Actually I think Cleveland may take Barkley with their 1st pick, then QB. There's not enough proven difference between QBs to risk losing Barkley to the g-girls. QBs are a 50/50 toss up at best, even in the 1st round. But Barkley is as close to a guarantee as you can get. So take the guarantee 1st overall, then whichever QB is still around with they pick 4th. That's how I'd roll.
You are correct. Tyrod Taylor has he same issues...he has zero game in the middle of the field b/c at 6'-1" he simply can't see it.
the same Russell Wilson who threw a SB-losing int into the middle of the field? He never saw it coming
Today’s Giants’ trade all but guarantees they trade # 2 to Denver for # 5 and draft Chubb. That means the Jets probably end up with the 3rd QB on their board.
Well that’s if you assume that both Chubb will be at 5 and Denver has any interest in selling the farm for a QB after guaranteeing 2 years to a QB already. Both of which I have my doubts about.
I was watching Colin Cowherd's mock draft just now and he's got three QBs going 1/2/3 with Arizona trading for the Giants pick. I think this is a likely result except I would think Buffalo would be the ones to jump to #2 for Josh Allen. Mayfield? Not one of the three.
Def a unique opinion. How does he have the least to learn though? He needs to learn how to throw a football accurately lol
If you say Mayfield's passing stats are inflated because of spread offense, I don't see how you can possibly like Jackson. Jackson is sub 60% passer in the spread. I get the point about dual threat, but first and foremost I want an accurate QB. If Jackson runs too much in NFL, he will get hurt. He is no 6-6 260lb Cam Newton, and even Newton had pretty high QBR when Carolina made their run. I do realize his running ability is an added benefit, which probably puts him in the first round, but he is inaccurate passer, and I just don't think ground game makes up for it. Not at the pro level. Also, trading back at this point is not an option - we will never get the value we spend just to move 3 spots.
Thank you for the insightful post. Taking a look at the starters in NFL, I do see 2 to 1 ratio in favor of QBs who played pro style offense. However, it's tough to say whether it is statistically significant. It seems like there is enough of good QBs in NFL that came from spread. It's not something to "overcome". I get the point they have to learn a lot in the new formation (and pro style is just that, a formation), but we won't need our QB to start right away - they can spend time learning. Or even if they start and struggle some in the first year, that's OK too. As long as intelligence, accuracy, fundamentals are there, they will learn. Also, keep in mind, when we are talking about Mayfield's inflated stats due to spread, we are talking about stats that are out of this world. This is not just a good spread QB, this is probably one of the all time greats in NCAA history. Even if you say that Mayfield's accuracy is 5% inflated compared to pro style offense, you are still at 65.5 (70.5 - 5). My point is that you are not taking an average QB and adjusting for spread's lesser degree of difficulty. You are taking the guy who set QBR all time records and then broke these records. He happened to play in spread offense, but he also made himself the best at it, and this ability translates to next level.
It's true that given a QB is good in the NFL, he's more likely to be from a pro-style offense. It isn't true that given a QB is from a pro-style offense, he's more likely to be good in the NFL.
Do Russell Wilson and Brees wear stilts to see this middle as they are both shorter than Tyrod Taylor, you're chatting shit.
