I want to see a couple of games or film studies to see what they do well AND not so well.