Notes from the NFL Combine

[rawaction]

Not that anyone cares, but my draft board for Best Player Available.

 

1. Calvin Johnson

2. Joe Thomas

3. Adrian Peterson

4. LaRon Landry

5. Jamarcus Russell

6. Amobi Okoye

7. Alan Branch

8. Brady Quinn

9. Jamaal Anderson

10 Gaines Adams

11 Adam Carriker

12 Lawrence Timmons

13 Patrick Willis

14 Robert Meachem

15 Chris Houston

16 Paul Posluszny

17 Greg Olsen

18 Levi Brown

19 Marshawn Lynch

20 Ted Ginn Jr.

 

Granted, a lot of this is based on the combine, in which a lot of these guys didn't participate.

[Andy]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Not that anyone cares, but my draft board for Best Player Available.

 

1. Calvin Johnson

2. Joe Thomas

3. Adrian Peterson

4. LaRon Landry

5. Jamarcus Russell

6. Amobi Okoye

7. Alan Branch

8. Brady Quinn

9. Jamaal Anderson

10 Gaines Adams

11 Adam Carriker

12 Lawrence Timmons

13 Patrick Willis

14 Robert Meachem

15 Chris Houston

16 Paul Posluszny

17 Greg Olsen

18 Levi Brown

19 Marshawn Lynch

20 Ted Ginn Jr.

 

Granted, a lot of this is based on the combine, in which a lot of these guys didn't participate.

 

That works for me. I still wonder about Posluszny's knee and there are a few guys I'd rather have in the 15-20 range.

[dew1679666265]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

[rawaction]

Not that anyone cares, but my draft board for Best Player Available.

 

1. Calvin Johnson

2. Joe Thomas

3. Adrian Peterson

4. LaRon Landry

5. Jamarcus Russell

6. Amobi Okoye

7. Alan Branch

8. Brady Quinn

9. Jamaal Anderson

10 Gaines Adams

11 Adam Carriker

12 Lawrence Timmons

13 Patrick Willis

14 Robert Meachem

15 Chris Houston

16 Paul Posluszny

17 Greg Olsen

18 Levi Brown

19 Marshawn Lynch

20 Ted Ginn Jr.

 

Granted, a lot of this is based on the combine, in which a lot of these guys didn't participate.

 

That works for me. I still wonder about Posluszny's knee and there are a few guys I'd rather have in the 15-20 range.

 

Yeah, 15-20 was hard for me. Reggie Nelson, Revis, Hall, and Jarrett could have all been there. I'm really not a Ginn fan, so I could put Nelson there. Olsen and Houston ran so well this week(end), that I had to put them in there.

[rawaction]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I'm a big Nelson fan, I'd definitely have him in my top 20.

[KaiserCesar]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

What exactly in terms of talent? Pure arm strength?

[dew1679666265]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

[KaiserCesar]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

[rawaction]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left.

[Andy]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left.

Quinn against defenses ranked top-35 in 2005-06: 2,301 yards, 18 TDs, 6 INTs in 9 games

 

Russell against ranked teams for his career: 15 TDs, 17 INTs

Russell against ranked teams last year: 8 TDs, 7 INTs

[CubColtPacer]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left.

Quinn against defenses ranked top-35 in 2005-06: 2,301 yards, 18 TDs, 6 INTs in 9 games

 

Russell against ranked teams for his career: 15 TDs, 17 INTs

Russell against ranked teams last year: 8 TDs, 7 INTs

 

That's what I don't understand, not to mention that ND's schedule strength was a little better than LSU's was last year.

[goonys evil twin]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else.

[TruffleShuffle]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else.

 

If I were Detroit, I'd take the fatty from Wisconsin. The Lions' offensive line has been brutal for years. Kitna isn't great but he'd be serviceable if anybody could protect him. If they draft Quinn or whoever, he'll just be a bust because he'll be constantly under pressure, and no quarterback can succeed like that.

[CubColtPacer]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else.

 

If I were Detroit, I'd take the fatty from Wisconsin. The Lions' offensive line has been brutal for years. Kitna isn't great but he'd be serviceable if anybody could protect him. If they draft Quinn or whoever, he'll just be a bust because he'll be constantly under pressure, and no quarterback can succeed like that.

 

I definitely agree with this.

[goonys evil twin]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else.

 

If I were Detroit, I'd take the fatty from Wisconsin. The Lions' offensive line has been brutal for years. Kitna isn't great but he'd be serviceable if anybody could protect him. If they draft Quinn or whoever, he'll just be a bust because he'll be constantly under pressure, and no quarterback can succeed like that.

 

I definitely agree with this.

 

But what good is a servicable 35 year old QB when your team is still years from contending? Why can't you draft Quinn, then draft/sign O line later in the draft? Quinn doesn't have to be thrown to the wolves right away. You can solidify your line before you start him.

 

I can see the point in Det drafting the lineman, I just don't see the point in sticking with Kitna. If you're going to suck anyway, you might as well be developing a young QB, and not relying on the Kitnas of the world.

[rawaction]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left.

Quinn against defenses ranked top-35 in 2005-06: 2,301 yards, 18 TDs, 6 INTs in 9 games

 

Russell against ranked teams for his career: 15 TDs, 17 INTs

Russell against ranked teams last year: 8 TDs, 7 INTs

 

That's what I don't understand, not to mention that ND's schedule strength was a little better than LSU's was last year.

 

How come you aren't using the same stats for both guys? No passing yards for Russell? No 06 numbers for Quinn? And is that ranked teams or top 35 defenses for Russell?

[Andy]

How come you aren't using the same stats for both guys? No passing yards for Russell? No 06 numbers for Quinn? And is that ranked teams or top 35 defenses for Russell?

The Quinn stats came from an MSNBC article and he didn't give comparative stats for Russell.

 

Here's my question: Would Quinn have this "sucks in big games" tag if his defense hadn't given up 42 ppg in ND's 3 "big games" last year? (I put quotes around "big games" because the definition of such seems to change to fit the arguments sportswriters make - if you don't think @GT and home against PSU and Purdue were big games, well...)

[TruffleShuffle]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

Maybe he's not talking about taking Russell over Quinn, but rather, teams like Detroit who have Jon Kitna at QB and are years away from contending, but going for something other than QB. There are teams between Oakland and Miami that need QB's, but from all accounts aren't looking to draft one. A lot of people believe a franchise QB is absolutely vital, and should be selected above anything else.

 

If I were Detroit, I'd take the fatty from Wisconsin. The Lions' offensive line has been brutal for years. Kitna isn't great but he'd be serviceable if anybody could protect him. If they draft Quinn or whoever, he'll just be a bust because he'll be constantly under pressure, and no quarterback can succeed like that.

 

I definitely agree with this.

 

But what good is a servicable 35 year old QB when your team is still years from contending? Why can't you draft Quinn, then draft/sign O line later in the draft? Quinn doesn't have to be thrown to the wolves right away. You can solidify your line before you start him.

 

I can see the point in Det drafting the lineman, I just don't see the point in sticking with Kitna. If you're going to suck anyway, you might as well be developing a young QB, and not relying on the Kitnas of the world.

 

Many problems with this:

 

1) You're not developing a young quarterback by throwing him out there to have the crap beat out of him. David Carr has proven that.

 

2) It's the NFL; no team is years from contending. The Jets were God-awful last year, and they made the playoffs this year. The Chargers had the first overall pick in the 2004 draft; later that year they went 12-4 and won the division.

 

3) You make it sound so easy to get a good line. "Draft/sign O line later in the draft." If it were so easy, the Lions wouldn't have had a below-average offensive line since before the days of Barry Sanders. Yeah, you might get a steal late in the draft, but given the Lions' incompetence in identifying and developing O-line talent, wouldn't the better route be to grab a guy who is likely to be a bookend tackle for the next 10 years?

[goonys evil twin]

Many problems with this:

 

1) You're not developing a young quarterback by throwing him out there to have the crap beat out of him. David Carr has proven that.

 

2) It's the NFL; no team is years from contending. The Jets were God-awful last year, and they made the playoffs this year. The Chargers had the first overall pick in the 2004 draft; later that year they went 12-4 and won the division.

 

3) You make it sound so easy to get a good line. "Draft/sign O line later in the draft." If it were so easy, the Lions wouldn't have had a below-average offensive line since before the days of Barry Sanders. Yeah, you might get a steal late in the draft, but given the Lions' incompetence in identifying and developing O-line talent, wouldn't the better route be to grab a guy who is likely to be a bookend tackle for the next 10 years?

 

Well, I am just trying to state the case that perhaps this was more about Clayton saying teams with QB issues should not pass on Quinn. I'm not advocating the Lions go one way or the other.

 

1) I said you don't have to throw him out there right away. Kitna is fine, as long as you're developing somebody behind him. It's not very smart to stick with Kitna as your starter with no real prospect behind him.

 

2) If no team is years from contending, explains the Lions. The Jets were no better in 2006 than they were in 2004. They were bad in 2005 because Chad was gone. The NFL system makes it possible for teams to improve in a couple years, but it's not simple. And Detroit is nowhere near ready. They suck top to bottom.

 

3) It's not that hard to build a competent line without #1 picks.

 

I've heard Detroit is fine keeping their QBs as is, and I think that's nuts.

[KaiserCesar]

Many problems with this:

 

1) You're not developing a young quarterback by throwing him out there to have the crap beat out of him. David Carr has proven that.

 

2) It's the NFL; no team is years from contending. The Jets were God-awful last year, and they made the playoffs this year. The Chargers had the first overall pick in the 2004 draft; later that year they went 12-4 and won the division.

 

3) You make it sound so easy to get a good line. "Draft/sign O line later in the draft." If it were so easy, the Lions wouldn't have had a below-average offensive line since before the days of Barry Sanders. Yeah, you might get a steal late in the draft, but given the Lions' incompetence in identifying and developing O-line talent, wouldn't the better route be to grab a guy who is likely to be a bookend tackle for the next 10 years?

 

Well, I am just trying to state the case that perhaps this was more about Clayton saying teams with QB issues should not pass on Quinn. I'm not advocating the Lions go one way or the other.

 

1) I said you don't have to throw him out there right away. Kitna is fine, as long as you're developing somebody behind him. It's not very smart to stick with Kitna as your starter with no real prospect behind him.

 

2) If no team is years from contending, explains the Lions. The Jets were no better in 2006 than they were in 2004. They were bad in 2005 because Chad was gone. The NFL system makes it possible for teams to improve in a couple years, but it's not simple. And Detroit is nowhere near ready. They suck top to bottom.

 

3) It's not that hard to build a competent line without #1 picks.

 

I've heard Detroit is fine keeping their QBs as is, and I think that's nuts.

 

Also, another thing to add is that even though the Jets were 10-6 and made the playoffs, would anyone really consider them contenders outside of residents of insane asylums? Moving from "bad" to "contender" is a heck of a lot harder and a longer process than "bad" to "playoffs in a pretty lucky year"

[KaiserCesar]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Size, strength, arm strength. And I do think Russell is a better athlete. I think Quinn is as polished as it gets as a college QB. How much better can he get in the NFL? Russell put up great numbers against better competition than Quinn and still has some development left.

 

You are talking as if arm strength is some sort of limit to development and that a quarterback develops until he reaches some point met by his arm strength. There are other areas to improve, and really, if Quinn is able to do what he did in college over the last two years, he will be a great NFL QB. I think Russel still needs to develop areas of his game to reach the level of Quinn, and he will likely never catch up in certain unlearnable attributes (to an extent) such as decision making and accuracy.

[dew1679666265]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Russell is definitely very athletic, he just doesn't use it in the same way Vince does. Russell can be a very good thrower when he's on, Vince is frankly bad most of the time throwing the ball. Thus, Russell doesn't have the need to show his athleticism as often as Vince does.

The #1 problem with Russell is his inconsistency and oftentimes poor decision-making. Vince, on the other hand, while a bad passer (though I've seen signs of him getting better slowly) makes the plays late in a game when he needs to. The run against the Texans in OT, the run against the Bills late in the fourth, multiple third down completions to keep drives alive.

Russell is the better pure QB right now, but he's less consistent and falls apart when he struggles early.

[KaiserCesar]

I like Quinn better than Russell obviously, but I found this comment very strange.

 

John Clayton on an interview on WTAE Radio in Pittsburgh - "If a team needs a QB and passes on Quinn, that's just stupidity."

 

I like Quinn and think he's the most sure thing of the QBs, but that blanket statement is a little too much in my opinion.

 

I fully expect Quinn to have the better career. But he can't touch Russell talent wise.

 

I see this as a situation similar to last year's with Leinart and Vince. Leinart was more of a sure thing, Vince had far more upside (but was less likely to be good).

 

Except Young's upside came from unbelievable athleticism that Russel doesn't have at all.

 

Russell is definitely very athletic, he just doesn't use it in the same way Vince does. Russell can be a very good thrower when he's on, Vince is frankly bad most of the time throwing the ball. Thus, Russell doesn't have the need to show his athleticism as often as Vince does.

The #1 problem with Russell is his inconsistency and oftentimes poor decision-making. Vince, on the other hand, while a bad passer (though I've seen signs of him getting better slowly) makes the plays late in a game when he needs to. The run against the Texans in OT, the run against the Bills late in the fourth, multiple third down completions to keep drives alive.

Russell is the better pure QB right now, but he's less consistent and falls apart when he struggles early.

 

Agreed, Young has a ways to go in the professional passing game, while he developed a passing game in his senior year of college rather quickly, but that 6.7 YPC rushing will go a long way towards easing growing pains for the titans