PDA

View Full Version : Whats more important, upside or production?



Blake the great
03-20-2012, 12:45 PM
Thats the main question to ask when trying to decide between Tannehill and Weeden. Clay Matthews and Jason Pierre Paul werent super productive in college. Cam Newton only had 1 year under his belt playing in the SEC. there are a ton of other examples but those were the first to come to mind. What do yall think is more imporant in prospects production or upside (IE size, speed, etc)?

TedSlimmJr
03-20-2012, 01:10 PM
Upside is always significant. Production is only significant when put in proper perspective.

Neither guarantees anybody anything.



Proper coaching and development, combined with good ol' fashioned hard work is required to tap into upside. Potential is useless without fundamentals.


Percentages and statistics have never executed a fold block, thrown a pass into the honey hole of a Cover-2, executed an assignment to pick up a free blitzer, or maintained proper "in-phase" relationship with a receiver in order to play the football and come up with a drive killing interception for the defense.... and they never will.

Mudder1310
03-20-2012, 02:08 PM
There is not always a direct correllation of college production to NFL success, see Charlie Ward. If a player measures out well and has physical tools many can be coached yp to a system. JPP is a perfect example of that success, and it's a reason guys like Mike Mamula get drafted early.

Blake the great
03-20-2012, 02:19 PM
I get what you guys are saying and it works cause every year there are always guys who get drafted early who dont have a lot of production in college but have great success in the NFL. Quinton Coples I think is that guy this year. It's just hard for me to understand why guys like Coples, and JPP didnt have more success in college

TedSlimmJr
03-20-2012, 02:47 PM
Coples has the production, particularly when you consider that he's been moved back and forth between DT and DE. 7.5 sacks and 15 TFL's isn't exactly doing nothing. He had 10 sacks and 15.5 TFL's as a junior.


Pierre-Paul had production also, 5.5 sacks and 15.5 TFL's in his only year playing college football. The knock on Pierre-Paul wasn't lack of production, it was lack of experience. He was a one year wonder, and that's always risky. Didn't offer much in terms of playing the run, but pass rushing talent is what the NFL values, not run stuffers.

Blake the great
03-20-2012, 02:57 PM
I kinda got off topic but anyways, what do you think is more important, Tannehill's upside or Weeden's readiness for the NFL? or which do you think will become the better QB

TedSlimmJr
03-20-2012, 05:42 PM
I'm not sure either is more important than the other in this particular case. I think it depends on what your QB situation already looks like as to which you'd value more than the other.

I'm not convinced that there's a tremendous difference between the two quarterbacks in terms of how they both project to the next level. I believe if one of 'em succeeds, the other one can too.

Just the same it's likely that neither one amount to a hill of beans.


The only thing holding Tannehill back right now is he that doesn't throw with anticipation yet, due to a lack of starting experience. If he developes the ability to accomplish this, and get his delivery up to where he has a more consistent release, he'll be fine. If not, he won't.

Weeden's age won't prevent him from being a good NFL quarterback, it only limits the duration that he's a good NFL quarterback if he indeed becomes one. Not being able to deal with pressure, and decision making is what will prevent Weeden from becoming a franchise quarterback. If he learns how to work on these flaws, he'll be fine. If not, he won't.

Blake the great
03-20-2012, 05:52 PM
The only thing that worries me about Weeden is that I just dont see much upside to him and its not just his age. He comes from a spread offense system and history has shown that QB's that come from that type of system doesnt translate well to the pros. I worry about Weeden's footwork and lack of mobility.

Tannehill comes from a pro style and is a great athlete so those are both pluses. I also understand that Tannehill struggled against some good teams but the same can be said about Weeden, especially in the Texas game. Weeden had a couple really good throws but he also could have had 2 or 3 INT's in that game that were dropped by the defender. Weeden stares down his WR's and will force too many passes, throws it deep to blackmon when he's double covered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsevlHpqatI

That video has every throw against Texas and im just not sold on him, I would rather take my chances with Tannehill

WSE
03-20-2012, 05:53 PM
athletic ability which I guess is tied more to upside.

TedSlimmJr
03-20-2012, 06:06 PM
The only thing that worries me about Weeden is that I just dont see much upside to him and its not just his age. He comes from a spread offense system and history has shown that QB's that come from that type of system doesnt translate well to the pros. I worry about Weeden's footwork and lack of mobility.

Tannehill comes from a pro style and is a great athlete so those are both pluses. I also understand that Tannehill struggled against some good teams but the same can be said about Weeden, especially in the Texas game. Weeden had a couple really good throws but he also could have had 2 or 3 INT's in that game that were dropped by the defender. Weeden stares down his WR's and will force too many passes, throws it deep to blackmon when he's double covered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsevlHpqatI

That video has every throw against Texas and im just not sold on him, I would rather take my chances with Tannehill


Completely agree. I've already seen Oklahoma St.'s game against Manny Diaz's defense a dozen times and already pointed out that he should've had about 5 picks if not for the Texas DB's dropping 'em... right here in this thread....

http://www.finheaven.com/forums/showthread.php?315518-Brandon-Weeden/page2



I like Weeden's aggressive decision making and confidence to try and fit the ball into tight coverage. It's why Andy Dalton was able to be successful as a rookie. However, it's what gets Weeden into trouble and leads to turnovers because his ball placement can be erratic... especially when he gets a little rattled due to having to deal with pressure. He's not used to it.