PDA

View Full Version : Draft Winds: Breaking down Brandon Weeden's talent



Phanatical
04-03-2012, 10:10 PM
Awesome article.

http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/hyde/blog/2012/04/draft_winds_breaking_down_bran_1.html

Couldn't agree more.

I believe Weeden is the best option for the Phins, and will be a star in the NFL.

What do you all think? I know the conventional wisdom is Tannehill, but I'm not so sue he's the best option. He sometimes makes poor decisions, and doesn't always do things to win the games when they count. Does he have "it", or will he be another Chad Henne?

What do you all think?

GO PHINS~!

HybridPHIN 23
04-03-2012, 10:22 PM
Weeden is about as much a project as Tannehill.... only Tannehill is familiar with the pro system we run, and actually fits the WCO. Weeden is a statue thats almost 30 with an injury history, thats only ever played in the spread offense with the best WR in the country, mind you. I like Weeden, but its not as good a fit IMO, and he'd better hit the ground running, cuz he's nearing the downside of his career in football. I think alot of the hype around Weeden is based on his success in college, where as Tannhill's hype is based around his abilities and potential as a prospect. I'll give Weeden the higher floor, but Tannehill has a much higher ceiling, and thats before you factor in the age difference.

Let's not forget the guy chose baseball, and failed.

Always love the work done at universaldraft, regardless. Can't wait til next weeks draft winds !

hooshoops
04-03-2012, 11:06 PM
i'm glad that nfl people told weeden his age doesn't matter...but if he's on the board at the start of the 2nd round he'll know he was lied to...like hell it doesn't matter

i don't think he's in play for miami anyways...

CANDolphan
04-04-2012, 12:14 AM
This belongs in the DRAFT FORUM.

dlockz
04-04-2012, 12:52 AM
i'm glad that nfl people told weeden his age doesn't matter...but if he's on the board at the start of the 2nd round he'll know he was lied to...like hell it doesn't matter

i don't think he's in play for miami anyways...

He will be on the board at the start of the second round you can book it, any nfl personnel guy that says age doesnt matter is lying. many good prospects drop because they are overaged.

DzakkH13
04-04-2012, 01:33 AM
If Weeden were 22 years old, he may be a top 15 pick.

Since he's 29, he will fall into the 2nd.

He has talent, someone will take a flyer on him.

Awsi Dooger
04-04-2012, 04:21 AM
Eventually this draft will include one terrific quarterback and a bunch of guys who were shoved toward the top, dislodged from rightful obscurity, not unlike those spectators who were recruited to move Tiger Woods' 500 pound loose impediment about a dozen years ago.

This guy loitered in the minors for many years then couldn't get his own coaches to care about him for three more years. That's not ignorable, particularly when you're moving up in class. It's very likely to carry at least as much weight as spin by spin analysis, the ceiling lower once you step inside.

That's the way I look at things, a pedigree approach. Preseason ratings more meaningful than last week's results. I realize it irks a lot of people, on true crime sites and political sites, etc. For some reason there's a desperation to solve the case by identifying a person of interest out of thin air, or cite a gaffe as the tipping point instead of recognizing that the foundational landscape dictated the electoral result a full year earlier.

We whiffed on Andrew Luck. There are seldom more than 1 or 2 notable quarterbacks per draft. With this guy we're asking for it to dip to 4th off the board, and from the pantyhose Big 12. Find the best option in a supporting role.

Atila
04-04-2012, 04:31 AM
Eventually this draft will include one terrific quarterback and a bunch of guys who were shoved toward the top, dislodged from rightful obscurity, not unlike those spectators who were recruited to move Tiger Woods' 500 pound loose impediment about a dozen years ago.

This guy loitered in the minors for many years then couldn't get his own coaches to care about him for three more years. That's not ignorable, particularly when you're moving up in class. It's very likely to carry at least as much weight as spin by spin analysis, the ceiling lower once you step inside.

That's the way I look at things, a pedigree approach. Preseason ratings more meaningful than last week's results. I realize it irks a lot of people, on true crime sites and political sites, etc. For some reason there's a desperation to solve the case by identifying a person of interest out of thin air, or cite a gaffe as the tipping point instead of recognizing that the foundational landscape dictated the electoral result a full year earlier.

We whiffed on Andrew Luck. There are seldom more than 1 or 2 notable quarterbacks per draft. With this guy we're asking for it to dip to 4th off the board, and from the pantyhose Big 12. Find the best option in a supporting role.

Does anyone understand ANY of this?

Phanatical
04-04-2012, 06:59 AM
This belongs in the DRAFT FORUM.


I think you are right about that. Same could be said for about 80% of the main forum threads.

TraderJoe
04-04-2012, 07:00 AM
Does anyone understand ANY of this?

I was just thinking that same thing :)

TedSlimmJr
04-04-2012, 07:58 AM
and from the pantyhose Big 12.


I understood this part.

j-off-her-doll
04-04-2012, 08:49 AM
Does anyone understand ANY of this?

Yes. As a generalized summation, he's saying that a leopard doesn't change his spots.

The New Guy
04-04-2012, 09:29 AM
Eventually this draft will include one terrific quarterback and a bunch of guys who were shoved toward the top, dislodged from rightful obscurity, not unlike those spectators who were recruited to move Tiger Woods' 500 pound loose impediment about a dozen years ago.

This guy loitered in the minors for many years then couldn't get his own coaches to care about him for three more years. That's not ignorable, particularly when you're moving up in class. It's very likely to carry at least as much weight as spin by spin analysis, the ceiling lower once you step inside.

That's the way I look at things, a pedigree approach. Preseason ratings more meaningful than last week's results. I realize it irks a lot of people, on true crime sites and political sites, etc. For some reason there's a desperation to solve the case by identifying a person of interest out of thin air, or cite a gaffe as the tipping point instead of recognizing that the foundational landscape dictated the electoral result a full year earlier.

We whiffed on Andrew Luck. There are seldom more than 1 or 2 notable quarterbacks per draft. With this guy we're asking for it to dip to 4th off the board, and from the pantyhose Big 12. Find the best option in a supporting role.

Hasselbeck was the 6th QB off the board. Bulger was the 5th QB off the board. Brady was the 7th QB off the board. 13 QBs were taken in the draft before Romo was signed as a free agent. Roethlisberger was the 3rd QB taken. Shaub the 5th, and Cutler the 3rd.

TheWalrus
04-04-2012, 11:55 AM
Awsi's point is perfectly understandable. What he's saying is that you should invest in players (quarterbacks in this example) who come from a long pedigree of success and status. In other words, a quarterback who was identified as a talent back in grade school, excelled in high school and then continued on that path through college. Those are the guys who become elite players.

By extension, what he's saying is that a guy with that sort of history who stumbled in their last year in college (like Dan Marino), is much more likely to be a success that someone who came late to the party of being recognized as a major talent and had one great year, no matter how great that year or the talent it showed.

The objection to Weeden, therefore, is that this is a guy who was a baseball player, who saw himself as a baseball player. Who when he washed out as a baseball player walked on to a college program and couldn't get people to pay attention to him initially. Awsi's saying that in his experience these factors can actually be more important than talent and tape, or perhaps more accurately reflect on the true nature of the former.

I can't particularly agree with this sort of analysis, though I can see why it would be useful in a volume business like Las Vegas. In player acquisition there are far fewer bites at the apple, which in my view makes exceptions and details a more important part of the analysis.

ckparrothead
04-04-2012, 12:03 PM
Was on the Finsiders to talk about this yesterday, in case you missed it.

http://www.miamidolphins.com/media/audio/Breaking-Down-Brandon-Weeden/caa69aa0-0983-4613-a64b-d4babba2fe4a

MadDog 88
04-04-2012, 12:13 PM
Weeden is an excellent fit in a WCO. Quick delivery and excellent accuracy. If he is 22 The Redskins are drafting him 2nd. Selecting him resolves the issue at QB for 5-7 years which is plenty of time to find his successor. That also allows them to draft an elite player at 8. Tannehill at 8 is a reach and I like him as well as Weeden, but drafting Weeden allows for more flexibility in that 8 spot.

mrbunglez
04-04-2012, 01:14 PM
I dont want anything to do with weeden I agree totally with Awsi Dooger. Plus the kid played in a
Spread offense and had Blackmon make him look good. Nothing to do with his age. I say if we don't pick Tannehill up don't waste another 2nd rd on QB, pick up Osweiler in the 4th.

ckparrothead
04-04-2012, 01:14 PM
I can't particularly agree with this sort of analysis, though I can see why it would be useful in a volume business like Las Vegas. In player acquisition there are far fewer bites at the apple, which in my view makes exceptions and details a more important part of the analysis.

I agree with this.

This sort of situational/hypothetical/circumstancial way of thinking has severe limitations, IMO.

For instance, the part about not being able to get the coaching staff to notice him for two years. First off, that first redshirt year, forget about it. He only played two years of High School football and then had a 5 year layoff in baseball, nothing was going to happen that first year back except re-learning all the stuff he either forgot or never learned in the first place, knocking off the rust, etc. That redshirt year, Zac Robinson established himself over Bobby Reid as the starting quarterback (which I believe drew the newspaper article that instigated the "I'm a man! I'm 40!" rant, btw). For that program, Zac Robinson's production was pretty special in 2007 relative to what they were used to with the likes of Josh Fields, Donovan Woods, Al Pena, Bobby Reid, etc. Robinson threw for nearly 3000 yards on 60% completion, 23/9 ratio, tacked on 850 rushing yards and 9 TDs. So trust me when I say that by Weeden's redshirt freshman year, Zac Robinson was the established starter.

But also think about this. Prior to Dana Holgorsen's arrival, that offense used a lot of option and quarterback running. As I said, Zac Robinson had 850 rushing yards and 9 TDs. Does anyone imagine Brandon Weeden doing that? That's not the kind of system where Weeden is going to shine.

He couldn't really get their attention until called upon in his redshirt sophomore year. And boy, did he. They gave him some playing time against Grambling, he goes 4 of 7 for 77 yards, 2 TDs and 1 INT. He gets the call in the second half of the Colorado game, down 14-10 on national Thursday night television. His first drive, his coaches are feeling him out, only let him throw 2 passes on the 11 plays (completed both), drive stalls when the coaches run Keith Toston on 2nd, 3rd and 4th downs, and can't convert. Colorado keeps up the pressure by scoring a TD and now it's 21-10, midway through the 3rd quarter, getting embarrassed on national television. They start to let Weeden throw the ball more, and he incompletes three straight on the next drive. But on the next drive he starts to get it going and orchestrates an 83 yard TD drive to bring it to 21-17. A Kendall Hunter fumble on the first play of the Cowboys' next drive means by the time Weeden is able to thorw the ball again, he's got 13 minutes left and is down 21-17. No worries, he throws a 48 yard touchdown to go up 24-21. Those damn Buffaloes though, return a 98 yard touchdown on the following kickoff, up again 28-24 with 11 minutes left. Again no worries, Weeden passes the ball 70 of the next drive's 72 yards, capping off with a 27 yard touchdown pass to Blackmon to go up 31-28. From there they just ran out the clock.

When you've got an established player in place like Zac Robinson, yeah sometimes you have to wait your turn and capitalize on your opportunities...and boy did he ever do that.

Austin Tatious
04-04-2012, 02:02 PM
Thanks for the link to Finsiders, CK. It has shown up on my iphone yet but will download it when it does. I always enjoy your appearances, so please keep us posted where you are featured. Are you going to be on Path to the Draft this year?

SF Dolphin Fan
04-04-2012, 02:41 PM
Read it all and certainly interesting if Brandon Weeden is there in the 2nd. I guess my big question is whether or not you all think he can be a good fit in a Joe Philibin offense? My view is that the Dolphins want Ryan Tannehill and that their next target would be Kirk Cousins. But maybe the front office sees it differently.

ckparrothead
04-04-2012, 03:27 PM
Thanks for the link to Finsiders, CK. It has shown up on my iphone yet but will download it when it does. I always enjoy your appearances, so please keep us posted where you are featured. Are you going to be on Path to the Draft this year?

Will do. For that matter, looks like I'll be doing an interview tonight with www.FinNation.com (not to be confused with www.FinsNation.com) on their radio show, Brian Catanzaro. I think it's an internet radio thing.

Fin_Frenzy_84
04-05-2012, 12:57 AM
If he is there in the second then we need to take him. He would of been a top 10 pick if it wasnt for his age. Weeden will be good for the few years he plays in the NFL and is a much more of a safe pick than Tannehill IMO. Drafting Weeden will give us time to to draft another QB a few years from now.

Awsi Dooger
04-06-2012, 02:55 PM
A few weeks ago I emphasized that value wasnít as critical in the NFL draft, that if I had only 7 wagers per year Iíd want to be on the right side, not necessarily the best number.

That being said, itís curious that the so-called exceptions are growingly asserted at the quarterback position, and particularly toward the players Miami may have an opportunity to acquire. Like John F. Kennedy said during the 1960 campaign, ďI have difficulty recognizing my positions as expressed by Mr. Nixon.Ē That applies every time I think of Brandon Weeden and Ryan Tannehill, the summaries here compared to what they demonstrated on the field and how they are viewed among other fan bases. Frankly, if the Dolphins were flush at the position with a blue chip franchise guy I think the appraisals of those two players would skew downward, more real world. Not unlike true crime sites I used to frequent, posters eventually finding a person of interest in determination to solve the case. If that comes across as criticism itís not intended as such. Human nature. My dad was a sociology and psychology professor. I read countless related texts.

During my first months on this site in 2005, running backs were held in higher regard, not balanced with quarterbacks but certainly tighter. We needed a running back. CK had a very high opinion on Aaron Rodgers, which proved to be remarkably astute. But overall, and for several more years, the quarterback scouting reports were logical toward the person described, the weaknesses spotlighted along with strengths, and posters had a restrained view of their value and potential. I don't sense that now, particularly toward the second tier guys, ones who were never pegged as the potential top pick, as Rodgers was. IMO, it's an example of Increasing Marginal Utility, basically a zest to play the lottery no matter how poor the odds may be, since swinging and missing holds a value in itself, topped by the thought that perhaps youíll connect.

BTW, when running backs were more in vogue, Ronnie Brown as second pick value made no sense. Redshirted. Stayed 5 years. That had nothing in common with a legitimately great running back, someone who could help transform a franchise. I was told my criteria were irrelevant. Okay.

Admittedly, with my perspective itís typically easier to pinpoint guys who are dosage index rejects, not always to identify the solution. But I enjoy that in some respects because itís saying ďNoĒ within a flurry of ďYes.Ē Saying "No" in a quarterback coddled league doesn't help my chances. I fully acknowledge that.

The marathon report on Weeden was impressively detailed but I had to stop when a slant was obvious. IMO, that was the info on sacks. Oklahoma State never allows sacks. Thatís been true long before Weeden. That program years ago developed the perfect blueprint for a soft terrorized league, defenses that ignore the short passing game. The Cowboys find a handful of extraordinary skill position players, spread the field to allow cheap YAC, while always making sure the quarterback has at least one dump off option, invariably headed upfield. They place an emphasis on deep releases in relation to the line of scrimmage, helping to keep the quarterback clean. Oklahoma State was T3 in the nation in fewest sacks allowed in 2009, T16 in 2008, and T3 in 2007. Those were the three years before Weeden took over. Iím aware of it because a friend pointed out years ago that sacks are a great tool toward betting first halves. They are such a decisive play you canít afford to be on the wrong side of the net when the possessions are few in number, aka first halves.

If you want an example where a rare player makes the difference, Stanford was 115th and 45th in sacks allowed per game in 2007 and 2008, the two seasons immediately preceding Andrew Luck. With Luck they were 2nd in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and T7 in 2011.

Brandon Weeden is not going to be as suave and polished as it appears, once he enters an NFL huddle and lacks the advantages he enjoyed in college. Heck, we already saw examples of that in the Senior Bowl, when the pocket collapsed and he flubbed, more than once. Inspiring countless excuses, virtually frame by frame.

I think he can be a nice player. That doesnít do much for us. Iíll default to the example I used last week, the equivalent of too much faith in the second level bargain lockers on Storage Wars, and not recognizing that value is at the extremes. A guy who lingered for 4-5 years outside the game and sat for 3 years once he returned is a massive favorite not to reveal a gear we are unaware of, or a hidden stash of Apple stock in a little box. A string of second level lockers will erode the confidence in Joe Philbin. Heís got 2-3 years tops before the fan base rumbles.

Anyway, itís an interesting argument, the weight of value and exceptions. No denying the Law of Large Numbers hardly applies. As a gambler Iím faithful to the Kelly Criterion, a somewhat obscure term outside betting and investment circles. When I moved to Las Vegas in the mid Ď80s there were an incredible resource of old guys with mathematical expertise as applied to sports. Tops among them was Huey Mahl, a devotee of the Kelly Criterion. It was always a pleasure to appear alongside him on radio programs, or to be there when he called in. Basically, Kelly Criterion means Do the Right Thing, to borrow from Spike Lee. Maximize opportunity.

I would argue that the Dolphin franchise has been as close to ignoring the Kelly Criterion as possible in this sport. If I criticize the stadium every day, itís not enough. Thatís a senseless drain -- a home/neutral venue -- like keeping the air conditioning on while windows open, and wondering what happened to your power bill. Trading for A.J. Feeley simply because youíve watched every pass on tape (if it takes that many youíre desperate to make a case) is anti-Kelly. Relying on linemen who look swell in meaningless late season games is anti-Kelly. Signing Artis Hicks for $2.4 million is anti-Kelly. Rationalizing that impact receivers arenít necessary is anti-Kelly. Allowing the opponent to get to 15 rushes while youíre stuck on 5 is anti-Kelly. When we finally stumble toward Kelly, signing a great talent who was over analyzed and undervalued, it pays off in Reggie Bush. Amazing how that works. Exceptions may not prove the rule, but embracing the 45% route in a league of guys who silently understand the 55% approach, puts us where we deserve to be.

Oh yeah, when I joined this site I touted YPPA Differential, an exception in the sense it was virtually unknown on forums like this, and therefore subject to quick dismissal. We know better. Stats mean virtually nothing. I notice that has changed.

sinPHIN
04-06-2012, 03:27 PM
weeden is not he answer for us. ive never really got the hype. ive watched a ton of his games and ive never been wowed by him. i think the ok st system had alot to do with his success just like it did for the qb that came before him. not saying the guy isnt talented but he just isnt the guy this team needs imo. if we draft him i will support him but i dont see it happening. he will not be the next dalton

LANGER72
04-06-2012, 10:52 PM
The bottom line is that a QB has to be successful(among the elite) on all levels as he rises up to the NFL.

The flash in the pan guys who excel for one year in college are fools gold most of the time.

Weeden falls into that category. Still, if he is there in the 3rd round, I would consider taking him.

We can afford a project or a flyer due to the extra pick.

Ricky4Life
04-07-2012, 01:50 AM
For some reason if we do not get or pass on Tannehill I think we go with Cousins or Oswieler.

dr.jake
04-07-2012, 10:11 AM
if you loved the original john beck show (40th pick overall) then you'll truly enjoy the brandon weeden sequel.

RockyMtnPhinfan
04-07-2012, 11:19 AM
I have to say, The draft winds articles seemed to win me over for every player they did an article on. Really, they are very good. The past couple of years i have gotten excited about us picking up folks that these articles had covered, only to see our team pick folks i was not excited about. This season i am trying to realize how this regime thinks and expect unexciting players to be our picks. I am not saying Pouncey isn't good, he is, but not the most exciting pick.

jim1
04-07-2012, 11:40 AM
A few weeks ago I emphasized that value wasn’t as critical in the NFL draft, that if I had only 7 wagers per year I’d want to be on the right side, not necessarily the best number.

That being said, it’s curious that the so-called exceptions are growingly asserted at the quarterback position, and particularly toward the players Miami may have an opportunity to acquire. Like John F. Kennedy said during the 1960 campaign, “I have difficulty recognizing my positions as expressed by Mr. Nixon.” That applies every time I think of Brandon Weeden and Ryan Tannehill, the summaries here compared to what they demonstrated on the field and how they are viewed among other fan bases. Frankly, if the Dolphins were flush at the position with a blue chip franchise guy I think the appraisals of those two players would skew downward, more real world. Not unlike true crime sites I used to frequent, posters eventually finding a person of interest in determination to solve the case. If that comes across as criticism it’s not intended as such. Human nature. My dad was a sociology and psychology professor. I read countless related texts.

During my first months on this site in 2005, running backs were held in higher regard, not balanced with quarterbacks but certainly tighter. We needed a running back. CK had a very high opinion on Aaron Rodgers, which proved to be remarkably astute. But overall, and for several more years, the quarterback scouting reports were logical toward the person described, the weaknesses spotlighted along with strengths, and posters had a restrained view of their value and potential. I don't sense that now, particularly toward the second tier guys, ones who were never pegged as the potential top pick, as Rodgers was. IMO, it's an example of Increasing Marginal Utility, basically a zest to play the lottery no matter how poor the odds may be, since swinging and missing holds a value in itself, topped by the thought that perhaps you’ll connect.

BTW, when running backs were more in vogue, Ronnie Brown as second pick value made no sense. Redshirted. Stayed 5 years. That had nothing in common with a legitimately great running back, someone who could help transform a franchise. I was told my criteria were irrelevant. Okay.

Admittedly, with my perspective it’s typically easier to pinpoint guys who are dosage index rejects, not always to identify the solution. But I enjoy that in some respects because it’s saying “No” within a flurry of “Yes.” Saying "No" in a quarterback coddled league doesn't help my chances. I fully acknowledge that.

The marathon report on Weeden was impressively detailed but I had to stop when a slant was obvious. IMO, that was the info on sacks. Oklahoma State never allows sacks. That’s been true long before Weeden. That program years ago developed the perfect blueprint for a soft terrorized league, defenses that ignore the short passing game. The Cowboys find a handful of extraordinary skill position players, spread the field to allow cheap YAC, while always making sure the quarterback has at least one dump off option, invariably headed upfield. They place an emphasis on deep releases in relation to the line of scrimmage, helping to keep the quarterback clean. Oklahoma State was T3 in the nation in fewest sacks allowed in 2009, T16 in 2008, and T3 in 2007. Those were the three years before Weeden took over. I’m aware of it because a friend pointed out years ago that sacks are a great tool toward betting first halves. They are such a decisive play you can’t afford to be on the wrong side of the net when the possessions are few in number, aka first halves.

If you want an example where a rare player makes the difference, Stanford was 115th and 45th in sacks allowed per game in 2007 and 2008, the two seasons immediately preceding Andrew Luck. With Luck they were 2nd in 2009, 2nd in 2010, and T7 in 2011.

Brandon Weeden is not going to be as suave and polished as it appears, once he enters an NFL huddle and lacks the advantages he enjoyed in college. Heck, we already saw examples of that in the Senior Bowl, when the pocket collapsed and he flubbed, more than once. Inspiring countless excuses, virtually frame by frame.

I think he can be a nice player. That doesn’t do much for us. I’ll default to the example I used last week, the equivalent of too much faith in the second level bargain lockers on Storage Wars, and not recognizing that value is at the extremes. A guy who lingered for 4-5 years outside the game and sat for 3 years once he returned is a massive favorite not to reveal a gear we are unaware of, or a hidden stash of Apple stock in a little box. A string of second level lockers will erode the confidence in Joe Philbin. He’s got 2-3 years tops before the fan base rumbles.

Anyway, it’s an interesting argument, the weight of value and exceptions. No denying the Law of Large Numbers hardly applies. As a gambler I’m faithful to the Kelly Criterion, a somewhat obscure term outside betting and investment circles. When I moved to Las Vegas in the mid ‘80s there were an incredible resource of old guys with mathematical expertise as applied to sports. Tops among them was Huey Mahl, a devotee of the Kelly Criterion. It was always a pleasure to appear alongside him on radio programs, or to be there when he called in. Basically, Kelly Criterion means Do the Right Thing, to borrow from Spike Lee. Maximize opportunity.

I would argue that the Dolphin franchise has been as close to ignoring the Kelly Criterion as possible in this sport. If I criticize the stadium every day, it’s not enough. That’s a senseless drain -- a home/neutral venue -- like keeping the air conditioning on while windows open, and wondering what happened to your power bill. Trading for A.J. Feeley simply because you’ve watched every pass on tape (if it takes that many you’re desperate to make a case) is anti-Kelly. Relying on linemen who look swell in meaningless late season games is anti-Kelly. Signing Artis Hicks for $2.4 million is anti-Kelly. Rationalizing that impact receivers aren’t necessary is anti-Kelly. Allowing the opponent to get to 15 rushes while you’re stuck on 5 is anti-Kelly. When we finally stumble toward Kelly, signing a great talent who was over analyzed and undervalued, it pays off in Reggie Bush. Amazing how that works. Exceptions may not prove the rule, but embracing the 45% route in a league of guys who silently understand the 55% approach, puts us where we deserve to be.

Oh yeah, when I joined this site I touted YPPA Differential, an exception in the sense it was virtually unknown on forums like this, and therefore subject to quick dismissal. We know better. Stats mean virtually nothing. I notice that has changed.

Maybe you should revisit some Brandon Weeden game film. Do that and then watch the Andrew Luck film and tell me afterward that Luck is a markedly better college QB and pro prospect. If you have both of your eyes open when you're watching you won't bre able to do that. Weeden is simply an excellent QB, and he has easlily the best arm of the QB draft class, a huge component of projecting a college QB to the NFL.

Ed Norton
04-07-2012, 03:12 PM
Awsi Dooger, I'm not going to quote your post becuase it just takes up too much room, LOL!

Great post. I am one of Weeden's biggest fans on FH. I wish both you and CK could be in the Fins War Room becuase you both have a lot of great points. This is a huge decision and we have to look at it from all angles. I loved the way Weeden threw right off the bat, even while SFL was still alive! That's one thing I've noticed is where to we get to see Weeden under more pressure. How do you really evaluate his pocket pressence. From what I've seen there is a guy coming here and there and it doesn't seem to be a problem but yeah it's going to be a concern in the NFL. Don't forget though we also have Philbin and even though the defenses are tougher by opening day Philibin should have somewhat of a good system of outlets that Weeden can go to. They have all summer to figure this out vs the situation at the SR bowl. Damn right though, it's a concern!

I think this defense is over rated. I have hope with the secondary. Vontae might turn out to be very good, Smith, Wilson, maybe Jones at SS will be OK, maybe that new Marshall guy makes an impact but I'd love to see an impact player at LB or a pass rusher. Also at WR, I know there isn't suppose to be 1 big play guy but Jeez WTF do they do with the current roster? A Floyd or a Fleener would really come in handy. I'm at the point of I don't care if they draft Weeden at 8 or take BPA at 8 and take Weeden 2nd round or a trade up back into the later 1st round. I see a lot of hope with Weeden and hope he is on the roster somehow. I just see a lot more in him than Tannehill or the rest of the crowd.