Whats wrong with Nick Foles?!?

[darrelgreenie]

There's a question. All subjective to the individual and situation

Good post, btw.

I agree to an extent that its subjective.

If you have a hunch about a guy you have a hunch about a guy.

But if were hashing out reasons then imo there can/should be some objecticity applied.

but to me FWIW:With Luck it's~[everything you said about Luck except]...He's also not had the best weapons to work with at Stanford. Technically great fundamental receivers, but not blessed with great speed; but he's lead them into great positions time after time when I've watched him.

edit: (I think Luck had good weapons at Stanford but their offense is geared towards TE where they have elite talent. For example Doug Baldwin only caught 58 passes at Stanford goes to the NFL and catches 51 passes. I think its more of the design of Stanfords offense, which is great imo, then by a lack of weapons.)

I agree with almost everything you've said about Luck and imo they're also true for Wilson (except size) therefore shouldn't you view Wilson as being able to start right away also?

I think efficiency is a stat the encompasses alot of the traits you mentioned above and Wilson lead the NCAA in efficiency last year.

Griffin is just a freak of nature that's athletic enough, and has shown enough with his arm for me to feel comfortable starting him day one and to have relative success for a rookie from that point in year one.....That lesson's the difference in scheme to me and wouldn't make the adjustment as cumbersome as the lesser talented, all be it good QB's like those you mentioned

Gotcha, I follow now.

Just one quibble though:

He's so strong and fast that your talking the type of success if not better Newton's had this past year, all things being equal.

I agree he's fast, the strength? idk.

Wow, a better year then Cam Newton?

Quick question do you think Griffin is a better prospect then Newton?

Tannehill has had one year at the position. Would you seriously want to throw someone of that limited experience, however talented an arm, in from the get-go?

That's a different question, b/c personally I think all QBs should sit for a little before they start.

But being that Tannehill plays in our actual offense and there have been QBs with less experience then Tannehill start week 1 as rookies; I think there is as much to suggest that Tannehill could start week 1 as there is to suggest that he couldn't.

[GWinSkins83]

You'd honestly start a guy with a little over a season and a half's worth of experience as a collegiate QB, who spent the first two years of college life at receiver; day 1 in the pros? Seriously?

I like Tannehill, and think he has a lot of upside in the right coaching hands; but not to be thrown in so soon with so little experience behind him.

Hail.

He has ran our version of offense for those 1 and half years. He is use to this offense. I can see us more of a running team till he gets his confidence up. But yeah I can see him starting.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Gotcha, I follow now.

Just one quibble though:

I agree he's fast, the strength? idk.

Wow, a better year then Cam Newton?

Quick question do you think Griffin is a better prospect then Newton?

I think the defining moment in RGIII's last year in school was the bowl game when he was boxed in by what, 6 or 7 defenders, most of whom had a grasp of him; and he somehow shed the lot to escape for a gain. Dudes one tough SOB for his size. The worry I guess is with his athleticism and speed, will he absorb the inevitable hits to last a full 16 game season? Which is a requirement from a franchise QB.

Personally, I think Griffin has a more accurate arm than Cam, not to take away from the Panther. I'd certainly put him on a par at least with Cam coming out.

I take on board the fair and somewhat pertinent points you make on both Wilson and the Aggie. but I just don't see the same thing in either that I do in Luck as transcends to the pros right here, right now, shrugs. It's hard to define what 'it' is, but Andrew Luck just has 'IT.'

---------- Post added January-19th-2012 at 10:37 AM ----------

He has ran our version of offense for those 1 and half years. He is use to this offense. I can see us more of a running team till he gets his confidence up. But yeah I can see him starting.

Interesting. I can see and appreciate yours and others reasoning there, and again, I really like the upside of Tannehill. I just wouldn't be totally comfortable throwing him to the wolves so to speak day one.

Hail.

[GWinSkins83]

I think the defining moment in RGIII's last year in school was the bowl game when he was boxed in by what, 6 or 7 defenders, most of whom had a grasp of him; and he somehow shed the lot to escape for a gain. Dudes one tough SOB for his size. The worry I guess is with his athleticism and speed, will he absorb the inevitable hits to last a full 16 game season? Which is a requirement from a franchise QB.

Personally, I think Griffin has a more accurate arm than Cam, not to take away from the Panther. I'd certainly put him on a par at least with Cam coming out.

I take on board the fair and somewhat pertinent points you make on both Wilson and the Aggie. but I just don't see the same thing in either that I do in Luck as transcends to the pros right here, right now, shrugs. It's hard to define what 'it' is, but Andrew Luck just has 'IT.'

---------- Post added January-19th-2012 at 10:37 AM ----------

Interesting. I can see and appreciate yours and others reasoning there, and again, I really like the upside of Tannehill. I just wouldn't be totally comfortable throwing him to the wolves so to speak day one.

Hail.

I'm not saying it is the best situation but I'm just saying he could since he has experience in a pro system like ours. But I would think he should go in when he is confrontable.

[dballer]

Question:

How do you determine which QB you think can start day one?

Luck/Russell both play in pro-style offenses, and Wilson actually is the more efficient passer.

Griffin plays in a spread offense like Weeden and Foles.

Tannehill plays in our offense.

Luck can definitely start day one. Pro style offense. Calls his own plays. Great understanding of the game. The same goes for Wilson. If you believe Wilson is an NFL starter, he would be that from day one.

Griffin plays spread offense but because of his intelligence, and because of his mobility he can start day one. His athleticism will help overcome the learning curve.

Foles and Tannehill both need time. Foles needs work on arm strength and accuracy, possibly due to his footwork.

Tannehill I'm just not sure about. Common sense would tell you that he needs more time to learn the position, though he did complete over 60% of his passes both of his seasons, which is a benchmark. He did have some interception issues though. Plus with the broken foot I don't see him being able to start next year.

Weeden, I would pass on no matter what. Interception issues, already 28, and inflated stats due to having the premiere WR.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

I'm not saying it is the best situation but I'm just saying he could since he has experience in a pro system like ours. But I would think he should go in when he is confrontable.

Hypothetical, and it's something I've not even considered until now as I've had no interest in him:

If the Colts do the complete reverse to what I think, take Luck, and jettison Peyton; and we miss out on Griffin; if the medical experts give him 100% on his neck; would you take Manning at the cost of the cap for a few years whilst say Tannehill sits and learns?

Hail.

[DogofWar1]

Hypothetical, and it's something I've not even considered until now as I've had no interest in him:

If the Colts do the complete reverse to what I think, take Luck, and jettison Peyton; and we miss out on Griffin; if the medical experts give him 100% on his neck; would you take Manning at the cost of the cap for a few years whilst say Tannehill sits and learns?

Hail.

Honestly, I'd really prefer we stayed away from Manning. He would never be anything more than a stopgap for a maybe starter. I would rather spend three years running through a half dozen rookies and young guys until we find the one, vs. having one guy sitting behind Manning who we think will work, but don't know.

Seriously, if Cleveland takes Griffin we should just take McCoy off their hands. He'll come cheap, and would still be an upgrade over Grossman. The saved cap-room would allow us to continue to grow our team, so that if/when we finally find a franchise QB we've got the support system in place for him to be successful.

I'm not saying it is the best situation but I'm just saying he could since he has experience in a pro system like ours. But I would think he should go in when he is confrontable.

The biggest problem with Tannehill is not his grasping of the system but his current skillset. He follows one read too long, sometimes projects where he's throwing, will periodically force throws, and puts too much air under deeper passes. Tannehill needs to sit a year with an NFL QB coach teaching him, so he can fix those.

[GWinSkins83]

Hypothetical, and it's something I've not even considered until now as I've had no interest in him:

If the Colts do the complete reverse to what I think, take Luck, and jettison Peyton; and we miss out on Griffin; if the medical experts give him 100% on his neck; would you take Manning at the cost of the cap for a few years whilst say Tannehill sits and learns?

Hail.

Yeah I would do that especially if Peyton take a little less so we can get some other players like Bowe or V Jax and make a run.

[Cen Tex Skins]

Definitely want RGIII but if we miss out on him I pray we trade down and get more picks.Take Foles in the 2nd, then assuming Peyton is 100% healthy and we get him cheap I say grab him.I guess this wouldn't be a bad plan B.