QB Class Starting to Look Like S&@*
 

Anyone else disappointed with the way this QB class is starting to pan out after looking very promising?

Newton has gone Hollywood
Gabbert is scared to throw at the combine
Locker went to hell as a Senior
Mallett being the 2nd coming of Ryan Leaf

Ponder is starting to look like the prize QB in this draft to me at this point.

Not for me.

Gabbert then newton.
Imo both could go top ten.
I would take either.
Posted via Mobile Device

we need a young guy.

We also need to NOT **** around hoping a sixth or seventh hits
Posted via Mobile Device

Couldn't disagree more. I'm a big fan of Newton and Gabbwrt though, and I love Mallet's upside. Not to mention there should be some really good value on the second tier of QBs.

What would Gabbert have to gain by throwing at the combine? He's the surest thing at this point.

I hope everybody thinks they look like shit and the Chiefs can take Gabbert at 21.

Let him sit for 2 or 3 years behind Cassel.

Its funny he dogs on Gabbert for not throwing but the QB who his dick in his mouth didn't either.

I used to think that way, but the more things play out the more doubts I have about them all. I'm starting to the think those 2nd tier guys might turn out better the first in this years draft.

Is Gabbert hurt?

I'm not his biggest fan by any means, but at least Sanchez got out there and threw. Newton had probably surpassed Gabbert in many peoples minds before opening his mouth.

What did newton say?
Posted via Mobile Device

Do you really not no or are you trying to make a point about what he said?

Called himself and entertainer and icon. Like he is some sort of Dane McCloud.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/C...terview-022211

8 of the last 12 first round QBs didn't throw at the combine. I hate that, but the advisers just drill them into not doing it.

Newton is throwing because his "Media Day" pissed a lot of GMs and Coaches off.

Didn't know. But if dane was that good he would go top ten too....


Posted via Mobile Device

Bradford was on record as having made all the throws necessary to throw at the combine by that date. His advisers used that injury as an excuse.

Hell, QBs can't win in these things.

Go back and bump the 2009 combine thread. Read over how many were pillorying Sanchez because he was throwing to a bunch of 7th round draft picks.

Then, read all the Pat White ballwashing (including from Mayock) based on the same workout.

Isn't football entertainment?
He just brought a championship to auburn, he probably is an icon around there.
Posted via Mobile Device

Sanchez had to throw.

I like Gabbert, I can't say I'm all that excited about the rest of them. Just not a fan of Mallett at all... he's got the tools but just made so many boneheaded decisions.

We went over this last year and decided Dr. James Andrews opinion was probably the one to listen to.

What I'm hearing, so don't shoot the messenger is that Gabbert's deep ball isn't that goodand he wouldn't want to look like a noodle arm compared to Mallett and Newton.

My point it I was excited, but now not so much. Right now my pipe dream is trading back and picking Ponder.

However, I'll probably change again after the combine.

Why?

It doesn't look like we expected it to look a year ago, but I think Gabbert's going to be a star. I like him more than anybody that's been out since Matt Ryan.

God I hope the Chiefs get a shot at Ponder in the 2nd

I'm not sure how since he wasn't exactly a great college QB. I would feel more comfortable with a guy that did it in college and has the tools like Bradford did his entire career and Ryan did his senior year.

I just didn't see a great QB when I watched the MU games, but I really didn't see a great QB when I watched Freeman at KSU either and he worked out pretty well so far. Freeman has been a better pro then college QB so maybe Gabbert will surprise me and do the same.

I dont.

I'd rather spend the first few picks on players who are actually going to start. Ponder's had a hard time staying healthy with shoulder injuries and he has already had 2 surgeries on his elbow.

If the Chiefs pay Cassel the most we are looking at is a solid backup. They are plenty of guys that could fill that role later in the draft such as Devlin, Dalton, Stanzi, Enderle, etc...

The is the only QB who separates himself from the rest is Newton. Newton is the most talented QB with the most potential. Kind of reminds me of Warren Moon. Great arm strength and with some work on his mechanics, he could be pretty accurate. Big questions for him though and the reason he might fall is the fact that he's more a runner/playmaker than a true QB, and his decision making. He's got the hood in him, and it shows on and off the field. If you can get him to focus like the Iggles did Vick, that is what you could have, a hell of a QB with the ability to make huge plays. If he had a good head on his shoulders and played QB more like a QB, he could be a Warren Moon type guy.

Gabbert is not a real elite QB. He is benefiting from a QB class that is weak at the top. In any decent QB year, he's the Ponder of the bunch. I have not seen Gabbert do anything to separate himself from most of the mid-tier QB's in this draft. I haven't seen him do anything so much better than the Ponder(forget him, didn't know about the elbow surgeries), Stanzi, Foles, type of guys, that he commands a top pick in the draft. If and when he goes high, it will solely be b/c of the fact that he is the best, safest, and most justifiable QB available for a team who needs to take a shot on a QB. Good luck to that team. Not saying he won't make it, he's just less a sure thing than the traditional 1st round QB who is never really a sure thing.

Give me Ponder, Foles, Stanzi, or Devlin and I'll be content.

Didn't he go back to AZ?

I think Mallett also has a superior skill set to the rest. He may not run like Newton, but he has the best arm of the bunch. The problem is with the intangibles we might be talking Elvis Grbac upside here.

I actually believe in Cam...If he can get into the right situation like Vick in Philly, I think he can be a star...but it will take time

Did he? That sucks. Well, I like Stanzi the most then, b/c I know the most about him, and he is a fairly finished guy who is safe. His major flaws are the deep ball and touch pass. Other than that, his game is solid.

His deep ball problem is no different than Gabbert's, so it seems to me that Gabberts main advantages over Stanzi are his touch pass and operating in the spread made his look a bit better. Stanzi actually has the arm, he just never really got the chance to hit the deep ball all that often. Neither DJK or McNutt were huge deep threats, but ran good routes, and have good hands. Stanzi could hit them in stride and with DJK having that Rod Smith up field in a hurry quality about him, it led to some big plays. Bowe could benefit from Stanzi's accuracy. His touch pass though, well, I hope it can be coached into him, b/c if he had it now, he'd be much higher rated.

I don't know enough about Dalton and Enderle. Like someone else said though, I'm not sure about taking a ginger...

Yeah, b/c it takes time to teach a dumbass not to be a dumbass anymore. His arrogance and has Russel/Vick(pre prison) like potential.

Feel the same way about Mallett. You can't fix stupid. He does have Big Ben-like potential though. Size, arm, and might be a reerun off the field, but could still succeed if he isn't one on it.

I think, like with Freeman, it was more of a reflection of the school than the player. Put him in the right situation, with some good coaching and quality players, and I think he has all the attributes to thrive.

This is an outside opinion, of course. I'm not a big 12 guy, and I don't follow Missouri any more or less than I follow anybody else in the NCAA. I've seen him play probably a dozen times over the last couple of years, and what I saw was a guy with prototypical size who has a rocket launcher attached to his shoulder. He'll play hurt, he's played in high profile games, and he's won games at a school that traditionally doesn't with what I consider to be high second tier talent, although to his credit I think Pinkel has turned them into a winning program. In any case, I can see why Harbaugh wanted him at Stanford.

On the flip side, he does play out of a spread, but these days who doesn't? That's just a risk you have to take (same risk Bradford had - plus Bradford missed virtually an entire year to injury...).

All that said, I do not think he's a top-5 or even top-10 calibre pick. But I do think he's a first round calibre QB. Others will argue this (much like they did with Sanchez), but I'm not somebody who likes the idea of a project early. And Gabbert is, in my mind, a project. But the upside on him is through the roof.

As far as Newton goes, he's the latest product of the hype machine. I don't care how athletically gifted he is (and there's no debate about that...), the fact is he's a junior with one year starting experience on an utterly loaded team. I wouldn't touch him with a twenty foot pole. He has disaster written all over him.

Mallet has top pick talent with a UDFA brain. For years I waited for him to grow into what I thought he could be when I first saw him at Michigan, and he never did. He'll look like Joe Montana with Dan Marino's arm grafted to his shoulder and then all of a sudden just do something that leaves you scratching your head.


In the end, I don't think any of these guys are really worth discussion as far as the Chiefs goes. I think this franchise is way, way more likely to go for a game manager the likes of Greg McElroy. I'm not saying I like that, or that it's what I want, just that that's the kind of player I think they'll go for.

Or, he's represented by CAA, and their guys never throw.

Of course he has a noodle arm, he only had the best arm strength in his recruiting class, and the second best score in the history of the Elite 11 camp.

Lol

Posted via Mobile Device

I went backed and watched some more highlights of Gabbert and I'm just not seeing that deep ball that everyone here is clamoring for so much. However, I went and looked at some Andrew Luck highlights and it was a whole different story.

Maybe the MU receivers were just that bad, but he really had mediocre numbers in a QB friendly system. I don't think he has the talent of a Newton or Mallett at this point in the game. His greatest assett at this point seems to be his intangibles. I think he is probably the safest 1st round pick however.

I can't underestimate how bad our receivers were this year. Our TE, who was a Mackey award finalist, averaged 9 yards a catch, getting the ball in space. 9.

Jackson and Kemp were horrendous. Horrendous.

The sad thing is that Missouri brought in three tremendous WR prospects in their 2010 class, and people will probably think that Lucas, Sasser, and Hunt were a similar caliber of the guys that Gabbert threw to when they are light years better.

Gabbert played in a two year gap of skill position talent at Mizzou. Our running game was awful, and our OL wasn't that good.

Watch him drive the ball down the field against Iowa or Illinois the year before. It's impressive tape, as is the Oklahoma game. You should remember that one.

Now now hamas I have seen the pictures, gabbert actually just has a couple of spaghetti noodles hanging off of his shoulder
Posted via Mobile Device

I have also heard he won't take off his shirt at the combine due to this.


Red
Flag.
Posted via Mobile Device

fyp lol

Then you flash back to the Nebraska game and he struggled quite a bit for most of it. I think he the #1 QB by default now. Locker was barely an avg college QB, Newton is a head case as is Mallet. If I'm an NFL GM I'm not excited about giving big money and long term deals to any of these guys. I think you are going to see the latter 3 guys slide into round 2 and possibly behind guys like Dalton, Ponder, and Kaepernick. IMO Gabbert is a mid 1st round talent that probably get's pushed up a little higher with no sure fire Ryan, Stafford, Bradford like guy in this draft. He is the only QB I would take at #21, but he will be long gone.

I'd take any of the QB's thought to be 1st or 2nd round prospects, except Locker, over Cassel.

That is just silly.

5 WR's against a base 4-3 defense for almost all of the first 3 quarters. At least two of the WR's were covered by white Iowa linebackers. Yeah, Gabbert tore up those 5-10 yd. routes against linebackers. Whooo-ee! Not impressed. He didn't get a hell of a lot done, sure his yds. were higher than Stanzi's in the game, but his yds/completion and yds/attempt were much lower.

Iowa defense is kind of like the Chiefs in that they don't mind you gaining yards, they just don't want you to score TD's. They play sound, technical football and hope that if they play their assignments correctly, you will make drive killing mistakes, or mistakes that lead to a turnover. If you play sound football, they have no choice but to try to stop you outright.

QFT

I think that would be a huge mistake.

Gotta be another 60mill bust in teh bunch somewhere...bout time :mad:

You sir, are a gambler.

You should just learn to play the odds a little better. None of the other guys has enough upside to offset their risk for me. Newton not included obviously.

If you like Mallet, you are MUCH better off going with Kaepernick later. Good arm, size, athletic, can make plays with his feet. Not as flashy as the bigger school guys. Not working with nearly the talent either.

There were multiple seeds he threw into tight coverage on third and long, and even his first pick, the pass to Jackson, was a good pass that the dumbass WR tipped up for an easy interception.

Stanzi's garbage stats were grossly inflated by that 3rd down catch and run at the end of the game, and a reeruned blown coverage by Carl Gettis. There was no comparison between the two, even for the purposes of undermining Gabbert.

The 2 guys I liked most stayed put, Foles and Luck. No college prospect ever looks perfect, guys like Matt Ryan, Sanchez, Stafford, Freeman, Rodgers, Philip Rivers etc all had warts and flaws. Eli Manning was the only guy I can remember in recent years where people were convinced he was IT. I'd take most of the guys I listed above him OVER Eli at this point.....

The reason we never sniff shit in the playoffs is because we refuse to gamble.

When you look at the # of QB's taken in the first round that win Super Bowls, at some point you have to come to the conclusion that they are a good risk to take. It's not like taking an OT in the first is any safer, or has anywhere near the upside. We had the best LT of all time and never won a playoff game....

Newton, Gabbert, Mallett and perhaps Ponder aren't perfect, but all look to have a huge upside. That's something I do not see from our current QB, who is almost 30 now.

I'll add if trading into the 2nd round and netted us another 1st next year, and could land Foles, I'd probably take that option...

But since there are no guarantees, if I had a shot at a QB close to my 21 slot I'd probably take it this year.

This is why I don't like Mallett.

"Tony Softli of ESPN 101 St. Louis reports that Arkansas QB Ryan Mallett did not declare for the 2010 NFL draft due to "heavy rumors" that he was addicted to drugs.
Per Softli, "A lot of people are comparing Mallett to Ryan Leaf." We've heard the rumors and Leaf comparisons plenty, but they're now being confirmed by an ESPN employee who used to work as Rams director of player personnel and was the Panthers' scouting director. Softli suggests that Mallett will be given a hair follicle test at the Combine to determine if he's used recently. Mallett heads to Indy with more red flags than any draft-eligible prospect."

"NFL Draft Monsters has a policy of not publishing a story without two independent confirmations. We were approached this week, by a source inside the Arkansas program who told us the he has personally witnessed Mallett use both marijuana, and cocaine. This corroborates an account given to us a few months back, that we had been unable to substantiate.

Both sources spoke on the condition of anonymity, and NFL Draft Monsters has a policy of not compensating sources in any way for stories."

An NFL QB doesn't have time for coke and pot. He's shown he can be a hell of a player, then he has a 3 INT day against Bama. I would be all over him if it weren't for the drugs. I won't mind if we pick him, just need to find a way to keep him out of trouble.

If all off field issues were moot, I'd definitely rank Newton and Mallett ahead of Gabbert. I'm actually glad he'll get taken early, let someone else over spend for him.

Gabbert went 5-4 on 3rd downs plus an interception. So really, throwing, he converted 50%, which is a pretty good number, especially for some of the situations he was put in. My point though is, the Iowa defense didn't bring the house, they played base in those situations and he had plenty of time. When you have that much time, and five wideouts, some being covered by linebackers, you are going to have a pretty good chance of finding an open receiver. A better chance than a typical pro style QB would have against a nickel D. That is why Iowa did so badly against spread and air raid teams all season. They rarely ever left their base set.


Also on the Stanzi comment. That is what he has done since day one. He developed such good timing with his receivers, that he was able to hit them in stride and allow them to run after the catch, led to a lot of big plays. Rarely hangs a guy out to dry.

Please tell me you want us to draft Stanzi. :LOL:

Later, sure. Haven't I said that many a time already? Look up dumb ****.

Stanzi in the third would be a good pick.

I cant wait for the total and complete meltdown here when we trade up in the third or trade back into the third after making our selection to take him.

It will be epic.

I also think its interesting how almost everyone would love to draft Gabbert (myself included) and ignore his boneheaded throws in pressure situations, but uuse the same thing against Stanzi as a damning trait.

I believe Mayock said yesterday that he though Stanzi would go in the second. About where Kiper had him a couple months back. We'll see, there are a lot of players out there.

Iowa, and....

I was listening to ESPN's First Draft podcast the other day. Kiper likes Stanzi. Thinks with his size, completion percentage, etc that he'll go in the 2nd.

McShay wasn't as high on him.

I just think it's funny how the two most respected draft analysts think he's a 2nd round talent, but the Missou homers wouldn't touch him with a ten foot stick. They want to act as though Iowa's not a respected program and Missou's on another level. Whatever though...

Seems that they agree with my assessment of him...just like last year with Tony Mo.

That's ok though, Kiper and Mayock are obviously Iowa homers too

I think Stanzi's a fine project. Good size, good arm, smart kid. Looks like a Pioli-type QB.

Kstater said he thought Freeman would only play 5 or less season. Just long enough to get enough money to follow his dream of training for the iditarod. It's not that he was all that much into the race. Or working with the dogs. He was just looking forward to being on the pole 24/7.

Being a 2nd round QB prospect means you've got skills but nobody likes you enough to expect you to do anything. The 2nd round is where you draft guys with 1st round talent and 7th round brains.

I never want to draft a QB in the 2nd. Ever.

So, you don't want Drew Brees?

I wish we'd taken him instead of trading the #8 pick for Trent Green.

Did Drew Brees win a Super Bowl with the team that drafted him? How about Brett Favre?

I'm pretty sure there have been more undrafted free agent QB's to win Super Bowls than there have been 2nd round picks who won with the team that drafted them....:thumb:

Probably b/c of the fact that there have been way more UDFA QB's in the league than 2nd rounders. Odds are better when there are more. Also, who gives a good goddamn if they won with the team that drafted them? Is it their fault that their team was too stupid to realize what they had?

Rivers had the size and strength Brees didn't, so the Chargers wanted to use him. Brees played himself into a franchise tag in a contract year. Then in the final game tore the labrum in his throwing shoulder, and there were other reports of rotator cuff damage. The Chargers knew this and still offered him a 5yr. 50mil. contract. He chose to explore other options b/c he was insulted by the incentive laden contract. New Orleans gain.

Favres coach never approved of the pick and said it would take a plane crash for him to put Favre in the game. The Packers saw the value, and traded the #19 overall draft pick for him. The rest is history.

How can you fault these QB's for their arrogant superiors.

Me thinks you know not what you speak of. The second round is not for stupid first round talents. It's for any talent with question marks of any kind.

That's exactly what this team needs. More James Killians. That will fix our QB problem.

I would take Mallett in the 2nd round. He's a headcase but I would rather take him a chance on him than some of our "wonderful" 2nd round picks lately like Turk McBride, Dexter McCluster, etc.

I'm clearly a mouth breather. I have no idea what I'm talking about, the 2nd round is the ideal round to find franchise level QB talent.

Choosing Brees as your "proof" that 2nd round is legit for Super Bowl QB's is the same as using Brady as proof you find the same thing in the 6th round.

The QB position is completely different than every other position on the field. They don't rate the same, and they aren't valued the same, and they don't contribute the same.

If you're looking for a QB start in the 1st, if you can't find one there wait and pick up a few projects late. The guy who thinks he's "stolen" a QB with a 2nd round pick is the fool that didn't see what every other team did.

More SBs have been won with 1st round QBs than every other round and UDFA combined.

If you want a QB who profiles as something other than a backup, there's really little point to take shots in the middle-late rounds. Pick early or go home.

Choosing Brees has nothing to do with anything except for he's one of the QB's you mentioned ****face.

Cam Newton on NFL Network talking about frustration of throwing to new receivers and Gabbert is the stupid one for not throwing at the combine. ROFL @ you guys.

Agree....Plus, theres enough film on most of these guys already to form a valid Pro opinion of him.

I have to think Mallett acutally helped himself by throwing at the combine. IF Gabbert was able to go out there and light it up like Mallett did, and I don't think he can, then he would have probably moved himself up into consideration for the top pick in the draft. So if you got it there is good reason to flaunt it.

If?

Gabbert, Newton, Mallet, and Locker can throw any and all of the passes.

Gabbert is already regarded as the #1 QB prospect of this draft. What does he need to prove to scouts?

I don't know how many times this has to be said:

Gabbert is represented by Condon, you dumbass. Condon guys don't throw.

As far as your claim that he can't: he's clearly a purely intangibles guy, that's why he was the #1 QB recruit in the entire nation coming out of high school, that's why Harbaugh wanted him over Luck, and that's also why he lit up the Elite 11 camp so much that guys said they'd never seen a workout like that before.

Ehh. He said that he didn't realize how crucial timing was. What I got out of that is he didn't REALLY play QB. He played playmaker who would throw the ball if the player was open or he had to. Any real QB KNOWS timing is huge.

Just got done watching the Combine...

Don't know much about Gabbert, but can't stand "men" with that kind of hair...I hope nothing but the worst for him.

Which can be said for any spread option QB.

This is what kills me about NFLN, ESPN, and all the other draft sites. There is a huge difference between a spread offense, like Missouri's, and a spread option offense like Florida or Auburn. Spread option QBs make one read and then run. It's much more of a run-based system that relies on a large, powerful QB to gain yardage in the running game. Basically, they spread you out to run against 5 or 6 in the box, and when they throw, it's almost always against single coverage.

So far, there have been three spread QBs who have succeeded or likely will succeed in the NFL: Brees, Roethlisberger, and Bradford (likely).

Zero spread option QBs have done it.

I guess that's why you hate this guy so much.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-sowa9IPRv...conference.jpg