Chris Weinke (IMG Academy) Talks with Danny Parkins about upcoming QB class.

[fairladyZ]

Originally Posted by O.city

Not to call you out here totally, but lets stop comparing these guys to the best QB's in the game.

Manning and Brady are likely 2 of the best 5 QB's to EVER play. EVER. Lets not start with that.


Barkley isn't deadly accurate. He is accurate, but he doesn't have elite accuracy. He could develop it, sure. But like it has been discussed, Barkley is pretty much topped out mechanically. Changing a little here or there isn't going to make much difference.

He just lacks the arm strength to drive the ball down the field.

I'm not comparing anyone to either, i'm just using them as the accuracy is a product of the system discussion. IMO barkley's ceiling could be that of peyton mannings, at his lowest ceiling he could be a schaub. Who will win you some games but all around is a HORRIBLE QB. But i think the others are right with a matt ryan type QB comparison. Which i would be GREAT with matt ryan

[O.city]

Originally Posted by fairladyZ

I'm not comparing anyone to either, i'm just using them as the accuracy is a product of the system discussion. IMO barkley's ceiling could be that of peyton mannings, at his lowest ceiling he could be a schaub. Who will win you some games but all around is a HORRIBLE QB. But i think the others are right with a matt ryan type QB comparison. Which i would be GREAT with matt ryan

Those teams were able to tailor their systems around those guys BECAUSE they had elite accuracy. It didn't cause them to be accurate.


Sorry, but a system doesn't create accuracy.

[fairladyZ]

Originally Posted by O.city

Those teams were able to tailor their systems around those guys BECAUSE they had elite accuracy. It didn't cause them to be accurate.


Sorry, but a system doesn't create accuracy.

2007 New England Patriots 16 16 398 578 68.9 4,806 8.3

2008 New England Patriots 16 15 327 516 63.4 3,693 7.2

2009 New England Patriots 16 16 371 565 65.7 4,398 7.8

the year before cassel and the year after cassel in NE's system.

I'm sure anyone on here would have taken that system here in KC with those kind of numbers from cassel.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Those teams were able to tailor their systems around those guys BECAUSE they had elite accuracy. It didn't cause them to be accurate.


Sorry, but a system doesn't create accuracy.

A system can create completion percentage.

Ball placement is a product of biomechanics - either you can repeat your delivery or you can't.

You can improve in the margins, but that's about it. Think of it as moving within letter grades. If you're a B- level passer, you can become a B and maybe a B+, but a guy with B- accuracy is never going to be an A rated trhower and a person with C level accuracy as a rookie is almost certainly doomed to a career of mediocrity.

That said, the right system can mask it and I think it's the exact opposite of the system most would advocate. If only half of your balls are going to be accurate, might as well launch it downfield and make them count.

The short passing game should be utilized by truly pinpoint passers. I honestly think that your more scattershot arms should become downfield bombers. That's what finally made Eli effective and that's when Stafford was at his best.

Geno's accuracy is such that a smart coach will make him a guy that thrives by absolutely picking teams apart in the 10 yard range.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

A system can create completion percentage.

Ball placement is a product of biomechanics - either you can repeat your delivery or you can't.

You can improve in the margins, but that's about it. Think of it as moving within letter grades. If you're a B- level passer, you can become a B and maybe a B+, but a guy with B- accuracy is never going to be an A rated trhower and a person with C level accuracy as a rookie is almost certainly doomed to a career of mediocrity.

That said, the right system can mask it and I think it's the exact opposite of the system most would advocate. If only half of your balls are going to be accurate, might as well launch it downfield and make them count.

The short passing game should be utilized by truly pinpoint passers. I honestly think that your more scattershot arms should become downfield bombers. That's what finally made Eli effective and that's when Stafford was at his best.

Geno's accuracy is such that a smart coach will make him a guy that thrives by absolutely picking teams apart in the 10 yard range.

Well, thats pretty much what they've done with Flacco.

I'm not totally sure if he's arguing that a system can physically make a guy more accurate, or like you have said, mask it if he's not.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Well, thats pretty much what they've done with Flacco.

I'm not totally sure if he's arguing that a system can physically make a guy more accurate, or like you have said, mask it if he's not.

Exactly, Flacco's a great example.

If you have a guy that's just flat going to misfire on half the balls he throws, the risk/reward needs to make every time he drops back worth the possible turnover.

When you're Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel and your 'accurate' pass is worth 8 yards because it was a checkdown and then your inaccurate pass is thrown to the shoes of a RB out of the backfield or picked off over the middle, you're of no use to anyone. But if you're Flacco or Eli and an accurate pass is good for 40 yards and an inaccurate one is, at worst, the equivalent of a mediocre punt, well at that point you can be useful even if you're not precise.

That's why I love Geno for this scheme (and why I can tolerate Smith). A guy that's accurate is actually better served in a short passing game or, if he's incredibly accurate, the high volume intermediate passing game like they run in NE.

Tom Brady is Albert Pujols - Pujols is a superlative hitter that occasionally puts it over the wall when he hits it just right. Joe Flacco is Prince Fielder - plenty of flaws but he swings !@#$ing hard and when he squares it up, it goes a long goddamn way.

[the Talking Can]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Exactly, Flacco's a great example.

If you have a guy that's just flat going to misfire on half the balls he throws, the risk/reward needs to make every time he drops back worth the possible turnover.

When you're Mark Sanchez or Matt Cassel and your 'accurate' pass is worth 8 yards because it was a checkdown and then your inaccurate pass is thrown to the shoes of a RB out of the backfield or picked off over the middle, you're of no use to anyone. But if you're Flacco or Eli and an accurate pass is good for 40 yards and an inaccurate one is, at worst, the equivalent of a mediocre punt, well at that point you can be useful even if you're not precise.

great way of describing a couple of head scratching QBs...the distance between the bad and good versions of themselves is incredible...but you've pointed out why they're worth it in spite of inconsistencies...

perfection is really over rated anyways, in prospects and in performance...much more important is the ability to be successful at key moments, under certain situations

[mdchiefsfan]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

A system can create completion percentage.

Ball placement is a product of biomechanics - either you can repeat your delivery or you can't.

You can improve in the margins, but that's about it. Think of it as moving within letter grades. If you're a B- level passer, you can become a B and maybe a B+, but a guy with B- accuracy is never going to be an A rated trhower and a person with C level accuracy as a rookie is almost certainly doomed to a career of mediocrity.

That said, the right system can mask it and I think it's the exact opposite of the system most would advocate. If only half of your balls are going to be accurate, might as well launch it downfield and make them count.

The short passing game should be utilized by truly pinpoint passers. I honestly think that your more scattershot arms should become downfield bombers. That's what finally made Eli effective and that's when Stafford was at his best.

Geno's accuracy is such that a smart coach will make him a guy that thrives by absolutely picking teams apart in the 10 yard range.

I disagree with the part in bold because, as you said, accuracy is all about bio-mechanics and repetitious motion. If you lack the ability to throw 10-15 yards accurately, you'll really notice when you stretch that pass out from 10 yards to 20+.

I guess what you are getting at is if it's going to be a crap shoot of a pass at 10 yards why not go for broke and gain chunks at a time, but we all saw what happened when Cassel tried to bomb it away. He either threw incomplete by over-throwing, got it picked or damn near killed his WR by under-throwing it.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by mdchiefsfan

I guess what you are getting at is if it's going to be a crap shoot of a pass at 10 yards why not go for broke and gain chunks at a time, but we all saw what happened when Cassel tried to bomb it away. He either threw incomplete by over-throwing, got it picked or damn near killed his WR by under-throwing it.

He did that on SCREEN passes.

If you're going to throw a pick, it's better that it happens deep in your opponent's territory than on your own 35.

[mdchiefsfan]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

He did that on SCREEN passes.

If you're going to throw a pick, it's better that it happens deep in your opponent's territory than on your own 35.

How many screen passes were intercepted and how many "bombs" were intercepted?

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by mdchiefsfan

How many screen passes were intercepted and how many "bombs" were intercepted?

You ready to flip out?

Here's Cassel's 2012 splits, charted by how far the ball traveled in the air. ALL of his picks (except 1 aberration) were on short or medium passes.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by fairladyZ

I'm not comparing anyone to either, i'm just using them as the accuracy is a product of the system discussion. IMO barkley's ceiling could be that of peyton mannings, at his lowest ceiling he could be a schaub. Who will win you some games but all around is a HORRIBLE QB. But i think the others are right with a matt ryan type QB comparison. Which i would be GREAT with matt ryan

Barkley's ceiling isn't anywhere close to "Peyton Manning".

[BossChief]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

Barkley's ceiling isn't anywhere close to "Peyton Manning".

This.