DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Pure Football Forum Which QB Going Forward? (Next Year)

JC

Gil Brandt's 3 Tiers of QB's in the 2014 draft ...

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000...terback-in-2014

13 NFL teams positioned to draft quarterback in 2014

By Gil Brandt
NFL Media senior analyst
Dec. 10, 2013

There have been 48 quarterbacks to start in the NFL this season, including a pair -- Matt Flynn and Josh Freeman -- who have started for two teams. That's one more than all of last year.

Pretty amazing stat when you think about it. Stability at the quarterback position has been absent for several years now in the NFL. Impatient owners. Coaches trying to save their jobs. Injuries.

Did we mention injuries?

Quarterbacks are like left-handers in baseball -- teams can never have enough of them. The numbers are there; emphasis of early development at the high-school level has increased the pool in recent years. But quality remains an issue.

Take the 2011 NFL Draft, in which four quarterbacks -- Cam Newton, Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder -- were taken inside the top 12 picks. Two years later, three of the teams that selected them are looking for replacements.

And this year? Pretty good depth in the pool; I'm just not sure how many will still be swimming two years from now.

At this point, and it's early, here's how I see the top three tiers of potential quarterbacks in this upcoming draft:

Tier 1: Louisville's Teddy Bridgewater, Texas A&M's Johnny Manziel, and Fresno State's Derek Carr. Bridgewater and Manziel are underclassmen but have given every indication they are coming out early. In my opinion, all three have an above-average chance of going in the top 10.

Tier 2: Alabama's AJ McCarron, Eastern Illinois' Jimmy Garoppolo, Georgia's Aaron Murray (torn ACL but could be a late steal), Clemson's Tajh Boyd, San Jose State's David Fales and LSU's Zach Mettenberger (ACL tear).

Tier 3: Missouri's James Franklin, Ball State's Keith Wenning, Cornell's Jeff Matthews, Miami's Stephen Morris, TCU's Casey Pachall (great arm, suspended last year), Nebraska's Taylor Martinez, Northern Illinois' Jordan Lynch (reminds me of Roger Staubach at Navy -- competitive, good runner, but doesn't throw the greatest ball).

(These lists would change if underclassmen like UCLA's Brett Hundley and Central Florida's Blake Bortles decide to enter the draft, but both remain undecided.)

So while we can argue all day about the quality of this quarterback class, the numbers will be there, and there will be no shortage of teams snatching them up in the draft. I've created two categories of teams that need to address their QB situations next May: "must-have" and "depth collection."

Must-have
New York Jets: Geno Smith wasn't the answer for the Jets this season. The question is, will he ever be the answer? I don't think one year is enough to get a true evaluation on a player, especially a quarterback, but teams are impatient these days. They feel they can't afford to spend two to three years trying to figure it out, especially in New York. The Jets are a middling 6-7 and might not be in position to take one of the top guys.

Jacksonville Jaguars: Blaine Gabbert is healthy, and the Jaguars are still not playing him. That should tell you everything about whether he fits into the team's long-term plans. Chad Henne is a nice backup but has limitations as a full-time starter. It's a bit unfair to judge how he has done this season, because the Jaguars lack talent around him.

Cleveland Browns: The Browns have been getting some production out of Jason Campbell, but Josh Gordon can make a lot of quarterbacks look good. Campbell is more than serviceable as a backup and replacement starter. He shouldn't be seen as more than that in Cleveland or anywhere else. Only four teams currently have a worse record than the Browns, so they could be drafting pretty high.

Oakland Raiders: Like Cleveland, the Raiders are heading for a top-10 pick. Matt McGloin and Terrelle Pryor aren't long-term answers, but the draft could provide it. So could free agency, where the Raiders are expected to have somewhere between $40 million to $50 million in cap money to spend. If they address quarterback there, other holes could be filled in the draft by trading down to acquire additional picks, like the Raiders did last year.

Minnesota Vikings: The Vikings could be looking at a top-five pick when all is said and done. Ponder has been OK, but can he take a team to the playoffs? I'm not sure. And I can't figure the Josh Freeman thing out. He's been active for only one game; why isn't he playing? It seems that neither have starting futures in Minnesota. All three of my Tier 1 QBs would be upgrades.

Tennessee Titans: Jake Locker is, as they say, what he is. He will always look good in practice but lacks consistency in games. In high school and at Washington, under new USC coach Steve Sarkisian, he was never a terribly accurate passer, and that trend has followed him into the NFL. I think the Titans need to go get themselves another quarterback for the future.

Houston Texans: Matt Schaub has no future in Houston, and Case Keenum, no matter what owner Bob McNair says, shouldn't be viewed as more than a capable (and cheap) backup and spot starter. I think they'll end up with the No. 1 overall draft pick, and they'll have their choice of quarterbacks.

Depth collection
St. Louis Rams: The Rams own Washington's first-round pick, which is looking better and better each week. I don't think they would take a quarterback in the first round, especially as high as they'll be drafting. Maybe the second or third round. They'll be looking to groom someone behind Sam Bradford.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: Personally, I'm a little surprised by how well Mike Glennon has played as a rookie. He might be the answer. I saw a guy who wasn't very accurate, especially to his left. I also had questions about his athletic ability, but he has shown surprising athleticism. Even if the Bucs think Glennon is their guy, they still need a backup.

Atlanta Falcons: This is pretty simple: Matt Ryan doesn't have a backup, and the Falcons don't have someone to groom behind their starter.

Green Bay Packers: We found out pretty quickly the Packers didn't have anyone behind Aaron Rodgers, and they're paying a dear price. Historically, when guys get hurt, it continues. I hope that's not the case here, but the Packers have to protect themselves in the short- and long-term.

San Diego Chargers: Philip Rivers has had a resurgent year, but he turned 32 on Sunday, and the Chargers really have no one they're grooming. Now's the time to think about the future.

Pittsburgh Steelers: Ben Roethlisberger has two more years left on a contract that puts a $19 million hit on the Steelers' cap next year. Is Ben going to give Pittsburgh the hometown discount like Tom Brady did? It's a big question that might get some answers in the upcoming draft.

Two things that strike me about Brandt's assessments:

1. His non-mention of Brian Hoyer in his Browns' blurb. I get the idea he is fairly dismissive about Hoyer as a viable solution for the Browns at QB. Could be its only Browns fans who think he is? I would count myself among the group that wants to see Hoyer get a full season as starter.

2. Taylor Martinez? Really? Gack.

Dave, good post!

On Hoyer, does it really matter? Browns can do one of two things: 1) Make a huge investment getting a franchise QB; 2) Take best available QB. Best case Hoyer and Campbell can play the role as stop-gaps if drafted QB is the chosen. Worse case Hoyer or Campbell become the stater. We already know the talent of Hoyer and Campbell. Name of the game is improve talent at every position. It is proven the best spot to get a franchise QB is early in the draft. Since the Browns are still drafting in the top ten, it is best option taking a QB where odds are favorable.

Yeah, I get that. My eyes told me that the team played differently - better - when Hoyer was in there, and I want to believe that it was by design and Hoyer's competence, rather than dumb luck and relative strength of opponent.

Is he Brian Sipe or is he Kelly Holcomb?

The sliver of optimist still in me wants to believe he's Brian Sipe with better physical tools, and I'm going to go with that until I see differently.

I hope that he's the answer, but I also have to be realistic. We need to make sure that we get a young QB while we are in position to do so, and so we can groom him to be the eventual long term starter.

I would love for Hoyer and Campbell to be capable of handling the reins for a few years while the youngster develops.

Good article on how to evaluate quarterbacks:


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/18957...l-draft-process

Thanks for the article. I copied and pasted below just in case anybody else's browser gets slogged by Bleacher Report like mine does, plus it occurred to me that the mods might want to archive it. (I had to cut out the table with this year's prospect rankings because it came out as gibberish.)

How to Identify an Elite Quarterback in the NFL Draft Process

By Michael Schottey
NFL National Lead Writer
December 20, 2013

In most instances, a quarterback makes or breaks your team. Don't have one? You need one. It's just that simple. Can't get one? Nonsense, there's always a way when there's a will. Yet, many teams end up deluding themselves into thinking their current passer is "good enough."

Today's NFL doesn't accept "good enough" from the quarterback position, however.

The best place to find top quarterback talent is at the top of the draft. Yes, I know that there are quarterbacks in the NFL who went later in the draft (New England Patriots' Tom Brady) or even after the draft (Dallas Cowboys' Tony Romo). Still, for every Brady and Romo, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of failed quarterbacks who didn't rise to the challenge in a similar way.

Nevertheless, teams (and their fans) worry about the investment of such a high pick. Sure, it's easy to look at top-drafted quarterbacks like the Denver Broncos' Peyton Manning, the New York Giants' Eli Manning, the San Diego Chargers' Philip Rivers, the Detroit Lions' Matthew Stafford or the Atlanta Falcons' Matt Ryan, but the slings and arrows of busts like Vince Young, Jamarcus Russell and David Carr highlight the fact that even top college quarterbacks aren't a sure thing.

Drafting a quarterback starts the clock on the job security of every decision maker in the organization. Sometimes, it's three years. Sometimes, it's less. Long time or short, if the quarterback doesn't pan out, most general managers and coaches rarely get the chance to make that decision again.

What do those decision makers look for, and what can you look for, when picking out an elite quarterback in the draft process?



Size, Athleticism and Arm Strength

Physical traits may not be the first thing that teams look at—nor the most important—but they can make or break a prospect more than casual fans or media think. We tend to look at quarterbacks like Brady and think that every quarterback can win with less-than-elite physical tools.

While that maxim may generally be true, it tends not to be how evaluators actually look at prospects.

Don't think of a quarterback's physical gifts like a sliding scale. As in, don't rate one guy an "A" and the next guy a "B" and think the quarterback with "A" tools should go first. No, that's not how it works, either. That's how teams end up with mistakes like drafting Young, Russell or the Jacksonville Jaguars' Blaine Gabbert.

Instead, think of natural ability like a bar that needs to be cleared. Just like an amusement park with a "you must be this tall to ride" sign, NFL quarterbacks usually need to meet a general level of athleticism and arm strength. There's a lower bar for guys who just need to make a roster—guys like the Detroit Lions' Kellen Moore or the Kansas City Chiefs' Chase Daniel—and there's a higher bar for quarterbacks that are viewed as potential starters.

If a team is drafting a quarterback at the very top of the draft, that second bar should be cleared with plenty of room to spare. If it isn't, the conversation must shift to how a quarterback can make up for the physical deficiencies, and a compelling argument has to be made that the quarterback can overcome them at the NFL level, where everyone will be bigger, faster and stronger.

Let's start with size and take a look at the two best examples of guys overcoming their inadequate stature: the Seattle Seahawks' Russell Wilson and the New Orleans Saints' Drew Brees.

Last year, a scout shared snippets from his scouting report on Wilson with me, noting that it read like a first-rounder, even though it had a middling grade (a number he wouldn't reveal). The question was not whether Wilson was good—everyone could see that he was. The question was if Wilson's skills would be able to shine in the NFL as they did in the Big Ten.

Consider that question answered.

Part of what helps mitigate Wilson's lack of size (and, to a lesser extent, Brees') is athleticism. Not every quarterback needs to have the track speed of the Washington Redskins' Robert Griffin III, but quarterbacks that look like former Kentucky quarterback Jared Lorenzen don't tend to make it very long in the NFL, either.

Again, this isn't to say that teams should line up every quarterback, have them run the 40-yard dash and then take the top finisher. Instead, you measure baseline athleticism on tape and at the combine to see if a guy can escape from pressure, help the team by rolling out or picking up a short-yardage first down, etc. If a guy can't do any of that—and there are plenty who can't, both in the NFL and the college ranks—he has to offer something above and beyond in another facet of the game to make up for it.

Finally, there is arm strength—the most over-hyped, yet misunderstood, attribute in all of quarterback evaluation.

When every other gun in the metaphorical quarterback holster is emptied, arm strength is still there. To put it another way, natural arm strength is the last thing a quarterback should be relying upon out on the field. But a quarterback who has enough of it can rely on it when everything else is taken away.

Picture former Green Bay Packer Brett Favre. The play has broken down. Favre has rolled out and has two guys just about hanging on him as he makes a back-footed throw 30 yards through the air to a spot, and a receiver tracks it down for a touchdown.

Mechanics? What mechanics? Decision making? Eh, could have been better. Accuracy? Nah, he just heaved it up there.

Still, he made the play, and that's because of arm strength. It's not the first arrow out of the quiver, but you sure are glad when it comes in handy.

Remember, though, that there's a baseline. Don't have the best cannon in the NFL? That's fine, we'll still take you. Can't throw a 10-yard out route and things get a little dicey. It's where fans often overrate top college quarterbacks (especially those in spread and Air Raid schemes). It's fine not to have elite arm strength, as elite arm strength is often overemphasized, but there's a world of difference between "not elite" and "not NFL-caliber."

Finally, it's worth noting that arm strength can be developed in the NFL. Take a look at Packers quarterback Scott Tolzien for a great example of a guy who has developed a bigger arm in the NFL. Houston Texans quarterback Case Keenum is right up there as well.


Arm Talent

Let's assume our mythical quarterback prospect clears the higher physical-tools bar with ease and puts himself in the conversation to be a franchise-leading quarterback. This still leaves us with lots of work to do in deciding whether he's worth a top pick, or, even more to the point, whether he's even worth our time to continue scouting him.

Here's the thing: For every quarterback that fails because they don't have the baseline physical tools, there's another guy who has the tools but fails because he simply doesn't have the arm talent to make tough throws or make them consistently.

If you're paying attention, you should be thinking of former Denver Broncos quarterback Tim Tebow.

Let's take a moment and dissect "arm talent," as it tends to be popular scouting jargon getting tossed around for which everyone has their own definition.

First, arm talent means accuracy. Accuracy is a tricky notion in and of itself. Some scouts simply believe that accuracy is where mechanics and timing meet comfort in the offense. To some extent, that can be true. Most consider accuracy an almost natural, intangible gift. It isn't just about having a high completion percentage, because one must also look at things like ball placement, hitting a receiver in stride, etc.

It takes chutzpa to walk into a board room and try to convince a general manager that a quarterback with a 60-plus completion percentage has poor accuracy, but with today's college offenses, it's often truer than not.

Arm talent is also a little bit of where mechanics and arm strength come together. We note that Stafford has arm talent, because he has the raw arm strength to make incredible throws from crazy arm slots—throws that often get him into trouble, but that's a different discussion entirely. We also note, though, that Brady has great arm talent because of the touch and the deftness of his deep throws.

Is it a bit of a moving goal post? Sure, but seasoned evaluators know it when they see it.

Top quarterbacks can have everything else in the world, but without top-flight arm talent, the team that drafts them is going to be disappointed. If arm strength is the last gun in the holster, arm talent is the first. It can be relied upon to make the two-yard screen pass just as much as the 10-yard out and the 30-yard go.

It's what college coaches are looking for when they scout middle schoolers. It's what NFL scouts are looking for when they stop by random "Directional State University" or the Division III also-ran that hasn't put out an NFL prospect in 50 years.

If there's arm talent, the rest can be worked on.

If there isn't arm talent, the rest doesn't seem to matter.


Intangibles On the Field and Off the Field

Too often, intangibles are whittled down to the overly simplistic question: Is he a good guy?

If that's a team's benchmark for intangibles, that team would deserve to swing and miss on a quarterback prospect. Yet, on TV or online as we discuss these prospects, we always talk about "great intangibles," as if helping feed orphans is going to make someone a better football player.

When scouts talk about intangibles, they start on the field.

Escapability is an intangible, as is the extremely rare ability (at least these days) to extend a play and make something out of nothing. We talked a little bit about that ability with Favre earlier, but another great example is Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger. Big Ben isn't a great athlete—especially after multiple injuries, surgeries and age have caught up to him.

However, Roethlisberger can still pull plenty of rabbits from the ol' hat as well as any young speedster.

In the same way, comfort in the pocket (or pocket presence) is an intangible. It can be trained and ingrained, but it doesn't come easily to all. Being able to stay in the pocket and make a big throw under duress is a great intangible to have.

It's why Tebow's intangibles were lauded so much, and it had nothing to do with his faith or caliber of character. What coaches love(d) about Tebow was his work ethic and his big-game ability. They didn't trust him with a top pick because he was a good dude, rather, it was because they felt his on-the-field intangibles could make up for his deficiencies as he learned to be a better passer.

We can go ahead and answer "no" to that question now.

More and more, evaluators are having to ask, "Can he be coached?" Once upon a time, quarterbacks who lacked the acquired skill of things like basic offensive theory and mechanics were simply discarded. Now, however, top prospects seem to be lacking those characteristics all the time, as college teams move toward offenses that are meant to win at the collegiate level but not necessarily prepare a guy for life in the NFL.

A lot of the mistakes that RGIII made this season were mental, not physical, errors. The excuse, of course, is that he was injured this past offseason and didn't have the time to run through these plays that he normally would have. But one would still expect a top quarterback to pick up the principal nuances of an offense a little quicker.

Wilson, in Seattle, was once lauded for picking up the Wisconsin Badgers playbook and digesting the entire thing while the coaching staff was still deciding which plays to take out to cater to the transfer student. In the end, he ran a full complement of plays as a result of a rare ability above the shoulders.

Yeah, that's just another instance that contributed to him making all of us look silly as well. Seahawks head coach Pete Carroll told me that it was one of the reasons that made it so easy to go with Wilson above Matt Flynn and Tarvaris Jackson, because they knew Wilson had command of the offense so quickly.

Finally, if we're talking about drafting a franchise-leading quarterback at the top of the draft, we have to ask: Can he lead?

Not every team has a strong leader at quarterback. Teams can exist—and win—with leadership structured top-down through the coaching staff or with another charismatic personality on the team (see: Lewis, Ray; Urlacher, Brian).

Still, if a guy is going to be the face of the franchise and not be a leader, it's setting a team up for all sorts of questions and drama if the wins aren't coming in short order. Carolina Panther Cam Newton wasn't a natural leader coming out of school, but he's quickly learned.

Every pundit seems to have their own favorite quarterback trait that they lean on. In the end, however, it's the total package that is ideal. Failing that (and reality usually does), a prospect must be a good mix of natural and acquired ability, with both tangible and intangible traits that can be counted on in both good times and bad. Any trait that is inadequate needs to be offset by another quality that is off the charts.

Drafting a top quarterback can be risky, but if the right prospect comes along, it can set a franchise on the path to success for a long time to come.

Michael Schottey is an NFL National Lead Writer for Bleacher Report and a member of the Pro Football Writers of America.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/18957...l-draft-process

Just a reminder, Derek Carr and Fresno St are playing USC today at 3:30 in something called the Las Vegas Bowl. Its on ABC.

I really like Carr a lot but he has played pretty crappy in this game. You can however see why I really do like the kid, if you want to give Hoyer a year, draft this kid and let Norv groom him.

I have to completely disagree w/you, Mourg.

I want no part of Carr. If we draft him, I will make Dj look a positive poster in terms of what I think about our FO.

Carr finally faced a defense w/some talent on it. You could visibly see how nervous he was. He was scared to death of the pass rush and it wasn't even that fierce. The announcers kept talking about the pass rush but it was less severe than what the kid will see in the NFL.

Some notes:

--Terrible footwork in terms of his mechanics. He kept getting his feet switched around, ala Timid back in the day. You aren't going to be accurate when you throw w/your right foot in front of your left.

--Speaking of accuracy, he missed three wide open WR deep. No one near them. Just plain out missed them. Several other throws were behind the receivers. Others were high. Some low. Terrible accuracy.

--Pocket presence was awful. He did not buy time in the pocket. He panicked at the snap. No awareness of exactly where defenders were. Did not buy time in the pocket.

--Reading coverages? Hard to tell because he fired it so quick because he was panicking on almost every single throw.

--Reading defenses? He threw that stupid bubble screen even when USC put 3 to 4 guys out there.

Conclusion: No way would I want this kid on our team. I don't care if he was available in the 3rd round, 5th round, or even the 7th. He is going to be one of those guys that makes his teammates look worse and will be a coach killer.

Dion Bailey. He is a safety for them, but I think he has played some LBer in the past. I believe he is a junior.

I also liked #13, I think his name is Kevin Seymore. He's a corner who showed quite well yesterday. I think he is only a sophomore though.

Thanks! They did have some good talent on their defence...

I was also less than impressed with Carr. I also didn't understand the play calls from the sideline, so many short outs and bubble screens, and almost nothing in the middle of the field. The times they did go downfield, Carr missed wide-open receivers. I think he has a strong arm and decent mobility, but saw more than a few throws that were off the back foot, with the resulting floater.

I LOL'd at the flip pass (aka "The Weeden").

The first full game I have seen of Carr. Although one game does not make a career; Carr played poorly.

He was rushing everything. Showed no patience to let the play develop. Missed open guys. It is obvious that he has a strong arm and a very quick release.

However, he did not impress me in this game.

I will not at this point say he is a lost cause. He did stick some throws and showed good mobility.

Still feel like I need to see more of him to give a final word.

My biggest issue w/Carr: He played scared. I would never want that in a QB. Never.

I didn't see the game, but this seems to be a common view of what happened in the bowl game against USC.

It can be coached out, but if a QB gets hit and really feels the pain, it could destroy any progress that was made in such development.

It should hurt his stock a lot. He needs to toughen up. I would recommend a martial arts program to get his mind right and toughen him up physically.

He had a bad game against a USC Defense that was playing really good yesterday. He was throwing long all game long and that isnt the norm for the kid.

I like the kid and feel he has the best long term potential but he will need time to develop. As for the QB class in general, it is really shaping up like last years class. All have warts, it just comes down to which from are u willing to kiss lol.

At the end of the day however, I had a much higher grade on Mallett than any QB in this draft and that includes my top 3 of Carr, Manziel and Bridgewater. I trade for mallett.

I do not understand, for the life of me, how a top program type QB can be a starter with lousy footwork. That is the base on which everything a QB does is built. I've never taught QBs, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to teach the QB to make his drop and properly set his feet so he can make his best throw every time. I know that a lot of college is built on short, quick throws, and easy throws like WR screens and such ...... but still, these guys throw down the field in college. I have to wonder how the are even remotely accurate with some of the poor basics I see quite often.

One thing to remember about Mallet is that he is a free agent at the end of next season.

I guess it is inconsistent of me to say on one hand that I want to see Hoyer start next year, and then to say that I don't want the guy that put him out of a job at New England. Its just that I think Belichek is such a good judge of talent that I would wonder why he would trade a good QB, given Brady's age and relative lack of mobility.

Quote:

---

I do not understand, for the life of me, how a top program type QB can be a starter with lousy footwork. That is the base on which everything a QB does is built. I've never taught QBs, but it doesn't seem like it would be that difficult to teach the QB to make his drop and properly set his feet so he can make his best throw every time.

---

They teach it. However, when you play scared, all of that goes out the window.

I typically respect Mourg's opinions, but I feel he is way off on this one. Carr plays scared. I want no part of him.

On the other hand, I think he is drastically underestimating Bridgewater. He is going to be a very good qb.

You asked. I tried to answer.

If you really want to believe that the coaches don't teach footwork to collegiate qbs, go right ahead. However, I am NOT going to agree that it is something we can teach him. He played like a wuss, just like most of us would if we were in his situation.

With the growing concentration on the spread and shotgun offenses in college, I wonder how much footwork is taught. (or how consistently it's taught) I do get your point that some guys are scared out of their footwork by the defense, but some of those same guys are still inconsistent with their feet even if they have some protection.

At the end of the day college coaches are paid to win (and win a lot, and win right now) not to develop players. Their job and families livelihood depends on it.

Yes the fundamentals are taught and stressed in practice and off seasons, but if Johnny Big Arm Athlete can come in and make some throws and win some games, they're going to play regardless of any footwork or fundamentals. I mean good grief look no further than our own back yard with Braxton Miller.

Of course that's exactly how you end up with QBs with good records and stats from college who come in to the NFL and flop once they're really challenged against people of the same talent and athletic ability.

Vers...

What are you thoughts on Mettenberger?

The obvious questions being his injury history and character concerns, but as far as his play, how do you feel about him?

I have no real reason why, but I get the feeling that he is a guy we will look at hard, and might actually wind up drafting.

vers says his knee injury is because he stands too upright in the pocket

I actually like Mettenberger a lot. I think he does a lot of things you look for in an NFL QB.

The thing that impresses me the most is, he seems to throw to 'unopen' receivers far more often than the rest of these QB's. Mettenberger has great timing with his receivers and often throws before the break and throws receivers open.

A lot of college QB's because of schemes and the lack of talent on the defensive side of the ball tend to throw to a lot of wide open receivers. I've seen a lot of NFL quality throws from Mettenberger though.