Slimm's 2015 Quarterbacks (Seniors)

[Tannenbombs]

There's too much emphasis on the aesthetic at that position, lately. But there have been plenty of guys like Brandon Bridge who are huge, athletic and have strong arms. They come and go. Ask Barrick Nealy.

If you're going for a little-known quarterback who fits the aesthetic and might actually be worth the gamble then I think you go for Colorado-St. Pueblo's Chris Bonner. For such a big, tall guy his feet are actually pretty nice. He's got some execution moxie to him as well, and of course a good arm.

And I know the scouts are onto Bonner.

I would never be able to come up with Colorado-St. Pueblo film unless I was working in an NFL Front Office.

 

[ckparrothead]

I would never be able to come up with Colorado-St. Pueblo film unless I was working in an NFL Front Office.

It's tricky.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

You have to give it to the team that goes undefeated, especially as they're beating everyone by 30+ points. They can't control their schedule. They had Louisville on the schedule but Louisville ducked out. Meanwhile I watched East Carolina live at Raymond James Stadium barely escape with the W against a bad South Florida football team, and then last night they barely escaped against a bad UConn team. The way they're playing I think the chances are pretty good ECU is going to take a second loss anyway.

Well no you don't have to give it to the undefeated team if their schedule is significantly weaker than a 1 loss team with a better SOS. Marshall is beating nobody by 30 every week, that's what factors into the decision. Although I wouldn't be surprised if ECU loses another one since they tend to play down to the level of lesser opponents. In addition to still having a couple of tough teams left on their schedule. Marshall has a better shot to go undefeated simply because they don't play anybody.

Furthermore, it's not just going to be ECU and Marshall. Colorado St. is probably going to have a say in it as well. They've already beat Boston College on the road and Colorado. ECU and Colorado St. both have a SOS in the 80's. Marshall's is in the 120's. If Marshall keeps winning and ECU or Colorado St. slip up, Marshall will be the team.

 

[Tannenbombs]

Slimm, I have a question for you: What's the difference between 6th/7th round picks & UDFAs?

Of all the intricacies of scouting, this is the one I struggle with the most. By far. I know what a 1st round pick looks like. I know what the rest of them look like including an early day 3 guy. But then I get caught up on the 6th, 7th round picks and free agents. I can't differentiate between them. Obviously, the higher rated player receives the higher grade. But this is something that I struggle with. Even the guys in this category that make a roster, I'd say 90% of them are out of the league after 2 years. And the guys that get drafted in the 6th/7th round or go UDFA that make it, most of them fall because of character/medical issues.

 

[ckparrothead]

Well no you don't have to give it to the undefeated team if their schedule is significantly weaker than a 1 loss team with a better SOS. Marshall is beating nobody by 30 every week, that's what factors into the decision. Although I wouldn't be surprised if ECU loses another one since they tend to play down to the level of lesser opponents. In addition to still having a couple of tough teams left on their schedule. Marshall has a better shot to go undefeated simply because they don't play anybody.

Furthermore, it's not just going to be ECU and Marshall. Colorado St. is probably going to have a say in it as well. They've already beat Boston College on the road and Colorado. ECU and Colorado St. both have a SOS in the 80's. Marshall's is in the 120's. If Marshall keeps winning and ECU or Colorado St. slip up, Marshall will be the team.

Colorado State will not get the Group of Five bid ahead of an undefeated Marshall team. They'll have a better claim if Boise State loses another game, but Boise will face New Mexico, San Diego State, Wyoming and Utah State. The two toughest of those games (SDSU & UTST) will be at home, where Boise is 29-3 over the last five seasons. If Boise and Colorado State both win out then CSU won't even play in the Conference Championship Game. And if that's the case, forget about the idea of Colorado State getting the Group of Five bid over an undefeated Marshall.

The main competition here will be East Carolina. That's a legitimately tough decision no matter what anyone tries to sell. The committee will have to consider a lot of things. In terms of strength of schedule, the quality of opponents actually beaten by ECU isn't that different from the quality of opponents beaten by Marshall. Game control, offensive, defensive and special teams efficiency must be accounted for as well. Marshall's game control ranks 10th while ECU's ranks 31st. Marshall's FPI ranks 28th versus ECU's 47th.

And a year ago with both quarterbacks playing one another, Marshall beat ECU pretty handily 59-28. And when it comes to the "what would happen if they faced a legit Power Five team" question, I think the Virginia Tech game from last year warrants consideration...lost in triple overtime, missed a 39 yard field goal that would've won the game in double overtime (bad conditions).

Overall I think if it's close (and it is close) you give the opportunity to the team that has yet to strap on their helmets and pads, go out there on Saturday and blow their opportunity. That's just me. ECU had an opportunity facing South Carolina and they blew it. Marshall has yet to do that. They still could. I think the Rice game will certainly be circled since Rice beat them last year. And then there's the Conference USA Championship, likely against La Tech.

We'll see. It'll be ECU or Marshall. Likely not Colorado State.

Either way it'll be a great opportunity to see how one of the top two senior quarterbacks in college football fare against good competition in an important bowl game.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Slimm, I have a question for you: What's the difference between 6th/7th round picks & UDFAs?

Of all the intricacies of scouting, this is the one I struggle with the most. By far. I know what a 1st round pick looks like. I know what the rest of them look like including an early day 3 guy. But then I get caught up on the 6th, 7th round picks and free agents. I can't differentiate between them. Obviously, the higher rated player receives the higher grade. But this is something that I struggle with. Even the guys in this category that make a roster, I'd say 90% of them are out of the league after 2 years. And the guys that get drafted in the 6th/7th round or go UDFA that make it, most of them fall because of character/medical issues.

I don't know that there is a difference between late round QB's and UDFA's. I think every team will feel differently about all of 'em and it boils down to personal preference. It comes down to how you feel about 'em in your gut, and what specific traits you value. Some teams may prefer a kid with physical tools and athleticism but little experience over the kid with experience but lesser physical tools... or vice versa. Like they say, it only takes one team to like you.

System quarterbacks are system quarterbacks... they're usually the late rounders and UDFA's. Small school QB's where level of competition is a concern. There's obviously caveats to this also, when highly recruited QB's transfer to a lower level from bigger schools. They already had the physical elements, that's why they were highly recruited in the first place.

Evaluating quarterbacks is a lot like putting in golf.... it's the most personal aspect of it, and you just have to go with what makes you feel comfortable and what you have confidence in. A lot of times when you evaluate quarterbacks, you see things that you're not even sure how to express accurately... good or bad... but you know that you saw it. Fundamentals and accuracy are always easy things to diagnose, but it's the things that aren't coachable that typically makes evaluating quarterbacks such a complicated process. It's why opinions can vary by such a wide margin.... even among professionals.

 

[ckparrothead]

Evaluating quarterbacks is a lot like putting in golf.... it's the most personal aspect of it, and you just have to go with what makes you feel comfortable and what you have confidence in. A lot of times when you evaluate quarterbacks, you see things that you're not even sure how to express accurately... good or bad... but you know that you saw it. Fundamentals and accuracy are always easy things to diagnose, but it's the things that aren't coachable that typically makes evaluating quarterbacks such a complicated process. It's why opinions can vary by such a wide margin.... even among professionals.

This is the most well-stated thing I might've ever read on evaluating quarterbacks. For a guy that hates writers, you wrote some pretty good prose here.

 

[Tannenbombs]

I don't know that there is a difference between late round QB's and UDFA's. I think every team will feel differently about all of 'em and it boils down to personal preference. It comes down to how you feel about 'em in your gut, and what specific traits you value. Some teams may prefer a kid with physical tools and athleticism but little experience over the kid with experience but lesser physical tools... or vice versa. Like they say, it only takes one team to like you.

System quarterbacks are system quarterbacks... they're usually the late rounders and UDFA's. Small school QB's where level of competition is a concern. There's obviously caveats to this also, when highly recruited QB's transfer to a lower level from bigger schools. They already had the physical elements, that's why they were highly recruited in the first place.

Evaluating quarterbacks is a lot like putting in golf.... it's the most personal aspect of it, and you just have to go with what makes you feel comfortable and what you have confidence in. A lot of times when you evaluate quarterbacks, you see things that you're not even sure how to express accurately... good or bad... but you know that you saw it. Fundamentals and accuracy are always easy things to diagnose, but it's the things that aren't coachable that typically makes evaluating quarterbacks such a complicated process. It's why opinions can vary by such a wide margin.... even among professionals.

This is a great post. I was wondering where to post that question, as it was directed towards players in general rather than QB's. But still another outstanding post :up:

 

[Tannenbombs]

This is the most well-stated thing I might've ever read on evaluating quarterbacks. For a guy that hates writers, you wrote some pretty good prose here.

I concur.

Now would you quantify the things you can't describe but you see it as the "it" factor. Where a player has it or doesn't?

 

[ckparrothead]

I concur.

Now would you quantify the things you can't describe but you see it as the "it" factor. Where a player has it or doesn't?

There are too many factors that could be "it". That's the problem with that position. It's a sum-of-parts or sum-of-weapons thing. Every tool you've got in your toolbox is one more thing that could keep the other side on their heels. And every weakness could be the missing puzzle piece that makes the whole story fall apart.

Robert Griffin is a good example for me on my way of thinking about the position. I saw all the positives that others did, all the weapons he could use to hurt a defense. He was a heck of a deep ball thrower in terms of accuracy. He's got 4.4 speed and some "make you miss" ability. He's intelligent. But I also saw a guy that didn't manage the field well from within the pocket, as he had tendencies to both A) not actually SEE things that well from in there, and B) to take sacks. He liked to run out of the pocket to open up some clear sight lines. That by itself, you can deal with it. Russell Wilson likes to do the same. But unlike Wilson, Griffin also took an extraordinary number of vicious hits in college...the kind of hits that leave you thinking damn, is he going to get up? He took a major injury at the college level, in addition to some minor concussion stuff. It looked to me like a combination of his mentality, awareness, and the fact he liked to spend so much time out of the pocket and potentially in harm's way. Either way I considered him a big time injury risk. Then you look at his personality and you see it linked with his unwillingness to slide, go out of bounds, or otherwise risk looking like a wuss so that he doesn't get hit. There were a lot of subtle hints that this guy had some serious underlying attitude issues, problems with authority, quirky personality stuff. Everyone wanted to see him as a warrior poet but as a football asset I think you appreciate guys that are a bit more of a straight arrow pointed in one direction.

The thing about the three main criticisms is how they'd work in conjuction with one another. Attitude, tendency to try and work outside of the pocket and unwillingness to soften blows, all of it meant injury risk, which provides a lot of potential for in-house fighting with other players, coaches, doctors, all kinds of complicated situations where there isn't necessarily a right or wrong side but there also isn't a whole lot of quality football happening. We saw plenty of that. There were times he took injuries and flat out refused to let the trainers/doctors have access to him on the sideline, just marched back out onto the field in damaged form thinking it made him a bad@ss. What it did is cause his coach to take a ton of heat and this contributed to the disintegration of the relationship. Trying to play injured also meant trying to command the field from the pocket, and quite frankly he's not an interesting quarterback when he tries to do that.

The shoe that has yet to drop that I kind of wonder about is early retirement. Based on his attitude I wouldn't put it beyond him to play out his rookie deal, decide he's got enough money ($21 million gross, the net of which I'm sure he'll have invested wisely) to be happy for the rest of his life being a lawyer and/or politician. Those are his real ambitions. I also think something could appeal to him about how we never really know how good RG3 could've been in the long run because he left the game on his own terms, etc.

Or I'm full of crap and starting in a few weeks he embarks on a Hall of Fame career. That's the way it goes.

 

[ckparrothead]

Either way I had RG3 with the same grade I gave Russell Wilson, which was a 2nd round pick. I felt a lot more positive about Wilson as opposed to RG3. But part of that was because Wilson was an underdog and I am partial to underdogs, whereas Griffin was overrated and I tend to argue a lot against guys I feel are overrated.

Wilson to me was the ultimate boom or bust guy, and I couldn't rate him higher than a 2nd rounder because I wouldn't have ever wanted him to be THE plan...as in we're taking this guy and giving him three full years to see what he has, and we will ride or die with him. I don't believe in affording that to 1st round pick QBs either, to be honest. But with Wilson I would've wanted to be sure I acquired a competitor, and I thought the Seahawks were very smart in making sure they did exactly that with Matt Flynn. Regardless of how valuable Flynn ended up being or not being, that was a great allocation call, acquiring those two in conjunction with one another.

Getting back to Wilson as a boom or bust guy, it was simple. As a football player at Wisconsin and even prior to that at NC State (although a little less consistent) he was magnificent. Absolutely magnificent. But the height thing was there. You saw how he managed his own height deficiencies on tape, there were discrete ways in which he accounted for it. Either history was right and this 5'10" quarterback was just too damned short to get away with that in the pros...or this guy was going to be terrific. Others saw an in-between, they thought he's going to be a great backup, or maybe be like a Troy Smith, or something like that. I didn't see that. The height was going to matter, or it wasn't.

That's one of the reasons I was so quick to proclaim that he was on the fast path to being a truly elite quarterback as early as his rookie season. He was doing well all year but how he did in the playoffs sealed it. If you are like me and you believed either this guy's height mattered or it didn't matter, then in that year you found out it didn't, and he's as wonderful as you imagined he could be if the height didn't matter.

The dichotomous nature of his prospective NFL career path is what scared me into saying he should be a 2nd round pick because I can't live with making him a Plan A. Maybe I should've been bold enough to make him a 1st round pick...but I'm still not convinced of that. I still think it may have been reckless to do that.

And in a way, RG3 was a lot like that. Not the guy whose basket I'd want to put every single one of my eggs, but potentially brilliant.

 

[Tannenbombs]

Either way I had RG3 with the same grade I gave Russell Wilson, which was a 2nd round pick. I felt a lot more positive about Wilson as opposed to RG3. But part of that was because Wilson was an underdog and I am partial to underdogs, whereas Griffin was overrated and I tend to argue a lot against guys I feel are overrated.

Wilson to me was the ultimate boom or bust guy, and I couldn't rate him higher than a 2nd rounder because I wouldn't have ever wanted him to be THE plan...as in we're taking this guy and giving him three full years to see what he has, and we will ride or die with him. I don't believe in affording that to 1st round pick QBs either, to be honest. But with Wilson I would've wanted to be sure I acquired a competitor, and I thought the Seahawks were very smart in making sure they did exactly that with Matt Flynn. Regardless of how valuable Flynn ended up being or not being, that was a great allocation call, acquiring those two in conjunction with one another.

Getting back to Wilson as a boom or bust guy, it was simple. As a football player at Wisconsin and even prior to that at NC State (although a little less consistent) he was magnificent. Absolutely magnificent. But the height thing was there. You saw how he managed his own height deficiencies on tape, there were discrete ways in which he accounted for it. Either history was right and this 5'10" quarterback was just too damned short to get away with that in the pros...or this guy was going to be terrific. Others saw an in-between, they thought he's going to be a great backup, or maybe be like a Troy Smith, or something like that. I didn't see that. The height was going to matter, or it wasn't.

That's one of the reasons I was so quick to proclaim that he was on the fast path to being a truly elite quarterback as early as his rookie season. He was doing well all year but how he did in the playoffs sealed it. If you are like me and you believed either this guy's height mattered or it didn't matter, then in that year you found out it didn't, and he's as wonderful as you imagined he could be if the height didn't matter.

The dichotomous nature of his prospective NFL career path is what scared me into saying he should be a 2nd round pick because I can't live with making him a Plan A. Maybe I should've been bold enough to make him a 1st round pick...but I'm still not convinced of that. I still think it may have been reckless to do that.

And in a way, RG3 was a lot like that. Not the guy whose basket I'd want to put every single one of my eggs, but potentially brilliant.

I wasn't as bold either. I still liked him in the 2nd round.

Where did you have Tannehill?

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

This is the most well-stated thing I might've ever read on evaluating quarterbacks. For a guy that hates writers, you wrote some pretty good prose here.

Suppose it can be close enough for government work from time to time...

Although to clarify, I don't hate writers. I actually enjoy some writers... particularly Faulkner. I'm just admittedly not the biggest fan sports writers have..

 

[ckparrothead]

Going back to our debate about who gets the Group of Five bid to an access bowl, I'd have to say that even though Marshall didn't play a game this weekend they must've done a little private celebration as East Carolina lost to Temple.

I think both of us had doubts that ECU would remain a 1-loss team with the way they were playing against teams like South Florida and Connecticut.

Now it's about Colorado State. And I just cannot fathom the playoff committee, which claims they're putting emphasis on conference champions, putting a Colorado State team that doesn't even play in its own conference championship game over a Marshall team that wins the CUSA conference championship. There's just no way.

Now, whether Marshall remains undefeated or not...that's really the question here. They will have to get through Rice on 11/15 and then most likely Louisiana Tech in the CUSA Championship Game (which Marshall lost to Rice last year). Rice had a tough stretch where they lost to Notre Dame, Texas A&M and then Old Dominion, but they have been rolling ever since and they will take comfort in knowing they beat Marshall last year when it counted, in the Conference Championship. Then again, Rice travels to the Joan for this game so obviously it's a game that Marshall players and fans have been circling for some time as they want revenge, regardless of their season aspirations.

And then there's La Tech in the championship. I don't have a ton of respect for Skip Holtz but they tend to be sound offensively and they have a great tailback in Kenneth Dixon. They seem to be rolling right now too, after having beaten Western Kentucky 59-10.

I'll take it as a given that if Marshall drops a game then they can probably kiss the Group of Five bid goodbye. What I refuse to believe though is that anyone gets the bid over an undefeated Marshall team.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Going back to our debate about who gets the Group of Five bid to an access bowl, I'd have to say that even though Marshall didn't play a game this weekend they must've done a little private celebration as East Carolina lost to Temple.

I think both of us had doubts that ECU would remain a 1-loss team with the way they were playing against teams like South Florida and Connecticut.

Now it's about Colorado State. And I just cannot fathom the playoff committee, which claims they're putting emphasis on conference champions, putting a Colorado State team that doesn't even play in its own conference championship game over a Marshall team that wins the CUSA conference championship. There's just no way.

Now, whether Marshall remains undefeated or not...that's really the question here. They will have to get through Rice on 11/15 and then most likely Louisiana Tech in the CUSA Championship Game (which Marshall lost to Rice last year). Rice had a tough stretch where they lost to Notre Dame, Texas A&M and then Old Dominion, but they have been rolling ever since and they will take comfort in knowing they beat Marshall last year when it counted, in the Conference Championship. Then again, Rice travels to the Joan for this game so obviously it's a game that Marshall players and fans have been circling for some time as they want revenge, regardless of their season aspirations.

And then there's La Tech in the championship. I don't have a ton of respect for Skip Holtz but they tend to be sound offensively and they have a great tailback in Kenneth Dixon. They seem to be rolling right now too, after having beaten Western Kentucky 59-10.

I'll take it as a given that if Marshall drops a game then they can probably kiss the Group of Five bid goodbye. What I refuse to believe though is that anyone gets the bid over an undefeated Marshall team.

Are you a Marshall fan CK? It doesn't really matter to me who they put in there, although I'd just like to see Colorado St. because I'm a big fan of Jim McElwain.

My point about Marshall is simply that undefeated only holds so much water, level of competition is a factor. There's a lot of teams that would be undefeated with Marshall's schedule.. that's the point. That's why teams like TCU and Boise St. have been left out of the national championship picture in the past despite being undefeated in a weak conference. That's all I'm saying.

If the committee chooses Marshall then that's good for Marshall and they deserve it. Marshall is a good football team. But if they gave it to Colorado St. I'd understand why they did that too. They can only place so much emphasis on conference champion anyway, otherwise... why is Notre Dame even playing football?

The main thing I want to see the committee get right is the 4 teams for the playoff. That's it. This football by committee nonsense is a terrible idea anyway. Way too political, and it was already way too political.

A playoff is fine. Using a committee to select these teams for the playoff is not a good thing. It makes a lot more sense to just use the BCS rankings for that purpose.