Is Mariota the Best 'Spread/Dual Threat' QB Prospect? (1 Viewer)

[mr roboto]

I've been listening to Greg Cosell and others talk about Mariota as a prospect, mentioning that the recent failures of Robert Griffin and Kaepernick and to a lesser extent Cam Newton have caused people to doubt the ability for a mobile quarterback from a spread offense to translate to the NFL. One point that is consistently made is that Mariota's lack of pocket passing experience does not necessarily mean he can't become a pocket passer but simply that no one knows if he can or not which causes doubt.

It got me thinking, however, is Mariota the best mobile quarterback prospect or spread offense prospect or however you want to phrase it to come out of college in the last five years? His completion percentage and touchdown to interception ratios are exceptional within that offense and he's also as fast as just about anybody who has come out and seems to have the prototypical size and decent arm strength which are components that can help him transition into an NFL offense.

Where would you rank Mariota in relation to guys like Robert Griffin, Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson or anybody else you can think of that may fit a similar mold?

 

[cstu]

Steve Young and Russell Wilson (so far) are the best dual threat QB's in history. Mariota does have the same potential as those guys.

I also compared Griffin to Steve Young when he came out and before he was injured it looked like that's who he'd become. Unfortunately between his injuries and apparent lack of dedication he's not getting there.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

As far as coming out of college? I'd say no. Guys like Newton RG3 and even Vick were hands down looked at as better IMO

 

[mr roboto]

As far as coming out of college? I'd say no. Guys like Newton RG3 and even Vick were hands down looked at as better IMO

For their running, passing or both?

 

[mr roboto]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

 

[Xue]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

 

[jurb26]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

 

[mr roboto]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

 

[jurb26]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

In limited work I think he displayed better feel and confidence in the pocket to make throws. More NFL passes as well.

 

[mr roboto]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

In limited work I think he displayed better feel and confidence in the pocket to make throws. More NFL passes as well.

Yeah that's true. This whole issue of MM not needing to do those things in college makes the evaluation hard. I think MM's career and development may be one of the most interesting analytical story lines in football over the next few years.

 

[Freelove]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

He wasn't.

What makes somebody a great prospect is a variety of NFL-level tools, coupled with the ability, willingness, and track record to make good decisions with those tools. That's it.

Russell Wilson isn't the most athletic runner among QB's. But he runs smart, taking off only when lanes are available, and hitting the turf early enough to avoid trouble. He doesn't have a strong deep ball, but has developed a reputation as a good deep passer because he only goes downfield when the threat of the run (including his own scrambling threat) guarantees a wideout in at worst one-on-one isolation deep. At that point, a jump ball becomes a plus wager. He's succeeded because he's optimized his skills with consistent good decision making.

Much of the same was true of Steve Young. He was never the most scintillating passer, but in the short, timing-based game the WCO mandated he master, Young was virtually error-free. So much so, his efficiency records stood for a generation after retirement, despite a huge trend toward overall greater passing efficiencies across the league.

These same things are why the busts bust, most of the time. Griffin ran stupidly, and got killed for it. Then, when being hobbled forced him to rely on his arm, he proved incapable of regularly doing so without botching it. Vick had a little of the same PLUS a tidy penchant for making bad off-field decisions to boot.

Decision making is the only really mandatory NFL QB skill, once you have tools that take you past certain NFL-capable thresholds. And Mariota has been magnificent his whole college career at showcasing that skill. That doesn't guarantee he'll be a franchise QB and an All-Pro, but it's as close as you can get to being a guarantee he won't completely flame out, barring fluke injury (which is a very different thing from the sorts of injuries you put yourself in the way of).

Seeing a dedication to this sort of consistently good decision making is pretty far from an exact science. That's why you see Wilsons and Bradys slide in the draft, then excel.

But the flip side -- the guys with ten cent heads who are going to make it tougher than it needs to be on themselves, their coaches, and their franchises -- is usually simple to spot.

I'm not in love with Mariota's ceiling, but his head makes him one the three or four safest, highest-floor, QB candidates of the last decade. He's a guy you can take, and feel fairly confident your team will be in the hands of a guy who won't give away game after game.

It's also why that other QB at the top of the mock drafts is a terrible risk anywhere near where he's being touted.

 

[GridironMenace]

Randall Cunningham was pretty damn good.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

In limited work I think he displayed better feel and confidence in the pocket to make throws. More NFL passes as well.

Yeah that's true. This whole issue of MM not needing to do those things in college makes the evaluation hard.I think MM's career and development may be one of the most interesting analytical story lines in football over the next few years.

Tannehill was a late riser that many thought wouldn't even be going in the 1st round were it not for the extreme need for QBs that year. No way he was graded as a better prospect than Mariota.

RG3 was the prime dual threat prospect because his strength as a prospect was as a passer, and he just happened to also be really fast. I think he was a much more highly regarded prospect than Mariota.

Cam is tough to gauge. He was a good prospect, but there was very much a "well I guess someone has to be the 1st overall pick, and it should probably be a QB" aura going around that year.

 

[jurb26]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

In limited work I think he displayed better feel and confidence in the pocket to make throws. More NFL passes as well.

Yeah that's true. This whole issue of MM not needing to do those things in college makes the evaluation hard.I think MM's career and development may be one of the most interesting analytical story lines in football over the next few years.

Tannehill was a late riser that many thought wouldn't even be going in the 1st round were it not for the extreme need for QBs that year. No way he was graded as a better prospect than Mariota.

RG3 was the prime dual threat prospect because his strength as a prospect was as a passer, and he just happened to also be really fast. I think he was a much more highly regarded prospect than Mariota.

Cam is tough to gauge. He was a good prospect, but there was very much a "well I guess someone has to be the 1st overall pick, and it should probably be a QB" aura going around that year.

Tannehill was a later riser because so little was available of him playing QB. If you go back and watch his game you will see why he was taken so early. I felt I missed on him as a prospect and so I did exactly that. I went back and watch more of him to see what I missed, if anything. I came away feeling I did miss on him. He was a much better prospect than people are giving him credit for.Just because guy sneaks up on most of us doesn't mean he was a reach. Was Bortles a reach last year? He snuck up on just as many people as Tannehill did.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's probably not fair to include guys drafted in the 2nd round to the comp, let alone 3rd. I suppose you did though, so some guys should probably be included. I'd rank them, as prospects alone and removing NFL success we've seen, as this.

Griffin

Newton

Tannehill

Mariota

Carr

Manziel

G. Smith

Kaepernick

Thanks. What made Tannehill a better prospect that Mariota in your opinion?

In limited work I think he displayed better feel and confidence in the pocket to make throws. More NFL passes as well.

Yeah that's true. This whole issue of MM not needing to do those things in college makes the evaluation hard.I think MM's career and development may be one of the most interesting analytical story lines in football over the next few years.

Tannehill was a late riser that many thought wouldn't even be going in the 1st round were it not for the extreme need for QBs that year. No way he was graded as a better prospect than Mariota.

RG3 was the prime dual threat prospect because his strength as a prospect was as a passer, and he just happened to also be really fast. I think he was a much more highly regarded prospect than Mariota.

Cam is tough to gauge. He was a good prospect, but there was very much a "well I guess someone has to be the 1st overall pick, and it should probably be a QB" aura going around that year.

Tannehill was a later riser because so little was available of him playing QB. If you go back and watch his game you will see why he was taken so early. I felt I missed on him as a prospect and so I did exactly that. I went back and watch more of him to see what I missed, if anything. I came away feeling I did miss on him. He was a much better prospect than people are giving him credit for.Just because guy sneaks up on most of us doesn't mean he was a reach. Was Bortles a reach last year? He snuck up on just as many people as Tannehill did.

It's not just that he snuck up on people. Even at the end there was no shortage of people that thought he was being drafted early based primarily on positional need, even if there were equally as many that thought he belonged on talent alone.

Scott Wright had him down at the 17th overall player in his final rankings. And there were no shortage of write-ups like this in regards to his placing in mock drafts:

The Dolphins whiffed on Peyton Manning. Matt Flynn signed with the Seahawks. Even Alex Smith laughed at their efforts to sign him, claiming that the sole purpose of his trip to Miami was just to see South Beach for the first time in his life. Miami's quarterback situation is a mess, and this is its one opportunity to fix it.

Ryan Tannehill has been pushed into the top 10 because of the need at the position, but if Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder can be top-12 picks, so can he. He's the favorite to be chosen here, as the NFL Network's Albert Breer reported that Miami already liked Tannehill even before it hired Mike Sherman to be the offensive coordinator.

 

[cstu]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wilson played in a spread offense at NC State and had one year in a pro-style offense (which also had a lot of shotgun) at Wisconsin.

Give Mariota a year to learn like Wilson did and I think he'll develop in a similar way.

 

[cstu]

Tannehill was a later riser because so little was available of him playing QB. If you go back and watch his game you will see why he was taken so early. I felt I missed on him as a prospect and so I did exactly that. I went back and watch more of him to see what I missed, if anything. I came away feeling I did miss on him. He was a much better prospect than people are giving him credit for.

I didn't like him as a prospect and have gone back and looked at his college tape to see if I was unfair to him. Yes, he could run and had decent pocket presence but could not throw a deep ball to save his life. He's developed that to become average at it (for an NFL QB) but still needs to develop his deep passing..

 

[cstu]

Cam is tough to gauge. He was a good prospect, but there was very much a "well I guess someone has to be the 1st overall pick, and it should probably be a QB" aura going around that year.

Cam had issues as a passer but still completed 66% with a 10.1 YPA and was possibly the most dominating running college QB to ever play.

 

[cstu]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

It really hasn't - Luck, Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Tannehill, and Bridgewater can all run. The only top QBs under 30 who don't run are Ryan and Stafford.

 

[-CE-]

The answer to the question is yes for best spread offense QB, only because the other QB's didn't run in a system that came even close to Mariota.

As far as duel threat... I'd say he's less athletic than a RGIII, Vick, but is a much more accurate/better passer. I'd put his athleticism on par with a Kaepernick or Newton, better passer than Kaepernick, not as good as Newton.

Russell Wilson beats him in all categories.

 

[mr roboto]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

It really hasn't - Luck, Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Tannehill, and Bridgewater can all run. The only top QBs under 30 who don't run are Ryan and Stafford.

Can run isn't the same as featured to run.

 

[cstu]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

It really hasn't - Luck, Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Tannehill, and Bridgewater can all run. The only top QBs under 30 who don't run are Ryan and Stafford.

Can run isn't the same as featured to run.

Griffin and Cam weren't drafted to be featured to run, they were drafted to be passing QB's who can run.

 

[mr roboto]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

It really hasn't - Luck, Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Tannehill, and Bridgewater can all run. The only top QBs under 30 who don't run are Ryan and Stafford.

Can run isn't the same as featured to run.

Griffin and Cam weren't drafted to be featured to run, they were drafted to be passing QB's who can run.

You know what I mean. Rodgers, Luck, Bridgewater CAN tuck and run. Wilson, Cam, RG3, Kaep had running plays built for them and their running ability was an intentional feature of the game plan. It's not accurate to lump them all together iMO.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

Keep in mind too that when RG3 and Cam came out folks were still sort of enamored with the idea of the new breed of QB. The shine has worn thin on that idea since then.

I guess my question is removing the inflated excitement of past years (in other words the general environment has changed regarding the dual threat QB) is Mariota a better prospect?

It really hasn't - Luck, Rodgers, Wilson, Newton, Tannehill, and Bridgewater can all run. The only top QBs under 30 who don't run are Ryan and Stafford.

I dont put RG3, Cam, Vick in with Luck Rodgers or Tannehill-- The former use their legs as their #1 asset

 

[CalBear]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

 

[-CE-]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

 

[Xue]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

 

[-CE-]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

That's not what you said though.

Your point is that the receivers look good because of the scheme. I'd invite you to go check your own statement above and let me know what 5* talent Oregon has recruited at the WR position...

I don't think any of the WR's at Oregon are elite athletes for WR's. Their RB's are consistently elite athletes, not their WR's.

 

[Xue]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

That's not what you said though.

Your point is that the receivers look good because of the scheme. I'd invite you to go check your own statement above and let me know what 5* talent Oregon has recruited at the WR position...

I don't think any of the WR's at Oregon are elite athletes for WR's. Their RB's are consistently elite athletes, not their WR's.

Uh..it's not what I said? Um...is it that hard to understand?

You're missing the big picture if this is what you're focused on.

I'd invite you to tell me what NFL WRs has come out of Oregon.

Read my edited post above.

 

[Bruce Hammond]

I'd invite you to tell me what NFL WRs has come out of Oregon.

Currently only Drew Davis, Josh Huff, Jeff Maehl, Will Murphy. Not much to get excited about in that group.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/college?letter=o

 

[-CE-]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

That's not what you said though.

Your point is that the receivers look good because of the scheme. I'd invite you to go check your own statement above and let me know what 5* talent Oregon has recruited at the WR position...

I don't think any of the WR's at Oregon are elite athletes for WR's. Their RB's are consistently elite athletes, not their WR's.

Uh..it's not what I said? Um...is it that hard to understand?

You're missing the big picture if this is what you're focused on.

I'd invite you to tell me what NFL WRs has come out of Oregon.

Read my edited post above.

When you say an elite athlete at the receiving position is the reason for Mariota's success, but then make the comment that the receivers aren't NFL quality, I'd argue that something in your logic is amiss. Generally speaking you would expect an elite athlete who is responsible for the success of a quarterback (Mariota) to make the NFL. You go on to site 5* recruits, of which Oregon has little (none?) at the receiving position.

Its a bit ironic that you miss the big picture in your own argument as well. Your argument is (or at least should be) that Oregon's offense is gimmicky, thus Mariota's success. Instead you seem to want to go down on the ship that elite athletes at the receiving positions are the reason for Mariota's success.

 

[CalBear]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

This scheme is so powerful that it can take untalented WRs and make them wide open, eh? So why aren't pro teams running it?

Oh wait. They are.

 

[jurb26]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

This scheme is so powerful that it can take untalented WRs and make them wide open, eh? So why aren't pro teams running it?

Oh wait. They are.

No they're not.

 

[CalBear]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

This scheme is so powerful that it can take untalented WRs and make them wide open, eh? So why aren't pro teams running it?

Oh wait. They are.

No they're not.

What's the difference between Oregon's scheme and Philadelphia's?

 

[Bruce Hammond]

What's the difference between Oregon's scheme and Philadelphia's?

If it walks like a Duck and quacks like a Duck, it's probably a Duck... unless it's an Eagle.

 

[jurb26]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

This scheme is so powerful that it can take untalented WRs and make them wide open, eh? So why aren't pro teams running it?

Oh wait. They are.

No they're not.

What's the difference between Oregon's scheme and Philadelphia's?

The Eagles essentially run a West Coast offense with lots of formation and motion shifts. It has wrinkles from the Oregon offense in it, but it's more similar to other pro-style offenses with added tempo.

 

[cstu]

The Eagles essentially run a West Coast offense with lots of formation and motion shifts. It has wrinkles from the Oregon offense in it, but it's more similar to other pro-style offenses with added tempo.

So Chip Kelly can adjust to the NFL but Mariota can't?

 

[jurb26]

The Eagles essentially run a West Coast offense with lots of formation and motion shifts. It has wrinkles from the Oregon offense in it, but it's more similar to other pro-style offenses with added tempo.

So Chip Kelly can adjust to the NFL but Mariota can't?

Nobody said he can't.

 

[Run It Up]

To be a dual threat I think you have to be good at both of the things you are threatening to do.

Which eliminates pretty much all the athletic QBs except for Rodgers.

 

[-CE-]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wait, you're saying that the fact that Mariota doesn't have pro-level WRs at Oregon is a mark against him? They're elite athletes but not good enough for the NFL?

I didn't understand this either. It's contradictory.

I think his point was it was a gimmicky offense, but then he mucked that argument up.

It's not contradictory. Being an elite athlete doesn't mean you are going to be any good of a WR in the NFL. (Kenny Bell? Chris Conley?) Not sure how any clearer that could be said. And Oregon has very little track record of "producing" legit NFL WRs. They always come up big with recruiting 4* and 5* talents. These guys look great in college because of the scheme. That scheme is designed to create space and mis-direction. It's why Mariota gets knocked for "not throwing into tight windows". It's because he rarely has to. (I don't personally knock him for that)

QBs like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady would be horrible in that type of offense, because both guys' "games" rely on WRs being exactly where they need to be while still running sharp routes.

This scheme is so powerful that it can take untalented WRs and make them wide open, eh? So why aren't pro teams running it?

Oh wait. They are.

No they're not.

What's the difference between Oregon's scheme and Philadelphia's?

The Eagles essentially run a West Coast offense with lots of formation and motion shifts. It has wrinkles from the Oregon offense in it, but it's more similar to other pro-style offenses with added tempo.

It's more similar to Oregon's offense than any pro style offense. You just don't see it because there isn't a mobile QB running the read.

 

[TDorBust]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wilson played in a spread offense at NC State and had one year in a pro-style offense (which also had a lot of shotgun) at Wisconsin.

Give Mariota a year to learn like Wilson did and I think he'll develop in a similar way.

Okay when will he report to Madison, WI for spring camp?

Oh wait....

 

[TDorBust]

People bickering about his success in college is funny. In the end I can assume a couple things:

His team in the NFL will not outmatch the defence 95%+ of the time

His offence will change drastically from college to the NFL

He will be starting under center come next fall

He will have to throw into coverage on a consistent basis

I can then go out on a limb for a couple things:

He will try and run to much (designed or flushed out)

He will get smoked trying to run

He will either get injured or try to completely reinvent his game by year 3 to prolong his career (if he is being successful so far)

If people really want to lump Wilson in with Mariota thats fine but I will guarantee that Mariota doesn't end up on a team with as good of a defence as Wilson allowing him to progress slowly as a NFL player. Otherwise look at Kaep, RG3, and CAM all came out and were red hot until they stared getting nicked up and have regressed to average at best NFL QBs. Also who was the last spread offence QB to truly succeed in the NFL? I don't count Wilson yet as he has been fortunate to have his defence and Lynch for the past couple years, also Wilson had 1 year at Wisconsin in college as well in a pro-style offence (which he picked Wisconsin specifically for that reason to learn Pro-Style before going into the draft).

 

[cstu]

Russell Wilson is not in the same category as Mariota. He didn't and doesn't play in a gimmicky offense. A lot of Mariota's success it tied to the elite athletes he has in his receiving core. They have a ton of speed and don't really run "Pro" routes. It's why you don't see any good WRs to come out of Oregon.

Wilson played in a spread offense at NC State and had one year in a pro-style offense (which also had a lot of shotgun) at Wisconsin.

Give Mariota a year to learn like Wilson did and I think he'll develop in a similar way.

Okay when will he report to Madison, WI for spring camp?

Oh wait....

There's no need to start him his rookie year - TB has Glennon and Tenn has Mettenberger.

 

[cstu]

To be a dual threat I think you have to be good at both of the things you are threatening to do.

Which eliminates pretty much all the athletic QBs except for Rodgers.

So unless you're the best passing QB of all time you're not threatening to pass?

Luck, Wilson, Tannehill, Bridgewater have demonstrated they are a threat passing as well as running. I'm not ruling out Cam and Kaepernick developing as passer either.

 

[cstu]

Here's a cherry-picked stat for you guys...

Total number of college games with:

- Passing Efficiency Rating >= 100

- Rushing Yards >= 15

- Passing Touchdowns >= 1

- Passing Interceptions = 0

Sorted by most games matching criteria.

Player 	        From 	To 	School 	W 	L 	T 	CountTim Tebow 	2006 	2009 	Florida	27 	1 	0 	28 (out of 54 games, 52%)1st round Kaepernick 	2007 	2010 	Nevada 	18 	7 	0 	25 (out of 51 games, 49%)2nd round Marcus Mariota 	2012 	2014 	Oregon 	25 	0 	0 	25 (out of 41 games, 61%)TBD Griffin III 	2008 	2011 	Baylor 	15 	4 	0 	19 (out of 41 games, 46%)1st round Pat White 	2005 	2008 	WV 	18 	1 	0 	19 (out of 49 games, 47%)2nd roundRussell Wilson 	2008 	2011 	NCS/Wis 16 	3 	0 	19 (out of 50 games, 38%)3rd roundShaun Carney 	2004 	2007 	AF 	9 	9 	0 	18 (out of 46 games, 39%)Not drafted Andy Dalton 	2008 	2010 	TCU 	16 	0 	0 	16 (out of 50 games, 32%)2nd round

 

[Sweet Love]

Geno Smith (last two years of college):

31/7 passing, -33 yds 2TD rushing

42/6 passing, 151 yds 2TD rushing

Marcus Mariota (last two years of college):

31/4 passing, 715 yds 9TD rushing

42/4 passing, 750 yds 15TD rushing

Let me preface this by saying that Mariota will certainly add a dimension in the rushing game that someone like Geno does not have...yet from a passing perspective, they are pretty darn equal, both coming from spread offenses. In fact (taking out what is between the ears), I would say from passing perspective Geno was poised to be better in that department since he did not really have the option/ability to run (he actually had a higher completion percentage than Mariota), therefore he had to depend more on his arm like a traditional pocket passer. Mariota is certainly a better dual threat, but you could make the arguement that Geno was/is a better spread offense prospect. I hate comparing prospects to works in progress, but I just don't think this dual-threat trend works. Give me a statue with decision making ability and a strong arm anyday.

 

[CalBear]

Geno Smith (last two years of college):

31/7 passing, -33 yds 2TD rushing

42/6 passing, 151 yds 2TD rushing

Marcus Mariota (last two years of college):

31/4 passing, 715 yds 9TD rushing

42/4 passing, 750 yds 15TD rushing

Let me preface this by saying that Mariota will certainly add a dimension in the rushing game that someone like Geno does not have...yet from a passing perspective, they are pretty darn equal, both coming from spread offenses. In fact (taking out what is between the ears), I would say from passing perspective Geno was poised to be better in that department since he did not really have the option/ability to run (he actually had a higher completion percentage than Mariota), therefore he had to depend more on his arm like a traditional pocket passer. Mariota is certainly a better dual threat, but you could make the arguement that Geno was/is a better spread offense prospect. I hate comparing prospects to works in progress, but I just don't think this dual-threat trend works. Give me a statue with decision making ability and a strong arm anyday.

Your post is completely incoherent. You'd rather have a statue like Geno Smith than a dual-threat Mariota, and you prove that by showing that their college passing stats are vaguely similar. Did you notice that Geno Smith's last year in college was spent going 7-6 and going to the Pinstripe Bowl against Syracuse, and Mariota's was spent getting to the national championship game?

You might also have noticed that in the past five years, four of the 10 Super Bowl teams have had dual-threat QBs. Two of those have won.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The second I see college stats used to compare why a guy will be a good pro or even relates to a pro I just scroll right past it. Has to be one of the worst way to draw a comparison IMO.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The Eagles essentially run a West Coast offense with lots of formation and motion shifts. It has wrinkles from the Oregon offense in it, but it's more similar to other pro-style offenses with added tempo.

So Chip Kelly can adjust to the NFL but Mariota can't?

Maybe he doesn't have the skills to do so?

 

[Sweet Love]

Geno Smith (last two years of college):

31/7 passing, -33 yds 2TD rushing

42/6 passing, 151 yds 2TD rushing

Marcus Mariota (last two years of college):

31/4 passing, 715 yds 9TD rushing

42/4 passing, 750 yds 15TD rushing

Let me preface this by saying that Mariota will certainly add a dimension in the rushing game that someone like Geno does not have...yet from a passing perspective, they are pretty darn equal, both coming from spread offenses. In fact (taking out what is between the ears), I would say from passing perspective Geno was poised to be better in that department since he did not really have the option/ability to run (he actually had a higher completion percentage than Mariota), therefore he had to depend more on his arm like a traditional pocket passer. Mariota is certainly a better dual threat, but you could make the arguement that Geno was/is a better spread offense prospect. I hate comparing prospects to works in progress, but I just don't think this dual-threat trend works. Give me a statue with decision making ability and a strong arm anyday.

Your post is completely incoherent. You'd rather have a statue like Geno Smith than a dual-threat Mariota, and you prove that by showing that their college passing stats are vaguely similar. Did you notice that Geno Smith's last year in college was spent going 7-6 and going to the Pinstripe Bowl against Syracuse, and Mariota's was spent getting to the national championship game?

You might also have noticed that in the past five years, four of the 10 Super Bowl teams have had dual-threat QBs. Two of those have won.

There is a difference between spread and dual threat (as Geno's lack of running prowess proves). It is like asking do you like fruits/vegetables? Well, I may like one, but not the other, or I may like both. I never said I would rather have one versus the other, BUT, history has shown that guys who depend HEAVILY on their feet, flame out quickly unless they stop jerking around and stay in the pocket for a majority of the time. Where I can see Mariota failing is if he depends on his legs too much and fails to develop as a passing QB. Geno knows he cannot run, therefore he is forced to learn to pass (or else fail, which he may just do).

In regards to the spread, Geno was just as proficient in the passing game as Mariota was in college, that was all I was trying to say. Whether he won or not in college has no bearing on his impact in the NFL (see Dorsey/Toretta). You are correct in that there were four "dual threat" QBs in the Super Bowl over the past five years, but of those, I believe only two appearances (Rodgers, Kap) came from a college spread offense. Make no mistake, Russell Wilson is a pro-style QB (at NCSU and Wisconsin) who happens to be able to run.