The Official(ish) 2012 Quarterback Prospect Thread

[AKM311]

I guess if we miss Luck and RGIII.. then Blackmon and catching Weeden in the 4th is a viable option.

But i'd put a stipulation in there that we must also bring in another QB in FA. We won't be married to Weeden with a 4th, but I cannot endure another season of Grossman and I think another season of Grossman would sink the Shanny's.

We'd have to bring in Flynn or someone.

Bringing in Flynn or any FA QB would have to happen before the draft.

[deejaydana]

I don't know why people think we would pass on Barkley if RG3 is already gone and it's our turn. There is nothing to indicate we would. From what I've read Shanny would love to have him. (And I'm not crazy about him but he will probably be a safe play for us).

[GaryGreenMonk]

I don't know why people think we would pass on Barkley if RG3 is already gone and it's our turn. There is nothing to indicate we would. From what I've read Shanny would love to have him. (And I'm not crazy about him but he will probably be a safe play for us).

I've extensively watched most of these guys. I don't like Barkley or Landry Jones. I didn't like Gabbert either. And anything Shanahan says means nothing.. everyone thought we would take Gabbert and we traded out of the spot.

Of course I have nothing to base it on other than my own observations, but I think we would pass on Barkley. If Barkley was BPA, we would trade out of that spot just like we did last year.

I think it's Luck/RGIII or we are talking about the alternative scenarios here that don't include taking Barkley or Landry Jones.

[deejaydana]

I've extensively watched most of these guys. I don't like Barkley or Landry Jones. I didn't like Gabbert either. And anything Shanahan says means nothing.. everyone thought we would take Gabbert and we traded out of the spot.

Of course I have nothing to base it on other than my own observations, but I think we would pass on Barkley. If Barkley was BPA, we would trade out of that spot just like we did last year.

I think it's Luck/RGIII or we are talking about the alternative scenarios here that don't include taking Barkley or Landry Jones.

Based upon what? That you don't like him? I'm not on the Barkley bandwagon but I haven't heard word one that we would pass him if he's there.

[AKM311]

I don't know why people think we would pass on Barkley if RG3 is already gone and it's our turn. There is nothing to indicate we would. From what I've read Shanny would love to have him. (And I'm not crazy about him but he will probably be a safe play for us).

What have you read to indicate that Shanny would love him?

[darrelgreenie]

I like Tannehill, he has a great arm, nice mechanics and is very athletic as an ex receiver. He is very raw though and would need at least a year and maybe two sat having the edges knocked off and learning the system IMO.

I think we need someone who can start a lot sooner than that.

Tannehill was a QB who moved to WR because as a freshmen he lost the QB comp to Sr. QB McGee a future NFL draft pick and later Jerrod Johnson who ,prior to injury, was arguably the best QB in the Big 12 at the time (3,500+yards 30 TDs 8 INTs) and the WR corps needed help the help he provided over that timespan 112/1,500/10 TDs.

There is no dount that Tannehill lacks experience but he actually knows this offense because A&M runs it; this actually gives him a leg up in learning the offense over even Luck and Barkley.

Tannehill isn't as inexperienced as most think and will have more snaps then Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez both of whom were day 1 starters.

There's as much to suggest that he could be a day 1 or midseason as their is to suggest that he needs to sit for a season.

[sportjunkie07]

Its a leap of faith for any player to stay with your team for the long haul... for a late round guy, you can still add the pieces around him early. Hell, at our position, we could take his boy Blackmon and build a serious team around him next year, a team worthy of contention. Would you take those 5-6 years of consistent playoff contention? Nothings guaranteed, and using say, a 4th on Weeden would be excellent in terms of filling the missing pieces earlier.

i think weeden could very easily drop to the 4th.. however, i think we'll have to use our second if we want him. you just cant gamble like that, cuz if you do and he's gets taken, we are left with nothing at qb.

[GaryGreenMonk]

Based upon what? That you don't like him? I'm not on the Barkley bandwagon but I haven't heard word one that we would pass him if he's there.

I don't like what I see when I watch him.

When you watch Barkley right after watching Luck and RGIII.. you can see a drop off. Barkley tends to throw off his back foot. His wind up is slower and he doesn't get rid of the ball as quickly as they do. He throws a sort of floater looking ball for his deep ball, which is something that bothers me the most. If you look at RGIII's deep ball.. it's got a low arc and gets there relatively quickly. Barkley likes to throw rainbows off his back foot.

It works for Barkley because he's got a lot of talent at WR. Typically his guys have the DB beat by a good 4-5 feet or more. He does throw some strikes in traffic, but I can't get over his rainbow deep ball and what looks to be poor balance when he throws anything longer than 15 yards.

I just think Barkley is being lifted by the talent surrounding him.. while Luck and RGIII (and Weeden, Foles and Tannehill to a degree) are lifting the team on their shoulders.

Andy Dalton was a guy who lifted his team on his shoulders. RGIII and Luck are both great examples of that this year. They are both on sub par teams and carrying their teams.

[darrelgreenie]

I was watching some highlights and if we draft him I really do get excited about how dynamic our play action bootleg game can become. It could be unstoppable considering you MUST keep a DE at home with RG3 bootlegging out.

A QB that can evade pressure and still delivery an accurate pass when pressured from the backside DE on a boot would certainly open up our passing game.

And our RBs would instantly have more cutback lanes.

Along with that the fakes you can run out of it, and if there is a read-option element thrown into the offense, the fake off it will lead to some huge plays. Fake that read option to Helu, have RG3 step back, the safeties and LB's have bitten and committed to the LOS, and boom you have a wide open WR down the field

That's if we would ever run zone-read.

But, I'm gonna spin it forward a bit.

Imagine if our standard I-Form and base personnel boot/swap plays had zone-read elements?

Imagine if the mesh point on a boot-leg could be converted to a zone-read?

Of course it would require some major tweaks but it would really create a dynamic element to boot/swap based offense.

You would probably have to remove the reverse pivot so the QB doesn't have to turn his back to defense and read whether to: (a) give it to the back ( keep it © boot.

You would also need to change the mesh-point for the handoff/fake and the aiming pointing of the RB hole and cutback lane along with the blocking.

[sportjunkie07]

Tannehill was a QB who moved to WR because as a freshmen he lost the QB comp to Sr. QB McGee a future NFL draft pick and later Jerrod Johnson who ,prior to injury, was arguably the best QB in the Big 12 at the time (3,500+yards 30 TDs 8 INTs) and the WR corps needed help the help he provided over that timespan 112/1,500/10 TDs.

There is no dount that Tannehill lacks experience but he actually knows this offense because A&M runs it; this actually gives him a leg up in learning the offense over even Luck and Barkley.

Tannehill isn't as inexperienced as most think and will have more snaps then Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez both of whom were day starters.

There's as much to suggest that he could be a day 1 or midseason as their is to suggest that he needs to sit for a season.

i mentioned this to others, Tannehill's background should prepare him well to run our offense, and he will have a stark advantage in that facet as opposed to other Qb prospects.

also, something ive noticed is that the rb situation will be very similar in terms of personnel. a backfield of gray and michaels is equatable to a backfield of helu and hightower. i do expect our run game to be improved next year, especially if we get other facets of the offense to work properly. a strong run game with an effective play action (one of tannehill's strengths) would be a powerful combination imo.

i still see tannehill as option 2 if we miss out on luck, rg3, and possibly barkley.

[Floodzone004]

Tannehill was a QB who moved to WR because as a freshmen he lost the QB comp to Sr. QB McGee a future NFL draft pick and later Jerrod Johnson who ,prior to injury, was arguably the best QB in the Big 12 at the time (3,500+yards 30 TDs 8 INTs) and the WR corps needed help the help he provided over that timespan 112/1,500/10 TDs.

There is no dount that Tannehill lacks experience but he actually knows this offense because A&M runs it; this actually gives him a leg up in learning the offense over even Luck and Barkley.

Tannehill isn't as inexperienced as most think and will have more snaps then Cam Newton and Mark Sanchez both of whom were day starters.

There's as much to suggest that he could be a day 1 or midseason as their is to suggest that he needs to sit for a season.

Tannehill reminds me of Jake Locker, and I loved Jake Locker. Anybody see Locker against the Saints? Another prospect that was pegged with the "needs a season or two of bench duty" judgement.

[darrelgreenie]

Anybody see Locker against the Saints? Another prospect that was pegged with the "needs a season or two of bench duty" judgement.

Yep.

It was my last weekend of Direct TV (cries).

Awesome TD run.

If it wasn't for a great play by the Saints NB and lousy body position to fight for the ball by Mariaini the Locker wins that game on that throw.

Did you see him come in against the Falcons? He was ripping the ball, I forgot how the ball jumps off his arm it was like watching Stafford.

[Chump Bailey]

Don't get those who would opt for Landry over Tannehill - what's your reasoning?

[Floodzone004]

Yep.

It was my last weekend of Direct TV (cries).

Awesome TD run.

If it wasn't for a great play by the Saints NB and lousy body position to fight for the ball by Mariaini the Locker wins that game on that throw.

Did you see him come in against the Falcons? He was ripping the ball, I forgot how the ball jumps off his arm it was like watching Stafford.

I didn't see the Falcons game unfortunately, but I just got NFL game pass so I'll definitely check it out.

I forgot bout his arm talent too til this week. So wish he would have lasted til 10th. There were a bunch of moments throughout the game that were so laughably reminiscent of his college years (WR drops) that could have also helped win them the game. Funny how some college career circumstances seem to spill over into the pros.

But that's my point with Tannehill. Skillset there? Oh yeah. Plays watered down version of our offense? Yeah. Raw? Yeah, but so is every rookie.

People need to stop with these shallow judgements like "Plays in a spread offense, needs to sit on the bench", "Runs too much, needs to sit on the bench" "Too little experience, needs to sit on the bench". If scouting were that easy then nobody would ever bust.

[SkinsHokieFan]

But, I'm gonna spin it forward a bit.

Imagine if our standard I-Form and base personnel boot/swap plays had zone-read elements?

Imagine if the mesh point on a boot-leg could be converted to a zone-read?

Of course it would require some major tweaks but it would really create a dynamic element to boot/swap based offense.

You would probably have to remove the reverse pivot so the QB doesn't have to turn his back to defense and read whether to: (a) give it to the back ( keep it © boot.

You would also need to change the mesh-point for the handoff/fake and the aiming pointing of the RB hole and cutback lane along with the blocking.

I just drew it out on the white board in my office and this is silly how good it can be. I am genuinly excited thinking about all the possibilities.

You are right in that the QB can not turn his back to the D, and it would almost function as a triple option.

But my goodness what you could do with RG3 off the boot. You can have a deep crossing route with the WR, a shallow route with Cooley, or you can run the reverse wheel route with Fred Davis on the other side of the field (RG3 has the arm to get it there)

Another element you can add off the boot is a reverse, although that may take too long to develop, or fake the read option and pitch it. So many possibilities with this

[mistertim]

People need to stop with these shallow judgements like "Plays in a spread offense, needs to sit on the bench", "Runs too much, needs to sit on the bench" "Too little experience, needs to sit on the bench". If scouting were that easy then nobody would ever bust.

I think part of the thing here is how open an OC is to changing his scheme a decent amount to fit a QB who might come from a spread system, etc (like Chudz with the Panthers and Newton). To me, Kyle doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would really do that; he seems pretty set with his scheme and how he wants it run. Tweak things a bit to take advantage of certain things a QB does or doesn't do well? Sure. Change his scheme a bunch to accommodate a QB without much experience under center, etc? Unlikely.

[darrelgreenie]

Floodzone004-

I hate the Titans.

Is that wrong?

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 05:48 PM ----------

And I hope whichever QB we draft doesn't need to sit for a year.

There's a chance he might have a different staff then next year.

[mistertim]

And I hope whichever QB we draft doesn't need to sit for a year.

There's a chance he might have a different staff then next year.

A agree with you there, which is why I also agree with you that the Skins are more likely to look at Luck and Barkley as fits before Griffin because of the way Kyle runs his system, etc, and because they know they want/need a guy who can step into the system early on and likely have some success.

EDIT: Apparently Peyton has started throwing again with his amped-up rehab regimen. Hmm.

[Floodzone004]

I think part of the thing here is how open an OC is to changing his scheme a decent amount to fit a QB who might come from a spread system, etc (like Chudz with the Panthers and Newton). To me, Kyle doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would really do that; he seems pretty set with his scheme and how he wants it run. Tweak things a bit to take advantage of certain things a QB does or doesn't do well? Sure. Change his scheme a bunch to accommodate a QB without much experience under center, etc? Unlikely.

You're definitely right and I agree with you. I like Kyle's offense but he is very rigid (too rigid?) and obviously that can make life on a rookie QB with not a whole lot of experience difficult. My point was with Tannehill who already runs a somewhat simpler version of our offense, not just a "pro style" offense. Yes he doesn't have a whole lot of experience, but the experience he has is very relevant. Instead of having to learn all new play concepts, verbiage, footwork, and etc, Tannehill would be able to focus more on the speed of the game which every rookie will have to do anyway.

I'm not saying Tannehill is the perfect prospect or that he can't bust with us. I like Tannehill as a prospect and really could not think of a better fit for him than here.

[Ashburn Dave]

I voted for RG III because I want to see more play makers on this team but I'm not sure he fits the mold of QB's we see year in year out in the SB. Hopefully he can bust the mold if we're lucky enough to get him.

[Floodzone004]

Floodzone004-

I hate the Titans.

Is that wrong?

---------- Post added December-14th-2011 at 05:48 PM ----------

And I hope whichever QB we draft doesn't need to sit for a year.

There's a chance he might have a different staff then next year.

As a Redskins fan that wanted Locker, definitely hate them too. As a Locker fan, glad he went to a good place where he can succeed.

[Hooper]

How we do know Kyle is so rigid? Because Fletcher Smith and McNabb said so? Or is this something else that has given him this rep? Just curious.

And I don't see why any QB wouldn't want to play in Kyle's offense. It gets mediocre receivers wide open.

[mistertim]

I'm not saying Tannehill is the perfect prospect or that he can't bust with us. I like Tannehill as a prospect and really could not think of a better fit for him than here.

Oh I completely agree that Tannehill has a great skillset and tons of potential. But, even though he was a QB in HS and has been playing in college for over a full season now he still looks raw sometimes and seems to have problem when playing against good defenses that get a lot of penetration. He has had a somewhat up and down year. I wouldn't be upset if we had him but he isn't a guy I would necessarily start right away unless the coaches really thought he was ready.

[issapunk]

Luck and RGIII are my top 2 guys as well, but Barkley is very close behind. I don't understand why we have switched gears into the mindset that 'if Luck and RGIII are gone, we pass on Barkley...then what?' I think Barkley would be very successful with us and I would be extremely happy if we got him. His deep ball is not the greatest, but it's still accurate, and his short to intermediate passes are spot-on accurate. The way our sub-par WR core is getting open, I think any of these 3 guys would do very well here. Why all the Barkley doubt all of the sudden?

[KCClybun]

You're definitely right and I agree with you. I like Kyle's offense but he is very rigid (too rigid?) and obviously that can make life on a rookie QB with not a whole lot of experience difficult. My point was with Tannehill who already runs a somewhat simpler version of our offense, not just a "pro style" offense. Yes he doesn't have a whole lot of experience, but the experience he has is very relevant. Instead of having to learn all new play concepts, verbiage, footwork, and etc, Tannehill would be able to focus more on the speed of the game which every rookie will have to do anyway.

I'm not saying Tannehill is the perfect prospect or that he can't bust with us. I like Tannehill as a prospect and really could not think of a better fit for him than here.

I think a lot of the stuff about Kyle "not being willing to adjust" is complete and utter bull.

If you're an offensive coordinator, who are you more likely to adjust for? A bright eyed, fresh, young, talented rookie quarterback, or a thirteen year veteran who should have his fundamentals in order and have the ability to adjust as well?

I think Kyle has shown that he is a creative playcaller who is more than willing to adjust. Beck's in the game, we run boot more. Rex is in the game, we work the middle of the field more. McNabb's in the game, we take more shots deep and throw more screens.

I don't think Kyle has an issue with adjusting. When it comes to McNabb, I think McNabb had an issue adjusting. I think it was sort of a "meet you halfway" deal, but McNabb never came and tried to meet him halfway. McNabb wanted a totally different system. He wanted to freelance. He wanted the read/progression order to be different. He wanted more things that they ran in Philly. And Kyle tried to incorporate some more of those ideas into the offense, but McNabb never came to the middle, and never made the commitment to really learning the playbook. And what it comes down to is, how can you adjust to what anyone is doing if that person can't operate the basics of your offense?

If we drafted RGIII, I have no doubt that Kyle would be more than willing to add some things he's more comfortable with. Have him operate out of shotgun more, maybe put some zone/read plays in there. But before we go crazy with the zone/read/option stuff because some other teams quarterbacks have had success doing it, keep this in mind; what makes Cam's play so awesome this year isn't that they run a ton of option. Cam's work under center and his ability to read defenses have been outstanding this year. They added things Cam's comfortable with, but they've also taught him a ton about the BASICS of a NFL pro-style offense.

The same can be said of Tebow. These last few weeks, yeah, they run zone/read, sometimes they run option, but I think the most refreshing thing is that they're letting him work under center, have drop back passes, and that he's becoming more comfortable making reads and throws from the pocket.

The zone/read stuff and spread-option or just plain spread...those concepts are fine. They're a nice wrinkle. But the most impressive thing to me when it comes to those two guys is that, slowly in Tebow's case but real quick in Cam's case, is that they seem to be nailing down the basics of an NFL offense as WELL as doing the other the stuff they're more comfortable, meaning they'll become more well-rounded quarterbacks in the future.

If we draft RGIII, Kyle's going to try like hell to make him a dynamic guy. But RGIII will also learn the basics and the core concepts of our offense, and will probably be more willing to as well.