Jump to content

saX man

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

18,299 profile views

saX man's Achievements


Mentor (12/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Reacting Well
  • First Post

Recent Badges



  1. Brugler released his mock on a new Athletic FS pod this week so his is new and off his latest intel. Some really good insight on it. Unsure if Richardson is as high as some are projecting. Can’t dispute the upside but the hype may not be there for decision makers yet.
  2. Not necessarily news given his age lol. Joking aside, he's got the tools; great arm, mechanics, needs someone to help put some things together. Classic boom/bust. I want to like him but he really makes some boneheaded in-game decisions. All about the right environment, coaching and him maturing into a leadership role. Further stresses the need for us to get some legit coaches up in here.
  3. A guy like him rises because he has the stuff that some places absolutely prioritize (size & arm primarily) so what seems like rather averageness on the outside is viewed at a different floor due to those high marks w/ sheer physical traits.
  4. Cool cool. Used to be a bit different but kind of chilled with the sax shtick ha. And having a few ears out there through the fam (I'm just an architect), hear some fun stuff every now and again. But I don't have it directly at my disposal. Only once in a while through my cuz. Also, just love chatting prospects, all good
  5. Not what I hear from TEN and SF at least. SF guy is retired but TEN connects are still in it. Arthur dislikes him.
  6. And no offense taken, I know my circles, I know my cheesy gimmick, and I bring here what I will. Take it or leave it. And continue your thing, whatever that is
  7. I mean that's just flat out wrong. All I'll tell you are people that make decisions in the league think otherwise. As much as people want to hype up Penix, Richardson, etc. who have a plethora of issues and simply aren't ready, you have a guy here with every physical trait you can ask for that's moldable. Could he be a Hackenberg? Sure, but it would be extremely shortsided to discount based off of Stanford's play as a team.
  8. Mills is shorter, had ball placement issues, & is way jittery. Don't see the same traits. If we're saying white, tall and big arm Stanford QB = same, then sure.
  9. My guess is Richardson goes for the draft, both Daniels & Ward stay in school. Ward can boost his stock a ton with another season and make himself a lot more $$. If Wash St can put a defense together, they could contend.
  10. How did I know this expected response would be from you? lol. kk
  11. If we don't end up with Young or Stroud, I'd love a combo of McKee and then Ward later. Counter a high floor kid with a high upside one.
  12. Nearing season's end, prospect talk is ramping up, I'm thinking this can venture out of the draft forum (Feel free to move if you'd like Rayzor/LG): Out of all the QB prospects, he's the one I see most set aside without a lot of consideration. Overall, I find Tanner McKee to be one of the more interesting prospects for a few reasons: TANNER MCKEE PROS Elite Size: 6'6 230 22 years old Estimated 4.65-4.7 40 time (note: This is unexpected bc he's a purely pocket QB...but can run if need be) Has an NFL arm -- the one thing to note, he has a funny Rivers-esque release. Prepare for this, the one glaring thing IMO. Footwork is top notch with near flawless technique most of the time--simply no real issues to be corrected here Understand progressions well & reads the field. Able to stand tall with his size and see everything Can make every type of throw -- Pure pro-style QB Cancer survivor (was 16 y/o), has been through a lot, decided to travel & do mission work post HS, seems like a charming guy with life experience He really reminds me of Carson Palmer meets Matt Ryan, but at 6'6 230 NEGATIVES Even though he has shown random elusive moments and has some agility, he is simply not a mobile guy. Really sticks to being a pocket QB. Has produced average results. Has led some decent wins but has never cranked out many at-will TDs or consistent wins for Stanford. Tough eval for intangibles because Stanford was such a bad squad but wish he showed more high-powered offense skills and some GWDs. Consistency in ball-security: He goes through stretches where he'll have an aggressive tight window throw where a better option was there. He has to slow down back and get back in rhythm. OTHER NOTABLES Brugler and a few other outlets/insiders claim he is high on boards, fringe 1st rounder (44th overall on DB's Big Board, QB4) "His touch, vision and accuracy remain among the best in this class. While he isn’t a rush threat and won’t create many second-chance plays, he is efficient in his drops/slides or when moving the pocket on sprint outs. On some plays, he looks like Matt Ryan, on others, like Mike Glennon. The truth likely falls somewhere in between those two quarterbacks.” So my question-- If his ceiling is a late 1st, could he actually be a trade-UP target if we land a top talent with our first pick? I also ask because Stroud & Young could be off the board, maybe even Levis. If rumors are right and McKee is in fact the next guy on a lot of team boards (Not Richardson or Penix), heck maybe QB3, is he a legit target for us? Is he a feasible QB that we're not talking about because of guys going through bloom years like Penix (that team's aren't really falling for)? I mean, let's say we somehow land Quinten, Addison or that ND TE, we suddenly have a pretty potent offense. Why not hand them one of the more ready guys, who's still young? All of these prospects have question marks (height, age, arm, douchiness, etc.) and honestly, he kind of appears to be the most well-rounded from what I'm seeing minus a goofy release. Whatsayyou??
  • Create New...