Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=SmootSmack;663463]You're famous "Paint Rain"!

The folks at TheWarpath.net, for example, have an interesting conversation going about the potential for drafting a successful QB in the later rounds. Someone posting there as Paintrain (a name that I found intriguing when I was reading it as "paint rain," and a bit less so as "pain train," which I'm guessing it actually is) has broken down the playoff QBs from the last five years, and his numbers seem revealing (the names in parentheses are that year's non-first-round QBs):

[url=http://blog.redskins.com/2010/02/16/a-whole-mess-of-links/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter]A Whole Mess Of Links, Many Dealing With Quarterbacks[/url][/quote]

I've been quoted (although mis-named) by Matt Terl. My life's work is complete.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663552]I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?[/quote]Without using the Skywalker/Solo Halloween Regression Method.... quickly looking at some franchise level QBs taken in the 1st (Brees & Favre may as well have been); Manning x 2, Brees, Favre, McNabb, Palmer, Rivers, Rodgers, all those guys records improved within the 1st-3rd years without a major supporting cast change. Once they understood the NFL and started "getting it". They made those around them better.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663566]This has nothing to do with I was just saying before (and shouldn't be considered an extension to the argument), but I don't actually believe that either of the quarterback prospects have a metaphorical high ceiling as players. I think there's a scheme evaluation that will occur with Shanahan's system where he will look at all the available players, and ask which ones can execute the bread and butter of his route tree the very best. And if the answer is either Clausen or Bradford, I think he will take them at No. 4.

But a scheme evaluation is not a player evaluation. It's probably a lot more complicated. I don't know, I've never really tried to do one. Player evaluation wise, these aren't high ceiling prospects. I think I have a very good (if not complete) idea of who these two guys are. And to reach towards that franchise quarterback level, I think you need to be willing to scale a playbook away from the things that Clausen and Bradford struggle with. With Bradford, that may be harder because I don't think the things he struggles with are readily apparent (different than saying they do not exist -- a lot different). If you create a QB friendly system for them, I think either of these guys is capable of reaching their top level potential.

Of course, you could do the same thing for Chad Pennington or Jason Campbell or Dan Lefevour. I fully support Mike Shanahan's ability to evaluate all possible options in this draft...but the point comes when you make so many concessions in your offense to try to create a great player out of a top prospect, that you wonder exactly why these are the top prospects in the draft.

Maybe we think about it the wrong way.[/quote]

Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Paintrain;663670]I've been quoted (although mis-named) by Matt Terl. My life's work is complete.[/quote]

Hey guys check it out. I haz picture of Paintrain
[IMG]http://whybenormal.today.com/files/2009/02/rainbow-paint.jpg[/IMG]

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663687]Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.[/quote]

What a battle. The two biggest number guys (albeit different number types) on the warpath going head to head.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote][QUOTE=30gut;663461]I think there is no such thing as an elite QB until they become one.[/quote]
[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663526]Of course.[/quote][/QUOTE]

Its interesting that you say of course now but i was responding to your statement that:
[quote]I think Clausen, Luck, possibly Locker have the tools to be elite QBs[/quote]

[quote=30gut;663461]Imo there is no such thing as an eilte QB prospect independent of the team and situation around them.
[/quote]
[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663526]An elite QB prospects early career success is of course dependent on the team around him. However, even with "pieces missing" the elite QB prospect makes other around him better within 2-3 years.[/quote]

I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?

Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?

Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the [I][B]situation[/B][/I] is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.

That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.
Its like being a No.1 receiver anyone can label Roy Williams a No.1 receiver but Miles Austin's play on the field made him the No.1

[quote][QUOTE=30gut;663461]I think the physical differences between most NFL caliber QB prospect is mere %.

I think in a raw skills competition like the combine or an arm strength throwing/accuracy/ touch contest some will do better in different areas but at the end of the day most will be in the same ballpark. And even the ones the are the tops in every category like Shuler or Leaf still aren't locks to become good QBs much less elite.[/quote][/QUOTE]


[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663526]The physical differences in QBs is far more vast than a mere tenth of a second in the 40-time or 10lbs in a bench press. You've got their release, velocity, accuracy, accuracy on the move, foot speed, foot quickness, etc. Most importantly is the mental and leadership aspect of a QB prospect, what type of competition has the prospect played in college, what type of system, all important factors to consider.

Shuler and Leaf were tops physically, but I believe both had question marks about their mental approach to the game.
[/quote]

And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different [I]physically[/I] measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB. Naturally if their all similiar physically the difference has to be the immeasureables.
And that is why picking a QB is such a crap shot at the end of the day after everything has been measured you still don't know.
*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)

Imo another reason you can't predict a QBs success has nothing to do with the player its about the [I][B]situation[/B][/I] more then the player.

Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;663761]I don't understand how an 'elite QB prospects' early success is dependent on the team around but in 2-3 years they'll suddenly be able to have success with pieces missing?[/quote]It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

[quote]Lets just look at the first part of your statement.
What if the 'elite QB prospect' goes to a situation that isn't conducive to success?
Won't they cease being an 'elite QB prospect'?[/quote]No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

[quote]Here's my point that i think you're missing.
The QB position is totally dependent on the other 11 heck the other 21 people on his team doing their job before the QB can be in a postion to have success or become elite.

Imo the [I][B]situation[/B][/I] is the most important factor in determining the success or failure of QB.[/quote]The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

[quote]That's why the label of 'elite QB prospect' or 'franchise caliber QB' never made much sense to me.

You aren't until you become one.[/quote]A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

[quote]And like i said in my post some of the QBs will rate higher/lower in different [I]physically[/I] measureable areas but at the end of the day they'll all have the requiste skill to be an NFL QB.[/quote]That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

[quote]*(I don't recall any question marks about Shuler and only heard about Leaf's questions marks much after he became a bust)[/quote]As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

[quote]Imho it takes a good franchise to create a franchise QB.
It takes vision, coaching and personelle.
And until a team has the right elements to become a good franchise they can draft 1st round QBs every 3-4 years and never end up with a 'franchise' QB.[/quote]Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Dirtbag359;663476]If Campbell wants to truly take the next step he'll need to do two things

1. Work on his deep ball accuracy: Despite his strong arm Jason is horrible when it comes to throwing the deep ball.

2. Reading defenses better: From what I've seen and heard Jason is only average in this category. If he wants to stay around he'll need to do a better job of looking off safeties and not staring down receivers as well as making proper pre-snap reads.

It might only be two bullet points but they're easily two of the most important aspects of being an NFL QB.[/quote]
Agreed; they talk about his long ball but it's never where it needs to be. He's even missed several with Moss or whoever nearly wide open.

The reading def needs to be improved, I'll defend him to an extent saying that he might only have time to make his basic reads before he has to get rid of the ball, however with a little more time he might get some extra looks in. He needs to compensate by having better pocket presence or having the pocket move (which obviously would be coming from above his call).

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;663552]I think this is a very well presented, concise, intuitive theory. Is there a method I could use to test this? Is this relevant to draft position, or pre-draft perception of the prospect in any way?[/quote]
Are you an economist or something? Football isn't only a science and it can be hard to measure art. I know that I've said it before but your pretty and obscure numbers can't explain everything for good or for bad. Some things are unquantifiable or just aren't represented well by numbers. There are too many factors to consider to break it down to something so concise; with all of the tape that you watch I figured you'd have this down by now because at times it seems like you only watch the stats board.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=SmootSmack;663567]Does anyone else get the feeling that if GTripp were the General Manager of the Skins we would always miss the 15 minute deadline to submit our pick?

"No! I'm not ready yet. I still have to run a regression analysis on the running backs based on who wanted to be Han Solo and who wanted to be Luke Skywalker for Halloween in 4th grade and then measure that against the weighted average of mixed tapes made for their girlfriend in 10th grade per Wide Receiver. I need more time!!!!"[/quote]
hahahaha

we'd never draft a QB, that's for certain

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663687]Well if Shanahan's evaluation of the QBs matches yours, then I'd be all for Okung. By getting into talent evaluation and picking Clausen and Bradford apart we get a little removed from the original intent of the thread.

I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.[/quote]

And that's the reason that once a QB becomes elite.. that the team is rarely in the position to draft a top QB prospect again.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Schneed10;663687]I just think if you're on the clock and there's a QB there who you think can enter the upper echelon, you get him, no matter what your other needs are. Unless of course you've already got a QB like that. Risks be damned.[/quote]I think Jason Campbell could easily enter the top echilon of quarterbacks. Still. Problem is that I absolutely do not think that he WILL, and especially not here. I used to think it was only a matter of time before he'd be in the top ten, but the quality of our offense has declined greatly since 2007 and the beginning of 2008. And thusly, while I can still see the potential there, I think the longer he stays in Washington, the less likely he is to achieve anything beyond what he already has.

Same deal with any rookie we might draft. The quality of the offense he'd be in from day one is pathetic. The system, however, would be the one proven thing we'd have to work with. We don't have great talent on the outsides or in the backfield, or up front, so in effect what we're looking for is a system quarterback. Can he execute the Shanahan playbook as well as any other player in this draft? If the answer is yes, I don't see why we wouldn't take one at four.

I honestly have no idea if a system quarterback drafted in the second round is as good as a system quarterback drafted in the first. I really don't think any team has ever tried to take a system quarterback in the top ten picks. And I don't see why Washington would be any different. But I think Shanahan has to at least evaluate all the options. If his system values accuracy above all, and Sam Bradford and Jimmy Clausen are the two most accurate passers in the entire class (ignoring McCoy), then I think you almost have to take one of them.

But are we rebuilding on offense? Or are we just adding Shanahan players to what already exists? And if we're rebuilding, why did we hire Shanahan? And what of 2011? There's so much context I can't answer here, but the one thing I think I can answer is that, context-neutral, Bradford and Clausen are both reaches at No. 4.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Shanahan's mentor, Walsh, was famous for taking undervalued quarterback prospects and building a system that hid their weaknesses while exposing those of the defense. In a class like this, I find it hard to believe we won't even try that.

And that's why I feel that we will spend a first round pick on a quarterback, but that it won't be at No. 4. It will be at No. 25 or something, and it will be McCoy.

But it's an interesting thought that we may do that, and Clausen might still be available at that point. And then there's a legitimate dilemma that we'll have to pick between Clausen and McCoy at the back end of the first round to be our quarterback of the future.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY!

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;664176]I Dont see Clausen being available at the end of the 1st round. There are simply too many teams that need a QB this season (rams, bills, seahawks, browns, jaguars, broncos, raiders, maybe vikings, panthers, cardinals). And wit Clausen somehow movin up in mock drafts as of late. i would be EXTREMELY suprised to see Jimmy Clausen around @ the end of the 1st. If we've traded back and he is there then it would be a more logical choice. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY![/quote]There are a lot of teams that need a QB, but a lot of them are going to go the veteran route. Come draft day, there might be two or three teams that need one, and one of those might be Carolina who doesn't pick before we pick twice. Arizona could be the other, and they don't pick until right around 25. Every team, however, has needs outside of quarterback.

There's also a bunch of teams that will be perfectly happy to test the draft later. Cleveland's run by Holmgren now, and he's NEVER taken a QB in the first round.

Someone is going to take Bradford within the top ten picks. After that, who knows.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

You also have to consider that the Raiders don't think they need a quarterback, even though they obviously do.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=SmootSmack;664177]Jevan Snead-4th round. You heard it here first...and probably last[/quote]

Dan LeFevour.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

yeah i was going based on my opinion. but still that makes it 8 or 9 teams that pick before then and there are only 2 QB's considered "elite"

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663818]It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB. In the cases I mentioned earlier in the thread, the elite QBs made those around them better and the teams showed marked improvement without a drastic change of personnel.

No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad. The QB will take time and have growing pains, especially in the first year in that situation, but it doesn't make him "non-elite". Once the QB "gets it" at the NFL level, he begins to make others around him better. If you put an elite QB in a good situation (Rivers), he will produce faster.

The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.

A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.

That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts.

As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.

Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana). But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.

Here's an example, Manning is an elite QB, he went to a bad situation in Indy. Indy built around him and has been consistently good. Kurt Warner (not an elite QB IMO) has success in the greatest show on turf. He has Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt, Issac Bruce, etc. After that he struggles, then when paired with Fitz and Boldin has success. Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful. (For all you Warner fans, I don't need to see his resume, the guy is good, just not elite).[/quote]Manning had a third year Marvin Harrison when he got there, and a fourth year Marshall Faulk, who was later replaced by Edgerrin James. And they had a 1997 1st round draft pick at LT named Tarik Glenn. It was a bad team anyway, in part because the defense there was terrible. Still, it was five years or so before the guy became a perennial all-pro. And we're talking about the greatest of all time.

I don't think you can separate this organization from the Oakland's and Cincinnati's of the world. We have been more successful than those franchises, but we also have way more resources year-to-year. On one hand, I think you need to assume that we're going to be better in the future than we have been in the past regarding player development. That's the only way we can improve to a team that wins in line with our resources.

But on the other hand, what's here is what's been built by that inept management. We don't have a Marvin Harrison in either Thomas or Kelly, we don't have a Marshall Faulk, and we certainly don't have a Tarik Glenn. We just have a pair of tight ends. That doesn't mean we can't draft the next Reggie Wayne or Edgerrin James in the future, and certainly if the next Peyton Manning is out there, we can wait.

But when we're comparing the offenses, we're best compared to the situations that Tim Couch and David Carr failed in. Any advantages we have over those expansion teams is on the defensive side of the ball, which won't affect the quarterbacks numbers very much.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;664196]Manning had a third year Marvin Harrison when he got there, and a fourth year Marshall Faulk, who was later replaced by Edgerrin James. And they had a 1997 1st round draft pick at LT named Tarik Glenn. It was a bad team anyway, in part because the defense there was terrible. Still, it was five years or so before the guy became a perennial all-pro. And we're talking about the greatest of all time.[/quote]Actually, Manning made the Pro Bowl in 1999-2000 and 2002-09. My point is the cast didn't change much from 1998 (3-13) to 1999 (13-3) it was Manning (elite QB) that made the difference. Look at Eli, similar scenario, no drastic personnel change except the upgrade from Toomer to Burress from year 1 to year 2, but a record improvement from 6-10 to 10-6, Burress contributed but certainly wasn't the X-factor for winning 4 additional games, it was Eli.

[quote]I don't think you can separate this organization from the Oakland's and Cincinnati's of the world.[/quote]BLASPHEMY!!! :spank:

[quote]But when we're comparing the offenses, we're best compared to the situations that Tim Couch and David Carr failed in. Any advantages we have over those expansion teams is on the defensive side of the ball, which won't affect the quarterbacks numbers very much.[/quote]Bad comparison, if Zorn was still here, maybe. But to compare Shanahan / Allen to the mess in Houston under Capers, or Cleveland under whoever it was.....no way.

We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB). RB is a mess right now, but Shanahan has a knack for fixing that. I contend that Heyer at RT, Rinehart at RG can be solid. Dock is solid. We can get an LT with our 2nd rounder. Rabach...meh, that may need to be fixed next year. Even if we can't fix all the problems this year, the rest can be addressed next off-season when the rook (Clausen) is ready to hit stride. JC is our guy for at least the early part of the season, so we deal with it. If he improves under MS great and the rook sits, if not, rook goes in takes his lumps and we get ready for a great 2011.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664213]Actually, Manning made the Pro Bowl in 1999-2000 and 2002-09. My point is the cast didn't change much from 1998 (3-13) to 1999 (13-3) it was Manning (elite QB) that made the difference. Look at Eli, similar scenario, no drastic personnel change except the upgrade from Toomer to Burress from year 1 to year 2, but a record improvement from 6-10 to 10-6, Burress contributed but certainly wasn't the X-factor for winning 4 additional games, it was Eli.[/quote]Well, first, I think the point was missed. The point wasn't "Manning was a product of the system, his accomplishments are irrelevant." It's that the Colts spent their 1996 first round pick on a wide receiver who became a hall of famer (with Manning), and they spent their 1997 first round pick on a left tackle who protected Manning's blind side from 1998-2006. The point isn't that Indy didn't need Manning to be great, the point was that 1998 Indy is a poor comparison to where the Redskins are. A better comparison would be 1996 or 1997 Indy.

Jason Campbell might only be as good as Jim Harbaugh, but the Colts weren't trying to figure out how they could get Jake Plummer to replace him.

I am not kidding when I point out that the last TWO first round picks the Redskins have spent on offense (in the draft, not via trade) are Jason Campbell and Patrick Ramsey. Apparently the answer to our offensive problems is that we haven't spent a first round pick on a quarterback in a while.

[quote]Bad comparison, if Zorn was still here, maybe. But to compare Shanahan / Allen to the mess in Houston under Capers, or Cleveland under whoever it was.....no way.

We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB). RB is a mess right now, but Shanahan has a knack for fixing that. I contend that Heyer at RT, Rinehart at RG can be solid. Dock is solid. We can get an LT with our 2nd rounder. Rabach...meh, that may need to be fixed next year. Even if we can't fix all the problems this year, the rest can be addressed next off-season when the rook (Clausen) is ready to hit stride. JC is our guy for at least the early part of the season, so we deal with it. If he improves under MS great and the rook sits, if not, rook goes in takes his lumps and we get ready for a great 2011.[/quote]The rest of this is a faith-based argument. The situation isn't inherently any better because Allen/Shanahan is in charge now. They haven't made any meaningful moves yet.

Which is not to say that I disagree with everything you've written here. The receivers may very well be capable and toolzy, but one thing they aren't is good. I've seen Shanahan do some great work with his running backs, but that was after he put an OL in place. I think we can get away without spending a top two round pick at the position, but I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that we will be able to run the ball next year.

Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?

Heyer and Rinehart both flashed last year, but Rinehart is going to need the help from a strong RT, and Heyer is probably incapable of not being exposed over 16 games. I'd keep him as a first backup, as over a four game stretch, he's good enough to play, but if the plan to improve is this faulty, how in the world can we expect the execution to be flawless?

I commend you for laying this plan out there, but I'm struggling to see where any improvement is going to come from. It seems like mediocrity is the end game, but it will be more tolerable if Clausen is the guy providing it?

Presumably, it's the future drafts that will provide the pieces that we will actually be winning with. So, why wait?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664213]
We have capable receivers, Moss is solid when he gives 100%, Thomas / Kelly have the physical tools and should develop under the new regime with a better system (and better QB). [/quote]

Lol, reminds me of my new sig. Though if you think about it it's not to far fetched. Moss isn't very consistent but when he's productive he's amazing. Sort of like Reggie Bush.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

And, even though he's not a mid rounder, I'm going to nominate Paul Justin for most valuable quarterback to never really have a career

[URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JustPa00.htm"]Paul Justin NFL & AFL Football Statistics | Pro-Football-Reference.com[/URL]

I also submit the depth chart of Trent Green-Kurt Warner-Paul Justin for the 1999 Rams to be the strongest depth chart at the QB position in the history of the NFL.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;663818]It takes a minute to adjust from the NCAA to the NFL. Once that happens the elite QB prospect becomes an elite NFL QB. The difference is in being a prospect, and actually making the transition to an elite NFL QB.[/quote]

Disagree.
There aren't many 'elite' QBs.
Imo being an elite QB only happens when mastery is reached and if its reached at all it doesn't happen overnight.

[quote]No. Both Mannings and others have gone into teams that were in bad shape. Because the team around them is bad, doesn't mean the QB is bad.[/quote]
Disagree.
First while i think Eli is a good QB i don't think he's 'elite'.
Second i don't think Peyton was in a bad team they had talent and a strong front office.
The Giants also had talent and a strong FO.

[quote]The situation is important, but if the organization is solid and not an Oakland, Cincy, etc. The team will not be in terrible shape for too long. Having an elite QB will make that average team good, and that good team great.[/quote]

Well that's my point if a QB was the capable independent of the situation around them he would be able to reach that elite level like you said.
And i think a QB can have success and stive to become eilte only when there are pieces around them.

[quote]A kid coming out of college can be rated and evaulated as an elite QB, if he makes the transition then the evaluators were right. If not, they made a poor evalaution or the QB went to a terrible long-term situation. It's why elite QBs don't grow on tress and are so important to playoff success in the NFL.[/quote]

Your basically making my point here, an 'elite' QB or even a 'franchise' QB cannot be determine until they reach that status.

[quote]That's like saying all NFL lineman have the requiste skill to play OL, or all NFL RBs have the skill to play RB.....but I don't think there's an argument that a healthy Chris Samuels is leaps and bounds better than Stephon Heyer or Levi Jones. Similarly a LT in his prime is far better than Ladell Betts. [/quote]

Actually no its not because were talking specifically about QBs.
But, if you want to extend my logic to other position it would go like this:
an UDFA C like Jeff Saturaday can become a pro-bowl Center an 1st round/1st pick OT like Mike Williams can be out of football. Denver Bronco's produced many 1,000 yard backs provided they could learn the 1 cut zone read system; regardless of draft position.

[quote]As fans we didn't have all the scouting info and reports that we get to see now, but I recall questions about Shuler's mental abilities before he was drafted.[/quote]

Maybe, but i never heard them and Heath is a pretty smart guy.
(Imo he's still the best QB prospect i can remember)

[quote]Franchises don't normally "create" franschise QBs except in extreme cases (Brady, Montana).[/quote]

Disagree.
Mike Holmgren was a virtual QB factory Favre, Brunell, Hasselbeck and many other back-ups.

[quote] But I agree that having the tools in place to help the elite QB be successful are important. But those pieces can be built around the QB. The teams that draft QBs in the first round and never seem to succeed are generally poor franshices, with poor talent evaluators.[/quote]

Again, you're making my point.

[quote] Warner is not an elite QB, he needs the pieces around him to be successful.[/quote]

I don't understand how you can say that Eli is elite and Warner isn't.
And all the good QBs have pieces around them.

I get what you're saying but i don't think your seeing what i'm saying.
I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Good discussion though.

Anyway, HTTR!

[IMG]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:kVRcj1frmSYCFM:http://ardentfrost.rayd.org/Beer/yuengling2.jpg[/IMG]

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;664256]Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?[/quote]Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at Pouncey as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities

[quote]I commend you for laying this plan out there, but I'm struggling to see where any improvement is going to come from. [B]It seems like mediocrity is the end game[/B], but it will be more tolerable if Clausen is the guy providing it?

Presumably, it's the future drafts that will provide the pieces that we will actually be winning with. So, why wait?[/quote]Mediocrity is exactly what I'm looking to avoid (long term). 2010 isn't going to be a banner year with or without a franchise QB. We just differ on the evaluation of Clausen is all, you see him as equal or a slight upgrade over Campbell. I see him having a strong probability of developing into a top 10 or elite QB. Outside of the difference in Clausen, I'm all for grabbing the LT at #4 if Clausen is gone, I don't think Bradford has the upside of Clausen and wouldn't take him at #4.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;664176]. FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING HOLY, MARY MOTHER OF JESUS, PLEASE DO NOT LET US DRAFT COLT MCCOY![/quote]

What do you have against McCoy?
Especially in the 2nd round?
Any knock on McCoy is likely shared with Bradford?

I think McCoy has the tools to be a fine NFL QB.
He reminds me of someone that Shanahan has coached before.
And its a comparison i'm embarrassed to make.

But on completely anecdotal note if anyone listens to Mike&Mike?
Does anyone recall Big Mike mention in passing how he ran into Mike Shanahan at an ND game earlier this year?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664265]Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at [B]Pouncey[/B] as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities

Mediocrity is exactly what I'm looking to avoid (long term). 2010 isn't going to be a banner year with or without a franchise QB. We just differ on the evaluation of Clausen is all, you see him as equal or a slight upgrade over Campbell. I see him having a strong probability of developing into a top 10 or elite QB. Outside of the difference in Clausen, I'm all for grabbing the LT at #4 if Clausen is gone, I don't think Bradford has the upside of Clausen and wouldn't take him at #4.[/quote]

Taking Okung at #4 and Pouncey in the 2nd would sure help this o-line get to where we want them to be a lot faster. As you mentioned, Dockery, Rinehart, and Heyer could be solid this year. And taking someone like Veldheer would almost certainly add to the competition. In fact, he could turn out to be a steal. The new line coach mentioned the importance of chemistry. The sooner we get them together the better.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=53Fan;664270]Taking [B]Okung at #4 and Pouncey in the 2nd[/B] would sure help this o-line get to where we want them to be a lot faster. As you mentioned, Dockery, Rinehart, and Heyer could be solid this year. And taking someone like Veldheer would almost certainly add to the competition. In fact, he could turn out to be a steal. The new line coach mentioned the importance of chemistry. The sooner we get them together the better.[/quote]That's a great scenario. I can't wait for the combine and draft.

With all the draft excitement, we should try a Warpath Mock Draft again this year. It didn't work out as planned last time, but maybe worth a shot this year?

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=GTripp0012;664256]Which LT would you propose we get with the second round pick? If there's 8-10 teams that need left tackles, why did this player slip through to the second round? What do we armchair GMs know that the rest of the NFL is missing?

Heyer and Rinehart both flashed last year, but Rinehart is going to need the help from a strong RT, and Heyer is probably incapable of not being exposed over 16 games. I'd keep him as a first backup, as over a four game stretch, he's good enough to play, but if the plan to improve is this faulty, how in the world can we expect the execution to be flawless?[/quote]

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664265]Charles Brown may be there (??). If we don't get the LT, then we look at Pouncey as an upgrade to Rabach, maybe trade back then Asamoah, Veldheer, Ducasse are possibilities[/quote]

I've tried to envision a scenario where we upgrade the OL independent of the 4th pick and while i can come up with improvements its only because of how bad the OL was last year.

LT-Stephon Heyer-it would require hope that healthy Heyer can show the promise he showed at the end of 2008 when he took over the LT spot from Samuels-Serviceable and hopefully good
LG-Dockery-Good
C-Rabach-serviceable- but maybe Edwin Williams is ready to step and his youth and strength gives him upside that Rabach lacks or Corey Lichtensteiger?
RG-Rinehart or Edwin Williams both showed some ability and are young players that could improve with playing time
RT-2nd round pick hopefully Duccase or Charles Brown lasts but i don't like hope as a strategy for landing OL via the draft or Tony Pashos

i think this OL or a similiar OL would be an improvement because they would be young players building cohesion and could grow together and improve with playing experience

But, imo it would be easier and yield greater improvement if we began fixing the OL by solidifying either OT with the 4th pick.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664272]That's a great scenario. I can't wait for the combine and draft.

With all the draft excitement, we should try a Warpath Mock Draft again this year. It didn't work out as planned last time, but maybe worth a shot this year?[/quote]

As with every other year I can only do teams with similar needs to the Redskins. So teams that need QB's, OL, RB's, and LB's will be my forte

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;664266]What do you have against McCoy?
Especially in the 2nd round?
Any knock on McCoy is likely shared with Bradford?

I think McCoy has the tools to be a fine NFL QB.
He reminds me of someone that Shanahan has coached before.
And its a comparison i'm embarrassed to make.

But on completely anecdotal note if anyone listens to Mike&Mike?
Does anyone recall Big Mike mention in passing how he ran into Mike Shanahan at an ND game earlier this year?[/quote]

Just after watching so much film on him there is nothing that really jumps out at me. He looks like nothing more than a kicker or a punter to me ( i know thats not a technical evaluation but just based on sight.) He is one of the weaker armed QB's in the whole draft. Whats he like 190-200 lbs? Kinda small as far as NFL passers go. He had a decent year statistically last year but having Campbell, we've all been shown that stats can lie. He had a much worse year this year. I know he is good at winning but everytime i saw him play a team that was more on Texas's level, he struggled. I just see more potential in the LeFevour's, Pike's, Kafka's of the mid round world than i do with him. Just absolutely NOTHING jumps out at me about him that says, hey we might have some potential here.

But i digress.....if we get him, ill hafta find a way to support him :frusty:

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

The OP uses a limited and narrow sample to "prove" a point. A complete sampling of all starting QBs' draft position and how well they actually played regardless of whether or not the made the damn playoffs would paint a more complete picture. Drew Brees was a monster in 2008 and the Saints didn't make the damn playoffs because his defense was crap, not because he couldn't play.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;664311]Just after watching so much film on him there is nothing that really jumps out at me.[/quote]

What 'film' did you watch?
Athletiscim and quick feet didn't jump out to you?

[quote] He is one of the weaker armed QB's in the whole draft. Whats he like 190-200 lbs? Kinda small as far as NFL passers go.[/quote]

Huh? Weaker arm's in the draft? Care to support such a bold claim with anything?
While he's not big he's 6'2 which is a typical height for a pro QB and he's 212 and has a solid build.

[quote] He had a decent year statistically last year but having Campbell, we've all been shown that stats can lie. [/quote]

So now your questioning his stats, have you seen his stats? You realize he's been a Heisman Trophy candidate?

[quote] I know he is good at winning but everytime i saw him play a team that was more on Texas's level, he struggled.[/quote]

Winning is kinda something that coaches like, lol and btw he's won a lot check his the records *hint* most wins in college football.

[quote]I just see more potential in the LeFevour's, Pike's, Kafka's of the mid round world than i do with him. [/quote]

You realize that he's rated much higher then the guys you mentioned and Paul Burmeister thinks he could gain on Claussen.

[quote]Just absolutely NOTHING jumps out at me about him that says, hey we might have some potential here.[/quote]

What jumps out about the QBs that you mentioned?

-Me thinks you haven't watched him play much and are giving a completely unsupported opinion.

Here's some Texas short cuts i think if you watch with an open mind you'll have a different opinion of McCoy

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHsh2Hal_8&feature=related[/ame]


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXKIxerCG_E[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCIL393_qiQ[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euhlhXA_ryk&feature=related[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpT8bxpLwBo[/ame]

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

Yes those are alot of the cut ups that i had seen before when scouting McCoy. I see his athleticism back there and his quick feet, but if i was looking for athleticism and quick feet id jump on the "TRADE FOR MICHAEL VICK" bandwagon.
How can you not say he has a weak arm? he throws alot of lob balls and even his intermediate throws dont have that ZIP on it that you'd, scratch that, that I'D like to see.
Yes ive seen his stats, BUT THEY ARE COLLEGE STATS! Wit Spread offenses ANY JOE SHMO can have good passing stats. Andre Ware? Timmy Chang? Graham Harrell? Danny Wuerffel? Akili Smith? Tim Couch? Tim Tebow? Colt Brennan? Any of these ring a bell? All put up huge numbers in college and then did terrible in the pros (jury is still out on Brennan and Tebow.) And McCoy was a heisman finalist? So what? Tim Tebow, Andre Ware, and Danny Wuerffel WON the heisman and Ware and Wuerffel were EPIC FAILS and Tebow is currently being called a project.
I understand that he has the current record for most wins by a QB in college history. But he got to start ALL 4 YEARS. Not everyone gets that chance. And they've had a dominant defense all 4 years. You cant contribute every win to a QB there are 53 other players that contribute to a teams success. But ill give him that, ur the face of the team so you get the blame when you lose and the glory when you win. Just saying, you dont always play with teams on your level when you're ranked as high as Texas usually is and when the playing field was more even, he struggled. In the NFL, its like that week in and week out.
i'm not supporting the LeFevour's, Kafka's, or Pike's of the world. It was just an example sayin i see more potential in guys who are rated far lower than he is. i'm not sayin we should draft one of them but they would cost FAR less therefore have less of a BUST potential.
We can agree to disagree, I just dont like McCoy as an NFL prospect. He's expensive (2nd round pick), and i dont see how he is an upgrade on our current 3rd string QB Colt Brennan. Brennan is ALREADY on our roster and didn't cost us a 2nd round pick. Seems foolish to me, with so many other needs, to spend a 2nd rounder on a Brennan clone (who IMO, isnt as good)

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=PHazard;664498]We can agree to disagree, I just dont like McCoy as an NFL prospect.[/quote]

Agreed no worries bro, if my post seemed antagonistic it wasn't my intention, but unsupported statements against any player bother me.

[quote=PHazard;664311] He is one of the weaker armed QB's in the whole draft.[/quote]

I want to address the arm strength point and be done with it:

[url=http://texas.scout.com/a.z?s=110&p=8&c=1&nid=1126801]Scout.com: Colt McCoy Profile[/url]
Scouting Report: McCoy is a quarterback that gets the job done, whether it’s with his arm or legs. He does possess an above average arm and he can throw with touch or velocity. Perhaps his best attribute is his ability to make something happen out of nothing. McCoy has deceptive quickness and speed and is a strong runner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
McCoy
[url]http://www.newerascouting.com/07/col...outing-report/[/url]

Arm strength: Good zip on crossing routes. Throws hard to openings at 10-15 yards. Pushes the ball deep when throwing right and left. Leads receivers deep over the middle, but can put the ball in their chest too.

[url]http://www.newerascouting.com/01/sam...outing-report/[/url]

Bradford
Arm strength: Bradford’s arm strength is good enough. He can’t bomb passes like JaMarcus Russell, but it’s good enough to complete deep outs. Bradford’s arm is probably best suited for a West Coast scheme, but that’s not to say he should exclusively play in that scheme. Puts a really nice touch on the ball.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=30gut;664528]I want to address the arm strength point and be done with it:

[URL="http://texas.scout.com/a.z?s=110&p=8&c=1&nid=1126801"]Scout.com: Colt McCoy Profile[/URL]
Scouting Report: McCoy is a quarterback that gets the job done, whether it’s with his arm or legs. [B]He does possess an above average arm and he can throw with touch or velocity[/B]. Perhaps his best attribute is his ability to make something happen out of nothing. McCoy has deceptive quickness and speed and is a strong runner.[/quote]Based on the link, this is his HS to college scouting report.

There are certainly questions about McCoy's his arm strength:

[URL="http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2010-nfl-draft/colt-mccoy.html"]Colt McCoy, 2010 NFL Draft Prospect[/URL]

[URL="http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2010cmccoy.php"]WalterFootball.com: 2010 NFL Draft Scouting Report: Colt McCoy[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/584648"]Colt McCoy, Texas, NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com[/URL]

His performances in the Big 12 Title game and BCS Championship also leave some questions to be answered. His number of completions under 10yds is also pretty high, if I remember correctly.

If we go LT with the # 4 and the choice is between him or your other scenario with Pouncey in the second, I take Pouncey. I really like your idea if Clausen is gone.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

The thing that scares me about McCoy is what appears to be a lack of variety in his throws. In watching his highlights it feels like every 3 out of 4 throws is to the middle of the field and very rarely longer then 15 yards.

I could be wrong but I want to see a wider array of throws from McCoy especially outs, comebacks, Hitch n Goes, Fades, deep post, etc. Right now I feel like most of the throws I see from him are swings, slants, and 7 yard digs.

Part of the reason I'm high on Clausen is he has a lot of highlights where he makes a lot of those difficult throws. Bradford also seems to have a handful of tough throws, though I must admit that he throws a lot of slants and swings himself. It's just that McCoy seems to do it so often that I'm not very confident in his ability to be a QB at the next level.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;664562]Based on the link, this is his HS to college scouting report.

There are certainly questions about McCoy's his arm strength:

[URL="http://www.nfldraftdog.com/2010-nfl-draft/colt-mccoy.html"]Colt McCoy, 2010 NFL Draft Prospect[/URL]

[URL="http://walterfootball.com/scoutingreport2010cmccoy.php"]WalterFootball.com: 2010 NFL Draft Scouting Report: Colt McCoy[/URL]

[URL="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/584648"]Colt McCoy, Texas, NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com[/URL]

His performances in the Big 12 Title game and BCS Championship also leave some questions to be answered. His number of completions under 10yds is also pretty high, if I remember correctly.

If we go LT with the # 4 and the choice is between him or your other scenario with Pouncey in the second, I take Pouncey. I really like your idea if Clausen is gone.[/quote]

Thanks for the correction you're 100% right that was a HS report, i should have caught that. [IMG]http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1400401111890&id=c3fa85824dc8f90d3eb378c2c2f2feb4&url=http%3a%2f%2fardentfrost.rayd.org%2fBeer%2fyuengling2.jpg[/IMG]

And you're right there are some scouts that have concerns about his arm strength.

But, its one thing to have questions about certain aspects of his arm strength almost every QB coming out except for a few like Claussen and Brown have questions about there arm strength. But, saying that there are question is quite different from saying he has one of the weakest arms in the draft.

Although i visit some of the site you mentioned i only do so because they have links and data compiled in one place. But a lot of those guys have no more scouting credentials then you or I.

And McGuire at Walters gives some of the least professional 'scouting' reports that i've seen.

You're right though he does throw a high % of short passes but that's a by product of the system and when you put up insane efficiency numbers your bound to throw a lot of slants, hitches and screens.

Its not unique to McCoy or to the spread; i hate to compare college offenses to pros but plenty of QBs like Bress, Brady, McNabb, throw a lot of RB/WR screens and it helps run an effecient offense.

I agree that McCoy doesn't make those 'NFL' throws often but he does and can make them.

I feel like we're side-tracking this thread into a QB discussion but...when i was snowed in last week i looked at alot of youtube cuts ups and downloaded some games of the Bradford, Claussen and McCoy.

And i don't see a huge difference in their skillsets.

I broke down the Texas Vs UCF game and McCoy makes some of those NFL throws that people are looking for and if you look at the other game shorts you'll see he makes a few of those 'stick' throws every game.

Seriously, you take a look he throws 17 passes in the short cuts.
A greater concern about McCoy is that he often doesn't plant hard on his lead leg and ends up using his arm to drive the ball instead of his legs. But i digress.

*If anyone wants to compare notes from the UCF short cuts send a PM

[quote=Dirtbag359;664567]The thing that scares me about McCoy is what appears to be a lack of variety in his throws. In watching his highlights it feels like every 3 out of 4 throws is to the middle of the field and very rarely longer then 15 yards.

I could be wrong but I want to see a wider array of throws from McCoy especially outs, comebacks, Hitch n Goes, Fades, deep post, etc. Right now I feel like most of the throws I see from him are swings, slants, and 7 yard digs.

Part of the reason I'm high on Clausen is he has a lot of highlights where he makes a lot of those difficult throws. Bradford also seems to have a handful of tough throws, though I must admit that he throws a lot of slants and swings himself. It's just that McCoy seems to do it so often that I'm not very confident in his ability to be a QB at the next level.[/quote]

I don't think he's much different from Bradford when it comes to throwing short passes, its a by product of system predicated on effeciency.

But, if you look at any of the short-cuts you'll see the throws you're looking for granted the ball doesn't jump of his arm like Clausen but McCoy makes a few stick throws everygame but his offense wasn't built around those passes.

I don't think McCoy questions marks are about wether or not he'll make it as an NFL QB i think his questions are how long will it take.

Re: The Mid Round QB fallacy
 

I didn't know where else to put it, but here's my breakdown of McCoy in the Texas Vs UCF game:
R is where the pass was releases C is where it was caught
t/t - on time on target s/p/d/f-step into throw/plant the leg/drive the ball/follow through

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wHsh2Hal_8&feature=related]YouTube - Texas Vs UCF Highlights 11/07/09[/ame]

1) R34/C54 Out on time/target-good step/plant drive+follow thru w/ people around him

2) Quick screen good

3)R7/C22 Comeback-good t/t,g s/p/d/f

4)R19/C39 good scramble kept eyes downfield steps into it on target

5)R46/C32 kinda half steps it/slings it but on t/t

6)R25/C41 good pass on t/t-s/p/d good coverage

7)R45/C37 half steps w/o plant/drive but slung it out there pretty good on t/t

8)R51/C23 more then a half-step but not a pronounced plant and drive, good pass (i think i'm starting to nit-pick here)

9)R1/C29 sprint/roll right step into throw but off balance nice pass though t/t

10) R29/C52 short/half step but on t/t tight window good accuracy
* showed nice athleticism

11)R37own/C38theirs out right t/t good s/p/d

12) roll right gets steps into throw on the run good coverage but better accuracy

13)R8/C-5 endzone good pocket poise on run tight window nice pass

14)R5endzone/C8 good anticipation/trust a bit off target good delivery

15)R5/C@their 45 Shipley toasted that DB nice route good delivery on target pass

16)R50/C40 good delivery

17)R37/C25 nice fluid delivery didn't 'fire' the ball but didn't have too