YoloinOhio Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 (edited) And ranks them, from Luck to Ponder http://mmqb.si.com/2015/04/23/nfl-draft-jameis-winston-marcus-mariota-andrew-luck-robert-griffin-blaine-gabbert/3/ The Drafts QBs, Now and Then Weve spent months comparing Winston and Mariota to each other. But how to they compare to other recent first-round quarterbacks? An NFL team shares five years of its pre-draft quarterback grades. Edited April 23, 2015 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And ranks them, from Luck to Ponder http://mmqb.si.com/2015/04/23/nfl-draft-jameis-winston-marcus-mariota-andrew-luck-robert-griffin-blaine-gabbert/3/ The Drafts QBs, Now and Then Weve spent months comparing Winston and Mariota to each other. But how to they compare to other recent first-round quarterbacks? An NFL team shares five years of its pre-draft quarterback grades. really interesting; thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 really interesting; thanks.And a little disturbing. Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDIGGZ Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Well luckily we got EJ + Kiko. Some of those guys were high 1st rounders that some teams even traded up to get. Could you imagine if we traded up for EJ? Yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And a little disturbing. Lol Hard to put much stock in that stack rank without the actual grades. Also, if E.J. could have the career arc/outlook of Bridgewater, I'd be OK with that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted April 23, 2015 Author Share Posted April 23, 2015 Hard to put much stock in that stack rank without the actual grades. Also, if E.J. could have the career arc/outlook of Bridgewater, I'd be OK with that... just seeing Gabbert that high... It's like such a gamble anymore with QBs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Wagon Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 At least we aren't the Browns. Interesting to hear Landon Collins doesn't seem to be the slam dunk 1st rounder he's been projected as, if there's one guy I'd love to fall to #50 it might be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Quarterbacks are so important in today's NFL and colleges are turning out so few pro style QB's that teams are forced to gamble on them and hope they get lucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 And ranks them, from Luck to Ponder http://mmqb.si.com/2015/04/23/nfl-draft-jameis-winston-marcus-mariota-andrew-luck-robert-griffin-blaine-gabbert/3/ The Drafts QBs, Now and Then Weve spent months comparing Winston and Mariota to each other. But how to they compare to other recent first-round quarterbacks? An NFL team shares five years of its pre-draft quarterback grades. Oh. My. I would love to know the W/L record on Team X over that time period and their overall talent level. This is like a game of Clue or that Singapore Math Birthday problem - who is it? The clues are: 1) "The grades span multiple management regimes" so team has changed GMs/execs in last 4 years 2) the team in question "has been in the QB market" within the last 4 years ( so presumably drafted one or more of those guys) 3) The team presumably drafted according to its board, so would not have taken a lower-ranked QB higher (eg had Gabbert ahead of Locker, so could not be Tenn which drafted Locker whilst Gabbert on the board; likewise Bridgewater ahead of Manziel so can't be Cleveland which drafted Manziel while Bridgewater still on the board) I'm thinking either Jax or Washington fit the criteria. The high grade on Gabbert make me lean towards Jax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stony Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Oh. My. I would love to know the W/L record on Team X over that time period and their overall talent level. This is like a game of Clue or that Singapore Math Birthday problem - who is it? The clues are: 1) "The grades span multiple management regimes" so team has changed GMs/execs in last 4 years 2) the team in question "has been in the QB market" within the last 4 years ( so presumably drafted one or more of those guys) 3) The team presumably drafted according to its board, so would not have taken a lower-ranked QB higher (eg had Gabbert ahead of Locker, so could not be Tenn which drafted Locker whilst Gabbert on the board; likewise Bridgewater ahead of Manziel so can't be Cleveland which drafted Manziel while Bridgewater still on the board) I'm thinking either Jax or Washington fit the criteria. The high grade on Gabbert make me lean towards Jax. Or the Bills for that matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Wagon Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Oh. My. I would love to know the W/L record on Team X over that time period and their overall talent level. This is like a game of Clue or that Singapore Math Birthday problem - who is it? The clues are: 1) "The grades span multiple management regimes" so team has changed GMs/execs in last 4 years 2) the team in question "has been in the QB market" within the last 4 years ( so presumably drafted one or more of those guys) 3) The team presumably drafted according to its board, so would not have taken a lower-ranked QB higher (eg had Gabbert ahead of Locker, so could not be Tenn which drafted Locker whilst Gabbert on the board; likewise Bridgewater ahead of Manziel so can't be Cleveland which drafted Manziel while Bridgewater still on the board) I'm thinking either Jax or Washington fit the criteria. The high grade on Gabbert make me lean towards Jax. I don't think it's Jax, they were over the moon for Bortles. Weren't the Bills really high on Ponder? Wasn't that part of the reason Minny took him when they did? A team that's been in the QB market and they placed RG3 over Cam? Does feel like Washington (though King says they aren't in on Mariota or Winston and Wash has been linked to Mariota). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big C Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Or the Bills for that matter. Could be us, or Jacksonville. Jacksonville just drafted Bortles and "doesn't have a horse in the race." The Bills, if EJ was ranked #11 on this list, doesn't make quite so much sense. I'd think Whaley & Co. would have him higher than #11, given how strongly they seemed to feel about him at the time they drafted him. I'd say it could also be KC, as they were in the QB market in theory, before trading for Alex Smith. I don't think it's Jax, they were over the moon for Bortles. Weren't the Bills really high on Ponder? Wasn't that part of the reason Minny took him when they did? A team that's been in the QB market and they placed RG3 over Cam? Does feel like Washington (though King says they aren't in on Mariota or Winston and Wash has been linked to Mariota). Hmm, that's true. I don't remember their sentiment on Gabbert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 This list only shows me what a crap shoot it is. Would love to see the grade ranking of all QBs drafted in that timespan. Where would Wilson, Carr, Geno, etc land?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Interesting but what is it really trying to say? I never got the Bortles or Gabbert hype. Gabbert threw like 16 td passes in a spread offense that Chase Daniels would throw 30+ in. Bortles was basically the same exact player as EJ stat wise, only less athletic. Manuel had a better rookie year than both of them. Manuel had a very comparable rookie year to Tannehill. So is the point of this that this scout has no idea what he is doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillnutinHouston Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Well luckily we got EJ + Kiko. Which turned into EJ + Shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 its a long list of bad quarterbacks.....it goes back 10 years atleast...look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 That is pretty interesting. I think... EJ would have been taken over Bridgewater (that is NOT saying EJ is better). Bortles would have been taken over Tannehill. Newton probably taken over RGIII no matter how great people thought RGIII was in college. There has only been two good ones in all that time, and both were taken first overall. Jury is still out on Tannehill but he's probably never going to be a star. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloRebound Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Doubt it was the Bills. Pretty sure we would've taken Newton if he was available at #3, and if we had Gabbert rated almost as high, we probably would've taken Gabbert instead of Dareus. That being said, not sure Bills would've had Manuel rated much higher than this list or else we wouldn't have risked trading down and him still being available. This list does kind of confirm that Manuel wasn't much of a reach at #16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Wagon Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Buddy publicly said he'd take Cam at #3 before it was popular to put him up top. He got roasted for it nationally. Then Cam went 1st and turned out good, but no one ever said "You were right Buddy". Doubt it was the Bills. Pretty sure we would've taken Newton if he was available at #3, and if we had Gabbert rated almost as high, we probably would've taken Gabbert instead of Dareus. That being said, not sure Bills would've had Manuel rated much higher than this list or else we wouldn't have risked trading down and him still being available. This list does kind of confirm that Manuel wasn't much of a reach at #16. I'm not sure how much it confirms because it doesn't say what round the players were actually graded at by this team. Given that MMQB says this team has been in the QB market and Bridgewater nearly went in round 2, I don't think it's too big of an assumption to say they graded everyone at Bridgewater or below to be 2nd round talent. I would be interested in 1) seeing what round these players were graded out as and 2) adding in 2nd round guys like Kaepernick and Dalton to the assessment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JESSEFEFFER Posted April 23, 2015 Share Posted April 23, 2015 Doubt it was the Bills. Pretty sure we would've taken Newton if he was available at #3, and if we had Gabbert rated almost as high, we probably would've taken Gabbert instead of Dareus. That being said, not sure Bills would've had Manuel rated much higher than this list or else we wouldn't have risked trading down and him still being available. This list does kind of confirm that Manuel wasn't much of a reach at #16. I think the Bills had a good gauge on who else was in the market and which of those teams were also interested in EJ (NYJ and Phi?) They were looking at who might jump back into the first round to get him ( maybe at 20+) and had been burned enough over the prior years that they were not going to chance it any further than 16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts