A junior entry into the 2017 draft class, Mitchell Trubisky meets all the NFL thresholds for size, strength, mobility and football IQ. On the field he’s calm and collected both in the pocket and on the go—where he displays the athleticism to be featured as a runner and also as a scrambler when the pocket breaks down. A shotgun quarterback, Trubisky has the footwork and overall agility to operate under center with time. His arm talent is on the good-to-very-good scale, and he’s shown the ability to pinpoint passes to all levels of the field. Trubisky’s touch accuracy is impressive, and he’s able to mix up throws to fit the ball into coverage. In his one year as a starter, Trubisky completed 68 percent of his passes for 30 touchdowns and just six interceptions. He had just four passes batted down at the line of scrimmage in 449 attempts.
NEGATIVES
A one-year starter at UNC, Trubisky doesn’t have a ton of tape to evaluate. Mechanically, he can break down at times and will start to throw off-balance and from his back foot without the proper arm strength or hip alignment to make the throws on target. Trubisky’s numbers were good, but he was surrounded by top-tier athletes at the skill positions, which will bring up questions about how much of his success was based on the talent around him. Misidentifying underneath and zone coverages led to the few interceptions on Trubisky’s tape. I don’t view Trubisky as a Day 1 NFL starter. But he's a player who could operate in the right system if need-be in his first season.
PRO COMPARISON: Derek Carr, Oakland Raiders
FINAL GRADE: 7.15/9.00 (Round 1—Future Starter)
2. Deshaun Watson, Clemson
Spoiler!
POSITIVES
A two-year starter at Clemson—and a two-time Heisman finalist—Deshaun Watson has been one of the best players in college football during that time. He led Clemson to a national title game victory over Alabama in his junior season after losing to the Crimson Tide in a jaw-dropping performance the year before. On the field, Watson is a very good athlete. He excelled as a runner in 2015 (1,105 yards, 12 TDs) before developing into more of a pocket thrower in his final year. He has a quick, smooth release and an over-the-top motion. He’s able to move his legs to set up passing windows and has enough arm to push the ball outside the hashes and down the field. Watson is an excellent leader and a high-character player. His teammates rallied around his toughness and poise throughout the last two years. Among the 2017 quarterback class, Watson is the most pro-ready. He’s a proven winner and playmaker.
NEGATIVES
When viewing Watson, his total of 30 interceptions in the last two seasons has to be discussed. Too often he struggled to identify zone coverage (see the Pitt, Troy, Florida State and Ohio State games) that led to poor interceptions or near-misses. Often, Watson throws the ball up and bets on his big receivers to make plays on the ball. His deep-ball accuracy is inconsistent. No quarterback in college football had more skill-position talent around him. Watson also had 13 passes batted down in 2016, most of all draft-eligible quarterbacks. If Watson intends to be a runner in the NFL, he’ll need to bulk up to add the power (especially in his lower body) to make plays. Overall, his accuracy is too inconsistent to be considered top-end. He’ll have to speed up his decision-making and improve his spot-accuracy to be a top-tier NFL quarterback.
PRO COMPARISON: Tony Romo, Dallas Cowboys
FINAL GRADE: 7.00/9.00 (Round 1—Future Starter)
3. Patrick Mahomes II, Texas Tech
Spoiler!
POSITIVES
The best arm in the 2017 draft class belongs to Patrick Mahomes II of Texas Tech. A two-year starter at Texas Tech, Mahomes pushed Baker Mayfield and Davis Webb out of Lubbock to earn the starting job. He is able to push the ball all over the field and can do so from multiple platforms with his great arm. A shotgun-only quarterback in college, Mahomes is athletic enough to learn to take snaps from under center. Velocity on all throws is very impressive for Mahomes, who understands how to dial up spin and get the ball through tight coverage. He’s a dual-threat player with the strength and speed to be effective as a designed runner or when getting free from pressure. A natural leader, Mahomes has the confidence and poise to be great under pressure. He’s rarely rattled, and it shows on the field. The son of a former MLB pitcher, Mahomes has great athletic genes. In 2016, he threw 41 touchdowns to just 10 interceptions and hit on 65.7 percent of his throws. Mahomes’ tools are the best of any quarterback in this class.
NEGATIVES
Mahomes has some Brett Favre in his game—the good and bad kind. He loves to launch off his back foot and throw without lining up his hips or shoulders. And while he has the strength to do this, his accuracy suffers on downfield throws when his body isn’t right. Learning to line up his body could fix this, but he has to prove he can do that when under pressure. You also don’t want to completely take away the gunslinger mentality and athletic traits and try to force Mahomes to become someone he’s not. Mahomes, coming from the Texas Tech Air Raid offense, will have to fight against a trend of unsuccessful quarterbacks in the NFL coming from that system. He’ll have to adjust to making play calls in the huddle and reading the defense on his own without the aid of the coaches holding up cards on the sideline.
PRO COMPARISON: Blake Bortles, Jacksonville Jaguars
FINAL GRADE: 6.75/9.00 (Round 2—Future Starter)
4. DeShone Kizer, Notre Dame
Spoiler!
POSITIVES
A replacement starter in 2015 after Malik Zaire was injured, DeShone Kizer would take over the job full-time in 2016 after an early-season rotation. All told, he threw 695 passes over the last two years. Kizer has a very strong arm, and it shows when he’s dialed in. His ball placement will wow you at times, and he can spin the ball through traffic without any loss of velocity or sailing passes high. In the red zone, Kizer stands out as an elite performer. He has the size and athleticism to be a punishing runner in short-yardage situations and can also move his feet to extend the play. Mechanically, Kizer is the most consistent in the class. He has a smooth, quick delivery and doesn’t pat the ball or take unnecessary steps. His arm strength isn’t the best in the class, but it’s impressive. The Notre Dame offense is similar to an NFL system in terms of route-and-blocking combinations, which should help his transition. Kizer is a developmental prospect but has the goods to be an NFL starter in time.
NEGATIVES
Kizer didn’t win the job outright from Zaire until he got hurt, and even in 2016 they rotated for the Texas game and Kizer was later benched in favor of Zaire (only to return to the game) against Stanford. His eyes can be an issue at times, and he doesn’t show experience working to his second and third reads consistently. Kizer can be nonchalant in the pocket and must learn to play with urgency both as a thrower and as a mover out of the pocket to avoid pressure. Kizer’s 2016 was markedly worse than his 2015 season, leading to questions about his ability to elevate players around him after losing first-round picks Will Fuller and Ronnie Stanley to the NFL draft.
PRO COMPARISON: Donovan McNabb, retired
FINAL GRADE: 6.75/9.00 (Round 2—Future Starter)
5. Davis Webb, California
Spoiler!
POSITIVES
A one-year starter at California after transferring from Texas Tech, Davis Webb has the arm talent and football IQ to wow scouts. Webb took the starting job from Baker Mayfield at Tech as a true freshman and started half a season as a sophomore before Patrick Mahomes took over. A graduate transfer at Cal, Webb finally put a whole season on tape. A big, strong-armed quarterback, Webb has better athleticism than people expect for his size and can be functional moving the pocket or pulling the ball down to move. A shotgun-only quarterback, Webb can sling the ball all over the field with accuracy. The tools off the field with Webb are his most impressive trait. He’s a heady player with excellent character and work ethic.
NEGATIVES
When everything is good, Webb looks great. When the pocket breaks down or he has to get to his second read, he can struggle. His decision-making is often one-and-done. He’ll lock on to his primary target and will suffer when asked to move off that. For a big-armed quarterback, Webb’s passes outside the hashes can dive. Despite good combine numbers, Webb isn’t a threat to make plays as a runner. As a touch thrower, Webb is inconsistent and notably shaky down the field. The offensive systems Webb played in have not prepared him for the NFL. He’ll have to learn to call plays in the huddle, spit out long play names and operate under center.
PRO COMPARISON: Joe Flacco, Baltimore Ravens
FINAL GRADE: 6.25/9.00 (Round 3—Future Starter)
Big body, limited mobility in pocket, huge arm... it's pretty accurate
Not denying the similarities...just playing along with what Billay posted.
A Flacco comparison isn't exactly...bad. It's not like the guy has busted. He made some nice plays on the route to his team winning a Super Bowl...he contributed big time.
It's better than an Alex Smith comparison.
All in all, though...Webb and all these may have some things in common with the comparisons, but they will ultimately just end up being themselves...Davis Webb will end up being Davis Webb, probably with Joe Flacco similarities.
Nah. I think Marriotta is a good comparison. Most experts say Alex, who they compared Marriotta to when he came out, but Marriotta isn't a pussy like Alex.
__________________ Mike Greenberg@Espngreeny
I can’t fathom what it must be like to be a fan of the #Chiefs.
04-03-2017, 08:43 AM
Linear Mode
