- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 10,077
- Reaction score
- 0
Here's a simpler thought. The Cards, particularly without free agency at their disposal, actually want a QB in this draft and are seriously considering Gabbert and possibly Newton at #5.
Blurb about Cards at Gabbert Pro Day
- Thread starter red desert
- Start date
Here's a simpler thought. The Cards, particularly without free agency at their disposal, actually want a QB in this draft and are seriously considering Gabbert and possibly Newton at #5.
Zeno
Ancient
I agree.
The Cards have been really transparent when it comes to round 1 since Denny Green was the coach, I really don't think they are getting clever or trying to trick anyone. I think they are just honestly looking at all the players they feel are legit options at #5 to get the best feel for each individual player.
I heard Kipper on ESPN yesterday and he had just updated his draft. He had some good things to say about Gabbert and thinks he will be an NFL starter some day and he or Newton could go to Carolina with the #1 pick. He also suggest Carolina may be smart and trade down to someone for more players as the current QB is still young and has a lot of potential given time. Who would want to move up for he #1 pick? I suspect the Panthers would want some multiple picks.
Dayman
ASFN Addict
I wouldn't mind this pick, just wish he wasn't slow as a tortoise. I wonder if it's possible to increase someone's speed through running drills, speedwork, etc. That seems to be the only thing keeping him from being a top pick (well that and the maturity issue).
conraddobler
I want my 2$
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Posts
- 20,052
- Reaction score
- 237
Gabbert got a 42 on his wonderlic which means only that he's very smart, the teams he's played on his teamates love him, he has a great arm and his pro day was a huge success because he was coached by a QB coach in the pro game to look good for his pro day, so he coaches well.
He's very tall, I guess I just fail to see what's wrong with him.
There aren't many sure things in life, if you need a QB IMO he's the real deal.
Get the guy on the team.
He's very tall, I guess I just fail to see what's wrong with him.
There aren't many sure things in life, if you need a QB IMO he's the real deal.
Get the guy on the team.
Nah most would rather look at trivial college stats and pretend like what a guy did in a college system that is very different from the pros will indicate exactly how he will do in the pros.
Everyone who is in there earlyh 20's is imature. Some kids get caught some don't. Throwing millions of dollars at kids that don't have money brings it out more. That has always been an issue in pro sports. it always will be. That it is why it is very important to surround yourself around good people from the beginning.
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
The issue for me is that if I'm spending a Top 5 pick in the draft on a player, I want that guy to be the best player on the field in every game that he appears in. If he's not the best player on the field in college football, he's never going to be the best player on the field in the NFL. That's an issue for me considering the money and oppotunity cost you're going to be sinking into these guys.
Levi Brown was Second-team All Big-Ten.
Antrel Rolle was playing with Frank Gore, Brandon Meriweather, Devin Hester, Greg Olsen, and Eric Winston.
#7 played with guys like Reggie Bush and a bunch of defenders who made the NFL.
When was Blaine Gabbert the best player on his own team? How many games was Blaine Gabbert not even the fifth-best player on the field playing in a watered-down Big XII? If Andrew Luck had come out, would Blaine Gabbert even be a Top 15 pick?
Apparently a 42 on the Wonderlic is important, but completing 65% of your passes in college is not. Go figure. Swing for the fences with Cam Newton at #5 overall or get a guy in free agency and replace Max Hall with that turbo from Elon.
Tom Brady was the best guy on the field in college? Kurt Warner? Brett Farve?
You know who was the best player on the field in college? Dominated all his games? JaMarcus Russel. Matt Leinart (did win the Heisman afterall). Vince Young. Troy Smith. Jason White. Eric Crouch. Chris Weinke. Ron Dayne.
Your statement is simply a logical fallacy. Not everyone who is a star in the NFL was the best player on the field in college. Likewise, not every player who was a star in college was a success in the NFL.
College stats are not a good indicator of pro stats. There are too many variables. If it were that simple, the draft wouldn't be such a crapshoot. But it is because in spite of teams paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to scouting staffs to watch everyone in college play, and in spite of results in college, guys don't always live up to their college careers.
Last edited:
kerouac9
Klowned by Keim
Tom Brady wasn't a Top 5 pick. Kurt Warner probably was the best player on his team at Northern Iowa--he was Gateway Conference Player of the year his final season. Brett Favre certainly was at Southern Mississippi--he was picked in the second round, for God's sakes.
Not everyone who is a star in the NFL was a star in college? Are you a crazy person? What's the point of evaluating prospects if college performance doesn't matter? Jimmy Clausen has all the physical tools to be a star in the NFL; why was he so terrible as a rookie?
Dewayne Bowe was the best player on LSU's team. Russell was also playing with our own Early Doucet. And Buster Davis. I count 12 NFL players on that LSU team that Russell was playing with his junior year. Why was Russell picked #1 overall? It wasn't because of his college performance, it is because of the very same physical attributes that you're pimping Blaine Gabbert on.
You're not making an argument for your guy. If he's so good, why didn't he produce in college like a top pick? He lost his bowl game to RICKY STANZI. You're the one making a logical fallacy. Not everyone who succeeds in college is going to be an excellent pro, but excellent pros succeed in college. That's how they get scouts' attention.
It's when you fall in love with the measurables of a player after football is done being played, or when you project the physical attributes of a player who doesn't produce, that you get into trouble. That's what happened with Bryant Johnson and Calvin Pace, after all.
Show me a guy who was average in college, and became a star in the NFL.
Cbus cardsfan
Back to Back ASFN FFL Champion
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 21,651
- Reaction score
- 8,065
you're kind of contradicting yourself. Do you have to be a star and a top pick or just a star in college? Because there are plenty of guys who were average in college that went on to be stars in the NFL. The first guy that comes to my mind is Terell Davis. Antonio Gates never played college football. James Harrison. If Arian Foster has another couple years, you can add him to the list. Boldin wasn't a superstar in college. He was good but not great. The list goes on. I agree the best and most naturally talented guys get drafted early but to say guys that were average can't develop is mistaken.
I also agree that 1st rounders should match talent and production, especially drafting in the top 5. Ideally you get the top player at that particluar position. I never understood how a guy like Alonzo Spellman was a 1st round pick when average college tackles would blow him off the line.
JeffGollin
ASFN Icon
"Cardinals OC Mike Miller and a scout are at Missouri Pro Day. Team plans another visit soon..."
That doesn't sound like the entire Cardinal brass showed up to watch Gabbert. Also - what does it mean that "the team plans another visit soon?" (Is it SOP for teams to allow NFL clubs special visits after their pro days)?
The question will (I hope) boil down to: "Do our guys love him enough to draft him that high?"
Key part of that evaluation will have little to do with Gabbert and a lot to do with the events and process leading up to the drafting of Leinart (i.e. What mistakes, if any, were made? What physical and/or mental flaws did the Cardinals fail to pick up? Where did they go wrong in developing him once we got him)?
The one thing we do know is: "Last time we drafted a QB nearly that high, we botched it - leading one to conclude: "We've evidently sucked at evaluating high-profile rookie QB's." Conclusion - We'd either better stop sucking or we should stay away from drafting a QB that high until we do.
That doesn't sound like the entire Cardinal brass showed up to watch Gabbert. Also - what does it mean that "the team plans another visit soon?" (Is it SOP for teams to allow NFL clubs special visits after their pro days)?
The question will (I hope) boil down to: "Do our guys love him enough to draft him that high?"
Key part of that evaluation will have little to do with Gabbert and a lot to do with the events and process leading up to the drafting of Leinart (i.e. What mistakes, if any, were made? What physical and/or mental flaws did the Cardinals fail to pick up? Where did they go wrong in developing him once we got him)?
The one thing we do know is: "Last time we drafted a QB nearly that high, we botched it - leading one to conclude: "We've evidently sucked at evaluating high-profile rookie QB's." Conclusion - We'd either better stop sucking or we should stay away from drafting a QB that high until we do.
I didn't say they don't succeed in college. I said they aren't the BEST PLAYER on the field every time. You said that. Gabbert wasn't the best player but he was successful. He was certainly the best player on his team's offense. You change your criteria from "best player on the field" to "succeed" and make it look as though you weren't being over the top before. I agree they have to succeed in college. Gabbert did. Mizzou won a lot of games with him at QB, even though his team had to face more talented teams in the Big 12 both years he started. Your evaluation of him ignores the fact that his offense had pretty much no 1st round talent on it besides arguably himself.
Also, if you are going to nit-pick his stats at least look at both his years. You look at a players worst season and act as if it is their only season and of course they will look bad.
His sophmore year he had 8.1 YPA, 25 TD/9 INT. His completion % was lower, (58.9% vs 63.4%). Likely a difference of how many deep passes were thrown which would explain the YPA, and TD variance as well.
FWIW Andrew Luck this year had 32 TD/8 INT 8.9 YPA. 70% .In 2009 Luck was 13 TD/4 INT 8.9 YPA 56.3%. By your method, Luck after 2009 wouldn't have been worthy of a 1st round pick. By this years numbers, he wasn't *that* much better than Gabbert's sophmore season and certainly not better than Newton this year. So are you suggesting Newton is a better NFL prospect than Luck because of his college performance? If Luck comes out next season with his new HC and has a bad year are you going to say he shouldn't be a 1st round pick?
moklerman
Rise from the Ashes III
...paging Jake Locker...
You sure nailed that. I would think we have the worst QB situation in the NFL as it stands today. There would also be a lot of gurus and fans who would agree with me. Wherever there is a possible QB we should be there where it is in Rwanda or Siberia.
There is no sure fire test that will tell you who will be a great NFL QB or not. The pros seem to have it narrowed down as best they can so you pay your money and you take your chances. The only way to insure almost assured failure is to draft no QB at all followed by drafting further down on the food chain. Typically the Superbowl teams are the teams with the best QB's. That should be no surprise to anyone. I wonder how often the most valuable players in the Superbowl is the QB?
After looking over and taking a typical Wonderlic test for football players I would have scored over 40. You do not need to be a brainiac. I did not even graduate from Harvard. It amazes me that the NFL looks for something like a 22 for a QB. Had I been in my 20's I could have done better because I have forgotten some of my college algebra. If you can only score a 22 on this test you are really not all that bright in the academic world but may be great in the world of the NFL.
From what I read the college workouts are sort of useless. QBs just throw the ball while standing still or while stepping back. For the most part with no pressure put on them. Sometimes even to stationary targets. I doubt NFL teams put a lot of value on these workouts. It would seem to me that the complete body of work over 2-3 years would be far and away the most important measure. You could study films over and over. Certainly speed, weight, and jumping ability are important and not being a total idiot helps.
My guess is the team most likely to trade down is the Panthers. Not the Cards.
- Joined
- May 14, 2002
- Posts
- 10,077
- Reaction score
- 0
The workouts are critical to judging the footwork of QBs who come from a spread "O". Gabbert showed that he could manage 3,5 and 7 foot drops effectively.
conraddobler
I want my 2$
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Posts
- 20,052
- Reaction score
- 237
If we're going to not do or hesitate to do things based on the fact we've sucked at them in the past then the Bidwill's might as well sell the team and take up hiking.
conraddobler
I want my 2$
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Posts
- 20,052
- Reaction score
- 237
Gabbert plays in a spread true enough but it is NOT your typical college spread offense, in fact it has more reads than most college QB's have to deal with by far.
The difference is it's all done out of the gun, other than that it's very complex because he has so many WR's out in a pattern on any one play.
If his workout showed he had any inkling of being able to drop back effectively plus the fact he got a 42 on his Wonderlic then I'd have ZERO worries he won't get the pro game.
ZERO.
My single biggest concern about him is his tendancy to overthrow the deep ball, which IMO is really likely to self correct with faster WR's in the pro game, he's been playing with very subpar WR's his last year, the only Pro Caliber one he threw to his first year is now on the Rams and his stats his first year were better than his last year because of the WR's IMO.
I just happen to know a lot about him because I've watched him, he's the best pro prospect Mizzou has ever seen by a mile, not that they've ever produced them before they haven't and he's not at all like anyone that's ever played there before.
He'll make a good pro, he's smart, he's a good kid and he's got a great arm, I don't know what more you want.
The difference is it's all done out of the gun, other than that it's very complex because he has so many WR's out in a pattern on any one play.
If his workout showed he had any inkling of being able to drop back effectively plus the fact he got a 42 on his Wonderlic then I'd have ZERO worries he won't get the pro game.
ZERO.
My single biggest concern about him is his tendancy to overthrow the deep ball, which IMO is really likely to self correct with faster WR's in the pro game, he's been playing with very subpar WR's his last year, the only Pro Caliber one he threw to his first year is now on the Rams and his stats his first year were better than his last year because of the WR's IMO.
I just happen to know a lot about him because I've watched him, he's the best pro prospect Mizzou has ever seen by a mile, not that they've ever produced them before they haven't and he's not at all like anyone that's ever played there before.
He'll make a good pro, he's smart, he's a good kid and he's got a great arm, I don't know what more you want.
I just do not see the Cards trading down. Once you leave the top 10 IMHO there is a big drop off. I want a QB but you are not going to find a real good prospect in round 2. You are not going to find a Von Miller out of the top 10. They need to stay put no matter who they plan on drafting as who ever it is will be a likely starter unless it is a QBOTF. Future being the key word. One guy that has recently caught my interest is Matt Hasselback. I think this guy has at least one year left in him. He sure knows how to play QB and knows the division. With Fitz and Breaston he might be the guy we need to be the guy this year or even next. I think his contract has expired and the Seahawks are looking for a new QB so I read. I would like a QB that could fill in for 2-3 years while our backup, whoever that is, learns to play in the NFL.
