I got a bad feeling this qb class is going to get alot weaker

Barkely is my wish after Luck. I like RGIII but Barkely has a body of work in a major program and is more nfl ready than RGIII. THo I do think RGIII is going to be a stud

 

The Diff between Weedon and Beck /Weinke is Weedon a 1st rd quality qb, those other 2 werent. If Weedon was 23 where would you put him? If still late 1 then the age maybe pushes him into rd 2. but if he is top 5 at 23, then he is mid 1st rd. He is a talented qb that if you decide he is a franchise type qb then age shouldnt be a prohibitor.

 

We draft Weeden and win with him for three years, then draft Aaron Rodgers little brother and let him sit two years. By then Weeden will be too old to play according to some but who cares because we have a Rodgers. Can you say dynasty?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

Philip Rivers younger brother is a freshman at LSU. 2015 #1 pick!

 

Aaron Rodgers' younger brother is the guy that's got the Vanderbilt program turned on its head actually winning ball games. They're bowl eligible this year, with wins against UConn, Ole Miss, Army, Kentucky and Wake Forest. They played Georgia, Florida, Tennessee and Arkansas to the bone, losing 28-33, 21-26, 21-27 and 28-31 respectively. Think about that, less than a touchdown each game from being 10-2 with only significant losses coming to South Carolina and Alabama.

Although to be fair, Jordan Rodgers didn't really start playing a lot until the Alabama game (thrown to the wolves), and so he didn't have much to do with the wins over Connecticut or Ole Miss. Still, to beat Army, Kentucky and Wake Forest and take it to Georgia, Arkansas, Florida and Tennessee that way...I don't think I've seen that at Vanderbilt since Jay Cutler was there.

Although I guess now that I look, they got 6 wins in 2008 as well, and beat Kentucky, Auburn, Ole Miss and South Carolina that year, played pretty close with Mississippi State. But they only had 4 wins over 2009 and 2010 combined so this is still a pretty impressive run that the junior Rodgers has them on.

 

I watched Rodgers in the Florida game. The funny thing was, I didn't know it was Aaron's little brother. I kept thinking "Damn, this kid reminds me a lot of Aaron Rodgers", just the way he held the ball in his drop, his throws, and his mobility. Almost a carbon-copy of his brother. Only thing he's missing is the arm-strength.

 

Turns out Rodgers was a Juco transfer (sound familiar) he only has one year of eligibility left.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

I think the biggest factor is that new coach of theirs. He is turning that program around.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

And Washington, And Seattle.

 

I feel Weeden has merit , I do , what I have always said , going back to last year , is you have to evaluate what his multiple years add to his success . That is not an easy scouting challenge , but imo his age puts his on field performance on a different level of playing field. If he was 22 and you emphatically knew he would not play past age 30 , I would not have the same concerns as I do in this scenario .

To me , his age is an unfair advantage if you compare him to a 3rd year out of high school player , I would not expect that he would not have more success , if surrounded by talent , and he is , than if he was not a man playing against , essentially teenagers and very young men.

It will be a real organizational decision on where they rank him , it isn't only his on field performance , it will be that balanced by his significantly advanced age , imo.

 

Aaron Rodgers himself was a JUCO transfer.

 

I know, hence the sound familiar. I mistakenly assumed Jordan was a Freshman since I hadn't heard of him until now. Didn't realize he was a Juco.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

 

Quite honestly, I'm fairly impressed with Matt Moore. Seems like he's maturing and finally becoming what Carolina thought he would be. So, being we are not getting Andrew Luck, let's grab a monster to go opposite Cameron Wake. How do you beat Brady?....rattle him, make him uncomfortable! With those 2 terrorizes QB's, an above average Matt Moore and a top tier coach like Cower.....we will be in very nice shape!

 

Can't tell if it was the way UCLA was playing USC's WRs or what but did it seem like USC had a lot of called WR, TE, and RB screen plays?

Regardless, Barkley missed on some deep balls but also hit on some and showed great touch on some. Think he will be a darn good NFL QB. Hope he definitely comes out.

 

Really depends on who is there when we draft, I know I do not want to see a trade back, but if the Qb we need/want is not there, all bets are off.

Really, without letting the season play out, it is difficult to say what is or should happen, if Sparano is axed, who takes his place? Do they want to suffer with a young Qb?

Del Rio tried that, when he sucked, and DR benched him, he got fired for it.

 

The screens were more prevalent in this game than is usual for Matt Barkley. Normally about 1 in 5 of his throws are screens (I've tracked it). In this game it was close to 1 in 3. It was dictated by the coverage, though. UCLA was playing pretty soft, trying not to let Robert Woods or Marqise Lee get behind them. Of course, they did anyway.

I've tracked Barkley's deep ball this season. What I've found is that consistently over all stretches about 1 out of 3 deep balls are caught, and about 1 out of 3 of his deep balls are missed by him (overthrown, thrown wide, too far underthrown, etc). The other 1 out of 3 are a mixed bag of defensive pass interference (which gets called a lot) which turn into positive plays, drops, really good coverage, a miscommunication, a receiver losing the ball in the air, or a receiver stepping out of bounds even if he didn't need to.

A little over half of Matt Barkley's deep throws have ended with either a catch, a defensive pass interference, a drop, or a receiver stepping out of bounds unnecessarily. That's what I define as a success rate. Having a success rate on the deep ball over 50% is very good at the NFL level. Very good.

 

Do you trade two firsts to make sure you get this dude? I'm not convinced Luck is better.

 

I'm convinced that Andrew Luck is better.

But two 1st round picks for Matt Barkley...that's steep considering the price you could pay for a Brandon Weeden and get just as good a quarterback only on a shorter timeline.

Let's say the Dolphins are picking at #5 and need to move to #2 to get Barkley and the price is our 1st rounder in 2013 which evidently is being valued at 900 value points. Let's say the price tag for Weeden is our 2nd round pick, we'll assume to be pick #37 which is worth 530 value points.

If you trade up for Barkley you've exercised 2600 value points, but still have that #37 overall valued at 530 value points and you're free to use it on whatever you want. If you used the #37 overall on Barkley you'd still have remaining your #5 overall which is worth 1700 points, plus your 1st rounder in 2013 which we previously valued at 900 points, both picks you're now free to use in any way you see fit to make your team better.

In either case you get your quarterback, but in one case you have 530 points remaining and in the other case you have 2600 points remaining. That would mean the total cost of Matt Barkley over Brandon Weeden is approximately 2070 value points, which equates to about a #3 overall pick.

It would be tough to do that. But let's walk it through some more.

Let's assume you have the same grades on Barkley and Weeden but it's understood that where Barkley will straighten you out for 12 years, Weeden will only straighten you out at QB for about 6 years. Could be higher or lower on each but I think those are reasonable expectations. That means 5-6 years from now you're looking at addressing the QB situation with another 1st round pick, preferably a high one, because you want a good quarterback. If you took Weeden then you could spend those 2100 value points on your NEXT quarterback, whom we'd assume would be young, and would probably take care of the position for the next 12 years.

Therefore, if you took Weeden, you'd exercise the same amount of resources on the QB position, and have your QB position taken care of for 18 years as opposed to 12 years with Barkley.

However, you have to factor in risk. Let's assume the risk that Barkley is a bust is the same as the risk that Weeden is a bust. Otherwise you wouldn't have the same grade on the two, and we already just supposed that you do have the same grade on the two. Let's say there's about a 30% risk of a bust, and let's suppose that when you use the #3 overall pick's worth of draft value in 5 years to get a new QB to replace Weeden, it will also be another 30% risk of a bust. In order to get that 18 years of good QB play you'd be flipping a coin, 50/50 chance you get the 18 years of good QB play, versus a 70/30 chance you get 12 years of good QB play.

Short story short, you have an expected value of about 8.4 good years of QB play if you take Matt Barkley, versus 8.8 good years of QB play if you opted for Weeden. So, it's really NOT that easy a question. For me the difference might boil down to system fit.

In the end, I would probably lean toward Barkley because you can't be sure that in any given draft you will have the opportunity to exercise 2100 points of draft value on a QB that has a 30% bust rate. The year you need to replace Weeden, you could be picking too low and have no legit trading opportunities, you could be stuck in a draft where there are NO 70/30 type prospects available. And so the bird-in-hand-vs-bush thing kind of comes into play.

I'd lean toward trading up for Barkley, daunting as it seems.

 

Outscore him.