|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
He has. Multiple times.
A 29 year old QB, if he plays till he's 35. Has 6 years of shelf life.
The average NFL RB has about a 6-7 year window of production.
And my point is that you can't compare the two, because RB's come into the league producing faster than any other position, while QB's come into the league producing slower than any other position.
Besides, there's so much more that's involved.
As I've said, if you REALLY want to get something closer to apples-to-apples (which you can't) you need to find a RB who came to the league as a 26-year old rookie. Why? Because there's never been a 29-year old rookie QB. It's uncharted territory.
Then there's the fact that no matter how old you are or what position you play, your physical abilities erode with time. A 35-year old rookie RB won't run like a 25-year old, and a 29-year old rookie QB won't heal or last as long as a 22-year old.
Apples-to-hand grenades.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 12,065 |
Not anymore.
If I told you not even 5 years ago we'd have 3 playoff teams with rookie QBs. Another possibly 8-8. And serious votes for NFL MVP for two of them.
It has changed. QBs can play out of the gates now. And RBs are a dime a dozen.
As much as I love what Trent CAN bring. I think while it'll never be considered a "bust" pick. It (and the 22nd) were wasted.
Am I the only one that pronounces hyperbole "Hyper-bowl" instead of "hy-per-bo-le"?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
It has changed. QBs can play out of the gates now.
Glad you said that because it brings us all the way back to the point: Was the Weeden gamble worthwhile?
If one makes the argument that QB's should produce right out of the gate now, then Weeden has failed to impress in his rookie year, and brings the risks of the gamble even more to the forefront.
The entire debate here revolves around the gamble of taking a 29-year old rookie with the 22nd pick in the entire draft.
If Weeden becomes great and gives us great production for 3-5 years, I think we'd all agree it will have been worth it. But if he doesn't, he'll have been an abysmal failure.
All the rest is just justification for the gamble. Based on what we've seen this year, I'm not seeing what I needed to see out of Weeden to make me think the gamble was worth it. I think it's too soon to dump him, if for no other reason than there isn't a great QB in this draft, but to this point I think there are few people who would say they are optimistic he'll become great.
Gonna take this a step further and let you digest an article from Yahoo Sports. This is specifically about Weeden, and represent EXACTLY what I'm saying about his age. Pay special attention to what Howie Roseman, GM of the Eagles, says about age:
web page
Draft Chatter: For Brandon Weeden, age ain’t nothin’ but a number
By Mike Tanier | Shutdown Corner – Wed, Apr 4, 2012 1:24 PM EDT
Email
Oklahoma State quarterback Brandon Weeden at the 2012 Fiesta Bowl (Getty Images)
Thousands of articles, hundreds of television hours, and about six trillion Tweets will be devoted to draft speculation in the next few weeks, creating a free-for-all of hype, confusion, and misinformation. In the run-up to the draft, smart people will say dumb things, dumb people will say smart things, and rumors will take on lives of their own. In his regular Draft Chatter feature, Mike Tanier tries to find nuggets of meaning and truth in a roaring river of draft nonsense.
We turn now to the curious case of 28-year old quarterback prospect Brandon Weeden of Oklahoma State.
Weeden, who is 28 years old, is one of the more interesting characters in this year's draft class. The 28-year old was the best quarterback on the field during Senior Bowl practices, which might have had something to do with the fact that he is six weeks older than Aaron Rodgers. At 28, he is currently the fourth-ranked quarterback on the NFLDraftScout.com draft board, and he is rated as a second round talent by most experts, a few of whom are younger than him.
Chris Kouffman of the Universal Draft site weighs in at length on the blog run by David Hyde of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel on the 28-year old Weeden. I do mean "at length," by the way: Clancy spends 8,296 words on Weeden, which is fascinating in its own right. Clancy says of the 28-year old Weeden's 28-year oldness:
"I was not interested in the age so much as the circumstances that led to his being a draft prospect with an unusual birth certificate." Those circumstances include a long stint in the Yankees organization as an A-ball pitcher, followed by a couple of years on the Oklahoma State bench behind Zac Robinson, followed finally by two seasons as a very effective starter.
Those of us who are interested in the age should have a look at the quarterbacks who came out of Weeden's would-have-been draft class: JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, John Beck, Drew Stanton, Trent Edwards, Jeff Lowe, Troy Smith, Jordan Palmer, and Tyler Thigpen. That's what a 28-year old quarterback looks like, to say nothing of Rodgers. Do you look at any of these guys, with the possible exception of Kolb, and talk seriously about future development? If your team traded a second round pick for Jeff Lowe, how would you react?
Here's Kouffman's spin on Weeden:
"This is a guy that played high school baseball, basketball and football, made history with his high school football program in only his second year focusing on the position, was the highest pick of one of the most storied baseball franchises in Major League Baseball, made history with his college football program in his first year starting at the position, will soon be playing professional football, and decided to walk-on at one of the more prestigious golf programs in NCAA golf."
Or, put another way: this is a guy who graduated high school in 2002, spent five years amassing a 5.02 ERA without getting past A ball, entered a college program at an age when most people are starting their adult lives, still needed three years to climb to a starting job, enjoyed the Big Man on Campus life while a married man in his mid-20s, and is now entering the NFL while at the start of his athletic decline phase and hoping that scouts know the words to "Age Ain't Nothing But a Number."
Okay, that makes Weeden sound like a Will Ferrell character. He's not like that. He's … mature. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but the language of draft analysis is designed for 21 or 22 year olds. Calling him a "bright, disciplined, hard working young man" sounds condescending, because he is 28 years old. And that's exactly the problem.
Jeff McClane of the Philadelphia Inquirer quotes Eagles general manager Howie Roseman thusly: "Age is a factor on every player that you're drafting." The Eagles drafted 26-year old guard Danny Watkins last year, but Roseman said that "last year was a unique situation with us and Danny." The unique situation may have been that the Eagles spent most of their offseason licking lead paint off the walls; at any rate, Roseman is clear on something baseball executives (and fans) take for granted: age has an incredible impact on the development process. Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, and Ryan Tannehill are all going to get better. So will Brock Osweiller and Nick Foles. Weeden will not.
Or perhaps he will. Kouffman cites a study he conducted of quarterbacks who did not earn starting jobs until they were 28 years old. The study had startling results:
"The average number of career starts covered enough for eight solid seasons of starting. When limiting the study to players that played in at least two Pro Bowls, that number jumped up to nine seasons' worth of starts. If you nail the talent question on Brandon Weeden (which should always be the most important question), then you should be able to expect at least eight seasons' worth of starts. Notable quarterbacks involved in this study include Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Kurt Warner and Roger Staubach, all of whom are (or will likely be) in the Hall of Fame."
Wowburger.
Last I checked, Kelly and Moon held starting jobs long before their 28th birthdays, they just weren't in the NFL. Warner, too, though the Arena league is not the USFL or CFL 30 years ago. (Nor is it the Big-12). And of course, this study does not include players who never got to start by their 28th birthday, or who earned and lost starting jobs by their 28th birthday, though Clancy does acknowledge this issue.
A very smart coworker asked me a few months ago why a team should not project six seasons as a starter out of Weeden, and I responded with a list of 33- and 34-year old quarterbacks. Mike McMahon turned 33 last month. Marques Tuiasosopo just turned 33. Joey Harrington is 33 years old. Patrick Ramsey turned 33 on Valentine's Day. Even quarterbacks who had solid careers are often washed up in their mid-30s. David Garrard, another Valentines Baby, just turned 34. The problem with the "quarterbacks play through their late 30s" argument is the same as the problem with Hyde's "all 28 year old rookies are Jim Kelly" argument: selection bias. In both cases, we assemble a list of players who succeed despite extreme disadvantages which ignores several hundred counterexamples. And those counterexamples were players who sat the bench in the NFL at age 25, not at Oklahoma State.
At any rate, the Browns have expressed interest in the 28-year old Weeden, and there is talk of them selecting him with the 22nd pick in the draft. Weeden is almost four full years older than Colt McCoy. Does this make any sense at all to you?
Perhaps what the Browns should have done is kept McCoy on the bench for six full seasons. Then, having been denied a starting job until he was 28, McCoy would be guaranteed an eight-year career as the next Jim Kelly.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,826 |
I think that if you want the most accurate assessment of Weeden you should do 2 things.
1 - Remove his best game and his worst game then average out his production to a per game basis from the other 14 games. This removes the fluke good game and fluke bad game giving us the best idea of what he has done all season long.
2- You take those remaining 14 games and average them out for the 1st 7 and the last 7. This allows us to see how he has progressed through the year. Has he gotten more production or less production? Is he turning the ball over more or less? This will give us an idea of his development.
JMHO
Am I perfect? No
Am I trying to be a better person?
Also no
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Toad, your whole "argument" revolves around Weeden being a 28.5yo rook, it's pretty lame. You try to kill any worthy discussion about the value of picks with it.
Weeden for you has to become great, yet you're on record saying TRich does not have to, it'd be good value if he reaches "good" status. 28yo rook or 22yo rook, tell me again how that isn't double standard right there, especially since TRich was picked with a MUCH higher value pick (you know what's the difference in VALUE between the 2? Something like two 1st rounders + the 3 extra picks we paid for him on top of that)....my point here is pretty simple, and I'm sure you got it, although you selected to look the other way and make this a personal beef thing: If someone is having the opinion that Weeden was a bad value and selection due to his age (and you do), then turning around and totally disregarding longevity FACTS on RBs and not applying it to TRich is simply being bigoted and holding up double standards...yeah, that's my accusation and I'm sure anyone can easily see through this Toad
Some questions, that I would love to read your answers on:
- isn't it fair to EXPECT much more of such a higher value selection than a lesser one?
- if you say Weeden's pick (including your agenda "he must become great right out of the gate"-"argument") was a waste for this season, what would you lable TRich's value for this season then?
I know you'll ignore most of my points yet again and will try to make this into another "DJ hates TRich" strawmen, to deviate from the discussion at hand, which this isn't about. This is about draft value, in particular and general, which you btw started with your Weeden-age bashing. We discussed Weeden's value and obviously disagree and you also seem to see a selection like a vacuum one, which I already pointed out you can't do, as a draft must be seen as a whole (if any GM drafted the top low value positions prospects, he would have a much better batting average on talent, but his team would still be crap because he drafted "not to swing and miss").
To make myself clear here: If we sandwiched Weeden with Brockers and J.Jenkins, 2 high ceiling, but low floor selections (also known as "boom or busts"), I would have questioned the Weeden pick much more, but I don't expect you (and most on here) to get this, since it's about draft class value and risk-reward....it'd be like an all hail-mary gameplan to the draft, what Heckert did was more balanced, playing it safe with TRich and Schwartz and taking a shot down the field with Weeden, like a 4-6yd run (TRich), PA deep downfield (Weeden) and then a short route for a safe 1st down (Schwartz), then an intermediate throw (Gordon)....you know, GMs PLAY drafts like this all the time, to ignore this, is being a simple, clueless fan that rants and has favourites
That said, I NEVER "acknowledged" that only great QBs play into their 35+, that's what you want to believe. I said QBs have 8-10 years of good prime seasons in THIS NFL, and I backed it up. Entering at 22/23 or 28/29 doesn't alter it enough for me to think anything different, thus if Weeden plays this long he can easily play into his 35+ season's as he hasn't taken 5 years of beating the other QBs out of his class have taken.
Your argument is that it's "natural decline in ability"...my money is on wear and tear of taking shots to the chest, head and knees. If you choose to believe that living a normal life and being a minor league baseball pitcher for a couple of years makes a QB's abilities decline as much as taking NFL hits in those 5 years, so be it, it's your weak argument after all, but it's (yet again) not an overly convincing one
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Toad, your whole "argument" revolves around Weeden being a 28.5yo rook, it's pretty lame. You try to kill any worthy discussion about the value of picks with it.
Nope, just separating Weeden from Richardson. One doesn't remotely relate to the other as it pertains to whether or not Weeden was a smart pick.
If the topic is Richardson, that's for another thread. If the topic is the value of Richardson versus the value of Weeden, that's also for another thread. This thread was about Weeden only, so neither Richardson nor any other player is relevant.
Quote:
Weeden for you has to become great, yet you're on record saying TRich does not have to
Get it back on track. This isn't about Richardson. When you came right out and stated that you will blame Richardson if the entire regime gets fired, you've lost any sense of fairness.
Compare Weeds to other QB's, not other positions. Anything else is either excuse-making or misdirection.
Quote:
Some questions, that I would love to read your answers on:
As long as it doesn't involve any other position besides QB's in this thread, I'm happy to. 
Quote:
- isn't it fair to EXPECT much more of such a higher value selection than a lesser one?
- if you say Weeden's pick (including your agenda "he must become great right out of the gate"-"argument") was a waste for this season, what would you lable TRich's value for this season then?
I'm going to give you a Christmas present, In spite of numerous invitations to create your OWN thread regarding Richardson, you've declined, instead choosing to pollute a great many Weeden discussions with Richardson blather. I'm going to start a Richardson V. Weeden thread just for you.
Then maybe we can talk just QB's in a QB thread. 
Will be back to this in a moment...
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
age has an incredible impact on the development process. Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, and Ryan Tannehill are all going to get better. So will Brock Osweiller and Nick Foles. Weeden will not
Thanks for the laugh, the article pretty much discredited itself with that stupid line....I mean, even YOU don't believe this, since you'd give Weeden a 2nd year to see if he improves. After all, if Weeden "won't" improve no matter what, why even give him another year? "Weeden will not", lol without an argument with regards to content attached to it....talk about "reaching"
How about a "good, informed" article, it's a pretty good (but long, but it's a much more enlightening read than "wont improve", lol...it's worth it) scouting report and background info on Weeden:
http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports/c...own_bran_1.html
You may be surprised to hear that, according to what they have told Brandon Weeden, NFL teams share my sentiment, at least as far as age not being nearly as big a deal for the evaluators as most would make of it
I'm sorry to do this Toad, lol...here are some FACTS
In the case of longevity, I did a study of the number of career starts of quarterbacks in NFL history that did not get their first opportunity to start seasons until their late 20’s. One must remember that the very first reason a quarterback will cease starting football games is because he is not talented enough, so I limited the study to quarterbacks that had played in at least one Pro Bowl. The study was illuminating. The average age when this group of quarterbacks got their chance to start was 28 years old, which will be Brandon’s age at the start of the 2012 season. The average number of career starts covered enough for 8 solid seasons of starting. When limiting the study to players that played in at least two Pro Bowls, that number jumped up to 9 seasons’ worth of starts. If you nail the talent question on Brandon Weeden (which should always be the most important question), then you should be able to expect at least 8 seasons’ worth of starts. Notable quarterbacks involved in this study include Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, Kurt Warner and Roger Staubach, all of whom are (or will likely be) in the Hall of Fame.
As I said, it's all about if he has the talent or not, age isn't a factor
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Really? You really did what I expected you TWICE to do in my last post and try to deviate this into a strawmen? Not tackling the double-standard, not even answering my two simple questions...incredibly disappointing to say the least Toad
You can't separate the Weeden selection from the TRich one...if we would have selected Tannehill, we wouldn't have selected Weeden, if we would have picked Kalil, we wouldn't have gone Schwartz and maybe not Weeden too....a draft is a class of players to fill specific team needs (at least with top picks) and they can and have to be evaluated as a group too
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
You do realize that the article I posted references the article you posted, and exposes the inconsistencies in it, right? 
You should have done your homework, first.
Quote:
I limited the study to quarterbacks that had played in at least one Pro Bowl. The study was illuminating. The average age when this group of quarterbacks got their chance to start was 28 years old, which will be Brandon’s age at the start of the 2012 season.-Clancy
From the article I posted: Quote:
Last I checked, Kelly and Moon held starting jobs long before their 28th birthdays, they just weren't in the NFL. Warner, too, though the Arena league is not the USFL or CFL 30 years ago. (Nor is it the Big-12). And of course, this study does not include players who never got to start by their 28th birthday, or who earned and lost starting jobs by their 28th birthday, though Clancy does acknowledge this issue.-Tanier
That's more than enough to shoot down the article you referenced, but I got more...
Those QB's were great. They weren't average. That's just more proof that the only way Weeden will see the field as a starter at the age of 35 is if he's great.
So that's even more proof which backs up MY case which states the only way the gamble on Weeden would be worth it is if he becomes...wait for it...GREAT.
You're going to have to do better than that. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Your article completely dismisses the value of ACTUAL NFL playing experience as it simply compares Weeden to same age QBs in the NFL, that's incredibly dumb Toad, if you want to side with that "logic", it's your choice...any idiot that reads both articles knows which one has better arguments and makes better points...I mean, it's not even close. One grounds his whole "point" on correlation-causation dumbness, the other knows about the difficulty of comparison and at least has some well thought out arguments on their side. Comparing Weeden with Kolb, Russell etc because they are the same age and concluding "he won't improve" is just dumb, sorry
As for VALUE, here's a nice breakdown:
If you look at Brandon Weeden next to a player like Ryan Tannehill, who is four years younger than Weeden, this could also give you perspective. Right now, the Cleveland Browns at #4 overall are wrestling with the idea of whether to take Tannehill. It is my belief that a 23 or 24 year old Brandon Weeden would win a battle for Draft position with a similar-aged Ryan Tannehill.
If that means that a 23 or 24 year old Weeden would not look out of place at #4 overall, it sets his high water value at 1800 “points” on the infamous Draft Value Chart. If you assume Ryan Tannehill to have a 12 year career, with 10 of them being high quality years, then Weeden at four years older should have an 8 year career, with 6 of them being high quality years, approximately 60 percent of the high quality years of a Tannehill.
However, as I said, the four missing years do not shake out as valuable as the six remaining. So, perhaps that puts a 28 year old Brandon Weeden’s value more toward 75 percent of a 24 year old Weeden. In chart terms, that would make Weeden’s high water mark priced at about the #9 overall pick.
As for the "great QBs" debate...he mentioned the greats to make a point yeah, but those weren't the only ones in the sample size. The AVG was 8years and I'd hardly call every QB with 1 ProBowl a "great" QB...that would make the likes of DA and many other only AVG or even good QBs "great", right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 745 |
if the 2012 NFL Draft was redone today,Brandon Weeden wouldn't even be a 2nd RD pick.
Weeden's issue is that when things break down around him,he breaks down.
he can't extend a play to save his life.
He's had oppurtunities to rally the team in the 4th quarter and pull out wins ala
Andrew Luck.
I just don't see Weeden as a long term answer at QB.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Your article completely dismisses the value of ACTUAL NFL playing experience
And your article ignores how Jim Kelly played in the USFL, which was on par with the NFL, and how Warren Moon honed his skills in the CFL, which means it ignores how professional football experience played a role in their development.
Quote:
Comparing Weeden with Kolb, Russell etc because they are the same age and concluding "he won't improve" is just dumb, sorry
You missed the point if you think it's to show he won't improve by comparing him to those guys.
The point is that while the great one's played late into their careers, Clancy's article ignores the fact that there are a hundred QB's his age that never made it because they weren't good enough.
This brings me back to a point I've had to make frequently lately: Don't argue what is possible. Argue what is probable.
Is it possible Weeden will be a great starting QB in the NFL at the age of 35? Absolutely.
Is it probable that Weeden will be a great starting QB in the NFL at the age of 35? Hardly.
By the way, you can't keep referencing the same article over and over again. That has to be some kind of debate party-foul
Your article is pro-Weeden. Mine is anti-Weeden. Mine pointed out the failures of yours. You need new articles. 
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,521 |
Quote:
the only way the gamble on Weeden would be worth it is if he becomes...wait for it...GREAT.
The only way the gamble on any first-round quarterback is worth it is if he's great.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,761 |
Quote:
You missed the point if you think it's to show he won't improve by comparing him to those guys.
The point is that while the great one's played late into their careers, Clancy's article ignores the fact that there are a hundred QB's his age that never made it because they weren't good enough.
Not really...from your own article:
"And of course, this study does not include players who never got to start by their 28th birthday, or who earned and lost starting jobs by their 28th birthday, though Clancy does acknowledge this issue."
"Acknolwedge" lol....yeah, it's about talent. That's the whole point here and was what Clancy "acknowledged": the ones who don't have enough never make it past 28 or beyond, that's a given, not news...at any position.
Quote:
This brings me back to a point I've had to make frequently lately: Don't argue what is possible. Argue what is probable.
Is it possible Weeden will be a great starting QB in the NFL at the age of 35? Absolutely.
Is it probable that Weeden will be a great starting QB in the NFL at the age of 35? Hardly.
You'll hit .500 if you apply this to ANY 1st round QB ever drafted. What's the point? It's ALL about how many good years we can get out of a particular player by weighing MORE than simple, stupid AGE....how many hits has he taken? How much experience playing QB does he have? To me those and with it the PLAYING longevity are FAR more important than his league entering age.
Quote:
Your article is pro-Weeden. Mine is anti-Weeden. Mine pointed out the failures of yours.
...and came to a stupid conclusion disregarding pretty much ANY ability related points. It's stupid reductionism at his finest. Clancy's article at least knows the difficulty of comparing Weeden to any other QB ever drafted and tries an approximation. Your's just feeds the sheep by dishing out dumbed down "probability" bordering definite ("Won't improve")...exactly the type of fluff that homers of 5 NFL teams looking for a franchise QB want to quote and link, as 98% of most fans get all gaga because of his age and stop their brains there. It was written to generate clicks, mission accomplished, job well done...but it's an incredibly flawed, reductionist piece when it comes to arguing football
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Quote:
Quote:
the only way the gamble on Weeden would be worth it is if he becomes...wait for it...GREAT.
The only way the gamble on any first-round quarterback is worth it is if he's great.
Weeden's and Colt's report card from this past Sunday...anything but great: Quote:
Browns Quarterbacks Report Card, Week 16: Breaking down every pass against the Broncos
Browns Quarterbacks Report Card, Week 16: Breaking down every pass against the Broncos
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Quarterback is the most important position in football and arguably the most important position in all of pro sports.
Of the quarterback's many responsibilities, throwing the ball is by far the most important -- especially in today's NFL.
The Plain Dealer and cleveland.com are tracking the Cleveland Browns' passing plays this season using a series of categories. The objective is to search for clues/patterns/tendencies that can help explain why rookie Brandon Weeden -- or, if the need arises, a sub -- performed the way he did.
Week 16
In Week 16 at Denver, the Weeden Report Card became the Browns Quarterbacks Report Card.
Browns rookie quarterback Brandon Weeden completed 12 of 19 passes for 104 yards before being forced to the sideline because of a shoulder injury in the third quarter. Colt McCoy relieved and threw his first passes of the season, going 9 of 17 for 79 yards and one touchdown. Weeden and McCoy were no match for their counterpart, Peyton Manning, who was 30 of 43 for 339 yards and three touchdowns as the Broncos rolled, 34-12. Manning threw an interception in the end zone and rested late, or the margin could have been wider.
In real time, Weeden and McCoy were mediocre-to-bad on the vast majority of snaps. They were not much better upon dvr review of the CBS telecast.
Here are some other observations:
1. Weeden's team lost.
The skinny: The Browns slipped to 5-10 with Weeden as the starter. A .333 efficiency is excellent for a hitter, terrible for a quarterback. In fairness to Weeden, the Browns likely would not have prevailed even if he had been outstanding because Manning is performing at such a high level. Manning and the Denver offense essentially toyed with the Browns' defense; if they had needed 40, they would have scored 40.
Weeden's struggles in the win-loss column are magnified by the success of the other four rookie quarterbacks with whom he is most mentioned: Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill and Russell Wilson.
• Luck, drafted No. 1 overall by Indianapolis, has helped turn a 2-14 sad sack in 2011 into a playoff team at 10-5. Luck has won eight of 10.
• Griffin, No. 2 overall by Washington, has carried the Redskins from 5-11 to the cusp of the playoffs at 9-6. The Redskins have won six straight -- five with Griffin starting and one with 2012 fourth-rounder Kirk Cousins (at Cleveland).
• Tannehill, No. 8 overall by Miami, has helped the Dolphins improve from 6-10 to 7-8.
• Wilson, third round by Seattle, has factored heavily in the Seahawks going from 7-9 to a playoff team at 10-5. Seattle has won six of seven overall and is 7-0 at home.
The Browns were 4-12 last season, so Weeden can point to a slight improvement in his team's fortunes. But it is nowhere near enough to keep up with Luck, Griffin and Wilson.
2. Manning made Weeden/McCoy seem almost slapstick.
The skinny: It is no shame to be outplayed by Manning, one of the game's all-time greats at his position. To be outclassed, though, is another matter. When Manning was on the field, the refrain could have been: "This is how an NFL offense is run.'' When Weeden/McCoy were on the field, it was: "Yikes.''
3. Weeden/McCoy dinked and dunked, as usual.
The skinny: Weeden averaged 5.5 yards per pass; McCoy, 4.6. Together, they managed to pull off a difficult feat in the 21st-century NFL: Average below 4.0 yards (3.9) on 35-plus attempts (36). Add the minus-21 net yards from six sacks and three scrambles, and Weeden/McCoy averaged 3.6 yards on 45 non-penalty dropbacks. That is downright Paleolithic.
Each player was guilty of being prisoner of the dink-and-dunk mindset.
For Weeden, the most egregious example occurred on his first drive. On third-and-goal from the Denver 9, Weeden locked on to Josh Cooper crossing from left to right. Cooper flashed open, so it was all good -- except the throw had no chance at a touchdown. As Cooper caught the ball at the 9, one Bronco was on him in an instant, with a second available for clean-up. Cooper was dragged down and had the ball pop loose after he hit the ground. What should have been a completion was ruled an incompletion, but either way, it didn't matter. The pass never threatened the end zone -- an all-too-common issue for Weeden deep in opponent territory this year.
McCoy's most egregious d-and-d came on third-and-5 from the Cleveland 33 early in the fourth quarter. With the Browns trailing, 24-6, and his pocket relatively clean, McCoy opted for a screen to Chris Ogbonnaya. The Broncos saw it all the way. Ogbonnaya caught the ball five yards behind the line of scrimmage and got back to the line, but no more. The Browns punted.
Later in the fourth, McCoy flipped to Trent Richardson for a 4-yard gain on second-and-17 from the Cleveland 13.
Defenses got wise to Weeden's d-and-d preferences weeks ago. The linebackers and safeties have compressed the field, daring Weeden to beat them over the top. For most of the second half of the season, Weeden has passed on the challenge.
Weeden threw one pass that traveled 21-plus yards in the air; it was an incompletion intended for Gordon. McCoy threw none of 21-plus.
4. The West Coast offense is problematic.
The skinny: When Weeden alone failed to generate enough points and yards in coach Pat Shurmur's West Coast offense through 14 games, Weeden was an easy target: He is a rookie and he's leaving plays on the field, simple as that.
When McCoy joined the party Sunday, the perspective changed a bit. It brought back memories of last season, Shurmur's first in Cleveland, when McCoy played in 13 games and averaged 5.90 yards on 463 attempts. As a rookie in 2010 under coach Eric Mangini, McCoy played in eight games and averaged 7.10 yards on 222 attempts.
No question Weeden and McCoy deserve their share of the blame for the Browns' offensive woes under Shurmur. They have struggled to make an impact. But it is entirely possible that both would be better served in another offense. For Weeden, whose main asset is arm strength, the vertical-power scheme would be a better fit. Would it guarantee success? Of course not. Would it increase his odds of success? Yes.
That Weeden has thrown 517 passes and managed just 14 touchdowns is beyond alarming. It can't all be because of the personnel's shortcomings.
5. Browns tight end Ben Watson was as open as Denny's all afternoon.
The skinny: One player who could argue Sunday that the concern was the quarterback(s), not the system, was Watson. He had minimal difficulty getting open, especially against Broncos safety Mike Adams, a former Brown. Yet Watson had a mere three catches for 47 yards.
The first three times Weeden targeted Watson, they connected. The next seven times Weeden and McCoy targeted Watson, they misfired. McCoy even tossed in a wide one on a play nullified when Adams bumped into Watson's back for a penalty. (Analyst Dan Fouts said the penalty shouldn't have been called because the ball was uncatchable.)
6. On a scale of 1 (lousy) to 3 (expected for NFL QB) to 5 (superb), Weeden and McCoy threw poorly.
The skinny: Weeden averaged 2.84 on 19 graded throws; McCoy was at 2.5 for 16. One of McCoy's throws was not graded because he was hit on release.
A 3.0 average is barely serviceable against suspect defenses, let alone good ones such as Denver's.
Neither Weeden not McCoy posted a 5. McCoy had four 1's, three coming in succession as passes skipped off the turf like rocks on the lake.
Weeden has just two 5's in his last three games.
7. The Browns' O-line did its quarterbacks few favors.
The skinny: Weeden was sacked twice and McCoy four times as the O-line played its worst game of the season. McCoy's mobility saved at least one more sack. Yes, the Broncos have a terrific rush and pass defense, but the Browns' O-line was supposed to be up to the challenge, based on its performance to date. Instead, Denver dictated the terms. When the Broncos needed pressure, they got it.
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Weeden 1st 7 games/last 7 games.
|
|
