The Case for Brandon Weeden | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

The Case for Brandon Weeden

ckparrothead said:
People just can't get his age right, lol.

For the record he turned 28 years old on October 14th, 2011. He will be be 28 years old until approximately Week 6 of the 2012 NFL season. He's old enough as it is, we don't need to short change the man. :)

I did studies of 20+ Pro Bowl QBs throughout NFL history whose starting careers did not begin until their late 20's. Average age of the group was 28 years old, like Weeden himself. The average number of starts was about 8 seasons' worth of games started. These were all QBs that had been to at least one Pro Bowl. The reason I did that? Because you have to remember that the very FIRST reason you're not going to start games in the NFL, is because you're not very good! So even the group I tallied, some of them only made one Pro Bowl and weren't very good generally in their careers, and so you can blame their lack of starts not on a lack of longevity, but on a lack of talent. If you limited it to the players that had been to at least 2 Pro Bowls, then the average number of starts jumped up to about 9 or 10 seasons' worth of starts. Hell, Warren Moon was the same exact age Brandon Weeden will be, when Warren finally got into the NFL...and he ended up playing for 15 years.

One thing I'll say about the above study, the quarterbacks studied included many that played before the NFL became such a powder puff league at the QB position. Now, QBs are protected to an unbelievable extent. And just as importantly, their wide receivers are protected, which allows these QBs to use the middle of the field which is less physically demanding. So you take the above study which shows OBJECTIVELY and in an EVIDENCE-BASED way that Brandon Weeden's career longevity estimate should be about 8 years...and honestly that might need to be bumped up.

But the next big question on everyone's minds is, yeah so he can play 8 years, what good is that if he's still learning for 4 or 5 of those years? The answer to this is to once again, do your homework. Study the learning curves of NFL quarterbacks, especially in the last decade. If you did that, you would notice that yearly passer ratings of quarterbacks that start in their first and second seasons in the pros, are on average IDENTICAL to their career ratings. In other words, by their second seasons, they're already playing about as effectively as they're going to play in their careers. That's not to say they won't keep learning. They will of course keep learning beyond their second year in the pros. But it is to say that IF they are destined to be championship caliber QBs, then they are far more likely than not to be championship viable by their second year in the league, even though they will keep learning. Tom Brady, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger kept learning beyond their second years in the league, they kept growing, but all went to the Super Bowl in their second seasons. Amongst QBs that end up really good, franchise caliber players, half or more end up showing that talent already just in their rookie year.

So you have a career longevity estimate of 8.0 to 9.0 years, and a learning curve estimate of 0.5 to 1.5 years. Again, this is objective, evidence-based stuff. To me you're looking at 6 to 8 quality years out of the guy, as a defensible, objective, evidence-based, expected value.

And so then you ask yourself. Let's say you had a chance to trade for Tom Brady. But here's the caveat: you only get him for 1 year. He's in his prime, he's got no injuries, but he's announced that he'll retire after this year and you have no hope of convincing him otherwise. What would you pay? Say you're a team that is built fairly well and you think you're a QB away from competing for a championship. A 3rd round pick? A 2nd round pick?

Given the 7 year expected estimate for Weeden's career, NET of his expected learning curve, if you wouldn't pay a 2nd-3rd round pick for Brandon, then you're saying you think there is a less than a 1 in 7 chance that Weeden will be as effective in his career as a 34 year old Tom Brady.

And I just don't see that.
Click to expand...

imagesqtbnANd9GcTfqRjhWe6ByzdxNLto3u6tdV-1.jpg
 
ckparrothead said:
People just can't get his age right, lol.

For the record he turned 28 years old on October 14th, 2011. He will be be 28 years old until approximately Week 6 of the 2012 NFL season. He's old enough as it is, we don't need to short change the man. :)

I did studies of 20+ Pro Bowl QBs throughout NFL history whose starting careers did not begin until their late 20's. Average age of the group was 28 years old, like Weeden himself. The average number of starts was about 8 seasons' worth of games started. These were all QBs that had been to at least one Pro Bowl. The reason I did that? Because you have to remember that the very FIRST reason you're not going to start games in the NFL, is because you're not very good! So even the group I tallied, some of them only made one Pro Bowl and weren't very good generally in their careers, and so you can blame their lack of starts not on a lack of longevity, but on a lack of talent. If you limited it to the players that had been to at least 2 Pro Bowls, then the average number of starts jumped up to about 9 or 10 seasons' worth of starts. Hell, Warren Moon was the same exact age Brandon Weeden will be, when Warren finally got into the NFL...and he ended up playing for 15 years.

One thing I'll say about the above study, the quarterbacks studied included many that played before the NFL became such a powder puff league at the QB position. Now, QBs are protected to an unbelievable extent. And just as importantly, their wide receivers are protected, which allows these QBs to use the middle of the field which is less physically demanding. So you take the above study which shows OBJECTIVELY and in an EVIDENCE-BASED way that Brandon Weeden's career longevity estimate should be about 8 years...and honestly that might need to be bumped up.

But the next big question on everyone's minds is, yeah so he can play 8 years, what good is that if he's still learning for 4 or 5 of those years? The answer to this is to once again, do your homework. Study the learning curves of NFL quarterbacks, especially in the last decade. If you did that, you would notice that yearly passer ratings of quarterbacks that start in their first and second seasons in the pros, are on average IDENTICAL to their career ratings. In other words, by their second seasons, they're already playing about as effectively as they're going to play in their careers. That's not to say they won't keep learning. They will of course keep learning beyond their second year in the pros. But it is to say that IF they are destined to be championship caliber QBs, then they are far more likely than not to be championship viable by their second year in the league, even though they will keep learning. Tom Brady, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger kept learning beyond their second years in the league, they kept growing, but all went to the Super Bowl in their second seasons. Amongst QBs that end up really good, franchise caliber players, half or more end up showing that talent already just in their rookie year.

So you have a career longevity estimate of 8.0 to 9.0 years, and a learning curve estimate of 0.5 to 1.5 years. Again, this is objective, evidence-based stuff. To me you're looking at 6 to 8 quality years out of the guy, as a defensible, objective, evidence-based, expected value.

And so then you ask yourself. Let's say you had a chance to trade for Tom Brady. But here's the caveat: you only get him for 1 year. He's in his prime, he's got no injuries, but he's announced that he'll retire after this year and you have no hope of convincing him otherwise. What would you pay? Say you're a team that is built fairly well and you think you're a QB away from competing for a championship. A 3rd round pick? A 2nd round pick?

Given the 7 year expected estimate for Weeden's career, NET of his expected learning curve, if you wouldn't pay a 2nd-3rd round pick for Brandon, then you're saying you think there is a less than a 1 in 7 chance that Weeden will be as effective in his career as a 34 year old Tom Brady.

And I just don't see that.
Click to expand...

I'm not worried about his age for the "how long will we get out of him" reason.

To me, the biggest worry is that because of his age that he has an advantage in the college game that won't translate to the next level. He is at his physical peak right now playing against young college kids. Most of those kids he's playing against aren't going to make it to the next level and the ones that will are no where near their physical primes.

Everyone said John Beck stood out on tape. That if he would've been a regular age QB prospect than he'd be projected to be drafted in first round. I hear a lot of the same things said with Weeden. I just think you're playing with a different animal when you have mature QB's playing college ball with a lot of young kids. I just think it's hard to translate what and how much of an advantage it really is.

I also don't like the fact that he played in a pure spread offense. His footwork/reads/going to progressions is all questionable based on the offense he's played in. He also didn't play too many elite defenses in the Big 12 and when he did, he really didn't stand out.

I see some good things with him too, but not enough that would make me want to take him.

I am VERY excited though to see how he turns out. There seems to be a lot of differing opinions on him on this board and it will be fun to see how his career progresses.
 
ckparrothead said:
People just can't get his age right, lol.

For the record he turned 28 years old on October 14th, 2011. He will be be 28 years old until approximately Week 6 of the 2012 NFL season. He's old enough as it is, we don't need to short change the man. :)

I did studies of 20+ Pro Bowl QBs throughout NFL history whose starting careers did not begin until their late 20's. Average age of the group was 28 years old, like Weeden himself. The average number of starts was about 8 seasons' worth of games started. These were all QBs that had been to at least one Pro Bowl. The reason I did that? Because you have to remember that the very FIRST reason you're not going to start games in the NFL, is because you're not very good! So even the group I tallied, some of them only made one Pro Bowl and weren't very good generally in their careers, and so you can blame their lack of starts not on a lack of longevity, but on a lack of talent. If you limited it to the players that had been to at least 2 Pro Bowls, then the average number of starts jumped up to about 9 or 10 seasons' worth of starts. Hell, Warren Moon was the same exact age Brandon Weeden will be, when Warren finally got into the NFL...and he ended up playing for 15 years.

One thing I'll say about the above study, the quarterbacks studied included many that played before the NFL became such a powder puff league at the QB position. Now, QBs are protected to an unbelievable extent. And just as importantly, their wide receivers are protected, which allows these QBs to use the middle of the field which is less physically demanding. So you take the above study which shows OBJECTIVELY and in an EVIDENCE-BASED way that Brandon Weeden's career longevity estimate should be about 8 years...and honestly that might need to be bumped up.

But the next big question on everyone's minds is, yeah so he can play 8 years, what good is that if he's still learning for 4 or 5 of those years? The answer to this is to once again, do your homework. Study the learning curves of NFL quarterbacks, especially in the last decade. If you did that, you would notice that yearly passer ratings of quarterbacks that start in their first and second seasons in the pros, are on average IDENTICAL to their career ratings. In other words, by their second seasons, they're already playing about as effectively as they're going to play in their careers. That's not to say they won't keep learning. They will of course keep learning beyond their second year in the pros. But it is to say that IF they are destined to be championship caliber QBs, then they are far more likely than not to be championship viable by their second year in the league, even though they will keep learning. Tom Brady, Dan Marino and Ben Roethlisberger kept learning beyond their second years in the league, they kept growing, but all went to the Super Bowl in their second seasons. Amongst QBs that end up really good, franchise caliber players, half or more end up showing that talent already just in their rookie year.

So you have a career longevity estimate of 8.0 to 9.0 years, and a learning curve estimate of 0.5 to 1.5 years. Again, this is objective, evidence-based stuff. To me you're looking at 6 to 8 quality years out of the guy, as a defensible, objective, evidence-based, expected value.

And so then you ask yourself. Let's say you had a chance to trade for Tom Brady. But here's the caveat: you only get him for 1 year. He's in his prime, he's got no injuries, but he's announced that he'll retire after this year and you have no hope of convincing him otherwise. What would you pay? Say you're a team that is built fairly well and you think you're a QB away from competing for a championship. A 3rd round pick? A 2nd round pick?

Given the 7 year expected estimate for Weeden's career, NET of his expected learning curve, if you wouldn't pay a 2nd-3rd round pick for Brandon, then you're saying you think there is a less than a 1 in 7 chance that Weeden will be as effective in his career as a 34 year old Tom Brady.

And I just don't see that.
Click to expand...

put me down for preferring one year of a 34 year old gonna retire at the end of the year tom brady...
 
Kistner10 said:
I'm not worried about his age for the "how long will we get out of him" reason.

To me, the biggest worry is that because of his age that he has an advantage in the college game that won't translate to the next level. He is at his physical peak right now playing against young college kids. Most of those kids he's playing against aren't going to make it to the next level and the ones that will are no where near their physical primes.

Everyone said John Beck stood out on tape. That if he would've been a regular age QB prospect than he'd be projected to be drafted in first round. I hear a lot of the same things said with Weeden. I just think you're playing with a different animal when you have mature QB's playing college ball with a lot of young kids. I just think it's hard to translate what and how much of an advantage it really is.

I also don't like the fact that he played in a pure spread offense. His footwork/reads/going to progressions is all questionable based on the offense he's played in. He also didn't play too many elite defenses in the Big 12 and when he did, he really didn't stand out.

I see some good things with him too, but not enough that would make me want to take him.

I am VERY excited though to see how he turns out. There seems to be a lot of differing opinions on him on this board and it will be fun to see how his career progresses.
Click to expand...

Some legit concerns in here. The offense doesn't have a history of producing good passers. Of course, neither did Jeff Tedford's offense. There's no escaping that the Big 12 has some crappy defenses. I'm not sure about the assertion that he didn't look any good against good defenses, I think he looked good generally speaking no matter who he played.

The concern I do NOT share with people is the one that says since he was 27 and 28 years old in 2010 and 2011, he should be dominating against "kids". I think this assumption is inappropriate for the quarterback position. If anything Brandon Weeden had a pretty strong disadvantage against those "kids" in that he took a 5 or 6 year hiatus from football and played baseball, then had to come back and totally RE-LEARN all these things he'd forgot. And that's not just from a mental standpoint, his body had to re-learn things that other guys around him that have been playing football continuously all could do in their sleep.

This is why you do NOT see many athletes take long breaks from their sport, come back, and get back on top like this. It's just not that easy. It's a story made for fiction.

Being at your "athletic peak" to me has a more physical connotation. But quarterback, especially quarterback the way he plays the game (as opposed to the way Robert Griffin plays the game), is not a physical position. It's a mental, fundamental, technique position. Yeah, you know what, he WOULD be at his peak at 28 years old, if he'd been playing the sport continuously like an Aaron Rodger has. But that's just not the case. Aaron Rodgers has been training at QB continuously since he was 12 or whatever, and hasn't stopped. Brandon Weeden took 5 or 6 years off to play baseball. So how could he possibly be at his mental, fundamental, technical peak? How is that even possible? If that's the case then you're actually complimenting Brandon Weeden to an extent that even I wouldn't.

This is not a 28 year old defensive end throwing around 18 year old offensive tackles. This is not a 28 year old wide receiver burning 19 year olds to a cinder. Brandon Weeden has LITERALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOTBALL TRAINING AS EVERY OTHER PLAYER OUT THERE.

Let that sink in.

Football training. Same amount. For a mental, fundamental, technical position. Same amount.

So why should that be considered an unfair advantage? Maybe because he forgets about an interception more quickly than more emotionally immature kids do? That's it? That's the great big advantage he has? If that's the case, that's moot anyway, because guys like Andrew Luck and Matt Barkley, guys like Robert Griffin (so everyone keeps telling me, but I don't really believe it), the ELITE prospects, they already have that quality at whatever age they're at.
 
ckparrothead said:
Some legit concerns in here. The offense doesn't have a history of producing good passers. Of course, neither did Jeff Tedford's offense. There's no escaping that the Big 12 has some crappy defenses. I'm not sure about the assertion that he didn't look any good against good defenses, I think he looked good generally speaking no matter who he played.

The concern I do NOT share with people is the one that says since he was 27 and 28 years old in 2010 and 2011, he should be dominating against "kids". I think this assumption is inappropriate for the quarterback position. If anything Brandon Weeden had a pretty strong disadvantage against those "kids" in that he took a 5 or 6 year hiatus from football and played baseball, then had to come back and totally RE-LEARN all these things he'd forgot. And that's not just from a mental standpoint, his body had to re-learn things that other guys around him that have been playing football continuously all could do in their sleep.

This is why you do NOT see many athletes take long breaks from their sport, come back, and get back on top like this. It's just not that easy. It's a story made for fiction.

Being at your "athletic peak" to me has a more physical connotation. But quarterback, especially quarterback the way he plays the game (as opposed to the way Robert Griffin plays the game), is not a physical position. It's a mental, fundamental, technique position. Yeah, you know what, he WOULD be at his peak at 28 years old, if he'd been playing the sport continuously like an Aaron Rodger has. But that's just not the case. Aaron Rodgers has been training at QB continuously since he was 12 or whatever, and hasn't stopped. Brandon Weeden took 5 or 6 years off to play baseball. So how could he possibly be at his mental, fundamental, technical peak? How is that even possible? If that's the case then you're actually complimenting Brandon Weeden to an extent that even I wouldn't.

This is not a 28 year old defensive end throwing around 18 year old offensive tackles. This is not a 28 year old wide receiver burning 19 year olds to a cinder. Brandon Weeden has LITERALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF FOOTBALL TRAINING AS EVERY OTHER PLAYER OUT THERE.

Let that sink in.

Football training. Same amount. For a mental, fundamental, technical position. Same amount.

So why should that be considered an unfair advantage? Maybe because he forgets about an interception more quickly than more emotionally immature kids do? That's it? That's the great big advantage he has? If that's the case, that's moot anyway, because guys like Andrew Luck and Matt Barkley, guys like Robert Griffin (so everyone keeps telling me, but I don't really believe it), the ELITE prospects, they already have that quality at whatever age they're at.
Click to expand...

You make some good points, but I do think the concerns about physical/mental maturity against college kids is a legit concern. I know he's not playing DE or OLB where the physical maturity or growth would be even more apparent, but it's still an advantage nonetheless. He is still playing at his peak against players that aren't. In the NFL he won't have that advantage.

Again, there aren't very many examples of older college QB's, but the two that stand that come to mind are John Beck and Chris Weinke. Both produced in college and jumped out on tape to scouts and analyst. The Panthers ended up paying first round money for Weinke even though they took him in the 3rd or 4th round because of his tape. There were numerous analyst saying we got an absolute steal in John Beck and that he could turn into the next Drew Brees. That has me worried that maybe the physical/mental maturity does have some legs to it.

As far as football training, I believe you are 100% correct. I don't think he has an advantage in that respect. But I do think he has more athletic training than these guys. He spent years in a professional setting, fine-tuning his craft/diet/training regimes to make it in the big leagues. Most college students are still trying to figure this out. I actually think this is a plus for him since most prospects are still trying to figure this out and some might never figure this out. I still think this helped him out at the college level though.

I don't buy the Teford/Spread comparison at all though. Yeah Tedford has had limited success at CAL for grooming QB's especially since Rodgers left, but atleast his offense is more pro style. You might want Rodgers to clean up his footwork in 3,5, and 7 step drops, but he had experience with the footwork part of the game. Weeden doesn't have basic under the center footwork yet. Rodgers playing in a pro style offense with limited history is far different than Weeden and the spread offense.

You are very persuasive with your evaluation on Weeden. I was just wondering what other QB prospects have you been high on in the past. Hits and misses?? Just curious? I definately wouldn't have paid this much attention to Weeden without some of your arguments, so I definately agree with hoops that you should get a cut of Weeden's salary lol.
 
Kistner10 said:
You are very persuasive with your evaluation on Weeden. I was just wondering what other QB prospects have you been high on in the past. Hits and misses?? Just curious? I definately wouldn't have paid this much attention to Weeden without some of your arguments, so I definately agree with hoops that you should get a cut of Weeden's salary lol.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty forthcoming about my history. I can only go back so far because once you go back a certain distance in time, either I wasn't really evaluating QBs at all, or my process was so ridiculously immature compared with now that if today I were confronted with the me from back then, I would laugh in my own past self's face. Just being honest.

The first list is the QBs I LOVED. Think of my posts about Weeden. Think how much I rant about him, how it's kind of funny, some people kid about it, etc. We're talking thousands of words written about these guys, accusations of almost homosexual man-love (in jest...I hope...), etc.

The next is a LIKED category. This means I was positive on this guy, to the point where I fully accepted his draft position and thought it was justified. For example, I liked Matt Stafford. I thought he was for sure the #1 QB in that Draft, and I thought if you needed a QB then him being the #1 pick is not a problem. But I didn't LOVE him. I didn't constantly defend him or rave about him, I didn't think he was "once in a decade" or "once in a few years", etc. I thought Mike Singletary's criticism of him was ludicrous and defended that a lot but I also admitted he's not the #1 overall type guy that a Carson Palmer was, etc.

The next category is an ABSTAINED category. This doesn't mean I disliked the guy, it means I didn't even try to get a handle on him, I didn't even evaluate him...for whatever reason. This is a tricky category because in some cases I don't even try on a guy because he doesn't stand out to me to where I wanted to jump in and really evaluate him to where I could build him up or tear him down. Eli Manning was an example of this, didn't really stand out to me as being worth his hype, but at the same time there were definitely skills there, and I just didn't want to take on that task. I decided to let him be. Sometimes when a guy is in that #1 overall category, I just don't have as much interest. But also in some cases I don't try on a guy just...well, let's call it laziness. Josh Freeman, Kevin O'Connell and Joe Flacco are perfect examples of the latter. Either I just didn't HAVE the tape to study those guys, or I didn't bother even trying to get it.

Then there's the HATED category. These were almost all high round guys that many people loved that I ranted against on an almost constant basis. These are guys I just felt didn't deserve their draft status, that I just found myself arguing against a whole lot. I do feel like "hate" is a strong word because in many cases, like with Kaepernick as an example, I just recognized there was a lot to like about him and maybe he's even a guy you WANT to root for, but I still just felt he was overrated and felt compelled to keep pointing out the flaws that other people weren't seeing or acknowledging.

And finally, there's the STABS category, this is just a bunch of stabs I've taken at low round guys that might be worth more than people think. I don't think this category should be evaluated like the other categories because these are not high round guys at all, they're stabs in the dark. If you've even got a 10% on these kinds of guys, IMO that's like a ridiculous win percentage considering the kinds of guys you're rating here. At this point you're really only evaluating these guys as probably valid backups at best. But my conviction in them is not a constant. You know, I raved about a Mike Kafka, Nate Davis or Colt Brennan a lot more than a James Pinkney.

LOVED: Cam Newton, Ryan Mallett, T.J. Yates, Sam Bradford, Brady Quinn, John Beck, Jay Cutler, Aaron Rodgers, Phil Rivers

LIKED: Blaine Gabbert, Christian Ponder, Matthew Stafford, Matt Ryan, Brian Brohm, Matt Leinart, Kellen Clemens, Brodie Croyle, Jason Campbell, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Schaub

ABSTAINED: Colt McCoy, Josh Freeman, Joe Flacco, Kevin O'Connell, Kevin Kolb, Drew Stanton, Tarvaris Jackson, Alex Smith, Andrew Walter, David Greene, Charlie Whitehurst, Eli Manning

HATED: Jake Locker, Andy Dalton, Colin Kaepernick, Tim Tebow, Jimmy Clausen, Mark Sanchez, Pat White, Chad Henne, Jamarcus Russell, Trent Edwards, Vince Young, Charlie Frye, J.P. Losman

STABS: Nate Enderle, Adam Froman, Ben Chappell, Tony Pike, Levi Brown, Mike Kafka, Thaddeus Lewis, Tyler Sheehan, Stephen McGee, Nate Davis, Josh Johnson, Colt Brennan, Matt Flynn, Troy Smith, Jeff Rowe, Matt Moore, James Pinkney, Brett Ratliff, Omar Jacobs, Reggie McNeal, Barrick Nealy, Kyle Orton, Matt Mauck
 
My honest opinion is that I have somewhere around a 70-75 percent rate of being correct on quarterbacks, really just depending on how you grade it, since there's really no obvious way to grade these things.

For instance, I "liked" Ben Roethlisberger but I didn't "love" him. This means if you had the need, I'd have steered you toward drafting Roethlisberger wherever you thought he was going to be available. Do I get full credit for that? No, because I only "liked" him instead of "loving" him, that to me means that you may have gotten him but you may have also missed him because I wouldn't have had you manipulating your draft (either trading up or taking him significantly earlier than projected) because I didn't think whoa boy this is a dude you just HAVE to have.

And at the same time you think about the guys that I just abstained from totally...there's not much difference between that and a "hated" player, because either one, you wouldn't have steered your team toward taking. But it's not exactly like that because you'd not have jumped on any tables to argue against someone that wanted to draft that person, and so your team may have ended up drafting that guy.

And missing on Brian Brohm where he was drafted is not exactly like missing on Brady Quinn. So there's a lot of things going on in any kind of way of grading yourself. I just think about 70 to 75 percent is fair based on my own calculations.
 
Valandui said:
I guess they forget who Roger Staubach and Warren Moon were too.
Click to expand...

Staubach was an 11th round pick because of his age and Moon was signed after playing canada for 5 years . Im not downing Weeden for his talent but nobody will invest a high draft pick in a 28 year old prospect at qb unless they are the most amazing prospect ever and Weeden is not that guy. I like Weeden as a later pick like 4th round and beyond but we cannot afford to throw a second round pick at an older qb. Hell I was against drafting Beck as high as we did and he was a few years younger than Weeden and probably a better prospect
 
dlockz said:
Staubach was an 11th round pick because of his age and Moon was signed after playing canada for 5 years . Im not downing Weeden for his talent but nobody will invest a high draft pick in a 28 year old prospect at qb unless they are the most amazing prospect ever and Weeden is not that guy. I like Weeden as a later pick like 4th round and beyond but we cannot afford to throw a second round pick at an older qb. Hell I was against drafting Beck as high as we did and he was a few years younger than Weeden and probably a better prospect
Click to expand...

Staubach was drafted in 1964 when he was 22- it was the spectre of 5 years or so away from the game, including a tour of duty in Vietnam, that dropped him to the 10th round. Same age but different circumstances for Weeden- his baseball time has been served, and he's good to go right now.

I liked Beck as well, quite a bit actually, but he wasn't a better prospect than Weeden imo. Beck always seemed pretty small out on the field, especially before he put on some weight, and he has a solid arm but not a Brandon Weeden arm. I think that Parcells and his crew did some damage to Beck with the way they handled him, throwing motion change included. Beck's lack of success surprises me to this day- I saw talent there and again, I liked him as a prospect very much. But Weeden- take away the age issue and you're looking at a sure fire top ten talent, bottom line.
 
Show me the talent evaluator that hasn't been in love with a player that didn't end up playing well, and I'll show you a liar.
 
ckparrothead said:
Show me the talent evaluator that hasn't been in love with a player that didn't end up playing well, and I'll show you a liar.
Click to expand...

I too fell under the spell of the magical beast known as "Brian Brohm". No one has been more surprised than me how horrific he was. I think he asked me for change on the walk to work today.

Very cool reading your list of loved, likes, etc. You should publish one with this year's crop of QBs. Would set a Finheaven record for "Thanks".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom