OT: It's official, Jameis Winston doesn't have the intelligence for the NFL

Nonentity said:

The thing is, quarterbacks have to be almost perfect in order to succeed.

Do they have all the arm strength to make all the throws?
Can they throw the ball accurately & into tight spaces?
Can they handle the pass rush?
Do they have the mental ability to understand elite defenses?
Do they have the work ethic to prepare for opponents properly?
Do they have the maturity to avoid off-field distractions and achieve all of these consistently?


I don't think many people doubt that Winston has the ability to do the first 5, it's number 6 that's the problem. The fear is that at some point, off-the-field issues will take over - whether it's alcohol, drugs, women or something else.

If you're the owner of a QB-needy team, are you willing to give him several million dollars, 6 months a year of free time and the keys to your franchise?

Click to expand...

Start with the number 32, for the number of teams in the league
Come up with the number of all the NFL QBs who are legit, and subtract it from the number above

You've now found, approximately, the number of teams that have almost no shot of winning the Super Bowl anytime soon. That's why teams who miss on the QB will keep drafting QBs. That's why Johnny Manziel got drafted in the first round. That's why Mark Sanchez went #5 in the draft.

In today's NFL, you need the quarterback. If you don't have him, you almost might as well spend all 7 draft picks trying to find him.

TommyBrady12 said:

and joe flacco is bad because....

Click to expand...

He's not, as I mentioned in my next post, though he's also no superstar. I'd be happy with a Flacco or Roethlisberger - Winston's comparables - quarterbacking my team for the next 10 years.

Winston has killed the combine interviews, apparently. The guy is really smart and very adeptly ran an offense that was about as close to the pros as you'll find in college. He's not a Luck-level sure thing, especially because of the maturity issues, but if I was Tampa I would much rather take a chance on him than someone like, say, Blake Bortles.

Deus Irae said:

Start with the number 32, for the number of teams in the league
Come up with the number of all the NFL QBs who are legit, and subtract it from the number above

You've now found, approximately, the number of teams that have almost no shot of winning the Super Bowl anytime soon. That's why teams who miss on the QB will keep drafting QBs. That's why Johnny Manziel got drafted in the first round. That's why Mark Sanchez went #5 in the draft.

In today's NFL, you need the quarterback. If you don't have him, you almost might as well spend all 7 draft picks trying to find him.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

If I was a QB-needy team, I would keep drafting quarterbacks too.

My one reservation is this - that if you don't believe that any of the quarterbacks in Round 1 of a draft are future franchise quarterbacks, then don't draft any of them. Strengthen the rest of your team and stick a placeholder at QB. Look for development quarterbacks in the later rounds instead.


There was a great quote in one of the books on Belichick/the Pats, that only about 10 teams are actually competing for the championship each year. The rest are so dysfunctional or lacking in talent that they have absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Nonentity said:

I completely agree.

If I was a QB-needy team, I would keep drafting quarterbacks too.

My one reservation is this - that if you don't believe that any of the quarterbacks in Round 1 of a draft are future franchise quarterbacks, then don't draft any of them. Strengthen the rest of your team and stick a placeholder at QB. Look for development quarterbacks in the later rounds instead.


There was a great quote in one of the books on Belichick/the Pats, that only about 10 teams are actually competing for the championship each year. The rest are so dysfunctional or lacking in talent that they have absolutely no chance whatsoever.

Click to expand...

I agree with the idea that you have to think the available QBs have a shot of making it (which is why I'd said "almost worth it". Teams that reach for QBs are in just as much trouble as teams that don't draft them (see Browns, Cleveland).

But, just for the sake of this particular discussion, if you take a look at the QBs drafted year after year, there is almost always at least one QB worth taking.

Deus Irae said:

I agree with the idea that you have to think the available QBs have a shot of making it (which is why I'd said "almost worth it". Teams that reach for QBs are in just as much trouble as teams that don't draft them (see Browns, Cleveland).

But, just for the sake of this particular discussion, if you take a look at the QBs drafted year after year, there is almost always at least one QB worth taking.

Click to expand...

The other major issue is that it's near impossible to *really* develop more than one QB at any given time. Only one guy's going to be starting, getting the majority of practice snaps, and playing week in and week out. If you're on the clock and you don't see a guy that you have a good amount of confidence in, I think you're probably better off filling in the rest of your team and taking a developmental flyer late instead.

BradyFTW! said:

The other major issue is that it's near impossible to *really* develop more than one QB at any given time. Only one guy's going to be starting, getting the majority of practice snaps, and playing week in and week out. If you're on the clock and you don't see a guy that you have a good amount of confidence in, I think you're probably better off filling in the rest of your team and taking a developmental flyer late instead.

Click to expand...

That is exactly correct. The QB's drafted that have had success were drafted by teams that were well rounded. Wilson went to a good Hawk team, Ryan ended up on a good Falcon team, Flacco had a good Raven team and you can keep going.

Bed Check Billy said:

That is exactly correct. The QB's drafted that have had success were drafted by teams that were well rounded. Wilson went to a good Hawk team, Ryan ended up on a good Falcon team, Flacco had a good Raven team and you can keep going.

Click to expand...

With the notable exception of Luck, although I think Luck is about as bust-proof a QB as you'll ever find coming out of college. He's the rare guy who can thrive even going to a team as dysfunctional and generally ****ty as the Colts.

Bed Check Billy said:

That is exactly correct. The QB's drafted that have had success were drafted by teams that were well rounded. Wilson went to a good Hawk team, Ryan ended up on a good Falcon team, Flacco had a good Raven team and you can keep going.

Click to expand...

Atlanta was a lousy team before Ryan arrived.
The Colts were a train wreck the year before Peyton arrived.
The Packers were terrible before Favre took over.
The Giants were a combined 10-22 in the two years Prior to Eli becoming the full-tme starter.
The Chargers were garbage (6-26) before Brees.

There have been plenty of good QBs drafted by bad teams that led to turnarounds.

Why does this board not have an NFL forum? There are lots of discussion we can have about things developing in the NFL that is not directly Pats related but tangentially significant to discuss but not suited to this forum.

vuudu said:

Why does this board not have an NFL forum? There are lots of discussion we can have about things developing in the NFL that is not directly Pats related but tangentially significant to discuss but not suited to this forum.

Click to expand...

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/forums/nfl-football-forum.95/


IMO, the problem is more that the board is so Pats-centric, which is fine during busy times, but an issue during the slow times, when allowing more NFL talk on the main board would make for more activity. Secondary forums aren't usually traffic drivers.

Deus Irae said:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/forums/nfl-football-forum.95/


IMO, the problem is more that the board is so Pats-centric, which is fine during busy times, but an issue during the slow times, when allowing more NFL talk on the main board would make for more activity. Secondary forums aren't usually traffic drivers.

Click to expand...

wow, I have never looked at those sections until deflategate went there. I guess most people don't even see it as well. Thank you.

To me (and hey, what do I know since I'm an idiot like most of you, if not all of you), there are certain guidelines to follow for drafting a QB. Most of them center on guys like Brady and Montana. Again, I'm just relating what I look for in a QB. If anybody finds it instructional or valid, I'd be gratified. If not, that's AOK, too.

1) Have they ever faced any type of football-related adversity? Being buried on the depth chart? Criticized for poor mechanics? Playing in lousy weather? Did they respond well to this?

2) What about the program they came from? Did they come from one where everybody was 5 star recruit level or did they help elevate their team? If everybody was 5 star level, did they help make sure the team played like it?

3) How do they conduct themselves within the team and with the media? Did they make sure the focus stayed on the team when it should? Did they take the blame when they should?

4) Do they fit the style of football you want to play/can play? If the answer is no, then even if they are a great prospect, they are a bad fit for your team.

Let's answer those questions for Brady when he was coming out:

1) When he started at Michigan, he was 7th on the depth chart. He spent two years being a backup. Even after his first full season as a starter where he performed beyond expectations, they still wanted Henson to start. Brady had to win his job again. He played in Michigan outdoors. He knew enough to get help with his mechanics and his mental preparation. As far as we know, he did this all on his own. Nobody had to tell him to improve this or that. He knew and accepted that responsibility.

2) Brady made sure everybody on his team played hard. He led the team because everyone respected him.

3) Never a bad thing was said about Brady's demeanor on or off the field. He earned the nickname 'The Comeback Kid' for his grit and determination.

4) Brady fit the bill for the type of offense that Belichick wanted to run during those years. Belichick made sure the system was a fit for the young quarterback.

You could go through and give roughly the same answers for Montana, as well.

If you can say the same about Winston and Mariota, you draft them. If you can't, you don't.

Deus Irae said:

Atlanta was a lousy team before Ryan arrived.
The Colts were a train wreck the year before Peyton arrived.
The Packers were terrible before Favre took over.
The Giants were a combined 10-22 in the two years Prior to Eli becoming the full-tme starter.
The Chargers were garbage (6-26) before Brees.

There have been plenty of good QBs drafted by bad teams that led to turnarounds.

Click to expand...

Atlanta did not have a lousy team. They had decent players and had gone to the playoffs with Vick.

The Giants weren't great but they did not have immediate success with Eli either. For his first few years, Eli was thought of as a bust. There was even talk about the Gints not resigning him off of his rookie deal.

Peyton was an exception to the rule.

The Chargers had a great coach in Marty and they had LT, Merriman, etc. They were a good team.

Bed Check Billy said:

Atlanta did not have a lousy team. They had decent players and had gone to the playoffs with Vick.

The Giants weren't great but they did not have immediate success with Eli either. For his first few years, Eli was thought of as a bust. There was even talk about the Gints not resigning him off of his rookie deal.

Peyton was an exception to the rule.

The Chargers had a great coach in Marty and they had LT, Merriman, etc. They were a good team.

Click to expand...

Atlanta was coming off

8-8
7-9
6-12

You reinforce my point with the Giants

The Chargers were coming off

8-8
4-12
5-11
8-8
1-15
5-11


I wasn't even making anything approaching an exhaustive list, either. Heck, you cited Baltimore as a good team. They were a very inconsistent, mostly mediocre, team before Flacco's arrival.

7-9
10-6
9-7
6-10
13-3
5-11

Your claim just doesn't hold water.

Deus Irae said:

Atlanta was a lousy team before Ryan arrived.
The Colts were a train wreck the year before Peyton arrived.
The Packers were terrible before Favre took over.
The Giants were a combined 10-22 in the two years Prior to Eli becoming the full-tme starter.
The Chargers were garbage (6-26) before Brees.

There have been plenty of good QBs drafted by bad teams that led to turnarounds.

Click to expand...

Is someone arguing you don't need a quarterback? To me, the argument is, a first overall, or close, is extremely valuable. If the pick is not worth that, trade or pick someone else.

Per your example, the Packers traded for second round pick Favre.

Deus Irae said:

Atlanta was coming off

8-8
7-9
6-12

You reinforce my point with the Giants

The Chargers were coming off

8-8
4-12
5-11
8-8
1-15
5-11


I wasn't even making anything approaching an exhaustive list, either. Heck, you cited Baltimore as a good team. They were a very inconsistent, mostly mediocre, team before Flacco's arrival.

7-9
10-6
9-7
6-10
13-3
5-11

Your claim just doesn't hold water.

Click to expand...

I think you are missing my point. They were good teams with a bad record because they didn't have a QB. They didn't draft QBs in the first round just for the sake of taking one. They built their teams until their was one worth taking. That is why those teams had success. The records have nothing to do with it. Those franchises built their teams through the draft and took the best player available. They didn't desperately grab a QB at the top of the draft just because they needed one.

Bed Check Billy said:

I think you are missing my point. They were good teams with a bad record because they didn't have a QB. They didn't draft QBs in the first round just for the sake of taking one. They built their teams until their was one worth taking. That is why those teams had success. The records have nothing to do with it. Those franchises built their teams through the draft and took the best player available. They didn't desperately grab a QB at the top of the draft just because they needed one.

Click to expand...

I don't think I'm missing your point, at all. I think you're wildly overrating those teams, and history supports my position. I'll leave it at that.

TommyBrady12 said:

Impressive interview with steve mariucci

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-combi.../Winston-and-Mooch-simulate-a-draft-interview

Click to expand...

That means less than nothing to me. The press always pimps the next Great Hope at QB whenver one of them is in the draft, character/competence flaws be damned.

I think that Winston has a better shot than Mariota, who looks much skinnier and fragile than Winston. Although Mariota is 6'4" and 220lbs, he looks one hit away from the bench.

The two best QB's last year were Brady, a pocket passer who showed great movement in the pocket, and Rodgers, who has great mobility, can run and can throw. After that, no matter what the stats say, they were all stiffs.

But those guys come along once every 30 years!

If Winston or Mariota are as good as Vick or Kapernick were for the short periods, they would bring good value to their teams.