Ryan Leaf on the QBs

[Smonroe]

So, getting back to what he said about guys who don’t deserve 1st round grades.

 

I did a quick check of QBs drafted in a 5 year period.  2014-2018.  That timespan gives us enough data to really know how they panned out.

 

16 QBs drafted in the 1st round from 14-18.  
 

Guess how many are still with the team that drafted them?

[Hoose]

3 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

So, getting back to what he said about guys who don’t deserve 1st round grades.

 

I did a quick check of QBs drafted in a 5 year period.  2014-2018.  That timespan gives us enough data to really know how they panned out.

 

16 QBs drafted in the 1st round from 14-18.  
 

Guess how many are still with the team that drafted them?

Drum roll please……

[Smonroe]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

So, getting back to what he said about guys who don’t deserve 1st round grades.

 

I did a quick check of QBs drafted in a 5 year period.  2014-2018.  That timespan gives us enough data to really know how they panned out.

 

16 QBs drafted in the 1st round from 14-18.  
 

Guess how many are still with the team that drafted them?

 

 

Geez, no takers?

 

Okay, the answer is....3.  3 out of 16 QBs drafted in the first round in those 5 years are still with the team that drafted them. 

 

5 are still starters, including Watson and Goff.

 

This doesn't mean a team shouldn't reach for a QB in the first round.  I was just trying to point out the odds.

[Dingus McGirt]

11 hours ago, Boondoggle said:

Guys have been getting coached up on wonderlics for years.  I don't regard them as any indicator or true reflection of their mental processing capacity.

 

Leaf struggled to learn the QB position on the mental side as a high drafted rookie.  Struggled to interact with teammates in the locker room.  And then ended up addicted to drugs, robbing houses, and serving prison time.  You can cite whatever test metric you want but in my book he's not someone who I look at and care what he thinks.

Some much for redemption and forgiveness.  :^)

[OffensivelyPC]

Like anyone else's opinion, it's valid until proven otherwise.  And especially as it pertains to QBs, the team that picks them is half the battle.  Who knows how many guys that were drafted by, for instance, the Browns, that were busts but would have been superstars had they been drafted by someone else.

 

Leaf has a point and I think he could probably have a solid evaluation of that QB, but the other part of it is on the FO to develop his natural ability and scheme an offense to his strengths.

[LJpalmbeacher2]

13 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

But you’d be thrilled if suddenly Ballard or Irsay or the new head coach paid attention to what fans here on this website were saying.    
 

Because fans know so much more than those who cover the league or those who played the game.   Who cares about them?   Actually, you care about them when they say things you agree with!  
 

Otherwise….   Not so much.  
 

 

You just want to be ARGUMENTATIVE with me because what I've been saying about the colts for years and years has been right while your 100% pro colt management views and homer comments and sad emojis have been wrong!!

I defended Leaf as you did just a few posts above mine, yet you couldn't help yourself to your argumentative and bullying tactics here. 

 

Face it, I've Been right and you haven't and that bothers you. obviously it bothers you more than I thought. 

I'm tempted to put you on 'ignore' again, I really don't know how you got off Lol. 

But I might elect to keep seeing your posts as amusement AND help defend posters that disagree with your Homer views who you try to bully.

Btw, feel free to put me on ignore. Oh, another thing, whenever I see a "sad" emoji on other members posts I see who is it from(guessing it's from you), and it usually is. 

 

You are amusing at times(without trying).....I give you that. Lol

[VikingsFanInChennai]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

 

Geez, no takers?

 

 

It takes more hours to get to read the comment, let alone get to be a taker.  

[Smonroe]

9 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

It takes more hours to get to read the comment, let alone get to be a taker.  

Sorry, I can’t help your reading skills.  More pictures next time?

 

(Somewhere an English teacher is crying…)

[Boondoggle]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

 

Geez, no takers?

 

Okay, the answer is....3.  3 out of 16 QBs drafted in the first round in those 5 years are still with the team that drafted them. 

 

5 are still starters, including Watson and Goff.

 

This doesn't mean a team shouldn't reach for a QB in the first round.  I was just trying to point out the odds.

When it comes to the first round I look at it as basic supply and demand.  What you're paying for is a shot that comes with an extra year of team control if you happen to hit on them.  Some years have guys who look like they have a great chance to be a top QB but that's a rarity tbh.  Generally you're going to be reaching a bit because of the importance of the position moving it up your draft board and taking a shot on a guy based on your scouting determination that he has the talent and will do the work and take the coaching.  All those things have to happen to hit.

 

I think historically first round picks have been a near 50% miss rate.  Going off memory here and it can be subjective when you start to ask questions like what does hitting on a pick consist of.  But for myself hitting on a first rounder is finding a good starter.  Where it gets interesting is looking at hit rates on the top guys like Pro Bowl or HoF level types.

 

Applying that to QB it doesn't surprise me that the numbers are low.  Goff being a good example too of the question of "well how good are the ones you look at as hits."  I don't really rate Goff personally.  I wouldn't trade a bunch of picks for him basically as he's too much of a shrinking violet when the rush hits.

 

So for our pick which guys do you think are worth forgoing another position player and playing the dice game.  Is it worth it for a guy who is short and might struggle to see over his OL?  We all have our opinions on these things.  For myself I am hopeful that Levis is there when we're up and if so I would take him.  But I would not take Young or Richardson and would slide down or take another position player who helps me and then take a QB I like later.

[Solid84]

4 hours ago, Smonroe said:

 

 

Geez, no takers?

 

Okay, the answer is....3.  3 out of 16 QBs drafted in the first round in those 5 years are still with the team that drafted them. 

 

5 are still starters, including Watson and Goff.

 

This doesn't mean a team shouldn't reach for a QB in the first round.  I was just trying to point out the odds.

How many were drafted in the 2nd to 7th round and how many are still starters with the team that drafted them?

 

Not saying getting a franchise QB in the 1st is a sure thing - not at all - but odds are still higher than any other round. And we NEED a QB. Time to start throwing darts. 

[Smonroe]

1 hour ago, Solid84 said:

How many were drafted in the 2nd to 7th round and how many are still starters with the team that drafted them?

 

Not saying getting a franchise QB in the 1st is a sure thing - not at all - but odds are still higher than any other round. And we NEED a QB. Time to start throwing darts. 

 

I'm not going to do the 2-7 round research, but except for Wilson, (and Brady, obviously) I can't think of too many later round QBs that are starters - except if the real starter was injured.

 

There are a lot of factors that are not taken into account - like how much support did the QB have around him, was he injured, etc.

 

You are correct, the odds are that a first rounder will do better.  And, like I said, I'm not saying we shouldn't reach for one.  I was just pointing out that the stats back up what Leaf said.

 

IMHO we should have started throwing darts the day after Luck retired.

 

 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

3 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Sorry, I can’t help your reading skills.  More pictures next time?

 

(Somewhere an English teacher is crying…)

 I mean, people are not online all the time to be takers for a question within 3 hours... 

 

so those 3 were Allen, Burrow, Mahomes? 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

7 minutes ago, VikingsFanInChennai said:

 I mean, people are not online all the time to be takers for a question within 3 hours... 

 

so those 3 were Allen, Burrow, Mahomes? 

so it is Allen, Mahomes, Lamar.. 

 

14-18  time span means a QB had to stay in drafted team for 9 years at most.. Watson would have, if not for his massage memories. 

 

Goff, Wentz went to Pro Bowl, which people sometimes measure.. even Winston could've. 

[VikingsFanInChennai]

6 hours ago, Smonroe said:

Sorry, I can’t help your reading skills.  More pictures next time?

 

(Somewhere an English teacher is crying…)

It was ironic and funny seeing reading comprehension advice when you're the one who misread  

[jbaron04]

On 3/15/2023 at 9:50 AM, Tsarquise said:

Well, if anyone can spot a bust from miles away it would be him. I am inclined to value his opinion on the QB class. 

The reality of it is none of us knows, not me , not Ballard , not the draft expert. They look at a kid and say all these different things and rarely are they right. I just want to take a chance on one of these QBs and given it our all to build them up and place them in the best situation to succeed. Who ever that may be I can see a path for all of them to succeed.

[Superman]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:55 AM, Smonroe said:

Geez, no takers?

 

Okay, the answer is....3.  3 out of 16 QBs drafted in the first round in those 5 years are still with the team that drafted them. 

 

5 are still starters, including Watson and Goff.

 

This doesn't mean a team shouldn't reach for a QB in the first round.  I was just trying to point out the odds.

 

So where do you stand on this? 

[Smonroe]

56 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So where do you stand on this? 

If it was up to me and Stroud or Young were available, I’d take Stroud first then Young.  
 

Since it’s likely they’re both gone, I’d take Anderson and trade back into the first for Hooker.  
 

If Anderson is gone by 4, I’d take Carter or Wilson and trade back in for Hooker.  
 

I’m glad it’s not up to me.  
 

How about you?

[Nickster]

2 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

If it was up to me and Stroud or Young were available, I’d take Stroud first then Young.  
 

Since it’s likely they’re both gone, I’d take Anderson and trade back into the first for Hooker.  
 

If Anderson is gone by 4, I’d take Carter or Wilson and trade back in for Hooker.  
 

I’m glad it’s not up to me.  
 

How about you?

 

You didn't ask me but I like Stroud and Levis.  I like Stroud's accuracy and Levis release. 

 

Young is a munchkin.  I have said a few times in threads here though that if there was a ever time a small guy like that could be good it's now with the QB friendly rules.

 

AR is an incredible athlete.  Other than the deep balls, he looked terribly in accurate throwing the FB against air at the combine. 

He could be a great runner that learns to throw accurately though.  

 

I've never watched Hooker play or throw, but from what I understand from reading he played in no read/1 read system and that always turns me off when translating to THE League.

 

But I don't have real strong opinions on any of these guys.  I gave up projecting college QB talent to the NFL over a decade ago lol.  Tough business. 

[Superman]

7 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

If it was up to me and Stroud or Young were available, I’d take Stroud first then Young.  
 

Since it’s likely they’re both gone, I’d take Anderson and trade back into the first for Hooker.  
 

If Anderson is gone by 4, I’d take Carter or Wilson and trade back in for Hooker.  
 

I’m glad it’s not up to me.  
 

How about you?

 

So despite the odds, you know you have to try to draft and develop a QB. That's really what I was asking about.

 

As for my preference, I'm out on Young at the top of the draft. Talking about long odds, they're even longer for him. I'd take Stroud or Levis at #4. 

[Smonroe]

14 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

So despite the odds, you know you have to try to draft and develop a QB. That's really what I was asking about.

 

As for my preference, I'm out on Young at the top of the draft. Talking about long odds, they're even longer for him. I'd take Stroud or Levis at #4. 

 

You probably know I'm a Buckeye, so I've seen every game Stroud has played.  I think he's well deserving of being the #1 taken.  That all being said, I'm pretty sure OSU would have had as many wins with the backup playing QB. OSU had pro receivers, a great Oline and depth at RB.

 

Lived in Bama for 30 years I have two kids who are Bama grads.  So I also watched all of their games.  I don't think they win 6 games without Young.  He's the real deal and carried that team.  His physique is definitely a negative so I'd also go with Stroud over him strictly on that.  But I think he's the best QB in the draft.   And @Nickster made a great point - it's to the point where you can't breathe on a QB.  So maybe his size isn't that much of a deal breaker.

 

If Hooker wasn't injured late in the season, he'd rank higher than Levis or Richardson.  He's the QB I'd want to develop, given the top two are gone.  Minshew gives him the time to heal too.  Just MHO.

[Nickster]

5 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

You probably know I'm a Buckeye, so I've seen every game Stroud has played.  I think he's well deserving of being the #1 taken.  That all being said, I'm pretty sure OSU would have had as many wins with the backup playing QB. OSU had pro receivers, a great Oline and depth at RB.

 

Lived in Bama for 30 years I have two kids who are Bama grads.  So I also watched all of their games.  I don't think they win 6 games without Young.  He's the real deal and carried that team.  His physique is definitely a negative so I'd also go with Stroud over him strictly on that.  But I think he's the best QB in the draft.   And @Nickster made a great point - it's to the point where you can't breathe on a QB.  So maybe his size isn't that much of a deal breaker.

 

If Hooker wasn't injured late in the season, he'd rank higher than Levis or Richardson.  He's the QB I'd want to develop, given the top two are gone.  Minshew gives him the time to heal too.  Just MHO.

 

I don't watch much college FB that doesn't involve PU and IU while they are competitive and well that limits one's CFB shcedule.

 

But your comment about Young somewhat surprises me.  That the team looked deficient.  I am not disputing it really but, I watched only one Bama game and that was v. KSU in the bowl and it looked like a 7 on 7 varsity O v. JV D.   No contest.  Any of the Bama QBs would have carved K State that day.  Completely dominant at every position seemingly.  That's a anti bama QB bias some on my part.  I don't know how you evaluate a game like that.  It was candy from a baby. 

 

I probably saw Stroud play IU, but you don't really pay attention to whichever QB for whichever team is carving up the Hoosh D.  Seemingly every QB for every team carves the crimson and cream so it's not really noteworthy lol.

I'd heard about Stroud's lack of athleticism and lack of ability to improvise and he looked like an All Multiverse player who could run, elude the rush, stand tall take a hit and find his guy, basically everything you'd want in a QB v many NFL level defenders.  That was just that one game though.

 

Levis on tape just has an arm I have a hard time ignoring. He also plays in a pro type of offense with players who are overmatched by their opponents.  It's hard for a QB to produce good numbers in that situation.  Which is the exact opposite of Hooker IMO.  Like I said, never saw him play, but from what I glean on TN system, it is QB friendly to the Nth degree. 

 

Then there's Richardson.  I can't ignore the body but I also can't ignore the combine inaccuracy.

 

Bottom line for me, this qb class seems as difficult to access as everyone has been saying it is. 

 

But when I look at Levis physcially and with the arm talent especially, he appears to me to be an NFL type guy. 

[Superman]

52 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

You probably know I'm a Buckeye, so I've seen every game Stroud has played.  I think he's well deserving of being the #1 taken.  That all being said, I'm pretty sure OSU would have had as many wins with the backup playing QB. OSU had pro receivers, a great Oline and depth at RB.

 

Lived in Bama for 30 years I have two kids who are Bama grads.  So I also watched all of their games.  I don't think they win 6 games without Young.  He's the real deal and carried that team.  His physique is definitely a negative so I'd also go with Stroud over him strictly on that.  But I think he's the best QB in the draft.   And @Nickster made a great point - it's to the point where you can't breathe on a QB.  So maybe his size isn't that much of a deal breaker.

 

If Hooker wasn't injured late in the season, he'd rank higher than Levis or Richardson.  He's the QB I'd want to develop, given the top two are gone.  Minshew gives him the time to heal too.  Just MHO.

 

No doubt OSU has a great team, incredible receivers, good OL, good coaching. I think those are relevant considerations for Stroud. But man, he's accurate, and tough, and has a lot of polish. 

 

I get it with Young, he was good, and very important to Alabama. Their OL was questionable at times, and the WRs aren't as good as previous years, but still pretty good. But I have questions about his arm strength, and his athletic ability. That's on top of his body/size. If he had a rocket arm, or dynamic pro athleticism, I'd be less concerned about his size. I just think the deck is stacked against him. I don't agree that rules will protect a smaller QB.

 

Hooker is a tough evaluation. He has tools and athleticism, but his arm is probably a B-level. And the big problem is the offense. There's very little on tape to suggest that he can perform in an offense that requires the QB to make reads and throw with anticipation. And the scheme gets guys wide open, but he still isn't necessarily a precise thrower. There's something to work with there, but I don't feel great about him becoming a high level starter.

[Smonroe]

46 minutes ago, Nickster said:

 

...

 

But your comment about Young somewhat surprises me.  That the team looked deficient.  I am not disputing it really but, I watched only one Bama game and that was v. KSU in the bowl and it looked like a 7 on 7 varsity O v. JV D.   No contest.  Any of the Bama QBs would have carved K State that day.  Completely dominant at every position seemingly.  That's a anti bama QB bias some on my part.  I don't know how you evaluate a game like that.  It was candy from a baby. ...

 

By Bama standards, the O was subpar.  No great WRs, and we're used to seeing one drafted in the first round just about every year.  The RB was great and they had a very good OT.  Besides that, there weren't a lot of impact players.

 

Young carried the team.  He's also very smart, driven and mature.  I'd rank him and Stroud even with Stroud getting the nod simply for his size.  But it stinks that we'll most likely be playing one of those guys twice a year.

 

 

[Nickster]

24 minutes ago, Smonroe said:

 

By Bama standards, the O was subpar.  No great WRs, and we're used to seeing one drafted in the first round just about every year.  The RB was great and they had a very good OT.  Besides that, there weren't a lot of impact players.

 

Young carried the team.  He's also very smart, driven and mature.  I'd rank him and Stroud even with Stroud getting the nod simply for his size.  But it stinks that we'll most likely be playing one of those guys twice a year.

 

 

They looked like your typical bullying Bama team v. a pretty decent KSU team to me is all I'm saying. 

 

Like I'm really not making fun of you but of Bama fans in particular for their pour mouthing of this years' team.  Bama lost two games v. very good teams and finished ranked 5th and act like they are terrible.  It's kinda funny but I get it.  My son's girlfriend is from a Bama family and you'd think their dog died every week. Bit of a different perspective than most of us lol. 

 

When I look through the scores it looks mostly typical.  Bama is a mismatch for at least 2/3 of the teams they play.  

 

But when I hear that Young is the only reason they won x games, the simple stat lines belie that.  For instance, they squeaked by Texas 20-19 and Young threw for only 213 and 1 TD while the team rushed for 160 including an 81 yard TD run and the kicker made 4 FGs including a 49 yarder. 

 

Then the next decent team they played they beat ARK while young threw for 173 and Gibbs rushed for 206.  Young was awesome v. TN but they lost that game.   The defense gave up 6 v. MS St so Young wasn't the only reason they won that game.  Young was great v. LSU but they lost that game.   Young was good v. OLE MISS in a tight one but only threw for 209.

 

Then I watched the KSU game.  Young definitely did not appear the only reason they won that game. 

For the most part Young had his best games v. inferior opponents or in losses from glancing at the schedule.

 

That doesn't mean he's not good, but the only reason narrative doesn't seem to have tremendous statistical support at the least to me. 

[Smonroe]

37 minutes ago, Nickster said:

They looked like your typical bullying Bama team v. a pretty decent KSU team to me is all I'm saying. 

 

Like I'm really not making fun of you but of Bama fans in particular for their pour mouthing of this years' team.  Bama lost two games v. very good teams and finished ranked 5th and act like they are terrible.  It's kinda funny but I get it.  My son's girlfriend is from a Bama family and you'd think their dog died every week. Bit of a different perspective than most of us lol. 

 

When I look through the scores it looks mostly typical.  Bama is a mismatch for at least 2/3 of the teams they play.  

 

But when I hear that Young is the only reason they won x games, the simple stat lines belie that.  For instance, they squeaked by Texas 20-19 and Young threw for only 213 and 1 TD while the team rushed for 160 including an 81 yard TD run and the kicker made 4 FGs including a 49 yarder. 

 

Then the next decent team they played they beat ARK while young threw for 173 and Gibbs rushed for 206.  Young was awesome v. TN but they lost that game.   The defense gave up 6 v. MS St so Young wasn't the only reason they won that game.  Young was great v. LSU but they lost that game.   Young was good v. OLE MISS in a tight one but only threw for 209.

 

Then I watched the KSU game.  Young definitely did not appear the only reason they won that game. 

For the most part Young had his best games v. inferior opponents or in losses from glancing at the schedule.

 

That doesn't mean he's not good, but the only reason narrative doesn't seem to have tremendous statistical support at the least to me. 

 

So true about Bama fans expectations, lol.  Same for my Buckeye brethren.  There was a real call to replace Day after they lost to TTUN two years in a row.  I think he redeemed himself somewhat by almost (should of) beating UGA.

 

I think most CFB fans will tell you that was the worst Bama team in the last 10 years.  Still, a very good team, but not loaded like in the past.

 

As far as Young's games.  I can only say trust your eyes.  Stats can be deceiving.  Believe me the kid has it all except the prototypical QB size.  I hate to pull the Brees card, but I think he can be as good.  Just MHO.  (Still, I'd take Stroud over him).

[Boondoggle]

I barely even notice the QB when I load up Bama tape.  That's not a new thing either.  It was precisely the same with Tua.

 

I do like Young more than I liked Tua due to the difference in the arm.  I think he might succeed at this level but he's going to need an OC willing to draw up an attack using a lot of rollouts and boots to ensure he can see the field.  Tua has that level of OC now in Miami but will always be limited.  Young we'll see.

 

Interestingly enough Steichen is the kind of OC you'd list if you were to take Young.  So I fear he'll be our pick.  If that happens of course I'll get behind it and root for him.  Also the advantage is that he's been exposed to some pro concepts and prep playing for Bama.  But my expectations will be a little more reserved.

 

My guess is there is a very good chance Young is on the board at 4.  So there is a creeping certainty building for me that he'll be our pick.  Hope I'm wrong but who knows maybe it'll work out for us.

[masterlock]

On 3/15/2023 at 5:08 PM, NewColtsFan said:

Whatever Ryan Leaf once was, he appears to have moved well past that.   He is both a fill-in host and regular guest on the Rich Eisen radio show.  A regular guest on the Dan Patrick radio shows and other top shows as well.   So people who know football use Ryan Leaf for his expertise.   You might consider giving the guy a little credit, even if you don’t like what he has to say.  

 

Agree. I was once of the opinion that the guy was a total *, because he WAS. But I've seen some recent interviews, and he seems to have found himself. He's humble, he acknowledges the person he used to be, and really seems to have grown as a person. For Example: