You were high on Beck's skill set too.
Which QB would you like to see us draft now?
- Thread starter dolpns13
- Start date
You were high on Beck's skill set too.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Brandon Weeden is my favorite option right now.
As Valandui quoted me, I look at taking Weeden the same as I would look at taking an elite tailback in the Draft, except Weeden plays a position where he would impact the team even more than an elite tailback. When you take a running back in the 1st round, or 2nd round, or whatever round...you're really only looking for that guy to have a major impact on your team in terms of wins and losses for about 5 to 7 years. That's the reality of the position. By the time he gets 5 to 7 years into his career, his production is likely to sink WAY below his price tag, unless you're lucky and you've found one of the few durable guys that can do it for 10 years or whatever, and that's like winning the lottery because as Bill Parcells has said before you don't really know if those guys are going to take the pounding and keep on bringing it and not get hurt or break down, until/unless they actually do it. So even if you HIT on the tailback you take in the 1st/2nd round, you're at best hoping he helps you and is a real difference maker for 5 to 7 years.
Well, that's Brandon Weeden's timeline as well. Except his position is more impactful than the tailback position. So if you'd take a tailback in the 1st round or 2nd round, I have no idea why you wouldn't take a Brandon Weeden in the 1st round or 2nd round.
Kurt Warner didn't get started with the NFL until he was 28 years old. I'm sure the Rams and Cardinals were very glad to have him. Warren Moon didn't get started with the Oilers until he was 28 years old. I'm sure the Oilers were glad to have him. Jim Kelly didn't throw his first NFL passes until he was damn near 27 years old. I'm sure the Bills were happy to have him. Roger Staubach didn't get started with the Cowboys until he was 28 years old. He's a Cowboy legend.
Don't get caught up in whether or not I'm saying that Brandon Weeden is a Hall of Fame worthy talent. That's not the point and it's not relevant. We're talking about the drawback of Weeden's age and the expectations for how long he could play in the league. Those four quarterbacks I just named above all played in the league somewhere between 8 and 15 seasons, and they went to 24 Pro Bowls. That's 8 to 15 more years even after they got started at 27/28 years old, with an average of 6 Pro Bowls each! So if the question you're asking yourself is, does Brandon Weeden have the TIME to make a big impact for the Dolphins, the easy and most accurate answer is ABSOLUTELY YES HE DOES.
Now, if you want to discuss the talent itself, and whether or not he's a legitimate high grade quarterback, I'll be happy to tackle that issue with anyone who wants to debate. But I'm keeping that issue separate right now.
For the record, I would draft Matt Barkley or even trade up for him before I go for Brandon Weeden. I grade them about the same as prospective talents, but Barkley should give a team about 6 more years than Weeden, and that means he carries a certain amount more value than Weeden. On the other hand, I do not prefer guys like Landry Jones or Ryan Tannehill to Brandon Weeden, because they're significantly less talented.
As for Robert Griffin, I'm not a fan.
As Valandui quoted me, I look at taking Weeden the same as I would look at taking an elite tailback in the Draft, except Weeden plays a position where he would impact the team even more than an elite tailback. When you take a running back in the 1st round, or 2nd round, or whatever round...you're really only looking for that guy to have a major impact on your team in terms of wins and losses for about 5 to 7 years. That's the reality of the position. By the time he gets 5 to 7 years into his career, his production is likely to sink WAY below his price tag, unless you're lucky and you've found one of the few durable guys that can do it for 10 years or whatever, and that's like winning the lottery because as Bill Parcells has said before you don't really know if those guys are going to take the pounding and keep on bringing it and not get hurt or break down, until/unless they actually do it. So even if you HIT on the tailback you take in the 1st/2nd round, you're at best hoping he helps you and is a real difference maker for 5 to 7 years.
Well, that's Brandon Weeden's timeline as well. Except his position is more impactful than the tailback position. So if you'd take a tailback in the 1st round or 2nd round, I have no idea why you wouldn't take a Brandon Weeden in the 1st round or 2nd round.
Kurt Warner didn't get started with the NFL until he was 28 years old. I'm sure the Rams and Cardinals were very glad to have him. Warren Moon didn't get started with the Oilers until he was 28 years old. I'm sure the Oilers were glad to have him. Jim Kelly didn't throw his first NFL passes until he was damn near 27 years old. I'm sure the Bills were happy to have him. Roger Staubach didn't get started with the Cowboys until he was 28 years old. He's a Cowboy legend.
Don't get caught up in whether or not I'm saying that Brandon Weeden is a Hall of Fame worthy talent. That's not the point and it's not relevant. We're talking about the drawback of Weeden's age and the expectations for how long he could play in the league. Those four quarterbacks I just named above all played in the league somewhere between 8 and 15 seasons, and they went to 24 Pro Bowls. That's 8 to 15 more years even after they got started at 27/28 years old, with an average of 6 Pro Bowls each! So if the question you're asking yourself is, does Brandon Weeden have the TIME to make a big impact for the Dolphins, the easy and most accurate answer is ABSOLUTELY YES HE DOES.
Now, if you want to discuss the talent itself, and whether or not he's a legitimate high grade quarterback, I'll be happy to tackle that issue with anyone who wants to debate. But I'm keeping that issue separate right now.
For the record, I would draft Matt Barkley or even trade up for him before I go for Brandon Weeden. I grade them about the same as prospective talents, but Barkley should give a team about 6 more years than Weeden, and that means he carries a certain amount more value than Weeden. On the other hand, I do not prefer guys like Landry Jones or Ryan Tannehill to Brandon Weeden, because they're significantly less talented.
As for Robert Griffin, I'm not a fan.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Yes I was and he's not the only one I was wrong about. I also liked Matt Leinart and Brady Quinn.
I was also very high on Aaron Rodgers' skill set, as well as Matt Ryan's skill set, as well as Phil Rivers' skill set, as well as Matt Stafford's skill set, as well as Cam Newton's skill set, as well as Sam Bradford's skill set, as well as Jay Cutler's skill set, as well as Ben Roethlisberger's skill set. And I took very strong stances against Jamarcus Russell, Mark Sanchez, J.P. Losman and Vince Young. And Tim Tebow, really. And Jimmy Clausen who was supposed to be a 1st rounder until he fell.
I guess you could call me an abstainer on the likes of Eli Manning, Alex Smith, Joe Flacco, Josh Freeman and Jason Campbell. Really didn't have an opinion on them.
Last edited by a moderator:
That's EXACTLY how I have it as well.
Griffin. But I see no reason why Barkley couldn't fall through the cracks to us. And even so I 'd like to trade up for him. If not, RGIII
Roman529
Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew
Two questions for you CK -
1. Why you not liking RG3?
2. Do we absolutely have to take a QB if Barkley, Luck, RG3/Weeden are off the board? I say NOOOO. Look at what Trent Richardson could do for us at RB, paired with Thomas and Bush. I think if the top three QB's come off the board, than we should not just take a QB "Just because we haven't drafted a QB in the first round since Marino."
ckparrothead
Premium Member
1. I've explained it before but to make it short and sweet I see a lot of mechanical issues and physical/mental limitations. He's small, and because of his mechanics, mentality and limitations, he takes a LOT of big shots during games, shots that hurt him, and it's no coincidence he had a major knee injury keeping him out all of 2009 or left the Texas Tech game with "concussion-like symptoms" (which is code for a concussion that nobody particularly wants to diagnose). I like his deep ball, like his accuracy and timing, love his intangibles, but unfortunately that's not good enough. If the NFL were 100% deep ball he'd be an elite prospect. Unfortunately the NFL is only about 10% deep ball and so any advantage he has there is very limited, and the NFL will expose his mechanical/fundamental flaws as well as the fact that he seems to have to escape the pocket in order to get clear vision of the field. If he tries to run in the NFL he'll get killed, as he's not even built as solidly as Michael Vick (who keeps getting hurt). He's not nearly as elusive or quick-footed as Vick anyway. I'd take a chance on him in the 3rd round, but no higher than that.
2. If Luck, Barkley and Weeden are unavailable to us then it's a failure on the General Manager's part to correctly plan and execute in this Draft. That's the truth. To me, failure is not an option. I'm either trading up to make sure I get Barkley, or I'm trading down to make sure I get Weeden. IF I am the General Manager AND I am forced to come to grips with the fact that I have FAILED in this Draft, and therefore missed out on Andrew Luck, Matt Barkley and Brandon Weeden...then at that point my Plan C's would have to involve seeing if I couldn't get someone like Ryan Tannehill or Landry Jones at a more bargain price in the 2nd round...and my Plan D's would involve taking a look at Nick Foles and Ryan Lindley in the 3rd round area. But boy, would I ever have some reservations about those options. I wouldn't be very optimistic about it.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Actually I should clarify. This is a long shot, about as long a shot as Ryan Tannehill or Landry Jones making it into the 2nd round quite frankly, but if I'm onto the Plan C's that I just discussed...then my Plan C's would also include phoning up the Patriots and asking if they'd take a 2nd round pick for Ryan Mallett. They took him in the 3rd round so we'd be giving them better value than they used on him. But it's a long shot because A) They thought Ryan Mallett was the best QB in that Draft, and B) We're a division rival and the last thing they want to do is hand a 23 year old elite quarterback to a division rival.
Roman529
Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew
I just don't think we should take the QB crumbs left in the cookie jar, if we cannot get the QB we want. I honestly don't think Landry Jones or Weeden are an upgrade over Matt Moore. I see Jones and Weeden being about the same as Chad Henne, pretty average at best. The more we win the less chances we have at getting a franchise QB, and I don't want to mortgage our picks away again to "move up" for Weeden or Jones if we are siitting there at pick #15 in the first round. I have seen this movie before, and it ends horribly for us. If we don't get the QB we really want, then I think we go BPA and suck it up for another year with Moore. The QB position is the most important position and if we cannot get our franchise QB in the 2012 draft, then we have to look at other options...1) waiting another year, 2) making a trade. Both options suck but the more we win this year, the more we are looking at crumb QB's.
I'd be happier trading a 2nd rounder for Mallett, than reaching for Weeden or Jones....but the Pats won't be willing to do the deal.
I'd be happier trading a 2nd rounder for Mallett, than reaching for Weeden or Jones....but the Pats won't be willing to do the deal.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Why is an elite QB talent all the sudden a "crumb left in the cookie jar"?
If you think that Brandon Weeden is no better than Chad Henne or Matt Moore then obviously we're not going to agree and I guess that explains why you think taking him wouldn't be a good option. Suffice it to say I've studied the guy pretty hard for two years and disagree pretty strongly.
If you think that Brandon Weeden is no better than Chad Henne or Matt Moore then obviously we're not going to agree and I guess that explains why you think taking him wouldn't be a good option. Suffice it to say I've studied the guy pretty hard for two years and disagree pretty strongly.
DudeleBroski
Active Roster
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2011
- Messages
- 486
- Reaction score
- 6
Trade up for barkley would be my wish. But, picking up a stud in the 1st and weeden in the 2nd wouldn't piss me off.
aqua alliance
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2011
- Messages
- 61
- Reaction score
- 0
griffin!!!!!
Roman529
Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew
I just think without Justin Blackmon, that Weeden is just a slightly older John Beck. I can't see us using a first rounder on a guy older than Aaron Rodgers.