Who'll be the better pro QB? Rank 'em in order (1 Viewer)

[Wheelhouse]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

 

[Chase Stuart]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I've seen all three play...but I've seen the least of Cutler.

I rank them this way.

Leinart - Can't Miss, Aikman Clone

Cutler - Boom or Bust

Young - Vick without the excessive speed

YOu know nothing about Vince Young, stop posting here like you do. He is nothing like Vick. They do not play the same style. They are not the same size. They are nothing alike. There are no comparisons between Vick and Young.Please, do not post anything about else about Vince Young since you know nothing about him.

TIA.

Hi texas,I can easily see similarities between Vick and Young. They both are exceptionally talented guys, especially running the ball. From a Vick Bio:

But his physical skills were off the charts and his potential seemed unlimited. It was hardly a reach to call him the best athlete ever to play quarterback in college. At the same time, there were questions as to whether he would develop into a topnotch NFL signal caller. And how long that process would take.

I'd call that a pretty good description of Young as well.I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe Vick had exceptionally good pass efficiency numbers his last year in college. Just as Young has.

Compared to a guy like Leinart who seems ready to step into a pro style offense, Young has significant questions about how well he can adapt to and run a pro style offense, just as Vick has.

Bottom line is I can see the comparison.

J

They are no where close to each other in actual playing style or physical size. Vince Young is 6'5" Mike Vick isn't. Vick is a speedy runner, Vince Young isn't.

Vick runs because he is fast. Vince Young runs to take advantage of open holes.

Vince Young is comparible to Randall Cunningham, not Mike Vick.

Mike Vick is no where near as good of a QB as Vince Young, even now in my opinion.

The same things you quoted up there are the same things you can say about most QB coming out of college.

Lienart is Lienart. I don't think Lienart's ability has anything to do with Vince Young. I like them both, actually all three, I just think comparing Vince Young and Vick is a bad comparison.

Hi txas,Sorry but I think we're talking about different things. Of course their playing style is different as nobody on earth plays like Vick. I'm talking more in the bigger picture, general sense of a QB with questions whether he can be a true QB or whether he's going to rely on his fantastic running ability and run too much. I've no worries at all with that with Leinart and Cutler. Can't say that with Young.

That was the same worry I had with Vick.

That's really all I'm saying there.

Good luck to the guy. Hope he does fantastic.

J

 

[Wheelhouse]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

And that's why there is no clear-cut answer as to who we think is better among the 3 QB's. We all have our opinions.

 

[Joe Bryant]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

Hi Chase,It's not his intangibles for me but I think he definitely has the biggest upside of all the QBs. And that's worth something for sure.

J

 

[Texasmouth]

I've seen all three play...but I've seen the least of Cutler.

I rank them this way.

Leinart - Can't Miss, Aikman Clone

Cutler - Boom or Bust

Young - Vick without the excessive speed

YOu know nothing about Vince Young, stop posting here like you do. He is nothing like Vick. They do not play the same style. They are not the same size. They are nothing alike. There are no comparisons between Vick and Young.Please, do not post anything about else about Vince Young since you know nothing about him.

TIA.

Hi texas,I can easily see similarities between Vick and Young. They both are exceptionally talented guys, especially running the ball. From a Vick Bio:

But his physical skills were off the charts and his potential seemed unlimited. It was hardly a reach to call him the best athlete ever to play quarterback in college. At the same time, there were questions as to whether he would develop into a topnotch NFL signal caller. And how long that process would take.

I'd call that a pretty good description of Young as well.I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe Vick had exceptionally good pass efficiency numbers his last year in college. Just as Young has.

Compared to a guy like Leinart who seems ready to step into a pro style offense, Young has significant questions about how well he can adapt to and run a pro style offense, just as Vick has.

Bottom line is I can see the comparison.

J

They are no where close to each other in actual playing style or physical size. Vince Young is 6'5" Mike Vick isn't. Vick is a speedy runner, Vince Young isn't.

Vick runs because he is fast. Vince Young runs to take advantage of open holes.

Vince Young is comparible to Randall Cunningham, not Mike Vick.

Mike Vick is no where near as good of a QB as Vince Young, even now in my opinion.

The same things you quoted up there are the same things you can say about most QB coming out of college.

Lienart is Lienart. I don't think Lienart's ability has anything to do with Vince Young. I like them both, actually all three, I just think comparing Vince Young and Vick is a bad comparison.

Hi txas,Sorry but I think we're talking about different things. Of course their playing style is different as nobody on earth plays like Vick. I'm talking more in the bigger picture, general sense of a QB with questions whether he can be a true QB or whether he's going to rely on his fantastic running ability and run too much. I've no worries at all with that with Leinart and Cutler. Can't say that with Young.

That was the same worry I had with Vick.

That's really all I'm saying there.

Good luck to the guy. Hope he does fantastic.

J

 

[Wheelhouse]

Joe B - as a Titans fan or at least follower (since you live in TN) Who do you want to see the Titans pick at #3?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Joe B - as a Titans fan or at least follower (since you live in TN) Who do you want to see the Titans pick at #3?

Hi Wheel,I'm not really that much of a Titans fan but I think Young would be a lot of fun here. Makes sense Cutler is obviously a big favorite with Nashville too. If they could get value and trade out of #3, I'd like to see them take Cutler later and get additional value for the #3. If they can't trade out, I think Young would be fun.

J

 

[Chase Stuart]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

Hi Chase,It's not his intangibles for me but I think he definitely has the biggest upside of all the QBs. And that's worth something for sure.

J

Well its his intangibles combined with his physical skills. You very rarely see that. Guys like Montana and Brady have that intangible quality about them. They play their best when the game is on the line, they have natural leadership skills, their teammates seem to be willing to do anything for them; but neither had exceptional tools.Compare that with someone like Jeff George or Ryan Leaf who didn't seem to have that intangible quality.

Obviously Young's physical tools are off the charts. But he's charistmatic, and a leader, and the ultimate clutch performer. He seems to be relaxed and in control at the same time, and doesn't let the pressure get to him. He handled all that Heisman Trophy/Rose Bowl stuff perfectly. He's just got that intangible quality that you can't figure out; but when someone like him has it, watch out. That's why we talk about his Rose Bowl performance as one of the greatest ever -- you need a million different tangible and intangible qualities to even come close to pulling something like that off.

 

[Wheelhouse]

Well its his intangibles combined with his physical skills. You very rarely see that. Guys like Montana and Brady have that intangible quality about them. They play their best when the game is on the line, they have natural leadership skills, their teammates seem to be willing to do anything for them; but neither had exceptional tools.

Compare that with someone like Jeff George or Ryan Leaf who didn't seem to have that intangible quality.

Obviously Young's physical tools are off the charts. But he's charistmatic, and a leader, and the ultimate clutch performer. He seems to be relaxed and in control at the same time, and doesn't let the pressure get to him. He handled all that Heisman Trophy/Rose Bowl stuff perfectly. He's just got that intangible quality that you can't figure out; but when someone like him has it, watch out. That's why we talk about his Rose Bowl performance as one of the greatest ever -- you need a million different tangible and intangible qualities to even come close to pulling something like that off.

Good points, but what's very difficult to determine is - Can he do in the NFL what he did in college? A lot of players have not been able to do that. If VY had a more NFL-esque footwork, stance and release I might be willing to lean on the side of "potential star", but IMO his talent and ability will have to really shine in order for him to be a success at the next level, simply because I don't think he has the smarts to learn not only the NFL offense, but more importantly the NFL defenses that he will have to figure out. If his talent can carry him farther than his head, then he may have a great deal of success in the NFL, I just don't see that happening. We defintely will have a front row seat and will soon find out for ourselves.

 

[Joe Bryant]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

Hi Chase,It's not his intangibles for me but I think he definitely has the biggest upside of all the QBs. And that's worth something for sure.

J

Well its his intangibles combined with his physical skills. You very rarely see that. Guys like Montana and Brady have that intangible quality about them. They play their best when the game is on the line, they have natural leadership skills, their teammates seem to be willing to do anything for them; but neither had exceptional tools.Compare that with someone like Jeff George or Ryan Leaf who didn't seem to have that intangible quality.

Obviously Young's physical tools are off the charts. But he's charistmatic, and a leader, and the ultimate clutch performer. He seems to be relaxed and in control at the same time, and doesn't let the pressure get to him. He handled all that Heisman Trophy/Rose Bowl stuff perfectly. He's just got that intangible quality that you can't figure out; but when someone like him has it, watch out. That's why we talk about his Rose Bowl performance as one of the greatest ever -- you need a million different tangible and intangible qualities to even come close to pulling something like that off.

Hi Chase,I guess I'm just not seeing the same things you did. He seems like a good kid and obviously came up huge when the game was on the line. But I don't see any particularly great intagibles with him beyond that. And I can that about lots of players.

But of course it's tough to say as I don't know him personally and am not privy to the inside stuff there with the team.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

but he has the form and release of Rob Johnson, which leads me to think he'll be somewhere between Quincy Carter and Kordell Stewart when its all said and done.

Guy, that is just harsh. J

 

[Chase Stuart]

How can your claim that Young doesn't have the intangibles be based on his Wunderlic score?

If you're saying he's not intelligent, it's hard to get more tangible than an IQ score.

By intangibles I mean non-physical skills or in other words, mental skills.

That makes sense then. Thanks.For what it's worth, I think Young has the best "intangibles" in the dictionary definition sense of the bunch. That's the reason I'm so high on him.

Hi Chase,It's not his intangibles for me but I think he definitely has the biggest upside of all the QBs. And that's worth something for sure.

J

Well its his intangibles combined with his physical skills. You very rarely see that. Guys like Montana and Brady have that intangible quality about them. They play their best when the game is on the line, they have natural leadership skills, their teammates seem to be willing to do anything for them; but neither had exceptional tools.Compare that with someone like Jeff George or Ryan Leaf who didn't seem to have that intangible quality.

Obviously Young's physical tools are off the charts. But he's charistmatic, and a leader, and the ultimate clutch performer. He seems to be relaxed and in control at the same time, and doesn't let the pressure get to him. He handled all that Heisman Trophy/Rose Bowl stuff perfectly. He's just got that intangible quality that you can't figure out; but when someone like him has it, watch out. That's why we talk about his Rose Bowl performance as one of the greatest ever -- you need a million different tangible and intangible qualities to even come close to pulling something like that off.

Hi Chase,I guess I'm just not seeing the same things you did. He seems like a good kid and obviously came up huge when the game was on the line. But I don't see any particularly great intagibles with him beyond that. And I can that about lots of players.

But of course it's tough to say as I don't know him personally and am not privy to the inside stuff there with the team.

J

I'm not any more privy to this stuff than you are, but you get the feeling that lots of guys would have cracked under that pressure. Obviously in TX, football is as important as it gets, and Young was able to win 20 or something straight games and pull off two of the greatest Rose Bowl performances ever. And he just seemed to do it in a special way -- that's why it's an intangible. If you could describe what it is, like his throwing motion , it wouldn't really be an intangible anymore.It should be fun seeing him -- we'll have to be patient though. I think it will take him a few years until he becomes a stud (although guys like Roethlisberger and Culpepper had tremendous success early on, so who knows?)

 

[Chase Stuart]

Well its his intangibles combined with his physical skills. You very rarely see that. Guys like Montana and Brady have that intangible quality about them. They play their best when the game is on the line, they have natural leadership skills, their teammates seem to be willing to do anything for them; but neither had exceptional tools.

Compare that with someone like Jeff George or Ryan Leaf who didn't seem to have that intangible quality.

Obviously Young's physical tools are off the charts. But he's charistmatic, and a leader, and the ultimate clutch performer. He seems to be relaxed and in control at the same time, and doesn't let the pressure get to him. He handled all that Heisman Trophy/Rose Bowl stuff perfectly. He's just got that intangible quality that you can't figure out; but when someone like him has it, watch out. That's why we talk about his Rose Bowl performance as one of the greatest ever -- you need a million different tangible and intangible qualities to even come close to pulling something like that off.

Good points, but what's very difficult to determine is - Can he do in the NFL what he did in college? A lot of players have not been able to do that. If VY had a more NFL-esque footwork, stance and release I might be willing to lean on the side of "potential star", but IMO his talent and ability will have to really shine in order for him to be a success at the next level, simply because I don't think he has the smarts to learn not only the NFL offense, but more importantly the NFL defenses that he will have to figure out. If his talent can carry him farther than his head, then he may have a great deal of success in the NFL, I just don't see that happening. We defintely will have a front row seat and will soon find out for ourselves.

He needs to go somewhere with good coaching, that's for sure. But I've got no doubt that he'll put in the time and effort, and he'll become a team leader and all those things you want out of your QB. But without good coaching, he'll be in big trouble (like 99% of all QBs).

 

[WhoDat]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

 

[Wheelhouse]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer college, but I don't see him doing that at the next level - at least not yet. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

 

[Wheelhouse]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

 

[LHUCKS]

I like the Culpepper comparison to VY, and Culpepper has sucked without Moss for the most part.

I'd still draft Culpepper over VY...that's how overrated this guy is.

There's a reason why there is such a huge disparity amongst NFL scouts concerning VY, it isn't because he a "lock."

 

[Wheelhouse]

I like the Culpepper comparison, and Culpepper has sucked without Moss.

Take Culpepper in year one without Moss - how would he have done? Culpepper sucked without Moss after learning the game. Imagine how he would've done without Moss before he learned the game.

 

[WhoDat]

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

Wheelhouse, that means you need to tell him about 1,000 times and, then, have him write it on the text board back to you 1,000 times. Hey, I had to poke a little fun at the Longhorn.College defense versus NFL defense...I get that idea in the discussion but that same maxim has faced every QB prospect that has come out of college. The athlete will be put into the best situation to compete and succeed by his team and coaching staff. A prospect should evolve to the level of his peers under tutleage of the franchise. It is not a unique set of qualifiers that are set down just for Young. All QB prospects faced the same problem. His physical skills and prowess give him an edge. Young is that much bigger and faster than his peer group. That will minimize the difference in game speed and how a DC prepares to face him. His mental capacity gives him a knock, which coaching can aid and foster. Wax on, wax off, wax on, wax off...you get the idea.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

Wheelhouse...are you being serious?You always come up with a ton of great stats, which is why this post surprises me.

Quincy Carter senior year: 1250 yards, 10 TD, 6 INT, 62 rushing yards

I don't feel like looking up their numbers right now, but Frazier and Couch were classic option QBs -- and their passing numbers are horrendous.

Young totalled 4,000 yards last year. He's a million times better as a runner than Quincy Carter, and a million times better as a passer than Frazier or Couch.

Is his speed a bad thing? Would you rather he was a statute? That makes no sense.

Leinart had a 157.74 QB Rating, averaged 8.9 Y/A with 28 TD/8 INT and completed 65.7% of his passes.

Young had a 163.95 QB Rating, averaged 9.3 Y/A with 26 TD/10 INT and completed 65.2% of his passes.

How is the fact that Young is a great runner a bad thing?

 

[Wheelhouse]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

Wheelhouse...are you being serious?You always come up with a ton of great stats, which is what surprises me.

Quincy Carter senior year: 1250 yards, 10 TD, 6 INT, 62 rushing yards

I don't feel like looking up their numbers right now, but Frazier and Couch were classic option QBs -- and their passing numbers are horrendous.

Young totalled 4,000 yards last year. He's a million times better as a runner than Quincy Carter, and a million times better as a passer than Frazier or Couch.

Is his speed a bad thing? Would you rather he was a statute? That makes no sense.

Leinart had a 157.74 QB Rating, averaged 8.9 Y/A with 28 TD/8 INT and completed 65.7% of his passes.

Young had a 173.95 QB Rating, averaged 9.3 Y/A with 26 TD/10 INT and completed 65.2% of his passes.

How is the fact that Young is a great runner a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, it's the main reason he's being touted this highly. I just don't think he'll have the passing yards he did in college. College defenses are not NFL defenses. Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL. College stats only say so much when determining a players value in the NFL. I just think Young is overrated, despite all of his accomplishments in the college game.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

Wheelhouse...are you being serious?You always come up with a ton of great stats, which is what surprises me.

Quincy Carter senior year: 1250 yards, 10 TD, 6 INT, 62 rushing yards

I don't feel like looking up their numbers right now, but Frazier and Couch were classic option QBs -- and their passing numbers are horrendous.

Young totalled 4,000 yards last year. He's a million times better as a runner than Quincy Carter, and a million times better as a passer than Frazier or Couch.

Is his speed a bad thing? Would you rather he was a statute? That makes no sense.

Leinart had a 157.74 QB Rating, averaged 8.9 Y/A with 28 TD/8 INT and completed 65.7% of his passes.

Young had a 173.95 QB Rating, averaged 9.3 Y/A with 26 TD/10 INT and completed 65.2% of his passes.

How is the fact that Young is a great runner a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, it's the main reason he's being touted this highly. I just don't think he'll have the passing yards he did in college. College defenses are not NFL defenses. Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL. College stats only say so much when determining a players value in the NFL. I just think Young is overrated, despite all of his accomplishments in the college game.

But you agree that he was every bit as good a passer as Matt Leinart with lesser talent around him and playing in a tougher conference?

 

[Wheelhouse]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

Wheelhouse...are you being serious?You always come up with a ton of great stats, which is what surprises me.

Quincy Carter senior year: 1250 yards, 10 TD, 6 INT, 62 rushing yards

I don't feel like looking up their numbers right now, but Frazier and Couch were classic option QBs -- and their passing numbers are horrendous.

Young totalled 4,000 yards last year. He's a million times better as a runner than Quincy Carter, and a million times better as a passer than Frazier or Couch.

Is his speed a bad thing? Would you rather he was a statute? That makes no sense.

Leinart had a 157.74 QB Rating, averaged 8.9 Y/A with 28 TD/8 INT and completed 65.7% of his passes.

Young had a 173.95 QB Rating, averaged 9.3 Y/A with 26 TD/10 INT and completed 65.2% of his passes.

How is the fact that Young is a great runner a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, it's the main reason he's being touted this highly. I just don't think he'll have the passing yards he did in college. College defenses are not NFL defenses. Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL. College stats only say so much when determining a players value in the NFL. I just think Young is overrated, despite all of his accomplishments in the college game.

But you agree that he was every bit as good a passer as Matt Leinart with lesser talent around him and playing in a tougher conference?

IMO - Leinart has NFL-skills, Young has college skills. The Big 12 wasn't that tough. Neither was the PAC-10 for that matter (sorry LHUCKS). Two completely different styles of good talent, but Leinart's skills are more suited to the NFL, IMO.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL.

It's never been done before. Young was the closest in his historic 1998 season with 454 rushing yards. Garcia and Culpepper have done 4000/400; Brunell did 4000/396.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I can't believe I am about to fawn over something from Austing BUT...

I would take Young and it is not even close.

The test score is being blown WAY out of proportion. Young's low score indicates how he will have to be taught, which will be plenty of manual reps in practice with film work versus film/board work with little manual reps. For example, you take P. Manning and put him in the film room, first, and take him out to the practice field, second. Young will need to be on the practice filed early and often and taken to the film room later.

It is a matter of how and at what speed he will process information. A Fortune 100 company is going to use that score as the end all be all of determining a potential employee's performance. An NFL team is going to use that test to make an evaluation of a player's ability to learn and how that player will need to be taught. It is not an end all be all for an NFL team. Young's score indicates he will need to learn by doing; doing a little more; doing a little more; just a little more and, then, studying from a distance. He will need plenty of technical training before he learns any higher level functional aspects of the position.

Down by twelve and the kid is smiling and laughing in the huddle. He is a winner, leader and guys are going to play hard for him and believe in him...every...single...game.

He can make every throw he needs to under the 20 yard barrier and has sick, sick, sick physical attributes. You can't teach size and you can't teach speed.

Leinhart is solid also but I would take Young.

Very but I am of the belief that VY is a very good college player, but not in the NFL because defenses are so much more inferior in college than in the pros. He was able to conquer that. I am not a big proponent of the mobile QB as being the best possible answer to the QB position. Give me a Dan Marino, Jim Kelly or Drew Bledsoe mold as a QB. Strong-armed, great vision, coach on the field. Pocket passing is the bread and butter of the NFL is it not? Always was, always will be right? Find me a pocket passer with the speed of Mike Vick, the accuracy of Marino and the knowledge of Brett Favre. Steve Young is the closest to being "that" guy. We all should be asking ourselves - who is the next Steve Young?

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

I'm not saying he wasn't great in college. He sure was. I am saying that his style is more suited against college defenses. Eric Crouch also ran right through college defenses. I'm not saying VY is Eric Crouch, but who's to say he won't be another Quincy Carter or Tommie Frazier? The better NFL quarterbacks are pocket passers like the Marinos, Kellys, Favres, Mannings. I just don't see Young putting up the same numbers in the NFL like he did in college.

Wheelhouse...are you being serious?You always come up with a ton of great stats, which is what surprises me.

Quincy Carter senior year: 1250 yards, 10 TD, 6 INT, 62 rushing yards

I don't feel like looking up their numbers right now, but Frazier and Couch were classic option QBs -- and their passing numbers are horrendous.

Young totalled 4,000 yards last year. He's a million times better as a runner than Quincy Carter, and a million times better as a passer than Frazier or Couch.

Is his speed a bad thing? Would you rather he was a statute? That makes no sense.

Leinart had a 157.74 QB Rating, averaged 8.9 Y/A with 28 TD/8 INT and completed 65.7% of his passes.

Young had a 173.95 QB Rating, averaged 9.3 Y/A with 26 TD/10 INT and completed 65.2% of his passes.

How is the fact that Young is a great runner a bad thing?

It's not a bad thing, it's the main reason he's being touted this highly. I just don't think he'll have the passing yards he did in college. College defenses are not NFL defenses. Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL. College stats only say so much when determining a players value in the NFL. I just think Young is overrated, despite all of his accomplishments in the college game.

But you agree that he was every bit as good a passer as Matt Leinart with lesser talent around him and playing in a tougher conference?

IMO - Leinart has NFL-skills, Young has college skills. The Big 12 wasn't that tough. Neither was the PAC-10 for that matter (sorry LHUCKS). Two completely different styles of good talent, but Leinart's skills are more suited to the NFL, IMO.

Fair enough. I like Leinart a lot too. I just think people value Young's intelligence way too highly, and put way too little weight on his excellent passing, leadership ability and charisma. Have a good one Wheelhouse.

 

[Wheelhouse]

Mark Burnell and Steve Young may be the only QB I can think of that had 4000 yards passing and 500+ yards rushing. There's a reason it doesn't happen often in the NFL.

It's never been done before. Young was the closest in his historic 1998 season with 454 rushing yards. Garcia and Culpepper have done 4000/400; Brunell did 4000/396.

touche'

 

[LHUCKS]

IMO - Leinart has NFL-skills, Young has college skills.  The Big 12 wasn't that tough.  Neither was the PAC-10 for that matter (sorry LHUCKS).    Two completely different styles of good talent, but Leinart's skills are more suited to the NFL, IMO.

I agree that Pac10 defenses are subpar...have never stated anything to the contrary, but keep in mind that USC played one of the toughest out of conference schedules last year and Leinart led them to victories in all of them.Additionally, I agree with you completely on Leinart as do most NFL scouts. He was bred to be an NFL QB.

 

[BlueOnion]

If you want to talk mechanics, I can see Cutler being ranked higher than Lienart. However, I got Lienart higher than Cutler for the following reasons:

Being a successful NFL quarterback requires a player to do the following two things and do them extremely well:

1) Manage the game

2) Take what is available from the defense

These two attributes far out weigh any arm-strength or accuracy attributes a college prospect brings to the game and I think Leinart has not only been practicing these attributes but is already pretty polished at them.

At USC, Matt played with a very talented USC team and much of his success at USC was not only embracing these two attributes but excelling at them. He has room for improvement with these attributes, but he is already on his way.

At Vanderbilt, these two attributes were foriegn to Jay Cutler because his teams had far less talent than the teams they were playing against. Much of Cutler's tutoring at Vanderbilt did not involve 'managing the game' or 'take what is given to you'. It was, "Jay, were out-manned in this battle so go out there and try to make plays." This should not be contrued to imply Cutler's potential is limited nor should it mean it will inhibit is maturation as an NFL quarterback. It just brings to the forefront the obstacles Cutler will have to overcome to succeed in the NFL. Cutler's biggest obstacle will be relearning everything he learned at the college level.

It is the gun-slinger \\ try to make plays mentality that Cutler has learned at Vanderbilt that concern me. It is Lienart's manage the game \\ take what is given that has me high on Lienart. I know Cutler is compared to Brett Favre, but Brett Favre has endeared more success on the field when he was under the contraints of Mike Holmgren and endeared more failure when he has been allowed to be a gun-slinger.

If I could build on this and make an anology (I am currently taking golf lessons), I would compare Linehart and Cutler's game approach mentality to that of a golf swing.When Lienart enters the NFL, he will have a foundation to build on (mentally) in regards to Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him. Cutler will have to unlearn what he learned at college (mentally) and then learn what Lienart already started learning at USC; Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him.

Like learning a golf swing; somebody who has no golf experience will have less of a learning curve than somebody who has lots of golf experience with the wrong mechanics. I am not saying Cutler cannot do it, but I think he will need significant more time to close the gap on Lienart in this regard. And with the current financial situation of the NFL (salary cap, produce now), I think Cutler will have a hard time turning the corner in two or three years.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

For what it's worth, here are the comments about the 3 QBs from Tony Softli, the Panthers Dir of College Scouting, in today's paper:

Cutler: "I think Cutler has the most upside of the three. He brings more mobility than Leinart and has a stronger arm. He's a good leader and manages the game well. I think he can be a better pro than Leinart."

Young: "Young is the best athlete, but he's not ready to play right now. He needs to watch for a year, get acclimated to the speed of the game and to reading coverages. But he can grow into a very good quarterback, and ultimately be the best of the three. He throws kind of sidearm, he sort of slings it, but he's been effective so why change it. I would work to enhance it, not change it."

Compares him to Cunningham or Brooks

Leinart: "He's the guy most ready to play right now. He manages the game well, he doesn't have an overly strong arm, he's more of a touch passer, but he's a good athlete."

 

[Irish]

I like the Culpepper comparison to VY, and Culpepper has sucked without Moss for the most part.

I'd still draft Culpepper over VY...that's how overrated this guy is.

There's a reason why there is such a huge disparity amongst NFL scouts concerning VY, it isn't because he a "lock."

I got a newsflash for you, none of the qbs in this draft are a "lock". VY has the most upside physically and he is a proven winner and natural born leader. VY will be a star in the NFL. He will have to sit a season or two and learn about NFL defenses, but once he hits the field look out.

 

[Texasmouth]

I like the Culpepper comparison to VY, and Culpepper has sucked without Moss for the most part.

I'd still draft Culpepper over VY...that's how overrated this guy is.

There's a reason why there is such a huge disparity amongst NFL scouts concerning VY, it isn't because he a "lock."

I got a newsflash for you, none of the qbs in this draft are a "lock". VY has the most upside physically and he is a proven winner and natural born leader. VY will be a star in the NFL. He will have to sit a season or two and learn about NFL defenses, but once he hits the field look out.

I give up trying to defend Vince Young to anyone. This is the results of all the haters on this board and everywhere else who said there was NO WAY the Longhorns would stand a chance against the Wolverines in the Rose Bowl, the place the Big 10 owns, the game the Longhorns didn't deserve to be in.......the begining of things to come for Vince Young.....Then there was the game against the Buckeyes, at their house against that unreal defense, at night where no one wins......then what happened? He beat them, not with his legs, but with his arm, with a perfect pass to the endzone in the biggest game he ever played in at the time.

Same bunch of guys who said no way Vince Young could beat the all mighty USC Trojans, no way he could end the winning streak of the great USC Trojans.....what happened? He singlehandidly took over the game and sent the Trojans home with something no one could......a loss.

So what if he got a crappy score on the Wonderlickmyballs, so did McNair, so did Culpepper, so did McNabb, so did DAN FRIGGIN MARINO. That test means nothing. Ryan Leaf aced it, maybe someone should redraft him.....

Young strings together one of the greatest seasons in college history, matching every stat Lienart put up and then dropping a ton of yards rushing on top of it and now all the sudden he cant play? That is a joke.

I defended Vince Young all year this year, all year last year and now into the draft. Tired of doing it now. He will be a great pro. He will change his game and be better than he is now. He will be a special player. When the smoke clears in five years, these same people that have been here bashing VY will be the same people saying they knew he would be a star.....

:soap:

I am not going to be just like everyone else though, I think Matt Lienart will be a great QB. I think he will be a pro bowler, I think he will be a great leader and he will be a star for years to come.

That doesn't mean Jay Cutler and Vince Young wont be the same. It just means there are three great young QB with a ton of potential in the draft this year.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?

Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

Hi Chase,I would definitely prefer a pocket passer over a mobile QB at the NFL level. Injuries are the biggest issue. That and tha fact that the defenses are so much more physically talented. What a mobile QB got away with in college, he doesn't get away with in the pros. That gap doesn't seem to narrow as much for the pocket passers.

So bottom line is yes, I'd always take the pocket guy. Colin Cowherd has done a big thing on this all week.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

If you want to talk mechanics, I can see Cutler being ranked higher than Lienart.  However, I got Lienart higher than Cutler for the following reasons:

Being a successful NFL quarterback requires a player to do the following two things and do them extremely well:

1) Manage the game

2) Take what is available from the defense

These two attributes far out weigh any arm-strength or accuracy attributes a college prospect brings to the game and I think Leinart has not only been practicing these attributes but is already pretty polished at them.

At USC, Matt played with a very talented USC team and much of his success at USC was not only embracing these two attributes but excelling at them.  He has room for improvement with these attributes, but he is already on his way.

At Vanderbilt, these two attributes were foriegn to Jay Cutler because his teams had far less talent than the teams they were playing against.  Much of Cutler's tutoring at Vanderbilt did not involve 'managing the game' or 'take what is given to you'.  It was, "Jay, were out-manned in this battle so go out there and try to make plays."  This should not be contrued to imply Cutler's potential is limited nor should it mean it will inhibit is maturation as an NFL quarterback.  It just brings to the forefront the obstacles Cutler will have to overcome to succeed in the NFL.  Cutler's biggest obstacle will be relearning everything he learned at the college level.

It is the gun-slinger \\ try to make plays mentality that Cutler has learned at Vanderbilt that concern me.  It is Lienart's manage the game \\ take what is given that has me high on Lienart.  I know Cutler is compared to Brett Favre, but Brett Favre has endeared more success on the field when he was under the contraints of Mike Holmgren and endeared more failure when he has been allowed to be a gun-slinger.

If I could build on this and make an anology (I am currently taking golf lessons), I would compare Linehart and Cutler's game approach mentality to that of a golf swing.When Lienart enters the NFL, he will have a foundation to build on (mentally) in regards to Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him. Cutler will have to unlearn what he learned at college (mentally) and then learn what Lienart already started learning at USC; Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him.

Like learning a golf swing; somebody who has no golf experience will have less of a learning curve than somebody who has lots of golf experience with the wrong mechanics. I am not saying Cutler cannot do it, but I think he will need significant more time to close the gap on Lienart in this regard. And with the current financial situation of the NFL (salary cap, produce now), I think Cutler will have a hard time turning the corner in two or three years.

Hi BO,I understand the analogy but I think Leinart is going to be the guy that is going to be unlearning more. He's going to go from having the best players in the country at every position to a situation where his team is woefully overmatched at most positions. And in the same way, that's where I'd say Cutler already is.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am not going to be just like everyone else though, I think Matt Lienart will be a great QB. I think he will be a pro bowler, I think he will be a great leader and he will be a star for years to come.

That doesn't mean Jay Cutler and Vince Young wont be the same. It just means there are three great young QB with a ton of potential in the draft this year.

Sorry mouth. Saying they'll all be great is not really going against the grain too much.J

 

[cstu]

I've seen all three play...but I've seen the least of Cutler.

I rank them this way.

Leinart - Can't Miss, Aikman Clone

Cutler - Boom or Bust

Young - Vick without the excessive speed

YOu know nothing about Vince Young, stop posting here like you do. He is nothing like Vick. They do not play the same style. They are not the same size. They are nothing alike. There are no comparisons between Vick and Young.Please, do not post anything about else about Vince Young since you know nothing about him.

TIA.

Hi texas,I can easily see similarities between Vick and Young. They both are exceptionally talented guys, especially running the ball. From a Vick Bio:

But his physical skills were off the charts and his potential seemed unlimited. It was hardly a reach to call him the best athlete ever to play quarterback in college. At the same time, there were questions as to whether he would develop into a topnotch NFL signal caller. And how long that process would take.

I'd call that a pretty good description of Young as well.I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe Vick had exceptionally good pass efficiency numbers his last year in college. Just as Young has.

Compared to a guy like Leinart who seems ready to step into a pro style offense, Young has significant questions about how well he can adapt to and run a pro style offense, just as Vick has.

Bottom line is I can see the comparison.

J

Hey Joe,They really are nothing alike.

Outside of the physical differences in size (huge) and strength (huge), Vick totalled just 2,420 yards his last year; Young totalled 4,086 yards his senior year.

The best comparisons to Young are Roethlisberger, McNair and Culpepper.

You can't compare Vick's NFL stats to Young's college stats and have that be a fair comparison. Also, Vick had 3000 total yards (2400 passing, 600 rushing), not that it matters.

 

[cstu]

but he has the form and release of Rob Johnson, which leads me to think he'll be somewhere between Quincy Carter and Kordell Stewart when its all said and done.

Guy, that is just harsh. J

I at least gave him Kordell at a minimum.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Are you saying that knowing nothing else about a QB, mobility is a bad thing?

Young led the NCAA in Y/A and Y/C IIRC. He also completed 65% of his passes. Would he be better to you if he had the mobility of Dan Marino?

If so, I'm going to need a lot of explanation before I understand that one (explain it to me like I'm Vince Young).

Hi Chase,I would definitely prefer a pocket passer over a mobile QB at the NFL level. Injuries are the biggest issue. That and tha fact that the defenses are so much more physically talented. What a mobile QB got away with in college, he doesn't get away with in the pros. That gap doesn't seem to narrow as much for the pocket passers.

So bottom line is yes, I'd always take the pocket guy. Colin Cowherd has done a big thing on this all week.

J

Hey Joe,I think your letting a bias come in that a mobile QB can't read defenses as well or be as accurate as a pocket passer. If everything else is the same about two QBs, I can't believe you'd really prefer one to have the mobility of Manning instead of Plummer.

I'm also not sure at all that mobile QBs are more likely to get hurt. Donovan McNabb was hurt last year on an INT return, and in the Cardinals game by a hit in the pocket IIRC. Culpepper and Vick both were hurt while scrambling. McNair he's always banged up for sure.

But Kurt Warner is a great example of the problem with QB statutes. Same with Pennington, Leftwich, Palmer, Bulger, etc.

If there arms/head are equal, I would take the mobile QB 100 times out of 100. They tend to be in better shape, so I'd say they're less likely to get hurt. And that mobility and athleticism can be the difference between winning and losing the SB (check out this year's SB champs )

 

[Chase Stuart]

but he has the form and release of Rob Johnson, which leads me to think he'll be somewhere between Quincy Carter and Kordell Stewart when its all said and done.

Guy, that is just harsh. J

I at least gave him Kordell at a minimum.

I really don't see the big deal about this one. Kordell is another guy I'd actually compare Young's physical skills too. He's much more like Kordell (big, agile, athletic) than Vick (small, speeding bullet type). Kordell also had a great arm.Since Kordell's problems were 100% in his head, what's the big deal about comparing his tools or throwing motion to Young?

 

[Chase Stuart]

I've seen all three play...but I've seen the least of Cutler.

I rank them this way.

Leinart - Can't Miss, Aikman Clone

Cutler - Boom or Bust

Young - Vick without the excessive speed

YOu know nothing about Vince Young, stop posting here like you do. He is nothing like Vick. They do not play the same style. They are not the same size. They are nothing alike. There are no comparisons between Vick and Young.Please, do not post anything about else about Vince Young since you know nothing about him.

TIA.

Hi texas,I can easily see similarities between Vick and Young. They both are exceptionally talented guys, especially running the ball. From a Vick Bio:

But his physical skills were off the charts and his potential seemed unlimited. It was hardly a reach to call him the best athlete ever to play quarterback in college. At the same time, there were questions as to whether he would develop into a topnotch NFL signal caller. And how long that process would take.

I'd call that a pretty good description of Young as well.I don't have the stats in front of me, but I believe Vick had exceptionally good pass efficiency numbers his last year in college. Just as Young has.

Compared to a guy like Leinart who seems ready to step into a pro style offense, Young has significant questions about how well he can adapt to and run a pro style offense, just as Vick has.

Bottom line is I can see the comparison.

J

Hey Joe,They really are nothing alike.

Outside of the physical differences in size (huge) and strength (huge), Vick totalled just 2,420 yards his last year; Young totalled 4,086 yards his senior year.

The best comparisons to Young are Roethlisberger, McNair and Culpepper.

You can't compare Vick's NFL stats to Young's college stats and have that be a fair comparison. Also, Vick had 3000 total yards (2400 passing, 600 rushing), not that it matters.

I'm talking about Vick's college stats, sorry. I also messed up.I didn't take Vick's last year in college, I took his best year. His last year in college he had 1,234 passing yards and 617 rushing yards. He averaged 7.7 Y/A and completed 54% of his passes. You're absolutely right that you can't compare Young's numbers to Vick's numbers -- YOUNG MORE THAN DOUBLED VICK'S TOTAL YARDS.

Really, outside of them both being black, faster than the average QB, and that they both played in a national championship game, there's not that much that they have in common.

 

[Chase Stuart]

If you want to talk mechanics, I can see Cutler being ranked higher than Lienart. However, I got Lienart higher than Cutler for the following reasons:

Being a successful NFL quarterback requires a player to do the following two things and do them extremely well:

1) Manage the game

2) Take what is available from the defense

These two attributes far out weigh any arm-strength or accuracy attributes a college prospect brings to the game and I think Leinart has not only been practicing these attributes but is already pretty polished at them.

At USC, Matt played with a very talented USC team and much of his success at USC was not only embracing these two attributes but excelling at them. He has room for improvement with these attributes, but he is already on his way.

At Vanderbilt, these two attributes were foriegn to Jay Cutler because his teams had far less talent than the teams they were playing against. Much of Cutler's tutoring at Vanderbilt did not involve 'managing the game' or 'take what is given to you'. It was, "Jay, were out-manned in this battle so go out there and try to make plays." This should not be contrued to imply Cutler's potential is limited nor should it mean it will inhibit is maturation as an NFL quarterback. It just brings to the forefront the obstacles Cutler will have to overcome to succeed in the NFL. Cutler's biggest obstacle will be relearning everything he learned at the college level.

It is the gun-slinger \\ try to make plays mentality that Cutler has learned at Vanderbilt that concern me. It is Lienart's manage the game \\ take what is given that has me high on Lienart. I know Cutler is compared to Brett Favre, but Brett Favre has endeared more success on the field when he was under the contraints of Mike Holmgren and endeared more failure when he has been allowed to be a gun-slinger.

If I could build on this and make an anology (I am currently taking golf lessons), I would compare Linehart and Cutler's game approach mentality to that of a golf swing.When Lienart enters the NFL, he will have a foundation to build on (mentally) in regards to Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him. Cutler will have to unlearn what he learned at college (mentally) and then learn what Lienart already started learning at USC; Managing the Game and Taking What is Given to Him.

Like learning a golf swing; somebody who has no golf experience will have less of a learning curve than somebody who has lots of golf experience with the wrong mechanics. I am not saying Cutler cannot do it, but I think he will need significant more time to close the gap on Lienart in this regard. And with the current financial situation of the NFL (salary cap, produce now), I think Cutler will have a hard time turning the corner in two or three years.

Hi BO,I understand the analogy but I think Leinart is going to be the guy that is going to be unlearning more. He's going to go from having the best players in the country at every position to a situation where his team is woefully overmatched at most positions. And in the same way, that's where I'd say Cutler already is.

J

I think that's a great point JB. That's also one of the few -- if not only -- reasons to explain why Roethlisberger was an immediate success.Big Ben didn't even play QB in HS until his senior year he only QBed at Miami of Ohio for three years. One season of HS football and three years of MAC football is hardly the stuff to prepare you for the NFL. Most top prospects (like a Leinart) would get three or four years of HS football and then four years at a powerhouse conference.

Yet of all of them, Roethlisberger was the one who excelled immediately. And I think Joe's answer is the reason why -- going from Miami to Pittsburgh was such a huge step up that the transition just wasn't that difficult for him. I can't think of many other reasons why he's the exception.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And that mobility and athleticism can be the difference between winning and losing the SB (check out this year's SB champs )

Hi Chase,I think we're saying sort of the same thing maybe. If one wants to get Roethlisberger into the discussion, that's not what I'm calling a running QB.

Of course you want some athleticism. Guy needs to be able to avoid the rush and such. I just don't want a running QB or a guy that looks to take off and run too quickly at the expense of staying in and finding the receiver.

Leinart and Cutler both are plenty mobile enough. But I wouldn't call either running QBs. And I'd rather have a non running / pro passing QB if I'm trying to build my team.

J

 

[Chase Stuart]

And that mobility and athleticism can be the difference between winning and losing the SB (check out this year's SB champs )

Hi Chase,If one wants to get Roethlisberger into the discussion, you start talking about totally different things.

I'd never put Roethlisberger in the "running QB" category.

Of course you want some athleticism. Guy needs to be able to avoid the rush and such. I just don't want a running QB or a guy that looks to take off and run too quickly at the expense of staying in and finding the receiver.

Leinart and Cutler both are plenty mobile enough. But I wouldn't call either running QBs. And I'd rather have a non running / pro passing QB if I'm trying to build my team.

J

Fair enough. I guess my main point is that pro passing QB and "excellent running skills" don't have to be mutually exclusive. It may be rare, but without knowing anything else I'd still prefer to have a fast QB. Just because he's fast and likes to run doesn't have to prevent him from staying in the pocket and throwing a 20 yard strike to his third read just before he gets hit. When I talk about a running QB, I talk about a guy who will gain 10 yards on a play with his legs that would likely be incomplete (or worse) if he was immobile.

If you think there's something about fast QBs that hinders their ability to develop as a good passer (and I'd strongly disagree with this at least along a career timeline -- look at how guys like McNair and McNabb developed as passers), then I can maybe see your point. You could argue that if Vick was a lot slower he'd be a better passer.

But let me phrase it this way: If you were a Falcons fan, would you be happy if Vick was slower? If you were Vince Young's agent, would you rather he run a 4.8 than a 4.5?

If the answers to those questions are no, then I'd think all other things being equal you'd prefer your QB to be faster.

I don't disagree with you that most of the great all time QBs were pocket passers. But I'd still rather have my QB be fast than slow.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And that mobility and athleticism can be the difference between winning and losing the SB (check out this year's SB champs )

Hi Chase,If one wants to get Roethlisberger into the discussion, you start talking about totally different things.

I'd never put Roethlisberger in the "running QB" category.

Of course you want some athleticism. Guy needs to be able to avoid the rush and such. I just don't want a running QB or a guy that looks to take off and run too quickly at the expense of staying in and finding the receiver.

Leinart and Cutler both are plenty mobile enough. But I wouldn't call either running QBs. And I'd rather have a non running / pro passing QB if I'm trying to build my team.

J

Fair enough. I guess my main point is that pro passing QB and "excellent running skills" don't have to be mutually exclusive. It may be rare, but without knowing anything else I'd still prefer to have a fast QB. Just because he's fast and likes to run doesn't have to prevent him from staying in the pocket and throwing a 20 yard strike to his third read just before he gets hit. When I talk about a running QB, I talk about a guy who will gain 10 yards on a play with his legs that would likely be incomplete (or worse) if he was immobile.

If you think there's something about fast QBs that hinders their ability to develop as a good passer (and I'd strongly disagree with this at least along a career timeline -- look at how guys like McNair and McNabb developed as passers), then I can maybe see your point. You could argue that if Vick was a lot slower he'd be a better passer.

But let me phrase it this way: If you were a Falcons fan, would you be happy if Vick was slower? If you were Vince Young's agent, would you rather he run a 4.8 than a 4.5?

If the answers to those questions are no, then I'd think all other things being equal you'd prefer your QB to be faster.

I don't disagree with you that most of the great all time QBs were pocket passers. But I'd still rather have my QB be fast than slow.

It is kind of funny Chase, but if I were a Falcons fan, I honestly would rather have Vick have generated all the hype he did and have run a 4.9. Because that would mean he'd generated all that hype as a passer.Heath Shuler did it for me. He dominatd SEC defenses. His game was 85% physical skills and 15% mental. Of course he was a giant bust in the pros. (Nice guy though and super successful now in Knoxville with a real estate business)

Whereas a Peyton Manning brought a game weighted way more on the mental side of the game. He has good height and a strong arm, but by far his game is built on his mental ability and not his physical traits.

I'll take a guy like him or Carson Palmer over a Vick any day. I've just seen guys that are incredibly gifted with physical talent never develop the same way as the guy who has to work on the mental angle. Palmer or Leinart will never outrun a DB. Young might. So Palmer figured a long time ago that he'd better figure out how to throw it. Young doesn't have that same push. Because he's always been able to tuck it and run. And that works. Sometimes. For a while.

Just my .02 on it.

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

And a quick add, there Chase.

I'm speaking in the context of a franchise NFL QB when I say I shy away from the running guy.

You let me play one game at the college level, and I love a guy like Young. He obviously dominated the Rose Bowl and I'd expect him to do it again.

The vastly better defenses he'll face in the NFL (with athletes MUCH closer to his ability - many with more) and the longevity of an NFL career are the big factors for me.

J

 

[BigRed]

Being a successful NFL quarterback requires a player to do the following two things and do them extremely well:

1) Manage the game

2) Take what is available from the defense

These two attributes far out weigh any arm-strength or accuracy attributes a college prospect brings to the game

*bronx cheer*Accuracy is just as important as game, if not more, esp. given how QBs don't really "manage the game" much now anyway - heck precious few even call their own plays, minus the occasional audible (OK OK with Manning it's ALWAYS an audible).

 

[BigRed]

SEC football is the most watched college football in the country

OK I'll bite; you know this because-?

 

[LHUCKS]

And a quick add, there Chase.

I'm speaking in the context of a franchise NFL QB when I say I shy away from the running guy.

You let me play one game at the college level, and I love a guy like Young. He obviously dominated the Rose Bowl and I'd expect him to do it again.

The vastly better defenses he'll face in the NFL (with athletes MUCH closer to his ability - many with more) and the longevity of an NFL career are the big factors for me.

J

 

[gocats]

I like the Culpepper comparison to VY, and Culpepper has sucked without Moss for the most part.

I'd still draft Culpepper over VY...that's how overrated this guy is.

There's a reason why there is such a huge disparity amongst NFL scouts concerning VY, it isn't because he a "lock."