Question For CK and Others RE: Barkley

[ckparrothead]

you just compared deep balls by how fast they were going, and on two completely different plays, qb's decide on how much loft they want to put on their ball. The fact that mallet threw it for less yards at basically the same speed proves absolutely nothing. can we agree on this? ALSO all you did was compare the two deepest throws you saw them make, and used the fact that you saw Barkley complete a deeper pass as the basis to tell me that Barkley has a better deep ball.

I see a lot of statements here that are just plain inaccurate. For instance you've put forth the idea that perhaps Ryan Mallett's deep shot went only as fast as Matt Barkley's because he lofted it. This is false. Just plain false. Mallett belted his 52 yarder at a low trajectory and it hit Joe Adams in stride even though Adams was pretty well covered. It was an extremely impressive throw by Mallett, to be honest with you.

You say the fact that Mallett's ball speed was the same over less yards proves absolutely nothing. Umm...ok. It does show something, but whatever floats your boat, I guess. Everyone's got the right to be wrong.

And if you think that all I did was use the fact that Barkley completed a deeper pass than Mallett to show he's got a good deep ball, then I don't know what to tell you. Is this unintentional ignorance, or are you intentionally ignoring everything I've brought up about the subject?

every scout in the league will agree that barkley's deep ball us subpar, but for some reason you know better then them right ?

LMFAO. Umm...ok. So you regularly talk to every scout in the league. Right. You know what they're all thinking. Right. Am I disagreeing with every scout in the league? Do I know better than every scout in the league? The answer to that is a pretty emphatic 'no'. But I'm not arguing with every scout in the league, because neither I nor you know what they think. I'm arguing with you. And yes, I do know better than you.

you may have impressed a few people on finheaven with your long, unimpressive rebuttal to something that i posted, but not me. It smacks you in the face when you see a collection of barkley's passes downfield (not counting his 20-25 yard fades which are on point) that he loses an insane amount of accuracy after about 35-40 yards.

Lord knows I live to impress you. LMFAO. Does Barkley lose some accuracy when he's throwing the ball at about 50 to 60 yards? Yes. Does every QB in the NFL also lose accuracy at that distance? Yes. Is it very common for NFL QBs to be throwing balls that travel that far in the first place? No. Drew Brees has only thrown the ball 30+ yards beyond the line of scrimmage 5 times this year. You're awfully obsessed about an aspect of Barkley's game that represents only like 4% of a guy like Drew Brees' production.

Oh and Whats THEORY are you talking about? there was no theory stated Barkley has a weak inaccurate deep ball.

Umm, yeah. The theory that Barkley throws a bad deep ball. The theory you put forward. It should be considered pretty thoroughly debunked.

 

[Nappy Roots]

I would love to double up at QB. Its either Luck/Barkley then someone like Harnish at lower end of draft.

If we can devolop him as a solid back up great......then maybe like A.Reid has done for years, with good marketing we can 'oversell' and trade.

I am a big believer in drafting a QB pretty much every year. Regardless of need, something that was very successful for Ron Wolf. So I would be fine with doubling up on QB this year.

 

[ckparrothead]

Doubling up has to be the right situation and for the right reasons. Last year I proposed doubling up with Ryan Mallett and T.J. Yates. There was a specific train of thought I had in mind with that, though. The two QBs were very different from one another, though they were both pocket passers. Mallett is over-aggressive at times and Yates at times isn't aggressive enough. I thought they could learn from one another, and that Yates' attention to detail might push Mallett to mimic him.

I'm not sure I see reason to double up in this Draft especially as the team is blowing the eff up to where there is going to have to be a LOT of roster turnover next year, change of philosophies, etc. You need those resources to instill your new philosophies and get up and running as quick as you can. Every win counts when you're taking over a team as a new coach with a new system. Captain Chuckles probably shouldn't have been coaching this team more than 2 years, but he got 4 years because of how many wins the team had in 2008, and how much respect it bought him from the players.

 

[Nappy Roots]

Doubling up has to be the right situation and for the right reasons. Last year I proposed doubling up with Ryan Mallett and T.J. Yates. There was a specific train of thought I had in mind with that, though. The two QBs were very different from one another, though they were both pocket passers. Mallett is over-aggressive at times and Yates at times isn't aggressive enough. I thought they could learn from one another, and that Yates' attention to detail might push Mallett to mimic him.

I'm not sure I see reason to double up in this Draft especially as the team is blowing the eff up to where there is going to have to be a LOT of roster turnover next year, change of philosophies, etc. You need those resources to instill your new philosophies and get up and running as quick as you can. Every win counts when you're taking over a team as a new coach with a new system. Captain Chuckles probably shouldn't have been coaching this team more than 2 years, but he got 4 years because of how many wins the team had in 2008, and how much respect it bought him from the players.

Well I wouldn't double up with a 1st and 3rd round pick. I am talking about a 5th rounder or beyond. From the 5th round on, it's all about BPA regardless of position. So if we draft a QB in the 1st and there is a QB sitting there in the 5th we think should of gone higher and is our highest rated player on the board. You take him.

 

[finsfanjay13]

Doubling up has to be the right situation and for the right reasons. Last year I proposed doubling up with Ryan Mallett and T.J. Yates. There was a specific train of thought I had in mind with that, though. The two QBs were very different from one another, though they were both pocket passers. Mallett is over-aggressive at times and Yates at times isn't aggressive enough. I thought they could learn from one another, and that Yates' attention to detail might push Mallett to mimic him.

I'm not sure I see reason to double up in this Draft especially as the team is blowing the eff up to where there is going to have to be a LOT of roster turnover next year, change of philosophies, etc. You need those resources to instill your new philosophies and get up and running as quick as you can. Every win counts when you're taking over a team as a new coach with a new system. Captain Chuckles probably shouldn't have been coaching this team more than 2 years, but he got 4 years because of how many wins the team had in 2008, and how much respect it bought him from the players.

I've thought long and hard about this problem. Doubling up typically provides a higher probability of hitting, naturally. The biggest position of need is QB, but unless I can get a [insert potential franchise Qb here] with a [insert potential franchise QB here] without risking a deficiency in another area, I agree. There are too many holes to fill. Though a Luck/Barkley with Tannehill combo wouldn't be too bad, provided somebody like him would fall to the third.

 

[ckparrothead]

The thing is the Dolphins are likely to take a QB very high in the Draft. Doubling up on the premise that you're hedging in case that guy you take high doesn't pan out, doesn't make sense to me...because whoever you take very high in the Draft will be (and should be) given a lot of opportunity to show that he's the guy for the franchise's present and future. It's basically a three year commitment. When in that three years is that younger guy legitimately going to be given the chance to show that he's actually the guy?

If we're talking about a 2nd round pick as your "high" guy then yeah, another guy in the 5th round might make sense...hence my being OK with Mallett/Yates as a combo. But the Dolphins aren't taking a guy in the 2nd round, unless his name is Brandon Weeden. But they're probably taking Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley or Landry Jones. If they go with one of those three, then this guy they take in the lower rounds will never play, unless your QB gets hurt.

I'm all for filling the position up with talented people however you can acquire them, don't get me wrong. But there's a lot of work to be done all over this team and I think that particularly on the offensive line, it's nice to get some lower round guys and then have your OL Coach mold them into the player you want them to be.

 

[finsfanjay13]

The thing is the Dolphins are likely to take a QB very high in the Draft. Doubling up on the premise that you're hedging in case that guy you take high doesn't pan out, doesn't make sense to me...because whoever you take very high in the Draft will be (and should be) given a lot of opportunity to show that he's the guy for the franchise's present and future. It's basically a three year commitment. When in that three years is that younger guy legitimately going to be given the chance to show that he's actually the guy?

If we're talking about a 2nd round pick as your "high" guy then yeah, another guy in the 5th round might make sense...hence my being OK with Mallett/Yates as a combo. But the Dolphins aren't taking a guy in the 2nd round, unless his name is Brandon Weeden. But they're probably taking Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley or Landry Jones. If they go with one of those three, then this guy they take in the lower rounds will never play, unless your QB gets hurt.

I'm all for filling the position up with talented people however you can acquire them, don't get me wrong. But there's a lot of work to be done all over this team and I think that particularly on the offensive line, it's nice to get some lower round guys and then have your OL Coach mold them into the player you want them to be.

You could kind of say the same about the Patriots drafting Mallett. There's a high probability that Mallett doesn't see a start in New England unless Brady goes down. In fairness, it was a luxury pick for them, but if their secondary has anything to say for it, they could have chosen someone else. With that said, and I'll say it again, there are too many holes to fill for it to be a logical choice. Though if you have a 1st round talent fall to the 3rd round, does it hurt too much to hedge that bet? The rookie wage scale benefits the team in more ways than just cap space. It also allows them to cut a player loose sooner rather than later. I'm not advocating it at this point, it was just an interesting scenario I've thought of. With potentially only carrying Matt Moore in as your quarterback next year (maybe Devlin, too), it wouldn't hurt to double up. Again, if it gets in the way of filling a deficient hole, then I'm not up for it. But I'd rather them take a 2nd quarterback in the 3rd round than another offensive guard...

 

[finsfanjay13]

BTW: your signature owns.

 

[jim1]

The thing is the Dolphins are likely to take a QB very high in the Draft. Doubling up on the premise that you're hedging in case that guy you take high doesn't pan out, doesn't make sense to me...because whoever you take very high in the Draft will be (and should be) given a lot of opportunity to show that he's the guy for the franchise's present and future. It's basically a three year commitment. When in that three years is that younger guy legitimately going to be given the chance to show that he's actually the guy?

If we're talking about a 2nd round pick as your "high" guy then yeah, another guy in the 5th round might make sense...hence my being OK with Mallett/Yates as a combo. But the Dolphins aren't taking a guy in the 2nd round, unless his name is Brandon Weeden. But they're probably taking Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley or Landry Jones. If they go with one of those three, then this guy they take in the lower rounds will never play, unless your QB gets hurt.

I'm all for filling the position up with talented people however you can acquire them, don't get me wrong. But there's a lot of work to be done all over this team and I think that particularly on the offensive line, it's nice to get some lower round guys and then have your OL Coach mold them into the player you want them to be.

I'm not sold on Barkley as a top 5 pick given of the opportunity cost of the pick and the money that he would command there. I'd rather take Weeden in rd 2, ideally rd 3 given his age. Probably Blackmon in rd 1, I still think that Hartline and Bess are overrated. Interesting quote from Weeden:

"Such a big deal has been made of my age. I use it to my advantage. I think it’s a positive this year. I think it’s a positive for my future. It’s one of those deals, the way I look at it is, name one person who wouldn’t want to be in the position I am, and have the kind of path I’ve had?"


—Brandon Weeden[SUP][[/SUP]

Biased no doubt, but I'd take him as a 10 year performer who you don't have to break the bank on right out of the gate. The defense needs a surprising amount of help given the fall off from last year, but priority #1 has to be acquisition of offensive playmakers imo, still pissed that we didn't have a shot at Christian Ponder last year, and questions linger as to whether we should have traded with Dallas so we could have gotten Gabbert. Having read how much the Dolphins loved Jake Locker, maybe we would have pulled the trigger if he made it to #9.

I'd still like to see us get Peter Konz on rd 2, but I don't know if we can afford to chance Weeden making it to the top of rd 3, even though he'll be a 29 year old rookie.

ps interesting story in the Miami Herald today from Peter Jackson on Miami screwing the pooch re: the TE position, ie Jerry slection in 3rd rd over Jimmy Graham, not pursuing Shockey, et al.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/04/2486209/miami-dolphins-still-seeking-consistency.html
​

 

[ckparrothead]

You could kind of say the same about the Patriots drafting Mallett. There's a high probability that Mallett doesn't see a start in New England unless Brady goes down. In fairness, it was a luxury pick for them, but if their secondary has anything to say for it, they could have chosen someone else. With that said, and I'll say it again, there are too many holes to fill for it to be a logical choice. Though if you have a 1st round talent fall to the 3rd round, does it hurt too much to hedge that bet? The rookie wage scale benefits the team in more ways than just cap space. It also allows them to cut a player loose sooner rather than later. I'm not advocating it at this point, it was just an interesting scenario I've thought of. With potentially only carrying Matt Moore in as your quarterback next year (maybe Devlin, too), it wouldn't hurt to double up. Again, if it gets in the way of filling a deficient hole, then I'm not up for it. But I'd rather them take a 2nd quarterback in the 3rd round than another offensive guard...

I can't really tell which way you're arguing because you seem to be devil's advocating against yourself, lol.

Either way,

1. The Patriots' taking Mallett makes more sense given the age of Tom Brady (he's 34 years old) and likelihood he could get hurt at some point from 2011 to 2013. Also Mallett was a unique prospect in that he was a highly graded talent with a questionable personality that (the theory goes) could get him busted out of the league or in trouble with the law, or both. Therefore all Mallett has to do in order to increase his NFL stock, is nothing. Stay on the Patriots roster, keep working hard, keep practicing well, keep your mouth shut, don't get in trouble with the law, don't get in trouble with the coaches, don't do something stupid like demand a trade...and voila, your stock goes from 3rd round to 2nd round or maybe even 1st round if you have some exciting preseason appearances that remind a desperate team why you were considered such a premium talent in the Draft. Ryan Mallett was a unique investment opportunity for the Patriots, and if I were Miami and I saw a similar investment opportunity, I would be on board with doubling up.

2. What matters about the doubling up isn't whether it's a 1st round talent falling to the 3rd round, but rather which QB you think is better. Let's say you grade Matt Barkley as a top 5 pick and you take him. You had Robert Griffin graded as a borderline 1st rounder, a decent prospect but certainly not as attractive to you as Matt Barkley, and there you sit in the 3rd round and RG3 is still available so you take him. When is RG3 going to play over Barkley? Never. Why? Because despite him being great value, you had Barkley graded better than him and every day in practice you're going to keep seeing the things that made you grade Barkley way better than him, it's human nature.

3. I'd rather take the offensive guard. Just because these nitwits wouldn't know talent if it smacked them in the face, and couldn't coach it if strapped on pads and ran drills in front of them, doesn't suddenly mean investing in the offensive line is a bad idea. You still need to take guys that fit what you're trying to do and mold them into the players you want them to be.

 

[hoops]

not willing to take barkley in the top 5??? god...i just hope we get the chance...

anyways...you don't use a high 1st round pick on a qb and then go 2 rounds later and take another one...you shouldn't be using that top 5 pick on a qb unless you have conviction about him...as in he's my guy...you pretty much undermine yourself when you start using multiple high picks on qbs...trying to hedge your bets...get a conviction on a guy and do whatever you have to to make sure you get him...

 

[ckparrothead]

I'm not sold on Barkley as a top 5 pick given of the opportunity cost of the pick and the money that he would command there. I'd rather take Weeden in rd 2, ideally rd 3 given his age. Probably Blackmon in rd 1, I still think that Hartline and Bess are overrated. Interesting quote from Weeden:

"Such a big deal has been made of my age. I use it to my advantage. I think it’s a positive this year. I think it’s a positive for my future. It’s one of those deals, the way I look at it is, name one person who wouldn’t want to be in the position I am, and have the kind of path I’ve had?"


—Brandon Weeden[SUP][[/SUP]

Biased no doubt, but I'd take him as a 10 year performer who you don't have to break the bank on right out of the gate. The defense needs a surprising amount of help given the fall off from last year, but priority #1 has to be acquisition of offensive playmakers imo, still pissed that we didn't have a shot at Christian Ponder last year, and questions linger as to whether we should have traded with Dallas so we could have gotten Gabbert. Having read how much the Dolphins loved Jake Locker, maybe we would have pulled the trigger if he made it to #9.

I'd still like to see us get Peter Konz on rd 2, but I don't know if we can afford to chance Weeden making it to the top of rd 3, even though he'll be a 29 year old rookie.

ps interesting story in the Miami Herald today from Peter Jackson on Miami screwing the pooch re: the TE position, ie Jerry slection in 3rd rd over Jimmy Graham, not pursuing Shockey, et al.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/04/2486209/miami-dolphins-still-seeking-consistency.html
​

I can't fault you on the Weeden thing. I'm pretty much the founding member of the Weeden Fan Club as far as talking about him incessantly last year, dissecting 8 games of his junior tape and creating 30+ minutes worth of YouTube videos on him, even having conversations with him.

But this "10 year" thing...I don't know about that. I don't know the precedent for that. You still have QBs accused of having 'lost it' between 33 and 35 years old. Matt Hasselbeck was deemed to have 'lost it' at around 34 or 35. Donovan McNabb was deemed to have 'lost it' around 33 or 34 years old. Jake Delhomme was deemed to have 'lost it' at 34 years old. Hell, Carson Palmer was deemed to have 'lost it' around 31 or 32 years old.

So...10 years, with Brandon Weeden? More like 5 years, then consider yourself blessed for every year he gives you after that (while actively searching for and investing in his replacement).

Right now the key is, I have about as high a grade on Matt Barkley as I do Brandon Weeden. The extra 5 or 6 years that Barkley could give us over Weeden is worth the difference between the high 2nd round pick and the high 1st round pick.

Peter Konz is a junior this year and I have no idea if he'll come out. I love him but we already have a Center and we paid dearly for him.

 

[Spesh]

1. The Patriots' taking Mallett makes more sense given the age of Tom Brady (he's 34 years old) and likelihood he could get hurt at some point from 2011 to 2013. Also Mallett was a unique prospect in that he was a highly graded talent with a questionable personality that (the theory goes) could get him busted out of the league or in trouble with the law, or both. Therefore all Mallett has to do in order to increase his NFL stock, is nothing. Stay on the Patriots roster, keep working hard, keep practicing well, keep your mouth shut, don't get in trouble with the law, don't get in trouble with the coaches, don't do something stupid like demand a trade...and voila, your stock goes from 3rd round to 2nd round or maybe even 1st round if you have some exciting preseason appearances that remind a desperate team why you were considered such a premium talent in the Draft. Ryan Mallett was a unique investment opportunity for the Patriots, and if I were Miami and I saw a similar investment opportunity, I would be on board with doubling up.

Wanted to point out that one of the first things an NFL team does before making a trade for another teams back-up is pull out their original scouting reports from whatever draft that player was from.
When Arizona traded for Kevin Kolb, they went back over their scouting reports from 2007. Apparently they had him graded as a borderline first round/high second round pick and that helped ease concern over giving up a second rounder for him.

As well, the Mallett example as a luxury pick isn't very apt, as it would have made alot of sense even had they drafted him higher then the 3rd. Their current quarterback has had injuries, hes gotten older, and their team is almost in a rebuilding mode. We are seeing with the Colts what happens when you take your current starter for granted. For them, it was a shrewd investment all around, as the arguably best passer happened to fall to them in the third.
To me, "luxury" is more of when the Falcons drafted Matt Schaub in the third despite having Dog Killer in his prime.

 

[hoops]

about weeden...what makes you guys think this guys gonna come straight out of college playin even a matt schaub like level nfl qb??? he'll be a 29 year old rookie you might have to wait 2-3 years before you ever get that level guy...same can be said for matt barkley but you're talking about a 24-25 year old vs 32...and you don't think that difference career wise and in their prime wise is worth a rounds difference in the draft...i mean come on...

that stuff matters on draft day and during draft evaluations and its gonna absolutely effect weedens draft value...and if some reports about his shoulder being a long term issue flare up when they fine tooth comb his medicals he's gonna drop even further

 

[finsfanjay13]

I can't really tell which way you're arguing because you seem to be devil's advocating against yourself, lol.

Either way,

1. The Patriots' taking Mallett makes more sense given the age of Tom Brady (he's 34 years old) and likelihood he could get hurt at some point from 2011 to 2013. Also Mallett was a unique prospect in that he was a highly graded talent with a questionable personality that (the theory goes) could get him busted out of the league or in trouble with the law, or both. Therefore all Mallett has to do in order to increase his NFL stock, is nothing. Stay on the Patriots roster, keep working hard, keep practicing well, keep your mouth shut, don't get in trouble with the law, don't get in trouble with the coaches, don't do something stupid like demand a trade...and voila, your stock goes from 3rd round to 2nd round or maybe even 1st round if you have some exciting preseason appearances that remind a desperate team why you were considered such a premium talent in the Draft. Ryan Mallett was a unique investment opportunity for the Patriots, and if I were Miami and I saw a similar investment opportunity, I would be on board with doubling up.

2. What matters about the doubling up isn't whether it's a 1st round talent falling to the 3rd round, but rather which QB you think is better. Let's say you grade Matt Barkley as a top 5 pick and you take him. You had Robert Griffin graded as a borderline 1st rounder, a decent prospect but certainly not as attractive to you as Matt Barkley, and there you sit in the 3rd round and RG3 is still available so you take him. When is RG3 going to play over Barkley? Never. Why? Because despite him being great value, you had Barkley graded better than him and every day in practice you're going to keep seeing the things that made you grade Barkley way better than him, it's human nature.

3. I'd rather take the offensive guard. Just because these nitwits wouldn't know talent if it smacked them in the face, and couldn't coach it if strapped on pads and ran drills in front of them, doesn't suddenly mean investing in the offensive line is a bad idea. You still need to take guys that fit what you're trying to do and mold them into the players you want them to be.

Not playing devil's advocate with myself. In regards to point #1, that's where I was leading. You can hedge your bets and potentially create value out of that secondary pick if the #1 guy works well. Again, though, you do it if you can *afford* it, which Miami can't. I wasn't *advocating* the idea, I was just bringing about the possibility of something like that occurring, which I clearly stated.

If I had to choose right now, I would do something like: 1.) QB 2.) OT, OG, FS, CB, rush linebacker, etc 3.) one of which wasn't chosen in #2 and from there depth.