Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Ellis Williams. Char observer on top 4 QBs Note, This is not in depth


Varking
 Share

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I think if darnold plays competent we win a couple more.  I am counting on sunday as a win but if we somehow lose to the broncs I think pick 2 is still in play.

If we lose to the Broncos it’s going to be one of the few losses this year I’m truly baffled by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mrcompletely11 said:

I think if darnold plays competent we win a couple more.  I am counting on sunday as a win but if we somehow lose to the broncs I think pick 2 is still in play.

Darnold offers the possibility of an iron clad loss but it's hard to underestimate how terrible Denver is.

I would love to lose out and secure a top 3 pick but it would be much better to beat Denver, IMO.

  • Pie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

Darnold offers the possibility of an iron clad loss but it's hard to underestimate how terrible Denver is.

I would love to lose out and secure a top 3 pick but it would be much better to beat Denver, IMO.

Denvers defense is really good but there offense is as equally bad.  I gotta think the home team has the advantage here. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

This. Yeah, I get the size concerns with Young. Yeah I get the concerns that Stroud might not translate if he was on a lesser team. Yeah, I fully get that Richardson is boom or bust. But damn it, at some point you gotta take your swing. If you whiff swing again.

None of the best young QBs currently in the league were slam dunk prospects. They all had significant question marks.

A boom or bust prospect should at least be somewhat within the boom range.

I am not seeing that for Richardson. Outside of physically looking the part and having a good arm, he has no other valid QB qualities. That's a problem.

Even Levis has times where you clearly see QB qualities in his play. Richardson rarely had any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

A boom or bust prospect should at least be somewhat within the boom range.

I am not seeing that for Richardson. Outside of physically looking the part and having a good arm, he has no other valid QB qualities. That's a problem.

Even Levis has times where you clearly see QB qualities in his play. Richardson rarely had any.

Go back and watch Josh Allen in college. You're gonna be shocked.

 

 

When I say he was wildly inaccurate I'm not exaggerating. Dude couldn't hit water from a fuging boat.

  • Pie 2
  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Sure it does, maybe not every position and not every draft.  You have to admit the hit rate goes down the further in the draft you get.  Would you more readily find a generational talent at the #2 pick or #19 pick?  High picks are considered "busts" if they doesn't pan out, whereas guys drafted later don't have that level of scrutiny upon them.  Different expectation levels.  If Styles does indeed go #2, I already listed the rarefied air that he would be in.  Maybe he doesn't set the League on fire, but my gut feeling is he does.  Again, you don't take an off-ball LB #2 if he is just a 'really good' player.
    • To illustrate my point, I watched (and commented on the Huddle) that Rozeboom would often wait a full second (or close to it) before taking his first step.  I assume that he probably had issues with false steps, a faulty practice that can take an ILB out of the gap completely.  Watch Luke and you see a step with the snap, and rarely was it a false step.  Rozeboom may have had 100 tackles (speculating) but initial contact was 2-3 yards on the defensive side of the ball.  Luke's 100 tackles were made 1-2 yards from the LOS.  Over the course of a year, Luke was much more productive (more fumbles, fewer long gainers, more OL penalties, fewer first downs, etc) that Rozeboom, but on the stat sheet, they both had 100 tackles.  In fact, Rozeboom's inefficiency kept him on the field more (more first downs, fewer OL penalties, turnovers, and punts) so he should have MORE tackles.   I would like to see stats that break down those things.   For example again, Josh Norman was slow--4.68 or so at CB.  However, his anticipation speed was incredible.  He made as many plays as a 4.4 CB.  I had one coach (college--later became the head coach at WCU) tell me that slower players have to use their brains more to still be around.  Elite athletes can just get by on their physical superiority.  He added, "Rarely does a football player run full speed.  Most of the time, they are not, so the 40 time is misleading stat.  Smart players overcome shortcomings--when the elite athlete becomes average (slows with age, advances in level of competition) they struggle against smarter (football IQ) competition.  
    • Obviously tongue in cheek hyperbole. But we do not need a first round RB to competete for a championship. We need intelligent roster building. That to me is the complete opposite of intelligent roster building because it is a prime resource at a devalued plug and play position when we have needs across the defense.
×
×
  • Create New...