Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Source: "plug Geno in here" regarding the Eagles
Eagles Forum > Philadelphia Eagles Message Board > Philadelphia Eagles or Football Related Discussion
Pages: 1, 2
mcnabbulous
Don't kill the messenger.
Link
nephillymike
#4 is a reach for a team without a glaring QB need and with so many other blatant needs.

After this year, we may decide we need a QB, but we may not. We DO need players at other positions, players who happen to be higher rated prospects.

No offense, but to use an old Andy term, I'll pass.

I heard what I thought to be a pretty fair evaluation of Smith from Didinger today:

1. Definitely the best QB in this class (I agree)
2. Very strong arm
3. Very accurate arm
4. Lacks pocket awareness (led to taking two safeties in one game)
5. Fumbles way too often (I think he said 32 times?)
6. Nice speed, but lacks ellusiveness of a runner (cited his poor YPC in running)
7. Would be a better fit in a conventional offense, not the read option
8. Probably not a first round talent (I disagree. I think when Diddy finishes his rankings, he'll realize he's definitely inthe first 32)

Like I said before, he is rated very similarly in overall rating to Tannehill.

I don't take Tannehill at #4 this year. I know you do, but we just got so many other higher rated needs.
Eyrie
I'd disagree with Mikey (no change there then) because we DO have a glaring need at QB.

We know Vick isn't the answer (even his few supporters must conceded that he only has a couple of years left) and the jury is out on Foles (was last year just rookie promise and how does he fit with Kelly?). So the most important position on the roster is up for grabs at present.

If we were drafting at 20 then I'd be hoping that Smith fell to us, but I don't see him being worth #4. There are other players who offer better value and less risk there.
Zero
When it's the same messenger that keeps knocking on your door eventually one needs to stop answering the door or get a very angry dog. biggrin.gif

Mock drafts are worth about half what we pay to read them and they're not worth that when they're mocking on a coach who has never drafted or coached a player in the NFL. We should all know in about 11 days. I still think Kelly likes Foles enough and, on the surface is intrigued enough by Vick's potential mad.gif that he may not draft a QB in the first three rounds.

How many QBs does a team need in TC? I think with the up tempo practices more than usual. How many QBs do the Eagles have on their roster?
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 13 2013, 11:13 PM) *
#4 is a reach for a team without a glaring QB need and with so many other blatant needs.

After this year, we may decide we need a QB, but we may not. We DO need players at other positions, players who happen to be higher rated prospects.

No offense, but to use an old Andy term, I'll pass.

I heard what I thought to be a pretty fair evaluation of Smith from Didinger today:

1. Definitely the best QB in this class (I agree)
2. Very strong arm
3. Very accurate arm
4. Lacks pocket awareness (led to taking two safeties in one game)
5. Fumbles way too often (I think he said 32 times?)
6. Nice speed, but lacks ellusiveness of a runner (cited his poor YPC in running)
7. Would be a better fit in a conventional offense, not the read option
8. Probably not a first round talent (I disagree. I think when Diddy finishes his rankings, he'll realize he's definitely inthe first 32)

Like I said before, he is rated very similarly in overall rating to Tannehill.

I don't take Tannehill at #4 this year. I know you do, but we just got so many other higher rated needs.

100% agreed.
mcnabbulous
I only felt it was worthwhile to post because apparently Zierlein is well connected. And it comes on the heels of a former Eagle scout saying the same thing.

With that said, how anyone can say that QB isn't a need for this team is beyond me. Vick, at best, is a one year stopgap. I'm not very high on Foles and I suspect Kelly isn't either.

I also don't think any of the prospects in the top-10 are sure things. It's an extremely odd year. Maybe some of the OL are safer, but my opinion on spending a premium pick there is well stated.

That's the primary reason why I'd be more than happy with Smith as the pick. In my opinion, he offers little more risk than the other premium skill position players. And far more upside.
Reality Fan
There are several things that tell me this is typical crap. First, Kelly hates turnovers with a passion so I highly doubt he wants a QB who has a reputation for losing the ball. Second, Kelly fancies himself a QB guru(and probably rightly so) so the last thing he is going to do is grab a QB unless he really wants one(see first). Third, while I have never heard of either guy and there are a ton of these twitter experts(even if they are top 100 twitters to follow....god that sounds so sad)these opinions mean squat. Jeremiah was a scout recently with the Eagles but he knows nothing about Kelly and one can't possibly think that Kelly won't have a big voice in the draft. Doesn't anyone else think it is odd that the Houston Chronicle breaks a story on the Eagles draft choice? Their team drafts late and won't target a qb so what is the angle for Zeirlein? Strange indeed.
D Rock
It goes against Chip's interests to take Smith @ #4.

With the current QBs, he gets a pass on year 1 for quarterback play. If Foles turns out to be something, great. If not? He deserved a chance. So too, some would argue (not me, but some) that Vick deserves a chance to see if Chip can "fix" him. If they both fail, blame goes to the previous regime.

If Chip reaches on Smith @ #4, his entire focus will be on the quarterback instead of building the roster's foundation for the future. Failure w Smith at QB would put blame squarely on the Chip/Howie regime.

It aint gonna happen. Smith is NOT getting picked by the Eagles @ #4.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 14 2013, 12:44 PM) *
It goes against Chip's interests to take Smith @ #4.

With the current QBs, he gets a pass on year 1 for quarterback play. If Foles turns out to be something, great. If not? He deserved a chance. So too, some would argue (not me, but some) that Vick deserves a chance to see if Chip can "fix" him. If they both fail, blame goes to the previous regime.

If Chip reaches on Smith @ #4, his entire focus will be on the quarterback instead of building the roster's foundation for the future. Failure w Smith at QB would put blame squarely on the Chip/Howie regime.

It aint gonna happen. Smith is NOT getting picked by the Eagles @ #4.


you said it much better than I tried to do.....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 14 2013, 12:44 PM) *
It goes against Chip's interests to take Smith @ #4.

With the current QBs, he gets a pass on year 1 for quarterback play. If Foles turns out to be something, great. If not? He deserved a chance. So too, some would argue (not me, but some) that Vick deserves a chance to see if Chip can "fix" him. If they both fail, blame goes to the previous regime.

If Chip reaches on Smith @ #4, his entire focus will be on the quarterback instead of building the roster's foundation for the future. Failure w Smith at QB would put blame squarely on the Chip/Howie regime.

It aint gonna happen. Smith is NOT getting picked by the Eagles @ #4.


As has been reiterated over and over, this only holds true if Chip and the FO think Smith is a reach at 4. If they think he can be a franchise guy, what the "draft experts" think doesn't matter.

The reality is that the QBs on our roster are Andy's guys. People like Howie and Chip want to make their own mark. As Mikey has pointed out, the likelihood of us in position to take a top QB next year is a crapshoot.

Picking the wrong QB is not much more detrimental than never finding the right QB. If Chip likes Geno as much as Taj Boyd, there is no reason he wouldn't be tempted to pull the trigger this year. The chances of us being in position to grab Teddy Bridgewater are slim to none.

If you're basing draft decisions on being afraid to be wrong, I don't want you calling the shots.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 14 2013, 12:28 PM) *
Kelly fancies himself a QB guru(and probably rightly so)


He does? Based on what? You may be right, but I simply haven't gotten that impression from him. In fact, I would say that he is open with the fact that his understanding of the pro passing game needs work.

Additionally, he never developed a pro QB at the college level.
nephillymike
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 14 2013, 12:44 PM) *
It goes against Chip's interests to take Smith @ #4.

With the current QBs, he gets a pass on year 1 for quarterback play. If Foles turns out to be something, great. If not? He deserved a chance. So too, some would argue (not me, but some) that Vick deserves a chance to see if Chip can "fix" him. If they both fail, blame goes to the previous regime.

If Chip reaches on Smith @ #4, his entire focus will be on the quarterback instead of building the roster's foundation for the future. Failure w Smith at QB would put blame squarely on the Chip/Howie regime.

It aint gonna happen. Smith is NOT getting picked by the Eagles @ #4.



Good points and that would be my approach.

However, if Vick is as bad as everyone says he is. AND if Foles is really the mismatch for the full implementation of Kelly's system that many say he is, then Chip has already decided that HE needs a QB. If he has decided that he needs one I think there is a 75% chance it will be Smith at #4 as opposed to Manuel at #35. Manuel is such an unfinished product with too much risk at what he would percieve as a position of need.

I do not think so, but it is not a stretch to say Chip thinks so.

If that is the case, what is the best way/time to trade Vick to get the most in return?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 01:46 PM) *
He does? Based on what? You may be right, but I simply haven't gotten that impression from him. In fact, I would say that he is open with the fact that his understanding of the pro passing game needs work.

Additionally, he never developed a pro QB at the college level.



exactly....he never developed a pro QB and won a ton without one.......he said it directly...he never had a blue chipper at the helm but didn't need one...needless to say I paraphrase but he pointed out that he did not have blue chip prospects at QB.
nephillymike
One other thing.

I don't dismiss the source easily.

So many times shit like this hits and it is true.

However, if the guy was an ex scout and wanted to do his buddies a favor, he floats Geno at 4 to the birds so that other teams take them serious and feel the need to jump up and get him before #4!

If we're at #4 and don't want Smith, it is great if someone who does jumps ahead of us to get a guy we don't want!

Many times though, when there's smoke there's fire.

We'll know in 11 days.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 14 2013, 04:03 PM) *
exactly....he never developed a pro QB and won a ton without one.......he said it directly...he never had a blue chipper at the helm but didn't need one...needless to say I paraphrase but he pointed out that he did not have blue chip prospects at QB.

I truly hope Chip isn't naive enough to believe that works in the pros. Rarely have the best college coaches benefited from great pro-style QB's. It's much different game and teams can get away without having NFL caliber players at the position. The NFL has proven to be much different.

You can't simply scheme yourself to SB championships. It takes great players and that starts at the QB position.
D Rock
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 06:46 PM) *
He does? Based on what? You may be right, but I simply haven't gotten that impression from him. In fact, I would say that he is open with the fact that his understanding of the pro passing game needs work.

Additionally, he never developed a pro QB at the college level.

Sure, but he went 65 & 4 or something ridiculous like that w a handfull of nobodies under center. That's a lot of winning with a relative bucket of garbage at qb. Was he lucky? Or good? I'll take either.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 02:35 PM) *
Picking the wrong QB is not much more detrimental than never finding the right QB. If Chip likes Geno as much as Taj Boyd, there is no reason he wouldn't be tempted to pull the trigger this year. The chances of us being in position to grab Teddy Bridgewater are slim to none.

What would they have to give up to draft a Bridgewater or Manzie or Fales or Boyd next season? 3 first round picks and a 2nd round set the bar for a "can't miss" franchise QB. I can't recall who suggested this but if they are inclined for a QB and believe him to be the one, how much is too much? The redskins fee for RG3 seems like a fair exchange (First-round picks in 2012, 2013 and 2014, as well as their second-round pick in 2012, to the St. Louis Rams in exchange for the Rams' second overall pick)
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 04:54 PM) *
I truly hope Chip isn't naive enough to believe that works in the pros. Rarely have the best college coaches benefited from great pro-style QB's. It's much different game and teams can get away without having NFL caliber players at the position. The NFL has proven to be much different.

You can't simply scheme yourself to SB championships. It takes great players and that starts at the QB position.


rarely? so you are saying that only shitty college coaches have benefited from QBs who go on to success in the pros and the great ones don't have good QBs? I think you started typing before you thought that one out.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 14 2013, 05:34 PM) *
Sure, but he went 65 & 4 or something ridiculous like that w a handfull of nobodies under center. That's a lot of winning with a relative bucket of garbage at qb. Was he lucky? Or good? I'll take either.


His achievements were impressive, no doubt. But it's a much different game. You can pull it off in college. You can't in the pros.

Guys like Eric Crouch routinely dominate college competition, but they aren't even considered for the position in the NFL. Chip exploited defenses like that. It was impressive, but not sustainable against the best.
nephillymike
Saw something interesting on ESPN.com

Kiper has the Eagles picking Smith at #4.

He has this interactive tool where you can change one of his selections and then regenerate the draft.

If I change the Eagles to picking Fisher instead of Smith, Smith drops out of the 1st round completely.

The way he has it, if the Eagles don't take a QB at 4, nobody else takes a QB in the first round.

Check it out if you can.

JaxEagle
I'd take Teddy Bridgewater and possibly Taj Boyd over Smith but if we are going to stink that bad then let's get Clowney next year.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 14 2013, 05:46 PM) *
rarely? so you are saying that only shitty college coaches have benefited from QBs who go on to success in the pros and the great ones don't have good QBs? I think you started typing before you thought that one out.


I didnt even imply that at all. My point was that great college coaches have routinely thrived without NFL caliber quarterbacks. The same isn't true for NFL coaches.
samaroo
QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Apr 14 2013, 10:07 PM) *
I'd take Teddy Bridgewater and possibly Taj Boyd over Smith but if we are going to stink that bad then let's get Clowney next year.


Do want!
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 04:54 PM) *
I truly hope Chip isn't naive enough to believe that works in the pros. Rarely have the best college coaches benefited from great pro-style QB's. It's much different game and teams can get away without having NFL caliber players at the position. The NFL has proven to be much different.

You can't simply scheme yourself to SB championships. It takes great players and that starts at the QB position.



You didn't imply that, I agree....you said it outright and I highlighted it for you....What you are saying, whether you meant to or not is that the best college coaches "rarely" benefit from QBs who go on to success in the NFL which is silly. Jimmy Johnson didn't benefit from his Qbs? Vinny Testeverde? That is why QBs are so sought after in recruiting.....a good O line and a great scheme can make a good QB look great(see Joe Flacco) even in the NFL.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 14 2013, 11:26 PM) *
You didn't imply that, I agree....you said it outright and I highlighted it for you....What you are saying, whether you meant to or not is that the best college coaches "rarely" benefit from QBs who go on to success in the NFL which is silly. Jimmy Johnson didn't benefit from his Qbs? Vinny Testeverde? That is why QBs are so sought after in recruiting.....a good O line and a great scheme can make a good QB look great(see Joe Flacco) even in the NFL.


Thanks for making my point by choosing a college coach from the mid 80's as your case study. I'd say that just about wraps up this discussion.
D Rock
I have no doubt you'd say that. You'd be wrong. But you often resort to rhetorical chicanery to hide the fact you said something silly in a thread. Sadly a few of us aren't as dumb as the house of lame.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 15 2013, 09:29 AM) *
I have no doubt you'd say that. You'd be wrong. But you often resort to rhetorical chicanery to hide the fact you said something silly in a thread. Sadly a few of us aren't as dumb as the house of lame.

Huh? Provide me an example of a college coaching legend that thrived on the back of NFL QB's. Joe Paterno had 1 in 60 years. Osborne at Nebraska, Steve Spurrier. The current golden child, Nick Saban, hasn't produced one starting QB (although I do like his current guy.)

Additionally, find me a current great NFL QB that was a big time winner at the college level. Of the current crop of best QB's in the NFL, most of their college coaches are currently without jobs.

There are examples of this this going back for decades. John Elway never led Stanford to a bowl game.

I like how I said something "silly" but yet no one can actually find a relevant point to contradict me. Saban basically quit the NFL because he couldn't win without a QB and because he didn't have one.
Eyrie
QUOTE (D Rock @ Apr 14 2013, 11:34 PM) *
Sure, but he went 65 & 4 or something ridiculous like that w a handfull of nobodies under center. That's a lot of winning with a relative bucket of garbage at qb. Was he lucky? Or good? I'll take either.

If he can replicate that in the pro ranks then Vick is Canton-bound.

QUOTE (JaxEagle @ Apr 15 2013, 03:07 AM) *
I'd take Teddy Bridgewater and possibly Taj Boyd over Smith but if we are going to stink that bad then let's get Clowney next year.

Which is the more likely outcome of starting Vick.

There's a valid argument to be made that we shouldn't be drafting this high next year so aren't going to benefit from the 2014 crop of QBs, which in turn means looking at whether we can get our franchise QB this year. Problem is that the odds on Smith being that guy are longer than most of us are comfortable with when picking at #4.

Dream scenario here is to trade down to #7 or #8 for an additional second plus change so we can take Johnson, then trade that second for a first next year to give ourselves some ammunition to target a QB in 2014.
D Rock
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 15 2013, 04:59 PM) *
If he can replicate that in the pro ranks then Vick is Canton-bound.

But for the getting hurt and fumbling whenever he runs the ball.
JeeQ
I still think they're either drafting Geno or Jordan. Either way Kelly wants his "own" guy. Vick/Foles are Andy Reid projects, and if either went on to become successful this season they'd be tied to Andy's training. Geno gives him a fresh start, it'll be "Kelly's QB". The one he handpicked, and crafted into a superstar. After seeing RG3 and Russell Wilson last year I can only imagine he's salivating
nephillymike
QUOTE (Eyrie @ Apr 15 2013, 11:59 AM) *
If he can replicate that in the pro ranks then Vick is Canton-bound.


Which is the more likely outcome of starting Vick.

There's a valid argument to be made that we shouldn't be drafting this high next year so aren't going to benefit from the 2014 crop of QBs, which in turn means looking at whether we can get our franchise QB this year. Problem is that the odds on Smith being that guy are longer than most of us are comfortable with when picking at #4.

Dream scenario here is to trade down to #7 or #8 for an additional second plus change so we can take Johnson, then trade that second for a first next year to give ourselves some ammunition to target a QB in 2014.


Whilst a trade down may seem attractive to some, going from 4 to 7 or from 4 to 8 would not yield what you would think. Per the trade value charts, here's what would be fair:

1. From 4 down to 7:

We give up our 1st (#4) and our 4th (#101) for Ari 1st (#7) and their 2nd (#41). So in this case, we need to throw in the change. We gave up 1896 pts and get 1890 in return.

2. From 4 down to 8:

We give up our 1st (#4) and our 3rd (#67) for BUF 1st (#8) and their 2nd (#38) and their 5th (#140). We give up 2055 pts and get 2056 pts.

To get an even up 2nd without us throwing in change, we need to drop to #10 with Tenn and give up the #4 for their #10 and then get their 2nd rounder (#40). The value of their 2nd round pick, if we trade it for a future #2 to use next year, is 500 pts, which, is enough to get us from #16 to #7. An 8-8 season should get us around 16 next year, and we'd need to hope that one of the franchise QB's would be there at #7. Not likely. To get from 7 to 4, we'd need to throw in another 2nd round pick.

So to do what you want, figure on trading down to 10 this year, getting a second, and using that 2nd plus our 2nd next year, to get within range to get in a position to draft that QB (spot #4 again). Important. There needs to be more than two good QB's next year. otherwise we could get into a spot where we pay a kings ransom to move up next year. like STL got from WAS to move from 6 to 2. If that happens, then we'd need to use our 2nd we got this year, plus our second next year plus an add'l first round pick to get there. Very expensive.
mcnabbulous
Great breakdown, Mikey. Thanks.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 15 2013, 10:19 AM) *
Huh? Provide me an example of a college coaching legend that thrived on the back of NFL QB's. Joe Paterno had 1 in 60 years. Osborne at Nebraska, Steve Spurrier. The current golden child, Nick Saban, hasn't produced one starting QB (although I do like his current guy.)

Additionally, find me a current great NFL QB that was a big time winner at the college level. Of the current crop of best QB's in the NFL, most of their college coaches are currently without jobs.

There are examples of this this going back for decades. John Elway never led Stanford to a bowl game.

I like how I said something "silly" but yet no one can actually find a relevant point to contradict me. Saban basically quit the NFL because he couldn't win without a QB and because he didn't have one.



Yep...Phil Fulmer was terrible and Peyton's volunteers were horrible....and Palmer's Trojans were bad too..Mannings 2003 UMiss was horrible....Matt Ryan's BC teams were terrible also...Hell...even Rivers won 2 bowl games at NC State.....

Your problem is that no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary you ignore it........if Qbs were not that important at the college level than why are they the most precious recruiting prize at most schools?
Reality Fan
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 15 2013, 04:40 PM) *
Whilst a trade down may seem attractive to some, going from 4 to 7 or from 4 to 8 would not yield what you would think. Per the trade value charts, here's what would be fair:

1. From 4 down to 7:

We give up our 1st (#4) and our 4th (#101) for Ari 1st (#7) and their 2nd (#41). So in this case, we need to throw in the change. We gave up 1896 pts and get 1890 in return.

2. From 4 down to 8:

We give up our 1st (#4) and our 3rd (#67) for BUF 1st (#8) and their 2nd (#38) and their 5th (#140). We give up 2055 pts and get 2056 pts.

To get an even up 2nd without us throwing in change, we need to drop to #10 with Tenn and give up the #4 for their #10 and then get their 2nd rounder (#40). The value of their 2nd round pick, if we trade it for a future #2 to use next year, is 500 pts, which, is enough to get us from #16 to #7. An 8-8 season should get us around 16 next year, and we'd need to hope that one of the franchise QB's would be there at #7. Not likely. To get from 7 to 4, we'd need to throw in another 2nd round pick.

So to do what you want, figure on trading down to 10 this year, getting a second, and using that 2nd plus our 2nd next year, to get within range to get in a position to draft that QB (spot #4 again). Important. There needs to be more than two good QB's next year. otherwise we could get into a spot where we pay a kings ransom to move up next year. like STL got from WAS to move from 6 to 2. If that happens, then we'd need to use our 2nd we got this year, plus our second next year plus an add'l first round pick to get there. Very expensive.


The trade value will be dictated by the team(if any) that feels the need to move up......with the rookie wage scale the choice to move up is not as cost prohibitive as it was in the past so the incentive to move up is greater...except this year is not exactly loaded with top talent.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 15 2013, 10:03 PM) *
Yep...Phil Fulmer was terrible and Peyton's volunteers were horrible....and Palmer's Trojans were bad too..Mannings 2003 UMiss was horrible....Matt Ryan's BC teams were terrible also...Hell...even Rivers won 2 bowl games at NC State.....

Your problem is that no matter how much evidence is presented to the contrary you ignore it........if Qbs were not that important at the college level than why are they the most precious recruiting prize at most schools?


You realize you're the only one who has used the words shitty, horrible, bad, or terrible. You're want me to fight an argument I never made. I said the great college coaches have rarely benefited from NFL caliber QB play. Because its a different game. It's why Vince Young can be one of the most dominating players to ever step foot on the field, then wash out of the league in 5 years.

When did I say QB's weren't important in college? I said Kelly never developed an NFL QB. Because it wasnt necessary in college doesn't mean the same is true for the pros.

If the argument is that Kelly doesn't need a great QB in the pros because he thrived without one in college, the same argument could be made for literally every successful college coach in the past 50 years.

Tommy Frazier and Tim Tebow are unimpressed with the accomplishments of your successful college QB's. But go ahead and keep coming up with adjectives I never used to make a strawman argument about a "silly" comment I made. And insist I'm the one with the problem.
Eyrie
Mikey - thanks for that sad.gif

To be honest, I'd toss in a fifth if required to get that extra second in 2013 and trade it so that we have two firsts next year.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 15 2013, 10:32 PM) *
You realize you're the only one who has used the words shitty, horrible, bad, or terrible. You're want me to fight an argument I never made. I said the great college coaches have rarely benefited from NFL caliber QB play. Because its a different game. It's why Vince Young can be one of the most dominating players to ever step foot on the field, then wash out of the league in 5 years.

When did I say QB's weren't important in college? I said Kelly never developed an NFL QB. Because it wasnt necessary in college doesn't mean the same is true for the pros.

If the argument is that Kelly doesn't need a great QB in the pros because he thrived without one in college, the same argument could be made for literally every successful college coach in the past 50 years.

Tommy Frazier and Tim Tebow are unimpressed with the accomplishments of your successful college QB's. But go ahead and keep coming up with adjectives I never used to make a strawman argument about a "silly" comment I made. And insist I'm the one with the problem.



OK....I get your little game.....and it is cute watching you try to dance away.....every Qb I listed had at least 1 top terrific season or to use the term you said they didn't do...thrived.....including bowl appearances and/or wins. Vince Young certainly has NFL caliber skills...he has a 5 cent head...I guess 2 pro bowl appearances mean little or a 31-19 record as a starter mean nothing also.....and that was your example....We don't have a straw argument....we merely responded directly and with examples to your comment and you refuse to even admit you made the comment.....I surrender...you are the kind of guy apparently who shoots someone and while still holding the smoking gun denies it......no big deal...not important..but where did Frazier and Tebow come from? Were they examples of successful college guys who did not transition well? Really?.....running QBs who can't throw?(although Pittsburgh might take exception with that) So your next example is 2 option QBs?

mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 16 2013, 05:22 PM) *
OK....I get your little game.....and it is cute watching you try to dance away.....every Qb I listed had at least 1 top terrific season or to use the term you said they didn't do...thrived.....including bowl appearances and/or wins. Vince Young certainly has NFL caliber skills...he has a 5 cent head...I guess 2 pro bowl appearances mean little or a 31-19 record as a starter mean nothing also.....and that was your example....We don't have a straw argument....we merely responded directly and with examples to your comment and you refuse to even admit you made the comment.....I surrender...you are the kind of guy apparently who shoots someone and while still holding the smoking gun denies it......no big deal...not important..but where did Frazier and Tebow come from? Were they examples of successful college guys who did not transition well? Really?.....running QBs who can't throw?(although Pittsburgh might take exception with that) So your next example is 2 option QBs?

My little game? Do you know how many national championship winning college QB's currently occupy starting spots on NFL rosters? One. Cam Newton.

This conversation is about college coaches thriving without NFL caliber QB's. You're the one trying to twist it into me saying that great NFL QB's were shitty in college. That's not what I said. I said that college coaches have rarely benefited from NFL caliber QB's.

This was the quote:
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 14 2013, 04:54 PM) *
Rarely have the best college coaches benefited from great pro-style QB's. It's much different game and teams can get away without having NFL caliber players at the position. The NFL has proven to be much different.

You can't simply scheme yourself to SB championships. It takes great players and that starts at the QB position.


You tried to twist this into a conversation about NFL quarterbacks. But that's not what it was about. When you mention guys like Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers and Eli Manning, it's irrelevant to the conversation. Because their college coaches weren't jack shit. Obviously they made their teams better. I never suggested otherwise. My point was that great college coaches routinely get away without having those caliber guys on their roster. Every. Single. Year.

Steve Spurrier's success at Florida, then lack thereof in the NFL, is the absolutely perfect example. Everything his offenses did in college worked. It didn't matter who he put at QB. Somehow that magic went away when he no longer had the luxury of playing against college level defenses.

Like I said, I never used the term shitty (you did), horrible (you did), bad (you did) or terrible (you did.)

Marcus Mariota threw for 32 TD's and 6 INT's last year. Not to mention the 750 yards rushing and 5 more scores. Does that mean that Chip did in fact develop a great QB this year? Not necessarily. It means that college defenses didn't have the answer for Oregon's offense/QB. Which happens year after year after year. As proven time and time again, that doesn't happen in the NFL.

So you can continue to have the conversation you've created in your head. About how I said good NFL QB's can't succeed in college. Because that never happened. I said that great college coaches don't need them. Because they find other ways to exploit defenses. If Chip is naive enough to believe he can pull it off in the pros, he'll go the way of Spurrier. I think he knows better.
Phits
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 16 2013, 06:53 PM) *
It means that college defenses didn't have the answer for Oregon's offense/QB. Which happens year after year after year. As proven time and time again, that doesn't happen in the NFL.

You are mistaken, it does happen in the NFL. Sustained success is another story in its own. Players and/or schemes will get the jump and then falter because they were not able to adapt and adjust to the one's made by the opposition (ie. scheme=the wildcat or player=Josh Freeman, Michael Vick etc..)

Chip has proven that he can adapt his scheme and/or play calling to suit his players. Whether that translates to the NFL remains to be seen.
Reality Fan
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 16 2013, 05:53 PM) *
My little game? Do you know how many national championship winning college QB's currently occupy starting spots on NFL rosters? One. Cam Newton.

This conversation is about college coaches thriving without NFL caliber QB's. You're the one trying to twist it into me saying that great NFL QB's were shitty in college. That's not what I said. I said that college coaches have rarely benefited from NFL caliber QB's.

This was the quote:


You tried to twist this into a conversation about NFL quarterbacks. But that's not what it was about. When you mention guys like Matt Ryan, Philip Rivers and Eli Manning, it's irrelevant to the conversation. Because their college coaches weren't jack shit. Obviously they made their teams better. I never suggested otherwise. My point was that great college coaches routinely get away without having those caliber guys on their roster. Every. Single. Year.


No...my point was that good college coaches routinely benefit from great QB play. Whether those QBs make it in the NFL is another story and there are simple reasons for that. Success depends on where they go, the players they have on the team they land on. There are more than 2 or 3 "great" coaches in the college ranks and most don't win a national championship which appears to be your ridiculous metric. You theoretically can't buy a player in college while you can go out and get marquee free agents in the pros. This isn't rocket science......hell...I will make it even easier for you...Jim Harbaugh.....or does he not qualify? Andrew Luck. takes him to 12-1 in 2010 170.2 rating....32 TDs and 8 INTs..I can do this all day.....or isn't that recent enough.....
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 16 2013, 07:14 PM) *
No...my point was that good college coaches routinely benefit from great QB play.

Not NFL caliber QB play, which was the basis of this conversation. Unless you want to change it...which according to your next sentence...

QUOTE
Whether those QBs make it in the NFL is another story and there are simple reasons for that. Success depends on where they go, the players they have on the team they land on.

Really? That's the simple reason some guys don't make it as NFL QB's? Alright, man. But this conversation was still about Chip Kelly thriving despite the fact that he never had an NFL QB.

You said so yourself...right here:

QUOTE (Reality Fan @ Apr 14 2013, 04:03 PM) *
exactly....he never developed a pro QB and won a ton without one.......he said it directly...he never had a blue chipper at the helm but didn't need one...needless to say I paraphrase but he pointed out that he did not have blue chip prospects at QB.



QUOTE
There are more than 2 or 3 "great" coaches in the college ranks and most don't win a national championship which appears to be your ridiculous metric.

No, most of the great coaches in college football ultimately win a championship. Which "great" ones come to mind that haven't? The only one I can even think of off-hand is Peterson at Boise...and that's because he's at Boise. Assuming they don't bolt for the NFL, the great ones ultimately win. Maybe you have a looser definition of the word "great" than I do.

QUOTE
You theoretically can't buy a player in college while you can go out and get marquee free agents in the pros.

Someone should have told that to Chip Kelly.

QUOTE
This isn't rocket science......hell...I will make it even easier for you...Jim Harbaugh.....or does he not qualify? Andrew Luck. takes him to 12-1 in 2010 170.2 rating....32 TDs and 8 INTs..I can do this all day.....or isn't that recent enough.....

Keep doing it all day. What coaches have sustained success with NFL caliber QB's? The great ones win consistently without it. Especially the offensive gurus like Chip Kelly.

Jim Harbaugh left and Andrew Luck didn't miss a beat. Then Andrew Luck left and David Shaw didn't miss a beat. Heck, they even beat Chip Kelly.

So I'll reiterate. Most successful college coaches could look back on their tenure and say that they thrived without an NFL caliber QB. And all of them would fail miserably at the next level. The guys that are successful recognize that they can't get away with having inferior talent at the position, regardless of scheme. If Chip thinks he can have the success he had at Oregon with anyone under center, he'll be out of the league in 3-4 years.
nephillymike
It amazes me how so much time is spent in these threads debating what was and wasn't said by posters.

It reminds me of G&G at times.

Can't we just express an opinion and have the other guy agree or disagree without the endless arguing about what someone did and didn't say?

Not a criticism of any one guy but damn, it just is brutal reading.

For example.

I don't think the Eagles should pick Smith at #4 because I feel they have other needs that can be satisfied with higher rated prospects at #4.

It would seem to be difficult for someone to go on saying that I said something else. My point is concise.

Now someone could disagree and list other reasons, but I would expect my counterpoint to be me disagreeing with his pointion, not disagreeing on what he said.

Let's go boys.

A little more than a week to the draft.

Let's get the A game going!!
mcnabbulous
Kelly's comments yesterday regarding the draft lacking a 'can't miss' player reflects my opinion completely. While there may be safer picks than Geno, none offer his upside and all have the potential of flopping. That's almost the primary reason that I think it makes sense to go with Smith in this draft.
nephillymike
I agree a little bit with your statement except for this.

If I have Smith rated the 17th best prospect and I have the 4th pick, I would imagine that there is a difference in the success rate of the #4 prospect (ie 4th pick) vs. the 17th pick. I'm not sure of what that is off the top of my head, but I'm sure there is a difference.

From that standpoint, there is a risk.
Maybe not as great in as some other years when the #4 is more highly rated, but a risk none the less.
If I get a chance, I'll look into that later to see if I find anything.
mcnabbulous
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 17 2013, 09:42 AM) *
I agree a little bit with your statement except for this.

If I have Smith rated the 17th best prospect and I have the 4th pick, I would imagine that there is a difference in the success rate of the #4 prospect (ie 4th pick) vs. the 17th pick. I'm not sure of what that is off the top of my head, but I'm sure there is a difference.

From that standpoint, there is a risk.
Maybe not as great in as some other years when the #4 is more highly rated, but a risk none the less.
If I get a chance, I'll look into that later to see if I find anything.

Everything I've been reading is that 15-32 is just as good as the top-10. So I don't think the difference is that dramatic this year. Maybe in other years, but not this year.
chuckp
Alot of "experts" think EJ Manual will now go in the first round, how do u guys feel if we get back into the first round for Manual?
nephillymike
QUOTE (chuckp @ Apr 17 2013, 02:41 PM) *
Alot of "experts" think EJ Manual will now go in the first round, how do u guys feel if we get back into the first round for Manual?



I don't think he's good enough.

I'd rather concentrate on other needs and focus on trading up to a higher pick next year and getting a QB considered to be better than any QB in this year's draft next year.
nephillymike
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 17 2013, 09:58 AM) *
Everything I've been reading is that 15-32 is just as good as the top-10. So I don't think the difference is that dramatic this year. Maybe in other years, but not this year.



Based on Mike Mayock's NFL.com ratings, the 2013 draft is actually BETTER than the 2012 in terms of prospect ratings:

Here are the breakdowns by levels:

Rating........................................2013.......2012
Hall Of Fame (96-100)....................0..............1 (Luck)
Upper Immed Starters (90-95.9).....15.............9
Lower Immed Starters (85 - 89.9)...18............30
Eventual Starters (70.0-84.9).........98............82
Total Expected Starters.................131..........122

How does the top ten compare in prospect ratings? Pick by pick, the 2013 has a 5-4-1 advantage:

Slot.............2013..............2012............Adv.
1st..............95.9...............97.0............2012 (Luck over Warmack)
2nd.............94.3...............95.0............2012
3rd..............93.5..............94.0.............2012
4th..............93.5..............93.5..............Tie
5th..............93.3..............93.5.............2012
6th..............93.2..............92.5.............2013
7th..............92.9..............91.5.............2013
8th..............92.8..............91.0.............2013
9th..............92.0..............90.5.............2013
10th............91.4..............90.0.............2013

So on immed starters, last year had 40 vs 33 this year. On all starters including eventual, this year has 131 vs last year's 122.
D Rock
QUOTE (nephillymike @ Apr 18 2013, 01:43 AM) *
I don't think he's good enough.

I'd rather concentrate on other needs and focus on trading up to a higher pick next year and getting a QB considered to be better than any QB in this year's draft next year.

Agreed 100.
Dr. Claw
QUOTE (mcnabbulous @ Apr 13 2013, 05:59 PM) *
Don't kill the messenger.
Link


eh. I like Geno (he has WAY more upside than Napoleon Dynamite, and he would be a welcome change from anything in the Andy Era). but the Eagles got like 10 QBs on the roster right now, and their O-Line sucks ass. their secondary is some shit.

I'm not really sure if I'm behind this decision. But who knows what Kelly and Howie will go for.


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.