That does make tremendous sense. Now as far as draft order I think there are only about two teams that would go for a Matt Barkley in the high range. Seattle and Cleveland are the two teams that are threats to keep Miami from perhaps its guy. (How about Sarkissian as coach). St. Louis won't trade down with Seattle so we're safe there. The question will be will Cleveland jump with two first round picks from the late single digits to draft Barkley. I don't see it, I just don't. It's not Holmgren and company's style at all to do so. Barkley looks like a real nice bet to be in Miami right now.
How is that a bad assumption? Bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic, and bigger NFL arm? And we cant accurately say Barkley is more intelligent.
TP Marino didn't do **** in his senior year in college. Manning failed against Florida, that's really not that relevant. As far as talent, Brady didn't have anything physical over Barkley except height coming out. Ben is another story, but considering that Barkley is up to par with Brees talent shouldn't be too much of a problem. He's a really good kid that I think you'll come around on. He's a quality starter right waiting for Miami and I have an odd feeling there will be a surprise gift for Miami in the second round waiting for us if Barkley is the guy at the top of the first.
It's all kind of a chicken-or-egg thing that I don't find to be particularly useful to debate, anyway. I'm quite sure this Clarkson guy has coached more players than the ones named that went on to be college and/or pro stars. The fact that there's such a wide variance among the players he's coached shows that talent matters and can matter a whole lot. You know, Dayne Christ goes out there and he can't hold Matt Barkley's jock strap. Why is that? He was coached by Clarkson, too. Hell, Christ has more "physical talent" than Barkley too, can throw the ball farther, run faster, etc. But on a football field he can't hold Tommy Rees' jock strap let alone Matt Barkley's. All you can do is evaluate and project these guys to the best your ability. You want to have a theory that Ryan Tannehill will quickly surpass Matt Barkley as soon as he gets pro coaching? That's fine. But don't expect to "prove" that theory until it happens.
Why would he not take to coaching? There's nothing about this guy to give that impression. Quite the contrary in fact.
All the coaching in the world can't get over the fact whether he mentally gets to the point where he can read the field and the pre-snap. Some guys have it, some guys don't. That said I just don't take the Tannehill route over Barkley.
And yet, Alex Smith was bigger, faster, stronger, more athletic, a bigger NFL arm, and scored a higher wonderlic. Imagine that.
I completely agree, but we know that Tannehill has more room for improvement than Barkley, so that gap can be closed over the next 3 or 4 years. Where Barkley would have the advantage is if he could continue growing in size, athleticism, and arm strength in order to counter Tannehill catching up both mechanically and mentally.
I'm sure he would take to coaching. But absorbing coaching is a skill, not a medical condition. It's not a thing where either you can be coached or you can't. The amount of things a coach can teach you that you can put out there on the field while performing well and quickly is a skill.
For me, it would hinge more on the coach we bring in and the offense he wants to run. Jones or Barkley in the wrong offense = waste of talent and potentially picking a new QB in a few years IMO.
I do not agree at all. How can Tannehill gain ground on Barkley if Barkley continues to grow as a player? As for the final statement I think that is a convenient positioning of things. You're assuming that Barkley has reached the pinnacle of his craft mentally and he can only get better by becoming bigger, stronger, faster, etc. That's another pretty bad assumption. Of course Matt Barkley has plenty of room to grow as a quarterback. He has room to grow in important areas like accuracy, mental processing, consistency and decision-making. No matter how good you are in any of those areas, there is always room to improve, and improving in those areas makes you a better quarterback. But Barkley is going to be working on high level physics while Tannehill is slogging through algebra for a few years. I'm not sure why there's this automatic assumption that Tannehill will catch up over a finite amount of time.
Well what is the best for Barkley? Our current personnel is probably good enough for him. Plug him in to what Matt Moore is doing with Fasano-Clay and the crapola OL and he would be fine.
I have a feeling with Barkley it might take a year or two. It took three full years for Drew Brees to 'get it' and I've been comparing Barkley to Brees this whole time.
It took him two years to get it going in college. Good thing is he's only 21. He'll be 22 in his rookie year, 23 in his sophomore year, and 24 when he gets the green light if that's the case. Absolutely perfect age.
I wouldn't be disappointed with Barkley. I respect what you're saying, however, I don't think he's the next Brees, and I don't think he's a lock to be an elite franchise QB since he's missing 2 important components: a big arm and NFL size. To me, with Barkley, we'd basically be relying on intangibles the way NY relies on intangibles with Sanchez, and is it just me or do we see throws missing (or not being attempted) from Barkley's repertoire that a successful offense will need in the NFL? I see a lot of quick passes to playmaking receivers; I see a lot of verticals to fast & highly talented receivers; and I see a lot of designed roll outs to highly talented receivers; but it seems like there are some intermediate & deep level NFL type throws not being attempted. Is that b/c I haven't seen all of his games and I've just missed them? Is it b/c USC doesn't run them or have receivers who can successfully run these routes? Or is it b/c Barkley doesn't have the arm to make these throws the way Jones, Weeden, and Tannehill do? IMO Barkley doesn't have quite the athleticism or quick feet of Drew Brees. I think his accuracy, velocity, awareness, mobility, decisiveness, and ability to make something out of nothing are also slightly less than Brees's. IMO these are characteristics that make Brees, Brees, so if another QB has these traits but doesn't have them to the same degree Brees does, then I can't call him the next Drew Brees. I'd maybe call him in between Sanchez or Brees, or even closer to Sanchez until proven otherwise. I really wish this were his senior year so we could see him during Senior Bowl week. [video=youtube;CvZjvjqcMdE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvZjvjqcMdE[/video] [video=youtube;f7_xy4s_nLI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7_xy4s_nLI[/video]
Clarkson has had successful pros. Roethlisberger & Freeman, and IMO his coaching is a big reason why Ben & Josh were able to impact quicker [in the NFL] than most college QBs who are limited by the NCAA in the amount of time they can spend with their coaches. However, Ben & Josh have both great size and a big NFL arm. If Ben had Sanchez's size and arm, he wouldn't be Ben. The concern I have with guys who have been coached by Clarkson is--- many of them have been coached so well that they're perceived to be better than they really are b/c of the effect great mechanics and a firm grasp of the game can have on a college QB's success. Teams seem to be so smitten with their outstanding intangibles like mechanics, decision making, and having an advanced understanding of the game (Leinart, Sanchez, Beck, Clausen) that they discount the important physical attributes like size and NFL caliber arm. How many QBs since Drew Brees was drafted since 2001 have become franchise caliber QBs without possessing some combination of elite arm, great NFL size, or elite mobility/athleticism? Aaron Roders & Matt Stafford don't have great NFL size, but they have an elite NFL arm and outstanding mobility. Barkley has none of the above. He lacks NFL size, lacks a great arm, and has good but not great mobility. So basically you're drafting Barkley for his brain, making him the next Chad Pennington, only a hair smaller, slightly less accurate, and with a little better mobility and a tad stronger arm. That seems more like a game-manager than game-changer.
does both performing well at QB with only half a season of coaching and winning 6 straight games constitute as "absorbing coaching"? I think it does.
Then I'd take Tannehill b/c I was a huge fan of Little, who's the 2nd leading rookie reception leader despite having a weak-armed crappy QB with less current talent on the field to help open up things for him.
This Matt Barkley guy...definitely only average talent... [video=youtube;jX8PlVYM4GY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX8PlVYM4GY&feature=youtu.be[/video]
Guy looks amazing throwing on the run, something we have to consider with our Oline.....really though he looks really good, I watched the Stanford/USC game a few weeks back and came away very impressed with both Qbs.
[video=youtube;C2heGLAjiDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2heGLAjiDc[/video] The more I watch of this guy, the more I like him. The ball really comes out of his hand very well. As I posted in the draft thread, Rayn throws the ball very well and with zip outside the hashes. He definitely has the arm to make all the throws he will need to make in the NFL. He also throws very well in the quick game. Plus he is athletic. He will give you the ability to run the zone read and speed option within your offense, and he can be a true dual threat quarterback once he polishes up some of his passing. I like his release. I think he gets off balanced at time when dropping back after taking the ball under center. To me, he seems to be better when , he is in the shot gun. He's had some rough stretches in games lately where he has turned the ball over some, but overall the more I see him, the more I think he will be a top 10-15 pick in April. Too much talent to pass on even though he is raw. I have not yet decided where I place him with regards to the other prospects.
[video=youtube;9BATjEpA6nA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BATjEpA6nA[/video] Both videos show some good and some bad. I feel the good outweighs the bad. There is one play in particular in this clip where he shows good ability to feel the pressure and step up into the pocket. It was early on in the clip. If I showed you some video of Landry Jones in that situation, you would see him either step back or rush his throw. Ryan really has a live arm. His teammate Jeff Fuller is a very frustrating player to watch though, because he should be a lot better than what he is, IMO.
I don't agree with this. IMO an elite arm is nearly meaningless. I think that having a big arm is one of the least important QB attributes. You need an NFL arm, ie. the ability to make all the throws. After that additional arm strength is a "who cares". There might be two or three throws a year where it makes a difference and most likely those would only occur if you are forcing the ball into bad situations. Barkley easily has an NFL arm. My guess is that when they do the measurements at the combine we'll see a bunch of reports about how Barkley's velocity and arm strength are surprising analysts. And at a minimum his arm is already considered "average" to "above average". What made Rodgers special was his quick release, accuracy in the short and middle throws, decision making and elite pocket presence. Those are the same things that Barkley has going for him. Here are a couple of scouting reports: Player A POSITIVES: Athletic passer with the physical skills and mental intangibles needed to lead a franchise at the next level. Quickly sets up in the pocket, sells ball fakes and technically very sound. Poised under the rush, steps up to avoid defenders and works to keep the play alive. Patient, buys time in the pocket and waits for receivers to come free. Does an excellent job with his reads and natural looking off the safety. Does not make mental errors and throws the ball away rather than toss the errant pass. Times the short and intermediate throws well, as receivers rarely wait for the ball out of their breaks. Outstanding vision and immediately spots the open receiver. Possesses a quick release, live arm and zips the outs or gets the ball downfield. Throws with touch. Sits in the pocket and takes a big hit in order to get the pass off. Fleet-footed and picks up yardage with his legs when necessary. NEGATIVES: Though accurate, lacks top pass placement and has receivers extending vertically to pull the ball out of the air. Must improve his accuracy down the field. Lacks top footwork releasing the ball off a three step drop. Lacks pocket stature. ANALYSIS: A physically gifted passer with a great understanding of the position, He has made himself one of the nation's top quarterback prospects the past two seasons. May not fit every system, but should quickly flourish in the NFL for a timing offense that does not throw the ball down the field with regularity. Offers a good amount of upside and is a coachable player who should continually improve his game. Player B Accuracy: Is generally a very accurate passer who places the ball in position for his receiver to generate yardage after the catch. Adept at the back-shoulder fade and in zipping slants between defenders. Has a tendency to throw slightly behind receivers running crossing routes from his right to his left. Is consistently more accurate to receivers running left to right. Good ball placement on touch passes down the seam. Struggles consistently hitting receivers in stride on the deep ball. Typically overthrows the route, making his receiver the only one capable of catching up to the ball. Doesn't own a howitzer, however, and some of his deep passes can hang too long as a result. Arm Strength: Has the ability to make every throw, but has only slightly above average arm strength, overall. Zips short and intermediate routes, but relies more on timing and accuracy, rather than arm strength for the deep out. Only an average deep ball passer. Setup/Release: Among his better attributes. Takes virtually all of his snaps from under center and gains depth efficiently while keeping his eyes downfield. Sets his feet and steps into his throws when he given room. Has a compact, over the top throwing motion with good follow-through. Has shown the ability to drop his release point to evade oncoming pass rushers. Reading Defenses: Another strength. An intelligent passer who has the freedom and understanding of the offense to call audibles at the line. Good poise in the pocket. Trusts his protection and keep a running clock in his head, looking to secondary targets before vacating the pocket. Rarely throws into the teeth of the defense and when he does so, he shows good accuracy to adjust his throw so that only his receiver should have a play on the ball. On The Move: Lacks the foot speed and agility to ever be a true threat as a scrambler, but is an alert ball-carrier who will take yardage given to him. Often used on rollouts in this offense, especially moving to his right. Impressive accuracy on the move, even when not allowed to set his feet. Has to learn to run lower and gain strength in his lower body to improve on the quarterback sneak. The first one is Rodgers and the second one is Barkley. The questions about Rodgers coming out were primarily about his system and his deep ball. Some mentioned his size, but I've always felt that any QB that is at least 6'2" is more than tall enough. I never downgrade a QB at that height. I don't even have an issue with those that are at least 6'0". I only question those guys if their frame makes them an injury concern. I would say that Barkley's accuracy coming out is actually better than Rodgers was at all depths and particularly on the deep ball. I see their footwork, release, pocket presence and decision making as almost identical.
If Locker can go 8th, I can see Tannehill going top 10. Only takes 1 team to fall in love, not including a 2nd or 3rd team that may want to trade into the top 10 ahead of another potential suitor. He's taller than Locker; similar athleticism; better NFL arm; as intelligent as (if not more so).
To me , Barkley has more than a "tad" stronger arm than Pennington. Don't forget , Brees improved the strength of his arm after several years in the league , so a true third year QB certainly can and should improve his arm strength imo. Lots of really succesful QB's have had less than perfect height/size and also not possessed a rocket arm . Joe Montana wasn't bigger than Barkley , and certainly didn't have Cam Newton's arm strength.
Also Tom Brady. Those two are typically the exceptions. I tell you what though, I would gladly take a healthy Chad Pennington. The guy had an MVP season for us in 2008 when he was 100% healthy. Health was his only question mark, IMO.
I think you misinterpreted what I said Raf. I didn't mean to say an elite arm is a prerequisite for all QBs. My post was more a reference about undersized QBs being less successful who didn't possess a great arm or outstanding mobility. How often do we see 6'2 or shorter QBs with average NFL mobility and an average arm becoming an elite NFL QB? IMO there's a big difference between "has the ability to make every throw. [Barkley]" and "possesses a quick release, live arm, zips the outs or gets the ball down field.... physically gifted passer." [Rodgers]". Barkley doesn't have a live arm, and IMO he's not a physically gifted passer. Having the ability to make every throw doesn't equate to always being able to make them based on the tightness of coverage, no? I'm sorry, but I respectfully don't believe Barkley deserves to have his arm mentioned in the same class as Rodgers. I also feel there's a difference between "fleet-footed [Rodgers]" and "Lacks the foot speed and agility to ever be a true threat as a scrambler [Barkley]." The great arm and great feet are what help make Rodgers, Rodgers. If Aaron had Barkley's arm & Barkley's feet, he'd no longer be Aaron Rodgers. IMO the Player A analysis is more descriptive of Tannehill than Barkley. I'd say Barkley's analysis is closer to Sanchez's than Rodgers'.
Montana also played with guys in front of him who are smaller than the monsters we currently see. I don't believe that Montana & Brees (2 guys over the past 30 negate all the players of their arm & stature who never became anything special.
A guaranteed healthy Chad Pennington can win and win big for you , or rather could win big. Unfortunately it was pretty evident that the 100% healthy status would change , it was just how long it would take. I fully believe a 100% healthy Pennington could win a Super Bowl provided you had the requisite team to mesh with him.
I just got done watching a bit of Aaron Rodgers' college tape and if there's a difference in the throws on those videos and the throws in the Barkley video I posted of him rolling and under pressure, then I'm not seeing it. Same arm. Only difference between the two is Rodgers is faster on a straight line, so when he gets on the hoof he can outrun a few more defenders than Barkley can.
Those are not the only two however that weren't over 6'2" . Steve Young , Michael Vick , Andy Dalton , Jake Delhomme , just a few off the top off my head who have had some success. Sure you prefer a taller QB , but 6-2 is tall enough if you have other strong attributes.
Sometimes I find it mindboggling what Tannehill is doing at the big time college football level, considering the transition..
