2022 Comprehensive Draft Thread

[mistertim]

8 minutes ago, stevemcqueen1 said:

 

It's not a stretch at all.  Willis's film from the past two seasons is a highlight reel of spectacular and unique individual playmaking.  It seems like the only game of his you watched was the Ole Miss game.  Liberty beat Syracuse, VT, Coastal Carolina, and lost by one to NC State.  These were games where they were outclassed at every spot except QB.  They were in those games because Willis made a lot of magic.  And in the rest of his schedule, it's not like Liberty is a recruiting powerhouse like Alabama or Georgia or Ohio State tap dancing on totally inferior teams.  Liberty has maybe one or two other guys who will see an NFL roster, probably as reserves and special teamers.  Their only big advantage was that they had a great QB.

 

Jamin ran and jumped his way into being a first round reach, but that test athleticism didn't show up on his film with any kind of consistency.  He didn't play that fast and there were barely any big plays in his film at all aside from one big INT and return against TN.  You're talking about him as if the only thing you know about him as a prospect was his RAS score, but we know that a big reason Ron gravitated toward him was his military kid background and his unassuming personality.  Spectacular plays are constant with Willis.  He makes them throughout each of his games.  If you can't understand the difference that is so evident in their film--that Willis is an obvious star player that constantly wows opponents, broadcasters, teammates, etc. and Jamin is just a cog in the machine, then I think you need to go back and watch both of them again.

 

This is why the debate obviously will go nowhere. You're 150% invested in Willis and seem to basically see him as superhuman and mostly discount it when he's played poorly. Sure he doesn't have a lot of weapons or a great team, but he's also mostly going up against other teams with next to no talent.

 

He's basically a pure upside pick due to his big arm and elite running ability. This isn't exactly a crazy hot take...it's pretty much universally accepted. As a pure passer he's very raw and he comes from a mostly one read and run offense. He has very inconsistent footwork and decision making.

 

He's going to take a fair amount of time to adapt to the NFL game, and there's certainly no way to be sure the he'll be able to. Again, that's why he's viewed as an upside guy and a pretty risky 1st round pick, especially in the top 10.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

 

This is why the debate obviously will go nowhere. You're 150% invested in Willis and seem to basically see him as superhuman and mostly discount it when he's played poorly. Sure he doesn't have a lot of weapons or a great team, but he's also mostly going up against other teams with next to no talent.

 

He's basically a pure upside pick due to his big arm and elite running ability. This isn't exactly a crazy hot take...it's pretty much universally accepted. As a pure passer he's very raw and he comes from a mostly one read and run offense. He has very inconsistent footwork and decision making.

 

He's going to take a fair amount of time to adapt to the NFL game, and there's certainly no way to be sure the he'll be able to. Again, that's why he's viewed as an upside guy and a pretty risky 1st round pick, especially in the top 10.

From an outsider’s perspective, seems like you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing @stevemcqueen1of doing, just from the opposite angle.  You seem to ignore the point about the better teams he’s faced, Steve bringing up his technique issues and need to start Willis off with a “remedial passing” game, and you only acknowledging his arm strength/running ability while discounting his film.

 

I can understand your Jamin Davis comp - the upside vs the floor.  I also think it’s fair for Steve to point out that Willis has put far more plus play on film than Davis, thus diluting that comp a bit.

 

I think you guys both bring up good points - positive and negative.  He seems quite raw as a passer (with no guarantees he markedly improves) and that makes it a very risky pick.  On the other hand, his running ability and upside are extremely attractive, and that running ability can help mitigate his learning curve to some degree.  If (and it’s a massive if) he develops into a good NFL passer, with all of the nuance involved in that, it does seem like he might have the highest upside amongst the draftable qbs.  It would be a pretty big gamble.  On the bright side, it would be 1 pick, vs an RGIII type gamble, or the assets - cap and picks - we’d have to give up in a trade for a vet.

 

Question becomes (IMO) are we in a position to take that gamble.  I can see it both ways, and I’m torn.  A guy with a bit more polish and higher floor - someone who could be our Carr/Cousins/Mac Jones/etc (and if we’re really lucky, maybe our Rodgers/Brees/etc) - probably puts this team into consistent playoff contention.  A guy like Willis could possibly be our Hurts/Jackson and with lots of luck be our Murray/Allen/Mahomes, making this team legitimate contenders.  Not trying to minimize the first group - you need a ticket to play the lotto and consistently getting to the playoffs helps our chances of getting to the big show.

 

I also question if our staff can develop Willis?  Will the staff be afforded enough patience/time to do so?  Are we squandering a couple years, and potentially our window, of our higher end talent guys?  We’ve been so qb starved, I’d relish hitting a triple, but man, the riskier swing for the fences is tempting…

Edited December 23, 2021 by skinny21

[KDawg]

53 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

From an outsider’s perspective, seems like you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing @stevemcqueen1of doing, just from the opposite angle.  You seem to ignore the point about the better teams he’s faced, Steve bringing up his technique issues and need to start Willis off with a “remedial passing” game, and you only acknowledging his arm strength/running ability while discounting his film.

 

I can understand your Jamin Davis comp - the upside vs the floor.  I also think it’s fair for Steve to point out that Willis has put far more plus play on film than Davis, thus diluting that comp a bit.

 

I think you guys both bring up good points - positive and negative.  He seems quite raw as a passer (with no guarantees he markedly improves) and that makes it a very risky pick.  On the other hand, his running ability and upside are extremely attractive, and that running ability can help mitigate his learning curve to some degree.  If (and it’s a massive if) he develops into a good NFL passer, with all of the nuance involved in that, it does seem like he might have the highest upside amongst the draftable qbs.  It would be a pretty big gamble.  On the bright side, it would be 1 pick, vs an RGIII type gamble, or the assets - cap and picks - we’d have to give up in a trade for a vet.

 

Question becomes (IMO) are we in a position to take that gamble.  I can see it both ways, and I’m torn.  A guy with a bit more polish and higher floor - someone who could be our Carr/Cousins/Mac Jones/etc (and if we’re really lucky, maybe our Rodgers/Brees/etc) - probably puts this team into consistent playoff contention.  A guy like Willis could possibly be our Hurts/Jackson and with lots of luck be our Murray/Allen/Mahomes, making this team legitimate contenders.  Not trying to minimize the first group - you need a ticket to play the lotto and consistently getting to the playoffs helps our chances of getting to the big show.

 

I also question if our staff can develop Willis?  Will the staff be afforded enough patience/time to do so?  Are we squandering a couple years, and potentially our window, of our higher end talent guys?  We’ve been so qb starved, I’d relish hitting a triple, but man, the riskier swing for the fences is tempting…

This debate is very easily summed up.

 

Willis has the absolute highest upside in this draft and likely may even have a higher upside than a guy like Lance from last year.

 

He’s a one read and go passer with shaky accuracy at best and struggles to do anything but run when plays break down and I don’t think he has great pocket awareness at this point in his development.

 

But he has a howitzer attached to his shoulder and is fast and athletic and when he sees the pressure it’s going to be difficult to catch him.

 

His positives will allow his negatives time to develop. 
 

But the question that keeps coming back to me RE: Willis: Is this the spot they he can find the time needed to develop?

 

I don’t know. I don’t think so. People keep bringing up Josh Allen and I keep saying his situation had a lot to do with it.

 

People don’t seem to want to believe me there. Which is fine, we all have our beliefs. But the Bills fans loved that guy from day 1 and the organization committed to him the moment he was drafted. Couple that with Josh’s ability to work hard and desire to improve the weak points of his game and his running ability bought him time to develop as a passer. 
 

I think the FA period will say a lot about our ability to develop a guy like Willis. But right now I just don’t see it working well here.

[Warhead36]

The upside is tantalizing and I've always felt like if you're gonna invest and build around a guy, go for the guy with the most upside. Go big or go home if you will. With that said, its also incredibly risky and if it backfires, you're basically starting over from scratch in a couple of years and your entire staff gets canned.

 

I wouldn't trade up a lot to get Willis, but if he's sitting where we pick, and our staff loves him, then get him and start to build this thing up.

[DWinzit]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

His positives will allow his negatives time to develop. 
 

But the question that keeps coming back to me RE: Willis: Is this the spot they he can find the time needed to develop?

Wondering, where you are on Corral and if you see him as worthy of a top 5 or 10 pick (I know, it is early)

Also, would this be the right spot for him to develop? thanks

[KDawg]

2 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Wondering, where you are on Corral and if you see him as worthy of a top 5 or 10 pick (I know, it is early)

Also, would this be the right spot for him to develop? thanks

I think Corral is more polished as a passer and could succeed here. I don’t know that it’s the right place to develop him. But he is one of the more polished QBs along with Howell in this class. 
 

Those two I named above are the two “higher end” guys I’d be most interested in from a low risk perspective. And when I say low I don’t mean low, I mean lower than others.

 

I think Willis has the highest upside. I think Corral has the best potential to meet his upside and I think Howell has the best chance to be steady. 
 

Corral is worth our first, I think. Howell… we’ll see how the draft process turns out for him. I think he’s going to go higher than currently projected.

[mistertim]

Just want to point out that I don't dislike Willis nor would I necessarily be against getting him. But I don't think he's a guy worth trading up for and I also have some of the same concerns as @KDawgRE: if we're the right place to develop him.

 

If Willis is sitting there when we pick and this FO and coaching staff really like him and truly believe they can develop him properly, then I'm good with it. He's fun to watch and he certainly does have a ton of upside.

 

That said, I'm not really all that into going the Ravens route and completely retooling the entire offense around a running QB. I'd rather him use that to aid him as he develops instead of having it be his primary tool. I just don't think running QBs are a great long term strategy.

[skinny21]

1 hour ago, Warhead36 said:

The upside is tantalizing and I've always felt like if you're gonna invest and build around a guy, go for the guy with the most upside. Go big or go home if you will. With that said, its also incredibly risky and if it backfires, you're basically starting over from scratch in a couple of years and your entire staff gets canned.

 

I wouldn't trade up a lot to get Willis, but if he's sitting where we pick, and our staff loves him, then get him and start to build this thing up.

That’s probably the reality of the situation, though it feels a bit unreasonable to give staffs (staves?) one chance at a qb given the relatively low success rate (unless they struggle in other areas as well).  Part of me thinks RR could be an exception given our unique situation and the fact he’s turned the culture around, had crummy injury luck, and yet has us playing meaningful football in December.  On the flip side, will Rivera feel like he can afford that chance?  Will he and Snyder communicate about the idea of taking a risk at qb, or how long his leash is in general?  

 

To me, Heinicke represents a good enough qb that I think I’d be ok taking that risk.  if the D had started the year better, if we had another good back, if 3 of our top 4 weapons hadn’t missed significant time, if our oline wasn’t so banged up… who knows, but I think we’d be ok/competitive with TH running the show as a placeholder.  And just to be clear, I don’t mean if all of those things broke our way, just enough to make it a hill to climb versus a mountain.

If you’re only giving up one first round pick on a rookie, you could afford to try again in a couple years if they don’t pan out (again, with TH holding down the fort).  I say TH, but I’m not married to him as our bridge qb, he’s just a guy that knows the system, is cheap, and has shown an ability to help us win games.  Our bird in hand, so to speak.

[DWinzit]

1 minute ago, KDawg said:

I think Corral is more polished as a passer and could succeed here. I don’t know that it’s the right place to develop him. But he is one of the more polished QBs along with Howell in this class. 
 

Those two I named above are the two “higher end” guys I’d be most interested in from a low risk perspective. And when I say low I don’t mean low, I mean lower than others.

 

I think Willis has the highest upside. I think Corral has the best potential to meet his upside and I think Howell has the best chance to be steady. 
 

Corral is worth our first, I think. Howell… we’ll see how the draft process turns out for him. I think he’s going to go higher than currently projected.

I am fully on board with your thoughts on WIllis and Howell. I have been on the Howell bandwagon since last year.

These smaller school lower conference guys definitely come with more question

Willis impressed me last week enough to know he will go top 15...but it better be the right team

Corral to me is the more unknown...well other than all the SIP gush  .... so I appreciate you take.

[Going Commando]

20 hours ago, KDawg said:

I don’t know. I don’t think so. People keep bringing up Josh Allen and I keep saying his situation had a lot to do with it.

 

I 100% agree with you.  I think situation is the critical determining factor in the ultimate success or failure of QB prospects who are high end enough to get picked early in the first round.  What we need to be able to replicate from the succeasful Josh Allen development project is a true and stable marriage between the QB and the coaching staff plus have the FO guys on board.  To me that is the absolutely essential key to the successful development of the prospect.  It's why I absolutely hate the idea of bringing in a bunch of options at the same time that will divide the organization on QB.  I want us to get one special guy and for everyone to fully buy in to the plan of developing him.

 

I'm not sure we can successfully develop Malik Willis, or maybe not even any QB prospect.  But I feel like we have to try, because not trying is tantamount to giving up on competing at the highest level.  We can't pass over star potential and upside in favor of a marginally easier development process because we don't have faith in our coaching and development capacity.  We have to be confident in our capability or else go out and hire some executives and coaches who can give us that confidence.

 

But here's where I stand on Willis and this coaching staff and FO structure in particular.  I think Rivera has the power and security to keep his staff in place as is short of scandal.  I think he has more freedom to take on a project like Willis than almost any other coach in the league.  He's banked goodwill and latitude by making the playoffs in year one and coming awfully close in year two despite a lot of adversity.  He's built up a pretty solid team with some veterans and some competitiveness that you comfortably can plop a rookie QB into.  And his offensive coaches are growing into the job and (I hope) becoming experienced and competent enough to have some job security, but aren't so good that they're moving on to bigger gigs in the near future.  Maybe I am wrong, but to me it feels like there is stability here.  The one big thing left to achieve is Ron needs to find that QB that he can marry and really get our rebuild off the ground.

 

I like Willis for that role.  I do think he's got the play making ability to cover up some of the weak points on our roster, which is overall a decent roster but not a great one.  But I also think we would have time to sit him and strengthen the roster to hide some of his weaknesses early on because we have another season with Heinicke and we are very inexpensive at QB under this plan.

 

And the way I would build the roster after getting Willis is to follow the tried and true method the Bills and Cowboys and Ravens did, and that the Pats are currently doing with Mac Jones.  Build the strongest defense and OL that you can.  Get a huge stable of running backs and tight ends, and then eventually start adding ultra reliable weapons on the outside that the QB can trust to be open for when he sees confusing coverages and has to make blind and reactive decisions.  Your passing game will be so limited early on that the only way to generate favorable fronts for it is to have a legitimately dangerous run game and short throwing lane passing game in the middle of the field via your TEs.  And those are attrition heavy positions in the current game.

 

It's not guaranteed to work, but it's as good a plan as any IMO.  And Willis will certainly help the run game function at a high level.  I think we have a shot at the playoffs as early as next season even with Willis as the starter, and if you can manage that in year one or two, that is the kind of success that can snowball into bigger things like it did with the Ravens and Chiefs and Bills.

[The Sisko]

I’d rather we take the most polished passer we can get and zig where the NFL has zagged for the last several years. That is, I’d like to see us essentially revert to the Gibbs/Riggo model. “But you can’t win that way in today’s NFL!” I suspect you can for the same reason it worked for Gibbs. Much of the NFL had built teams to be small and fast in an effort to counter increasingly heavy pass-centric offenses. Gibbs, partly out of necessity due to the personnel on hand, took a big back running behind a big offensive line and just road graded over those smaller lineups. In fact, in the classic SB clinching run by Riggins, the play was essentially designed for Riggins to beat or run over the free defender by himself...which he obviously did with aplomb. Ah, memories.🙂 

 

That wasn’t the only reason this team building strategy worked. Certainly Gibbs and his coaches were gifted from a teaching and game planning standpoint. However, I don’t think you can discount the strategic advantage we had for a few years. “But the rules have been changed to favor passing.” True, but IMO, that’s all the more reason to try to counter it with a classically built team. Run the ball to keep their offense off the field and tire their defense out, while passing the ball well enough to keep the opponent honest and be able to avoid an inability to play catch up when necessary. On the defensive side, deny the deep ball and make big play, pass happy guys like Mahomes methodically earn it instead of getting a bunch of chunk plays.

 

Yeah, all of that is easier said than done, but I’d give it a try. It has mostly worked for the Titans, and Bellicheat seems to have decided the run heavy stuff works for now too so I’d say it’s worth a shot.

[mistertim]

The problem with trying to go back to the NFL of 30+ years ago on offense is that, for many reasons, the NFL is now a high powered passing league. So if you're going to try to pound the rock, control the clock, and rely on a stingy defense, then that all has to be clicking for you to win. If any one of those isn't then you're in trouble because you're not built to win a shootout. You really only give yourself a small window for winning the game. Your main three game outcomes are winning a close game, losing a close game, or getting blown out.

 

And the Texans are an outlier for the most part because they have an unstoppable All Pro running back. That's sort of like saying a team should copy another team's idea of just throwing up a bunch of jump balls because that other team has Calvin Johnson. So if they just had Calvin Johnson then they could do that. But they don't have Calvin Johnson.

[Skinsinparadise]

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

I’d rather we take the most polished passer we can get and zig where the NFL has zagged for the last several years. That is, I’d like to see us essentially revert to the Gibbs/Riggo model. “But you can’t win that way in today’s NFL!” I suspect you can for the same reason it worked for Gibbs. Much of the NFL had built teams to be small and fast in an effort to counter increasingly heavy pass-centric offenses. Gibbs, partly out of necessity due to the personnel on hand, took a big back running behind a big offensive line and just road graded over those smaller lineups. In fact, in the classic SB clinching run by Riggins, the play was essentially designed for Riggins to beat or run over the free defender by himself...which he obviously did with aplomb. Ah, memories.🙂 

 

 

I agree with a chuck of this.  Gibbs came from SD where they had Fouts and the Air Coryell system.  So there is narrative that Gibbs started to model that but then learned his roster (per your point) wasn't built for that so switched to ground and pound.   But the league back then wasn't per se a heavy passing league the way it was now.  Gibbs' reliance on the run game wasn't inventive but he did add some inventive aspects of making the run game work ala the counter trey, etc and how he used TEs among other things.  

 

But that was the era of celebrity RBs for a reason whether it was Dickerson, Payton, M. Allen, etc.  

 

Plus you didn't have to worry about the cap.  So if you wanted to keep a loaded roster sans a QB, you can pull that off easier than today. 

 

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

 

“But the rules have been changed to favor passing.”

 

That's part of it.  Also teams have really gone to town with more spread concepts and innovative ways to move the ball in the air.  There a ton of really good WRs and explosive TEs.  Qbs tend to last longer and get less banged up because of the new rules to protect them.   So if you find that QB its easier to have sustained success and continuity.

 

I think the most underrated apsect of having that QB centers on their durability.  If they are durable everything being equal you can sustain the damage of injuries on your roster better than other teams lacking that QB.

 

SF IMO is a great case in point.  What a loaded team.  Loaded at WR.  TE.   Pass rush.  O line.  They have one of the best running games in league.  they got everything.  But the QB.   Last year when they got hit by injuries they fell apart.  

 

1 hour ago, The Sisko said:

ITrue, but IMO, that’s all the more reason to try to counter it with a classically built team. Run the ball to keep their offense off the field and tire their defense out, while passing the ball well enough to keep the opponent honest and be able to avoid an inability to play catch up when necessary.

 

Yeah, all of that is easier said than done, but I’d give it a try. It has mostly worked for the Titans, and Bellicheat seems to have decided the run heavy stuff works for now too so I’d say it’s worth a shot.

 

If you can't find the QB then agree why not?  But I think you got to keep shooting for that QB.

 

Patriots ranked 4th in rushing in 2020, 4.7 YPC.  Patriots ranked 13th in rishing this year, 4.2 YPC.  Better rushing team last year then this year.  The difference?  They now got a good QB, too.

 

Titans arguably is the the rare exception to the rule.   Though Tannehill has been mostly good for them, too, not as much so this season though

 

So as for a good enough passer to keep defenses honest --  by that do you mean land a good QB?  If so yeah I agree that you don't need Aaron Rodgers to win a SB but you do need above average QB play.   I'd love to find that next Rodgers but clearly that's hard to do.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Warhead36]

People act like we had no passing game in the 80s. Theismann had an MVP season. Rypien had a fantasic albeit short stretch. We had a HOF WR. We were an outstanding passing team for much of that era.

 

You have always needed an above average at least passing game to win in the NFL since the advent of the forward pass.

[Skinsinparadise]

11 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

People act like we had no passing game in the 80s. Theismann had an MVP season. Rypien had a fantasic albeit short stretch. We had a HOF WR. We were an outstanding passing team for much of that era.

 

You have always needed an above average at least passing game to win in the NFL since the advent of the forward pass.

 

Yeah especially the 1991 team, the 14-2 team.  The passing game was beyond special that year.  The Possy.

 

 

[mistertim]

41 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Yeah especially the 1991 team, the 14-2 team.  The passing game was beyond special that year.  The Possy.

 

 

This is true, but I'd also say that the passing stats from then could make the other case too. Rypien had about 3560 passing yards with 28 TDs and 11 INTs that season, and that was considered really prolific at the time. We were known that year as being a team that had a very potent passing game, especially deep.

 

But these days those numbers would be pretty much middle of the road...good but not anything special. Most top 15 QBs put up ~30 TDs per year and most top passing teams in general put up  more passing TDs and passing yards than that on the regular.

 

Those kinds of numbers were extraordinary in the 80s and early 90s, but nowadays they're mostly pedestrian because of how the NFL has evolved into a pass happy league.

[Skinsinparadise]

7 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

This is true, but I'd also say that the passing stats from then could make the other case too. Rypien had about 3560 passing yards with 28 TDs and 11 INTs that season, and that was considered really prolific at the time. We were known that year as being a team that had a very potent passing game, especially deep.

 

But these days those numbers would be pretty much middle of the road...good but not anything special. Most top 15 QBs put up ~30 TDs per year and most top passing teams in general put up  more passing TDs and passing yards than that on the regular.

 

Those kinds of numbers were extraordinary in the 80s and early 90s, but nowadays they're mostly pedestrian because of how the NFL has evolved into a pass happy league.

 

Sure.   but I think the point made was the running game didn't always carry the team.  I agree.  the 1991 team had a really good passing game

[mistertim]

14 minutes ago, Skinsinparadise said:

 

Sure.   but I think the point made was the running game didn't always carry the team.  I agree.  the 1991 team had a really good passing game

 

Right, but we were more the exception and not the rule at that point. We were considered a pretty pass happy offense at the time, when most teams focused much more on the run game. But nowadays those passing numbers would be considered mostly pedestrian.

 

Now it's the opposite. A team like Tennessee that runs a bunch is now the exception and, like us in the passing game, to be that outlier you have to really have some special supporting cast. In 91 with us it was an elite WR corps. In 2021with Tennessee it's an elite RB who you have to stack the box to stop.

 

Just pointing out that even the stats from that time can show how different today's NFL is from then when it comes to offensive focus.

[Skinsinparadise]

9 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

Right, but we were more the exception and not the rule at that point. We were considered a pretty pass happy offense at the time, when most teams focused much more on the run game. But nowadays those passing numbers would be considered mostly pedestrian.

 

Now it's the opposite. A team like Tennessee that runs a bunch is now the exception and, like us in the passing game, to be that outlier you have to really have some special supporting cast. In 91 with us it was an elite WR corps. In 2021with Tennessee it's an elite RB who you have to stack the box to stop.

 

Just pointing out that even the stats from that time can show how different today's NFL is from then when it comes to offensive focus.

 

I agree.  Relatively speaking the passing games weren't as prolific.    Not sure what the pivot point was for NFL offenses.  I know the Rams of the late 90s, early 2000s chucked the ball a ton.    We were supposed to transition to be pass happy with Spurrier's fun and gun.  

Edited December 24, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Skinsinparadise]

I am ok with entertaining Willis.  But for me its not Willis or bust.

 

Matt Corral to me is the top dude I'd want.  As Kiper suggests in that segment, Corral screams Ron Rivera because of his toughness.

 

Corral to me checks off every box except for his size and the fact that he doesn't play in a traditional NFL offense -- he has a ton of RPOs, high tempo, spread in that offense. 

 

Gritty player -- team oriented.  Military family.  Leader.   He has mobility.  He has the arm.   He proved this year he could play with adversity -- their top play makers went down and Matt had to play on a bum ankle.    I think he's a really nice fit to Turner's offense.  As Logan Paulsen likes to say if you got a good run game cooking it helps to have a QB who can stretch the field to take advantage of defenses that crowd the line of scrimmage. 

 

It goes though beyond that with Matt.  He also can contribute to the play action and all the misdirection cooking in this offense because arguably he's the best among this crop at ball handiling and selling whatever he needs to sell via pump fakes or whatever. 

 

This offense IMO is a lot about backfield motion and subterfuge and while I get how a mobile QB can add to that working.  But also so can a dude who is both mobile and can misdirect safeties via his body language and eyes. 

 

 

NFL Draft: Matt Corral is a Master of Manipulation

The Ole Miss leader may be the first quarterback off the board, and his ability to manipulate defenses at all three levels is a special skill.

https://www.si.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft/nfl-draft-matt-corral-is-a-master-of-manipulation

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Skinsinparadise

[Warhead36]

I'd be alright with Corral but wouldn't trade up anything significant to get him.

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

58 minutes ago, Warhead36 said:

I'd be alright with Corral but wouldn't trade up anything significant to get him.

So you’d be fine sticking with our possible 12-17th pick and drafting another project LBer like J Davis?   Really?

 

[Ball Security]

58 minutes ago, ColonialWBSkinsFan said:

So you’d be fine sticking with our possible 12-17th pick and drafting another project LBer like J Davis?   Really?

 

Take a look at who went 12, 13, and 15 in this past draft.  Wouldn’t want one of those guys?

[ColonialWBSkinsFan]

53 minutes ago, Ball Security said:

Take a look at who went 12, 13, and 15 in this past draft.  Wouldn’t want one of those guys?

Not unless they are a QB

[actorguy1]

Not sure why people are questioning this coaching staff's ability to develop a mobile QB when 

A. It's only the second season this staff's been together.

B. A run first QB can certainly fit into a Rivera scheme (Cam)

C. Cam developed into an MVP under Rivera.

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2021 by actorguy1