Cardinal Tough: Assessing the QB Situation

[Cardiac]

Toughness at the QB position is important, but not as important as accuracy, ability to read defenses, and the physical skills to get the job done. Josh McCown was tough, but he was a lifetime back up quarterback.

I'll take a prima donna quarterback who can light it up over a tough guy any day of the week and so would Whisenhunt. It's the one position on the field where you forgive sliding instead of running over somebody. As impressive as it was to see John Skelton lower his shoulder, it was also extremely stupid. Skelton is big for a QB, but he is still no match for a 265 lb. rush linebacker running at full speed.

I'm fairly certain Mitch was just citing that as an example of his toughness and not an expectation. Warner would not have run and if he did then he would have stepped out of bounds. But KW was a tough SOB because he hung in their until the last secone to complete passes and took many hits for it.

What intrigues me about Gabbert is the article from Sporting News. The great ones (Manning, Brady, Brees, etc..) have an obsession about being better than everyone else. It may be arrogance, but so what. Gabbert is the "gym rat" that Whisenhunt has been asking for. When you read about him taking thousands of reps from under center during his time playing at Mizzou just to get ready for the NFL, that sounds like something Peyton Manning would do.

I'm not saying Gabbert is Manning. I'm just saying that he seems to have that same drive to be the best. Physically Gabbert passes the eyeball test. He is big, fast, and has an NFL caliber arm. The obsessive work ethic is what really intrigues me. He's one of those who eats and breathes football.

Fully agree with this.

 

[Mitch]

Toughness at the QB position is important, but not as important as accuracy, ability to read defenses, and the physical skills to get the job done. Josh McCown was tough, but he was a lifetime back up quarterback.

I'll take a prima donna quarterback who can light it up over a tough guy any day of the week and so would Whisenhunt. It's the one position on the field where you forgive sliding instead of running over somebody. As impressive as it was to see John Skelton lower his shoulder, it was also extremely stupid. Skelton is big for a QB, but he is still no match for a 265 lb. rush linebacker running at full speed.

What intrigues me about Gabbert is the article from Sporting News. The great ones (Manning, Brady, Brees, etc..) have an obsession about being better than everyone else. It may be arrogance, but so what. Gabbert is the "gym rat" that Whisenhunt has been asking for. When you read about him taking thousands of reps from under center during his time playing at Mizzou just to get ready for the NFL, that sounds like something Peyton Manning would do.

I'm not saying Gabbert is Manning. I'm just saying that he seems to have that same drive to be the best. Physically Gabbert passes the eyeball test. He is big, fast, and has an NFL caliber arm. The obsessive work ethic is what really intrigues me. He's one of those who eats and breathes football.

Great post, Holian. I think that Gabbert is a pretty tough kid. And I too believe in the kid's desire to excel and the work ethic he brings to the equation.

For the QBs, I wasn't just singling in on toughness/leadership, I was also combining that with decision making ability. Your Josh McCown analogy is on the money if the only criterion is toughness.

What concerned me about Gabbert's play last year were his lower (than what one would hope for from a premier college QB) percentages of converting third downs. In our offense we need a chain mover QB---and I think Gabbert shows promise as one, but Gabbert's decision making wasn't as consistently strong as Dalton's or McElroy's. How about the last play of his bowl game, for example. He was having a very good game, but, with the game on the line and every chance to win it with the ball in his hands, he winds up throwing a totally mind-boggling interception.

In any case, I feel certain that Gabbert will not be available at #5...and I do not see the Cardinals moving up to get him.

 

[Seandonic]

Rating Scale:
1-Exceptional
2-Above Average
3-Average
4-Below Average
5-Minimal

QB:
John Skelton: 1
Richard Bartel: INC
Max Hall: 3
Matt Leinart: 4
Derek Anderson: 4

Here are my evaluations of the top candidates' toughness/leadership:
Marc Bulger-4
Kevin Kolb-3
Donovan McNabb-3
Carson Palmer-3
Alex Smith-3
Bruce Gradkowski-2
Tarvaris Jackson-3
Billy Volek-3
Kyle Orton-2
Vince Young-4
Matt Moore-3
Matt Hasselbeck-3

Roster:
9-Palmer (or 8-Hasselbeck)
19-Skelton
12-McElroy

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written on this subject.

You have to take the whole picture into account when ranking a player. When it comes to QB for instance, you must consider intelligence/awareness and arm strength/physical attributes along with toughness and leadership.

Michael Vick is neither exceptionally tough or intelligent and yet due to his physicality he is a big time winning QB.

The fact that due to your ranking system, you would even mention Max Halls name along with guys like Palmer, McNabb, Bulger, and Hasselbeck is laughably absurd.

Max Hall is a very tough kid and a good leader but when you take in the whole picture he ranks out woefully behind many if not all of the guys you mention.

Skelton is the only number one ranked QB? SERIOUSLY?!?

 

[Duckjake]

Being a physical player doesn't make you tough. Physical is hitting people so that they know they've been hit or taking a hit and bouncing back. Tough is doing that in the 4th quarter when you're down 6 and need the ball back or when you're behind 38-7 or when you're ahead 38-7.

The Cardinals are neither physical nor tough. They don't hit and they quit at the first sign of adversity.

Leinart's toughness was questioned even by his own teammates. If he had been as tough as you make him out to be he would have never been released. Plus, his play in 2009 was listless...and he often looked overwhelmed or scared or whatever it was.

Those same teammates that had that quote that they'll fold made about them?

Just like Adrian Wilson saying the Defense was going to be better because all the me first guys were gone and then having the defense play like a mid level college team.

 

[Mitch]

This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen written on this subject.

You have to take the whole picture into account when ranking a player. When it comes to QB for instance, you must consider intelligence/awareness and arm strength/physical attributes along with toughness and leadership.

Michael Vick is neither exceptionally tough or intelligent and yet due to his physicality he is a big time winning QB.

The fact that due to your ranking system, you would even mention Max Halls name along with guys like Palmer, McNabb, Bulger, and Hasselbeck is laughably absurd.

Max Hall is a very tough kid and a good leader but when you take in the whole picture he ranks out woefully behind many if not all of the guys you mention.

Skelton is the only number one ranked QB? SERIOUSLY?!?

I wasn't comparing Hall to McNabb...just ranking the kid's toughness, which you also recognize.

I think Skelton's toughness is exceptional---and all I could go by is the 4 games he played---where Skelton struggled was in decision making---which is totally understandable seeing as he hadn't run one snap with the first team offense the entire year until Week 14.

The two areas that would seem imperative for a QB to run Whiz's offense effectively are (a) toughness---remember Whiz prefers to isolate the tackles---which didn't bother Warner because he wanted to keep the field spread out and wanted all 5 of his receiving options in play; and (b) decision making.

We are talking about a dink and dunk offense---and what it takes to run it successfully is a game manager at QB---this offense doesn't need a major gunslinger---it needs a tough, smart decision maker.

 

[WildBB]

Great post, Holian. I think that Gabbert is a pretty tough kid. And I too believe in the kid's desire to excel and the work ethic he brings to the equation.

For the QBs, I wasn't just singling in on toughness/leadership, I was also combining that with decision making ability. Your Josh McCown analogy is on the money if the only criterion is toughness.

What concerned me about Gabbert's play last year were his lower (than what one would hope for from a premier college QB) percentages of converting third downs. In our offense we need a chain mover QB---and I think Gabbert shows promise as one, but Gabbert's decision making wasn't as consistently strong as Dalton's or McElroy's. How about the last play of his bowl game, for example. He was having a very good game, but, with the game on the line and every chance to win it with the ball in his hands, he winds up throwing a totally mind-boggling interception.

In any case, I feel certain that Gabbert will not be available at #5...and I do not see the Cardinals moving up to get him.

That is perplexing about him. I agree with Whiz that he's no Matt Ryan or Sam Bradford. He can win you some and he'll lose you some.

With that, IF he is on the board @ 5, there will be a power struggle going on, and you know who will win that struggle. The Bidwells. Gabbert would be the pick for the potential long haul ramifications.

 

[MrYeahBut]

I'm sorry Mitch, Max Hall may be tough but to me he basically stunk it up. Practice squad if at all.
IMHO

 

[TRW]

I would say Mitch has some interesting conclusions on QB's through the years I have read the board. Mostly, I see him being the champion of the backup and long shot. That's not a criticism, Mitch, I enjoy what you post and respect much of what you say. On QB's you just seem to have a quirky side

Max Hall has no business on the Cards roster anywhere. He flat out stinks, toughness notwithstanding (and I don't think he's really that tough, he got busted up pretty good). Skelton is a raw, raw, work in progress that may end up a good one or he may just be a career backup at best. Bartel? Seriously?

If Gabbert is there, the Cards MUST take him. Then, as someone already said, sign a vet (if possible) and go with the vet, Gabbert and Skelton and let it rip. At this point Hasselback, Orton or Palmer would be OK for stop gap, but I doubt any of the 3 of them will be available. So, the Cards will probably have to beg a Garcia, Culpepper or some other castoff, or, God forbid, bring back Anderson. Or, throw Gabbert to the wolves and see where it goes, maybe he will be another Bradford, who knows?

Yes, defense needs help, but MY GOD this team needs a QB desperately. Skelton is the ONLY one from last season who should be on the team, period.

The Cards sure screwed the pooch on the position last season. They can't afford to do it again.

 

[Snakester]

In any case, I feel certain that Gabbert will not be available at #5...and I do not see the Cardinals moving up to get him.

I agree with you on this Mitch. I don't see Gabbert getting past the Bengals. The biggest question I see in the first round is who does Buffalo take. If they take Miller instead of Peterson or Fairley do we then take Robert Quinn or do we take somebody like AJ Green as BPA. Then again if Peterson, Fairley and Quinn are there I can see reasoning for drafting all three. My biggest worry is that we do something stupid and reach for a player because he is at a position of need. At five this draft should be a no-brainer for the Cards. There should not be away to screw up the first round pick.

The second round is where I see us going in any direction. I could see us taking a QB like Colin Kapernick or Ryan Mallet. We may not draft a QB at all, but at least these guy's have NFL talent. My hope is that somehow Carimi or Sherrod fall into the second round and we take them, but I don't see that either. I would love to see us take Brandon Harris with our second round pick, but I think he will be taken in the first as well.

 

[Seandonic]

I would say Mitch has some interesting conclusions on QB's through the years I have read the board. Mostly, I see him being the champion of the backup and long shot. That's not a criticism, Mitch, I enjoy what you post and respect much of what you say. On QB's you just seem to have a quirky side

Max Hall has no business on the Cards roster anywhere. He flat out stinks, toughness notwithstanding (and I don't think he's really that tough, he got busted up pretty good). Skelton is a raw, raw, work in progress that may end up a good one or he may just be a career backup at best. Bartel? Seriously?

If Gabbert is there, the Cards MUST take him. Then, as someone already said, sign a vet (if possible) and go with the vet, Gabbert and Skelton and let it rip. At this point Hasselback, Orton or Palmer would be OK for stop gap, but I doubt any of the 3 of them will be available. So, the Cards will probably have to beg a Garcia, Culpepper or some other castoff, or, God forbid, bring back Anderson. Or, throw Gabbert to the wolves and see where it goes, maybe he will be another Bradford, who knows?

Yes, defense needs help, but MY GOD this team needs a QB desperately. Skelton is the ONLY one from last season who should be on the team, period.

The Cards sure screwed the pooch on the position last season. They can't afford to do it again.

Good stuff.

 

[Cardiac]

The Bengals, owner Brown refuses to trade Palmer and every talking head says he is stubborn so don't expect Palmer to be available. I have heard that the Bengals won't draft a QB in rd1 for a couple of reasons. That would be telling Palmer that they are done with him and they don't want to do that. If the Bengals draft a QB at #4 then the signing bonus etc (even with slotting in a new CBA) will them in a dire situation cap wise if Palmer decides to come back. Palmer would know the money situation and show up at camp in an attempt to force Brown to trade him.

Drafting a QB in rd2 avoids admitting they are moving on from Palmer and the huge investment at the QB position. Palmer is scheduled to make over $11 mill this year.

 

[Cards Czar]

The Bengals, owner Brown refuses to trade Palmer and every talking head says he is stubborn so don't expect Palmer to be available. I have heard that the Bengals won't draft a QB in rd1 for a couple of reasons. That would be telling Palmer that they are done with him and they don't want to do that. If the Bengals draft a QB at #4 then the signing bonus etc (even with slotting in a new CBA) will them in a dire situation cap wise if Palmer decides to come back. Palmer would know the money situation and show up at camp in an attempt to force Brown to trade him.

Drafting a QB in rd2 avoids admitting they are moving on from Palmer and the huge investment at the QB position. Palmer is scheduled to make over $11 mill this year.

True but if Palmer does retire then where does that leave the Bengals.

 

[Duckjake]

I would say Mitch has some interesting conclusions on QB's through the years I have read the board. Mostly, I see him being the champion of the backup and long shot. That's not a criticism, Mitch, I enjoy what you post and respect much of what you say. On QB's you just seem to have a quirky side

Max Hall has no business on the Cards roster anywhere. He flat out stinks, toughness notwithstanding (and I don't think he's really that tough, he got busted up pretty good). Skelton is a raw, raw, work in progress that may end up a good one or he may just be a career backup at best. Bartel? Seriously?

If Gabbert is there, the Cards MUST take him. Then, as someone already said, sign a vet (if possible) and go with the vet, Gabbert and Skelton and let it rip. At this point Hasselback, Orton or Palmer would be OK for stop gap, but I doubt any of the 3 of them will be available. So, the Cards will probably have to beg a Garcia, Culpepper or some other castoff, or, God forbid, bring back Anderson. Or, throw Gabbert to the wolves and see where it goes, maybe he will be another Bradford, who knows?

Yes, defense needs help, but MY GOD this team needs a QB desperately. Skelton is the ONLY one from last season who should be on the team, period.

The Cards sure screwed the pooch on the position last season. They can't afford to do it again.

What if Josh McCown or Max Hall were the best QBs coming out this year? Would you still want to take them at #5? It's not that those of us opposed to taking Gabbert don't see the need for a QB it's that we don't think any of the top college guys this year are good enough to warrant the #5 pick in the draft. Take one and we'll be in the same shape as last season for 3-5 more years.

 

[JeffGollin]

I'm sorry Mitch, Max Hall may be tough but to me he basically stunk it up. Practice squad if at all.
IMHO

Let me restate the above comment more positively but with the same conclusion:

Max may be smart, accurate and tough but:

Given the state of Cardinal pass blocking within the context of their offensive scheme, Hall consistently winds up throwing out of a deep man-hole.

On our team (it's O-line and receivers) you need a guy who can stand tall enough in the pocket to throw over blockers and defenders with a crisp, flat trajectory on short/intermediate passes. Due to Hall's short stature, his passes typically will get batted down or he'll have to give them a trajectory more like a rainbow. He can address some of those issues by rolling out, but he's not very elite in that dept.

Maybe he'd work out fine on a different team in a different set of circumstances, but not on the Cardinals as they're currently structured.

 

[Duckjake]

Let me restate the above comment more positively but with the same conclusion:

Max may be smart, accurate and tough but:

He's too small.

Fumbles or gets hurt every time he gets hit. The NFL is no place for a guy like Max.

 

[kerouac9]

He's too small.

Fumbles or gets hurt every time he gets hit. The NFL is no place for a guy like Max.

Too small is only part of the problem. The other part is a noodle arm. Brees is small, but he has an NFL-caliber arm and so he can find his passing lanes and get the ball out.

Hall is fearless, but his passing ability doesn't back up his fearlessness. He makes Jeff Garcia look like Jeff George.

 

[Duckjake]

Too small is only part of the problem. The other part is a noodle arm. Brees is small, but he has an NFL-caliber arm and so he can find his passing lanes and get the ball out.

Hall is fearless, but his passing ability doesn't back up his fearlessness. He makes Jeff Garcia look like Jeff George.

I don't know. Brees doesn't get hurt or fumble every time he gets hit. I don't think Hall is even as big as Brees.

 

[Mulli]

I don't know. Brees doesn't get hurt or fumble every time he gets hit. I don't think Hall is even as big as Brees.

Yep.

 

[Stout]

What if Josh McCown or Max Hall were the best QBs coming out this year? Would you still want to take them at #5? It's not that those of us opposed to taking Gabbert don't see the need for a QB it's that we don't think any of the top college guys this year are good enough to warrant the #5 pick in the draft. Take one and we'll be in the same shape as last season for 3-5 more years.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

 

[TRW]

What if Josh McCown or Max Hall were the best QBs coming out this year? Would you still want to take them at #5? It's not that those of us opposed to taking Gabbert don't see the need for a QB it's that we don't think any of the top college guys this year are good enough to warrant the #5 pick in the draft. Take one and we'll be in the same shape as last season for 3-5 more years.

I don't think the top college guys this year are comparable to your examples at all. Neither Josh nor Max would EVER be in the discussion for a top 5 pick, EVER. I agree that there are question marks on Gabbert and Newton and understand the opposing viewpoint entirely.

However, I think Whis set the Cardinals shape QB-wise 3-5 more years after last seasons debacle. So, I roll the dice on the #5 pick on Gabbert/Newton if they are there.

If the Cards take one of the defensive "studs" at #5, then I wouldn't be upset or tearing out my hair either. I lean toward taking the chance at QB is all.

 

[Duckjake]

I don't think the top college guys this year are comparable to your examples at all. Neither Josh nor Max would EVER be in the discussion for a top 5 pick, EVER. I agree that there are question marks on Gabbert and Newton and understand the opposing viewpoint

What have you seen that makes Newton or Gabbert or any of the other QBs better prospects than Josh McCown? This is the same type QB class we saw in 2007 that produced Russell, Quinn, Kolb, Beck and Stanton.

 

[TRW]

What have you seen that makes Newton or Gabbert or any of the other QBs better prospects than Josh McCown? This is the same type QB class we saw in 2007 that produced Russell, Quinn, Kolb, Beck and Stanton.

Josh, I believe, was a 3rd rounder out of Sam Houston State. Max Hall wasn't drafted at all, I believe. I don't recall, maybe you do, that in 2002 Josh McCown was being touted as a top 5 pick?

I didn't see Josh play in college, so I don't know how he "looked". I saw Gabbert and I saw Newton play some last year. I think Gabbert will probably be better earlier than Newton in the pro game. I also think that he can be in the Bradford/Stafford (when healthy) class.

I think Newton can develope into a better than Vince Young and not quite a Michael Vick type running QB. I like Cam Newton a lot, but I have lost a little enthusiasm about his mental makeup the last few times I heard him speak (particularly the Gruden piece). But, I think if he works hard, he will be OK. He is NOT a Jamarcus Russell by any means, but he has a bit more way to go than Gabbert.

I like both Gabbert and Newton's arm strength, size and athletic ability. Gabbert is a better athlete than he seems to get credited for.

You have your view, I have mine, no big deal. Like I said, if the Cards go a different direction, it won't ruin my day (unless they draft some Nobody OLB from Podunk U. at #5).

 

[Mitch]

What have you seen that makes Newton or Gabbert or any of the other QBs better prospects than Josh McCown? This is the same type QB class we saw in 2007 that produced Russell, Quinn, Kolb, Beck and Stanton.

The question is a valid one. Because the demand on QBs is always so high, no matter what prospects come into the draft, pundits will try to hype them as much as they can. Has there ever been a draft where NO QBs were taken in the first round?

To switch gears here for a minute with regard to a QB in this draft who is swiftly climbing the boards: Andy Dalton of TCU.

If you saw Jon Gruden's interview at his QB Camp with Dalton---it was, imo, the most impressive interview of the batch (I also was very impressed with Jake Locker). Dalton handled everything Grudes threw at him with total poise and confidence. Gruden himself looked pleasantly impressed...and one might imagine he relayed his impressions to his brother Jay in Cincy.

Jay Gruden is now the OC in Cincy. Word out of Cincy is that Jay Gruden has been unable to hide his enthusiasm for QB Andy Dalton, who has met with the Bengals and has talked with them on several other occasions.

Obviously, Jay Gruden doesn't pay attention to the pundits---nor should he. He likes Dalton---a player the pundits have projected as a 2nd-3rd rounder, the best...more than he likes Cam Newton and more than he likes Blaine Gabbert.

The problem for Jay Gruden now is having to hope Dalton is still available at #35. Other teams might feel the same as he does about Dalton. It wouldn't surprise me if the Patriots---who have for a long time needed a good backup for Brady and candidate for QBOF, take him at #33, for example...or possibly even at #28...because the Jets have shown interest in Dalton as well and they pick at #30.

As crazy as players' stocks can rise...Dalton actually may wind up going as high as #8 to Tennessee or #10 to Washington or #12 to Minnesota. if that's then case, Jay Gruden may be able to make a case to Marvin Lewis and Mike Brown to take Dalton at #4.

That is how important getting what you consider to be the right fit at QB is. The Bengals can draft Dalton at #4 for sure...it's the only way they can ensure it, other than trying to move back into the 1st round and having to give up high picks to do so.

That's what's so tantalizing about the draft---teams get criticized for "reaching" for players (based un the pundits' projections), yet if you want a player who is a great fit---you can't risk giving all 32 teams a shot of taking him within the next 32 picks---you either grab him when you pick or you lose him to another team. That's the way it goes.

 

[kerouac9]

Josh, I believe, was a 3rd rounder out of Sam Houston State. Max Hall wasn't drafted at all, I believe. I don't recall, maybe you do, that in 2002 Josh McCown was being touted as a top 5 pick?

I didn't see Josh play in college, so I don't know how he "looked". I saw Gabbert and I saw Newton play some last year. I think Gabbert will probably be better earlier than Newton in the pro game. I also think that he can be in the Bradford/Stafford (when healthy) class.

I think Newton can develope into a better than Vince Young and not quite a Michael Vick type running QB. I like Cam Newton a lot, but I have lost a little enthusiasm about his mental makeup the last few times I heard him speak (particularly the Gruden piece). But, I think if he works hard, he will be OK. He is NOT a Jamarcus Russell by any means, but he has a bit more way to go than Gabbert.

I like both Gabbert and Newton's arm strength, size and athletic ability. Gabbert is a better athlete than he seems to get credited for.

You have your view, I have mine, no big deal. Like I said, if the Cards go a different direction, it won't ruin my day (unless they draft some Nobody OLB from Podunk U. at #5).

Sam Bradford had a 76.5 QB rating his rookie season. His offense mustered 6 points in an essential playoff game in Seattle. He had one 300-yard passing day against a Denver Broncos team that had given up on their coach and the season. His team went 7-9 and their one road win was against us.

Matt Stafford's career QB rating is 67.1. He's appeared in 13 games in his pro career.

Perhaps we should temper our enthusiasm for a player that might be in the same class as these two guys.

 

[Mulli]

Sam Bradford had a 76.5 QB rating his rookie season. His offense mustered 6 points in an essential playoff game in Seattle. He had one 300-yard passing day against a Denver Broncos team that had given up on their coach and the season. His team went 7-9 and their one road win was against us.

Matt Stafford's career QB rating is 67.1. He's appeared in 13 games in his pro career.

Perhaps we should temper our enthusiasm for a player that might be in the same class as these two guys.

Bradford's second half was pretty good. Wasn't it?