Ah, okay.

The issue with Tebow is his biggest strength is intangibles. That's fine but those do nothing if you can't play. Drew Stanton was a huge leader at MSU, played special teams when needed, was an absolute warrior who could run but had no idea how to play QB. We took him in the second round, changed his throwing motion and what happened? He's our 3rd QB like many assumed he would be when he was picked.

Tebow is going to be a left handed Drew Stanton, no question in my mind.

Because there's never been anyone available in the 2nd round that was really good? Paging Drew Brees.....

To me, the talent difference between Suh and whoever they draft next is much wider than the talent difference between Bradford and Clausen/McCoy/Pike

Really not a good year for QB's. Never trust a QB who doesn't spend the pre-snap time looking at the defense, but instead is looking at his coach for what to do next.

For the life of me I can not find what draft picks Denver traded last night - any know?

I hope Denver plans to use Tebow in a variety of ways. I just don't see how he will be any good runnign the wildcat. He has very little speed. His biggest asset running the ball was his size, and that will be mitigated by the smackdowns he'll receive in the NFL.

It's kind of a no-win situation - to use him effectively, I guess you've got to run him up the gut. But in doing so, you may end up hurting his future value as a QB if he takes one wrong hit. No way he's going to be Cribbs back there.

I mean guys viewed as top leaders at the QB position in the draft. Rarely is this mentioned among the top qualities teams look for in a QB - esp when compared to arm strength. However, many QBs with slightly above average arms have gone on to have great careers because of their mental toughness and leadership abilities.

Which is why I think the Tebow pick is interesting. It might be time to stop treating QB like WR or CB and looking just at athletic skills. For this position, I'm not sure there's a big risk difference between the power arm and limited leader and the non-elite arm but great leader. Given the importance of the QB position, it might start making sense to draft the second group in a similar spot at the first. But, again, we really don't know as there hasn't been a ton of data on leadership and opportunities given to QBs who have been good leaders but don't have the cannon.

I think there's a "mendoza line" of arm strength needed. Tebow was given "above average" by scouts on his arm, so it's not like he's terrible. But if you look at the top 10 QBs last season, just as many had questions about their arm and slipped out of the first (Brees, Schaub, Brady, Romo, Warner) as were first round picks (Favre, Rivers, Rodgers, Big Ben, Peyton). And only 3 of the top 10 QBs were drafted in the top 20.

I don't know the numbers, but I think they traded down twice and got 2 4s, and then traded up and gave up a 2, a 3, and a 4.

Yes, a 6-3, 240-pound guy is not nearly as ready for a physical pounding as a 5-11, 188 pound guy. I can see the parallel...

the throwing motion thing was always interesting to me. leftwich winds from his shoelaces. rivers throws like uncle rico. but tebows motion is fatally flawed?

Isn't the point that nearly all teams don't want even their bigger-than-Tebow QBs taking ANY hits? If Tebow has any value at #25, it's as a QB. Why would they potentially damage that value running a too-slow Wildcat QB as if he was Ricky Williams?

He'll be good in the right system, but he can't block.

Not every QB who was a good leader will be a solid starting QB - just like not every QB with a cannon for an arm will make it in the NFL.

My point was this: assuming both have atleast "mendoza line" of arm strength/talent, why is it riskier to take the better leader (Tebow) than the better arm (Clausen)? It's harder to find bad leaders in the top list of QBs each season than it is to find guys without cannons for arms. Warner, Brady, Brees, Romo and Schaub were all guys that had some "intangibles" coming out of college but lacked the big arm. All QBs have risk, I just don't understand why lacking a cannon is worse than lacking the ability to lead or questionable work ethic.

I think it is riskier because Tebow played in what is basically a one read offense. If his first option isn't there he just took off. Clausen played a pro style offense which cannot be discounted at all.

Here's the end result:

Denver traded 11, 43, 70 and 114 to get 22, 25 and 87

That's a valid point; however,



:D

I want to dispute it ... but I can't.

Got it - thanks guys...

:lol:

But he can throw a pigskin a quarter mile!

Exclusive video of Clausen:

Sure, that's one factor. But, again, you can't fault Tebow for the offense he played in. It comes down to what they can handle after a few seasons of seasoning. Clausen was average or below average in Durability, Intangibles, Mental Markup and Mobility - with nothing exceptional. Tebow was average or below average in accuracy and release - everything else was above average (including intangibles where were exceptional).

Assuming those are the actual grades given by scouts (got it from scouts.inc), I don't see how Tebow is any riskier than Clausen given what seems to work for top NFL QBs.

Thats a great way to put it.

I've always thought St Louis should take Suh then get Colt McCoy or Claussen or even Pike. Then go out and get a vet QB to play for 2 years and get the crap beat out of them whiel you build the O-line. Oh well.

I really like what the Seahawks did in Round 1, even though both picks were pretty much no brainers. Both Okung and Earl Thomas will start from day 1 and could see Thomas sneaking into the Pro Bowl as a Rookie. I like Okung much better than Williams, especially after he gets coached up by Alex Gibbs. Watching him on tape, you could see that he didn't go 100% at all times but I just think he was bored, more or less, as nobody could really challenge him.

I'd much rather grab Thomas at 14 than Berry at 6. After watching Thomas on tape, I'd say he is much more comparable to Ed Reed than Berry. Dude had 8 INT's last year and is the youngest player in the draft. He could easily move to CB although I'd like to see him stay at Safety. Beauty.

I think below average in accuracy is exactly why Tebow won't be a great NFL QB. Look at your list of passers above (guys without the "big arm") - you basically named the most accurate passers of the last 10 years.

Isn't there a study showing that the number of college starts for a quarterback has a high correlation to his performance as a pro?

Why is that? Developing leadership and the ability to read a defense? We know Tebow has developed leadership of some sort. But he has not had to read defenses like a quarterback playing in a pro-style offense.

Since the NFL game comes at you a lot faster than the college game, the question is whether an NFL quarterback who has absolutely no college experience reading defenses is capable of making that transition.

And that might explain why Matt Cassel succeeded in New England, which has an entirely different style of offense (specifically outlined reading by both the receivers and the quarterback) but has struggled in Kansas City.

By that metric, Tebow and McCoy are both interesting prospects. Guys who started and won eleventy-billion games in college, but who came from an offense that makes it hard to know how good they will be at doing all the things that an NFL QB needs to do.

I'd agree with most of this (can't comment on watching any tape on these guys, but that's certainly matching a lot of the scouting reports I'm finding online), especially the no brainer portion (which isn't a bad thing, they took quality players that were there for them and didn't try to get too cute with trading back and trying to push their luck).

What'll make or break this draft for the new brain trust is what they do going forward. Dropping back from the start to the end of round 2 in the Whitehurst deal and not having a 3rd rounder hurts, but with a pair of picks in each of the 4th and 5th rounds I'm expecting a move up at some point. I am kind of curious to see if they might try to snag Mays if he drops a bit further and run him out there at SS. DE (to me) is by far the biggest need for the team right now, but I have no idea if any of the remaining prospects could legitimately have a chance of being anything above depth for this season.

Either way, I think I'm liking the new format with the spread out nature of the draft. It's helped me be way less productive at work today, but the time is flying by much faster :)

I think accuracy is the hardest thing to extrapolate from college to the pros. You have such big windows in college that completion percentages are meaningless. Vince Young was supposed to be terrible in accuracy for the same reasons people nailed Tebow (one read then run). Yet, he has been serviceable on completion percentage in the NFL. I don't think anyone is saying that Tebow is going to be a pro bowl QB anytime soon (if so, he would have gone higher than in the 20s). I just don't see a compelling reason to think Clausen is going to be better than Tebow.

This Bradford & Suh debate reminds me of the one a few years back concerning Matt Ryan & Glenn Dorsey. I remember a bunch of people (including myself) saying the Falcons were idiots for passing on an amazing talent in Dorsey and then waiting for the 2nd round to pick up Brian Brohm or Chad Henne.

Basically, this may just work out fine for the Rams. We just have to wait and see.

Maybe, but I don't remember Dorsey having nearly as much hype as Suh.

We can agree on that Arles. I think Clausen has bust written all over him too.

Watching Tebow in the Senior Bowl it was glaringingly obvious that he is at least 2 years away from taking meaningful snaps in the NFL, IMO. He looked slow and horribly inexperienced in terms of taking snaps from under center and making reads. It doesn't matter how great a leader you are if you aren't playing. The problem in Denver is, McDaniels will be out of a job before Tebow is ready to take over.

anybody catch the "Gruden QB camp" thing that ESPN ran? he meets with Bradford, Tebow, McCoy, and Clausen, does a mock draft interview, breaks down tape with them, etc. also goes through some passing drills with Tebow.

my program guide says they're re-running it next thursday.

it was pretty cool, and Clausen did come off as a douche...

I don't think Bradford is that bad of a player. But Suh is going to be fantastic. His physical ability is jaw-dropping and his work ethic is unmatched. If they would have picked Suh, they still had to know that there would be a couple good QB's available in the 2nd round. They would have been much better off in that scenario.

Dorsey didn't have the ability that Suh has. I don't disagree that it may work out just fine, but at this point, it's a questionable choice.

The study you mention states that if a QB was picked in the first round, you can predict his NFL performance by college Games Started and college Completion Percentage.

Looks like the Cards were psyched with their pick. Had him #11 on their board and couldn't believe he lasted till #26.

I think this is fair. The point is that he can still contribute while learning. Play in some short-yardage sets, the wildcat and even H-Back at times while learning how to be a QB. So, you get some value while he sits the pine. For someone like Clausen, he's also 2 years away but gives you no value in the meantime and is just as much of a risk.

The Cowboys are already selling #88 Dez Bryant jerseys on their website.

I just got back from Denver. It was a blast filling in over there.

LOL

I thought it was funny how Roy Williams was talking about how they now have one of the strongest WR groups in the league. And I was thinking, "How long til they decide to just cut Roy Williams cause he's overpaid and not that good."

The Tuna has his own study.

Assessing Parcells' four criteria
By KC Joyner
ESPN Insider


Are some of Tebow's intangibles enough to make up for his lack of certain tangibles?

The biggest question mark for any team going into a draft is how to measure intangibles at the quarterback position.

Personnel legend Don "Duke" Klosterman may have put this quandary best when he told former Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi, "Do not evaluate a quarterback the way you evaluate the other 21 positions. They're playing a different sport. With a quarterback, it's the things you can't put down on paper that make all the difference."

The problem this presents is simple: Those items that can't be put down on paper all generally lend themselves to emotional swings; a perfect example of this comes via the case of Tim Tebow. Tebow's significant pocket passer weaknesses have ESPN draft experts Mel Kiper (fourth round) and Todd McShay (third round) grading him as a less-than-stellar choice, but Tebow's seemingly off-the-charts intangibles have others -- such as Tony Dungy -- rating him as a first-round pick.

One solution to this quandary is to try to find a way to measure the impact of these seemingly unmeasurable characteristics. This is the path that Bill Parcells took when he put together the following four rules for drafting quarterbacks:

1. Be a three-year starter
2. Post at least 23 wins
3. Be a senior
4. Be a college graduate

The idea behind these guidelines is simple: Any quarterback who achieves each of these goals has proved that he can handle the rigors of frequent play, has a history of winning and will stick to a goal until he finishes it.

"Parcells' Guys"

These 15 quarterbacks meet the four qualities discussed in this article. Twelve of the 15 guys on this list started at least one game in the NFL in 2009.
Player Name First NFL team
Chad Pennington New York Jets
Philip Rivers San Diego Chargers
Kevin Kolb Philadelphia Eagles
Donovan McNabb Philadelphia Eagles
Brady Quinn Cleveland Browns
Carson Palmer Cincinnati Bengals
David Garrard Jacksonville Jaguars
Cade McNown Chicago Bears
Jason Campbell Washington Redskins
Charlie Whitehurst San Diego Chargers
Matt Leinart Arizona Cardinals
Byron Leftwich Jacksonville Jaguars
Eli Manning New York Giants
Drew Brees San Diego Chargers
Chad Henne Miami Dolphins

These sound like terrific mile markers to gauge intangibles, but does this system work? Do quarterbacks with these characteristics significantly outperform players who don't reach these goals?

To find the answer to these questions, I enlisted the help of the Stats & Information department at ESPN. I asked its researchers to compile the figures for all of the first-round picks in the BCS era (since the 1999 NFL draft) along with every other current starting quarterback who was drafted in that time in the four aforementioned categories.

The first study we did revolved around the three-year starter guideline. The initial quandary here was how to determine how many starts constitute three years. Every FBS (formerly Division I-A) team today plays a minimum of 12 games -- but that level has been in place only since 2006. In the years before that, the minimum was 11 games, so we ran the study with both 33 starts and 36 starts as the qualifying line.

At the 33-start level, quarterbacks were 637-542-1 (54 percent) in the NFL; at the 36-start level, they were 606-515-1, which is a very similar percentage mark of 54.1 percent.

College quarterbacks with fewer than 33 starts were 493-528-1, for a winning percentage of 48.3 percent; those with fewer than 36 starts were 524-555-1, for a winning percentage of 48.6 percent.

The difference here is an NFL win percentage of around 5.6 percent, or about nine-tenths of a win per season (16 games multiplied by 5.6 percent). Not quite a slam dunk for the high-volume college starts criterion, but certainly a notable positive indicator.

Next up is the 23 collegiate wins mark. The findings here were quite similar to the high volume of starts study. The quarterbacks who had a minimum of 23 wins posted an NFL record of 664-575-1, or a winning percentage of 53.6 percent. The quarterbacks who posted fewer than 23 wins had an NFL mark of 466-495-1, or a winning percentage of 48.5 percent. The favorable percentage differential was 5.1 percent, or nearly identical to the 33-36 starts criterion.

The third study looked at how senior quarterbacks fared compared with sophomores and juniors who declared for the draft. The seniors posted a professional record of 914-891-1, or a winning percentage of 50.6 percent. The second-year and third-year collegians did not post anywhere near as high of a volume of games as the seniors, but their 216-179-1 record equates to a 54.7 winning percentage, a mark that is 4.1 percent better than that of their counterparts.


Parcells has a good track record as an evaluator, but his QB guidelines aren't highly statistically significant -- except for college graduation.

The fourth criterion, graduating college, is a bit tougher to gauge because there are some instances where extenuating circumstances need to be taken into account. One example of this can be found in the case of Joe Flacco. Flacco had to put his final college classes on hold because of an odd confluence of rules. Here, we ended up giving any players in situations of this nature the benefit of the doubt and crediting them in the graded category.

The findings here were quite notable. Players who graduated posted a 965-855-1 NFL record, or a winning percentage of 53.0 percent. Quarterbacks who didn't graduate tallied an NFL mark of 165-215-1, or a winning percentage of 43.4 percent. That is a difference of 9.6 percent, or an average of around 1.5 extra wins per year. To put it into perspective, that mark is 75 percent greater than the average extra wins generated by the high-volume starts or collegiate wins criteria.

Each of these individual bars is high on its own, but the Parcells rules require that a player meet all four. That should mean only the best of the best make the final cut, but the numbers do not indicate that is the case. The combined record of the 16 quarterbacks who satisfied all four criteria (all of whom had at least 36 starts) was 494-432-1, or a 53.3 percent winning percentage. That is lower than the winning percentages generated by two of the individual criteria, so this combination of traits cannot make a claim as being the most notable success indicator.

That honor goes to the college graduate criterion. To put it another way, when talent evaluators are looking for a tiebreaker in making a choice of which quarterback to draft, they should turn to the classroom for guidance.

I liked this line:

Tim Tebow - we haven't talked this much about a white Bronco since the OJ Simpson/Al Cowlings saga

I wonder if any study has been done connecting offensive style in college to professional success. It's something we've talked about on Michigan boards because Rich Rodriguez had a bad recruiting year (by Michigan standards) and we're wondering if word is out that a Wolverine uniform is no longer of much help if you want an NFL career down the road.

Odd pick by the Bucs, but happy for Price

KC just made a luxury pick .. They are in no position to make luxury picks.

McCluster that early is a shock.

Darn. I was hoping for Taylor Mays at S for the Eagles :(