Berggy9598

6 minutes ago, KDawg said:

He did play for USC.

Hence the dbag getup 

35 minutes ago, KDawg said:

 

I'm not far from this take. Though not quite on with it. But in general I am in agreement. 

 

I tried to tell you...

 

SoCal is a UCLA fan. He thinks London is OJ Simpson. 

 

Not even worth the conversation.

My Dad was a tenured professor at UCLA so I detest USC and everything they stand for so I sympathize, but lazy takes are never ok in this thread. 

1 hour ago, SoCalSkins said:

He is a slow receiver on a 4-8 team that got his coach fired. I don’t remember him playing in the 62-33 loss to UCLA at home in the colosseum. So not sure which Td you are talking about but they were mostly put up by UCLA and there was some trash time scoring by USC. 

Other than the “slow” part which isn’t even true, none of that has anything to do with his traits as a player. 

I regrettably haven't really had time to follow this thread this year so I can only assume I've missed all the Drake London talk, but I've been reading a lot of kinda lazy takes that he's just a jump ball receiver that can't separate. There is so much more to his game that people are missing for some reason, and yeah he's not someone that's going to pop in and out of breaks like the OSU kids, but he can do a variety of things to mitigate. First and foremost, he's the best stacker in the class by a mile, and he can do it at the top of intermediate and deep routes, as well as right off the snap in bump and run because of his footwork. He's not really a speed variance guy, but he's fluid and can change direction in higher gears, which is another mitigating factor to "can't separate". He's also pretty crafty with his body language and again thanks to his footwork he can throw off coverage by how suddenly he can throttle and sink his hips. He's not elusive after the catch, but he runs with a purpose and has the wiry strength to be break tackles. (Watch his TD vs UCLA)

There was a 2-3 game stretch last season where we were strolling up and down the field but didn't put any points on the board because Thomas was out. London is a perfect remedy for those issues, and who I'm keeping my fingers crossed for. 

Apologies everyone life got in the way. Not missed a pick since I started doing this but I have too much on my plate, so if someone can take the 49ers I think that’s best. 

10 hours ago, Skinsinparadise said:

Not sure I agree with item 4, i get the Joe Burrow survived a porous O line but he still didn't win.

 

 

As a natural reaction to the fact that it’s easier to play QB and much to our dismay as we’ve found out this season it has become consequently easier for offenses to scheme around the pass rush. This makes the Bengals ineptness in that area all the more impressive, but they were in the Super Bowl and they have the first three items on that list. 

No it actually is a fact that Kyler Murray will not be traded. Completely different scenario than Russ or Aaron Rodgers. 

Murray is angling for the big contract between years 3-4. If he was on your list, throw out the list and take a break from list making. 

Not lobbying for this, but if the desire is for a QB prospect of Burrow’s caliber, I think there’s at least a discussion to be had about Bryce Young and CJ Stroud. We have some tradable assets on the D-line next off season (assuming a trade up is necessary) and it would allow us to strengthen the roster with this year’s draft to add to some healthy cap room that would soften the blow of losing our 2024 first round pick. This means of course that we have to punt on the position this year. 

55 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Yeah I never really understood that sort of black and white thinking when it comes to QBs vs the rest of the roster. Of course both are important, but the question is which comes first?

 

If you get the stud supporting cast first then you've basically given yourself a small window of 3-5 years at the most to find your franchise QB. And if you draft a rookie QB it's likely that even if he turns out to be elite, it will take him a couple years to get there. So by the time he actually gets close to where he could be, the rest of your cast is probably going downhill since it's almost impossible to keep a star studded group together for more than a few years due to cap issues.

 

If you get the stud QB first then you've basically given yourself 10-15 years (assuming you drafted him) for supporting roster development. And during that 10-15 year timespan you'll be able to refresh those supporting groups multiple times.

 

With the way the modern NFL is, to me it's just a no-brainer. And it seems like pretty much all NFL coaches and execs think the same thing.

IMO that’s because it’s just easier to play QB now a days. You can legitimately go up and down the field manufacturing throws with an athletic QB and one or two receivers that can win 1on1. 

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

This is the right take.

 

A franchise QB doesn't mean you win the Super Bowl every year. You won't even win that often(unless you're Brady). 

 

But you're going to be winning 10+ games every year for a decade or so, barring injury. The only real exception to that is Stafford who was stuck on the absolute dog doo doo Detroit Lions franchise(but even then he managed to at least take them to the playoffs a couple of times).

 

Look at the teams that sustain success. Not just nowadays but historically. They've all had franchise QBs. I think this fan base is cynical to that because we're the only team that won multiple SBs with multiple different guys, but all three of those teams had very good QB play. We essentially did have a franchise QB, just split between three different guys. But the idealogy is the same really.

 

In today's NFL its hard to maintain a great team for more than like 2-3 years because of the salary cap. The QB is the one constant. You can shuffle in/out and replace other guys on your team, as long as you have that top notch QB in place you can maintain a winning standard.

 

Its time for us to find that guy. Its been too long.

Those teams quite a few hall of famers (inducted or otherwise) all over the place. Going on one run to a Super Bowl with an average QB is hard enough, but nobody will ever again put together a team capable of being that good for a decade with whoever at QB. If you look at some of the outlying teams over the years, are the odds of being able to put together defenses that are dominant year in year our or finding a RB like Derrick Henry that much higher than landing a franchise QB? Absolutely not. It’s the inability to develop that’s killed us, not identifying and drafting a high level QB. 

On 1/18/2022 at 5:53 PM, kingdaddy said:

I've been a fan for almost 50 years and when you tell me how they'll get a franchise QB then let me know cause I haven't seen one here since Joe Theismann. I'm all for taking a shot on a very good to elite QB, more than you would ever know, just tell me your guaranteed plan of finding one and I'll jump on your train. If there's no surefire QB there at #11 when we pick then I'm taking a playmaker and continuing to build the roster. Like I said, I'd build the way the Texans and Niners have done it. I guess you're not a fan of drafting guys like Deebo Samuel, Derrick Henry, George Kittle and others over reaching for a hopeful franchise QB. The Niners and Titans took shots on vet castoffs, that's where I'd start my search. You can disagree, no worries.

You'll find a franchise QB before you find another Deebo/Derrick Henry, and good luck emulating what the 49ers are doing. Jimmy G's trade at the time it was made was not a random punt on a journeyman vet, and even with Derrick Henry, the Titans are not winning a Super Bowl with Ryan Tannehill, because you can't put the game on his shoulders in the playoffs. As has been pointed out, it's not a choice between stacking the roster and finding a franchise QB. 

17 hours ago, Alcoholic Zebra said:

 

2017 begs to differ.  Foles, Bortles, and Keenum were all in the AFC and NFC Championship Games.

 

Currently, while Stafford, Mahomes, and Allen all have top talent.  Jimmy G does not, but his opponent did. 

 

It's not a "no chance", but certainly makes it less likely.

Unsustainable outlier, plus Foles isn't in the Super Bowl without Carson Wentz in superman mode until the injury, and Tom Brady ended up in the Super Bowl on the other side. Outliers always beg to differ but in the long run they don't differ at all. 

Curl and Kyle Hamilton’s games complement each other…just saying. 

If Kirk didn't have the bravado of Leslie Jordan he really would be one of the best QBs in the league. 

On 12/18/2021 at 12:10 PM, Spaceman Spiff said:

Taylor Heinicke, Lionel Messi and Steph Curry are nothing like us.  Sure, they're not super huge or physically imposing people but they still have finely tuned motor skills and are coordinated in a way that the average human can't fathom.  From that perspective, they're still superiorly gifted from a genetic standpoint that it doesn't matter to me if I can see eye to eye with Steph or Heinicke (haha, I look down on you, Messi), they might as well be Shaquille O'Neal. 

 

 

Quoted wrong post 

14 minutes ago, wit33 said:

Off topic, but do you know if Heineke has run much RPO/RO in his career? I’ve looked at his college highlights and there seems to be a small amount, but for most part he’s in gun and dropping back. 
 

Just curious if he’s not comfortable with RPO/RO stuff and that’s why it’s not being featured. 

Sometimes RPO is used to manufacture completions for QBs when they’re struggling going through possessions. Probably wasn’t necessary when he was in college considering he was already doing ok with his progressions in the playoffs last year. 

1 hour ago, petey hodge said:

when Dan is gone... decades of fan suffering will cease, and a new hope will begin anew....

 

this, I believe...

 

I’m not sure it’s happening anytime soon. There’s no way he’s the only one fighting tooth and nail to keep the Pandora’s box sealed. Jerry Richardson and Donald Sterling did something that made only them to look like pond scum so nobody was going down with them.

2 hours ago, Luca Brasi said:

Because he’s a scumbag piece of **** and has ruined one of the premier franchises in all of sports while taking advantage of fans every step of the way. 

And oddly enough he wants success on the field too but he’s an overgrown toddler with a complex that’s too self deluded and pathetic to contemplate the idea he has no clue what he’s doing. Just a walking nausea inducement of a human being. 

24 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

I couldn’t disagree more about Pickett being the better thrower on the run.  Pickett IMO is good throwing on the move, Corral to my eyes is a clear peg better. 
 

Much of Corral’s game is about making plays on the move whether it’s via taking off via RPOs, various rollouts, boots, etc. That’s his bread and butter IMO. He is just about always on the move.  That’s a big part of his game.

 

He is the only QB I’ve watched in this group who reminds me of Mac Jones in the context of being really good at manipulating safeties with his eyes and body language. I would tout Mac over and over again for that quality in the previous draft thread. Corral IMO isn’t on his level in that department but he’s close.
 

I got to watch Pickett some more but I’ve seen enough that for me I’d take Corral over him without blinking.  My issue with Pickett is he’s a jack of many trades but what is his special super power?  Some say accuracy but I am not so sure. It’s much easier for me to see Corral’s superpowers. But that’s just obviously opinion.

 

I am confident enough right now to stick my neck out for Corral. I am trying to fall for some other prospects. I’ve tried to fall for Pickett and I like him but haven’t talked myself into loving him but maybe I will if he kills it in the Senior Bowl. I am big on intangibles so I am curious to hear about the reports about Pickett in Mobile.

 

 

 Yeah I am sold on Corral. As far as intangibles go, he is supposedly an emotional/fiery leader. Hard worker. Baller.

 

He plays with similar moxie and emotion to ironically Heinicke. 

Watch the throws at 0:26, 2:24, 3:30, 5:25, 6:57 and 7:46. The throw where he rolls to his left is especially impressive, but the throwing motion and release is smooth and sudden, especially considering those are off script throws rather than manufactured throws. If Pickett’s arm was a little bit stronger they’d be neck and neck. I really like the progression in Corral’s game from last season to this season. His feet were an eye sore and that as well as decision making is where he’s made his biggest jump, but there were still moments this season where he’s looked unpolished, and needed quite a few manufactured throws. If I had to bet Id still say Corral is the first QB off the board because you can see he’s a worker when you put his 20 and 21 film side by side and he has all the physical tools, but Pickett is a much better prospect than he gets credit for. The intangibles and moxy are right there with him too. 

8 hours ago, 757SeanTaylor21 said:

I really feel like Willis is closest comp to a cam that Ron can get...and would be perfect for them both

Why would that concern a defensive coach? 

54 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

My gut is the same especially if he has a good Senior Bowl.  He's not my favorite QB prospect in the draft, that would be Corral.  But Pickett to me comes off as a safe feeling pick.  He has good size.  Good personality.  Decent accuracy.    I have to still watch him more.  I've seen plenty of games of his but I got to do a deeper dive still.

 

If I had to bet right now, I think Corral and Pickett go top 10 but probably not top 5 unless Pickett burns up the Senior Bowl.

 

 

 

His accuracy is more than decent IMO and while he doesn’t have Corrals arm he’s actually better throwing on the run. I don’t know if he has a baseball background but on his highlight reels there are some throws where it looks like that’s the case. All said and done he might be the first QB off the board. 

46 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

 

My entire point was that you're so heavily invested in TH and that 'being right' is much more important to you than it is to me.  Hence why after every bad game you show up with 1000 words on everyone else and why they stink and just a few words about TH not playing well.   It's abundantly clear, just own it man.  I don't really have any skin in this game, nor have I ever said to bench him.  I've been rather clear that I think he's earned the right to play out the season.  You must have me confused with someone else.

Then as a coach, you should probably point and laugh at yourself because you show up wildly defending this dude's play every week as if you know the ins and outs of Turner's playbook and Heineke's abilities.  I guess everyone that analyzes football for a living should just hang it up because they can't possibly grasp what's going on.  In fact everyone should just stop having opinions about football and bow down to you.  😂

At least now we can tell our ladies we know what it feels like to get mansplained. 

1 minute ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

Because there is more nuance to gameplanning than just running concepts.  At the high school level - Phoebus High School (State champs again) - we broke down everything.  We didn't just blindly run our passing concepts thinking they're always going to work.  That would be next level stupid.  The kind of stuff you can get away with in little league.  When you go up levels, you have to do your homework.  Look at the personnel.  Who can play and who can't?   Do I have a match up against a bad receiver?  What kind of defense?  Zone? Man? Hybrid?  What are the tendencies of certain dbs?  Is he handsy?  Over aggressive?  Conservative?  etc.

 

I remember a pass rusher in the NFL who came to speak once from Hampton Highschool.  (Robert Banks I think - also played at Notre Dame)  He said they destroyed Houston once because the D line knew that if Moon's feet were parallel it was a run.  If he had his right foot back it was a pass.  In the pros, they look for every possible advantage.  

 

So, I don't know if a receiver was missed.  And neither do you.  

We understand the concepts of play calling and opposition scouting. The idea that only the OC knows if open receivers were missed is still wrong. 

8 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

You're not being objective because I have been honest about TH's shortcomings.  You're seeing what you want to see at this point.  Because being right is more important to you than trying to figure out how the problems can be corrected next week.  Your answer, like Snyder, is just pull the QB.  Bench him!  If you go to Allen, and he wets the bed, now what?  You haven't thought this thru.    

 

 

Not picking on you about this but as a coach I can't help but laugh at people who point out a guy that was wide open after the play.  I don't care who is breaking down film.  Kurt Warner, Tom Brady, or Joe Gibbs himself.  The ONLY person who can give you a good analysis is the OC.  Scott Turner in this case.  Only he can tell you the order of progressions.  Who was #1, #2, #3, etc.  

 

I know there have been times too where I've caused my QB more problems by not allowing them to stay true to the progressions that were practiced and planned.  There have been several times where I've run some concept.  Such as a slant flat.  I may see both the DB and the LB take the slant leaving the flat receiver open.  I've told the QB, "hey, look for the flat on this concept when we running it again.  It was wide open."  So the QB does that and this time the DB, having been coached up that he blew it before, stays home and then we end up with an interception.  Is that my QB's fault or my fault?  It's my fault!  I put the thought in his head.  So, later on, I stopped doing that and just told the QB to read it out.  This happens at the pro level too.  A receiver comes back to the QB telling him that he was wide open on a concept.  Then, that gets the QB in trouble.  

 

You'll know if the QB is not following the progressions or the advice of his OC when he gets pulled.  When the QB can no longer be trusted to read the defense and the progressions correctly then he has to be pulled.  That hasn't happened yet so saying that receivers are open means absolutely nothing.  None of us know for sure if TH played well or not because we don't know the gameplan.  All we can do is judge by how well the offense functions.  TH gives the WFT the best chance to compete for the 2021 season.  Fitz is on IR.  Allen hasn't proven that he can be the leader that this version of the WFT offense needs to succeed.  It is what it is.  No sense in constantly slamming TH for not being the pro bowler that no one says he is.  He's maximized what he has and the team is still in the playoff hunt.  I'll take that in December. 

 

You’re not the only person to have coached in here and that’s some impressive Simone Biles level mental gymnastics. I (let alone posters who have much more experience coaching and evaluating than me) could watch the all-22 and the route concepts and know if any open receivers were missed. Also you instruct QBs to make read X if the defense is doing Y, not make this read no matter what. Just curious though if you say only the OC knows if open receivers were missed, how do you know they weren’t? 

How is the receiver that bailed TH out on multiple occasions and routinely makes high degree of difficulty under scrutiny now? If it weren't for McLaurin we're having a different conversation in this thread