Outside of Weeden I like all 4. To me you are a bad team u dont invest that high a pick on a guy a few years younger than Garrard. As for Wilson, his height is what have most people still on fence and being of color probably gets him more critique than some.
Member of the EIB club
Why so gloomy?
No idea what you're talking about in terms of Colombo, which has already been brought to your attention. Furthermore, the numbers do reflect that Seattle ran the ball a lot. In fact, the numbers just flat out prove it. They are what they are. Seattle ran the football a larger percentage of the time than any other offense in the league. The Seahawks fit Russell Wilson into an offense.... they already knew what they were going to do and had an identity whether it was Matt Flynn or Russell Wilson..... as opposed to some of these other rookie quarterbacks. Seattle was already a .500 team before they drafted Wilson for all intents and purposes. Seattle's 7-9 record in 2011 doesn't reflect how good of a football team they actually were.
Weeden was drafted by a dumpster fire organization with no identity on offense or defense, and no real plan as to what they were going to do. He wasn't plugged in to an offensive philosophy. They just instructed him to go out there for the first month of the season and throw the ball 50 times a game to receivers who can't catch starting from day 1.... and doing it against one of the hardest schedules in the league. That's a lot to ask of a rookie quarterback with no weapons on a bad football team with a lame duck coaching staff. I can guarantee you Russell Wilson nor Robert Griffin would fare very well in that situation. Wilson and Griffin only attempted 393 passes, which is substantially lower than the rest of the rookie QB class.
Tannehill already had familiarity with Mike Sherman's offense. He was at least comfortable with his coach, his terminology, route concepts and protections. Tannehill ended up completing 58.3% of his passes, for 3,294 yards, and a 12/13 touchdown to INT ratio... with a QB rating of 76.1.
Weeden completed 57.4% of his passes while throwing to a stonehanded receiver in Greg Little, who's drop percentage led the league. Tallied 3,385 yards, with a 14/17 touchdown to INT ratio, and didn't even play in the last game of the season.... ended up with a 72.6 QB rating.
Four of Weeden's 17 INT's came in his first career start on a day where he was asked to drop back and wing it 35 times. He threw 14 TD's and 13 INT's over the next 14 games until he sat out the last week of the season.
That's about as close as two rookie quarterbacks can play. Not to mention, Ryan Tannehill had the best left tackle in history for pete's sake.
Maybe I am jumping into this conversation at the wrong time and missing something without reading the entire thread, but best left tackle in history?
Also, I would argue, while numbers were similar with the two QBs, watching both I think would show a different story.
Jay Fiedler can take his'n and lose to your'n.....or take your'n and lose to his'n.
It probably should be noted that Brandon Weeden was strictly a shotgun guy in college, yet when he got to Cleveland they put him under center more than just about any quarterback in the NFL. Out of 39 quarterbacks qualified by Pro Football Focus, Brandon Weeden's shotgun percentage at 43% ranked #38. Only Matt Schaub took a smaller percentage of shotgun passes.
It's one thing to expect a shotgun player to come to the NFL and adapt to the way the NFL does things. Every player has to do that to some extent. But it's another thing to be completely ridiculous about it and make him the 2nd-most under-center quarterback in the National Football League.
In the shotgun, Weeden had a 79 passer rating. Under center, he had a 68 passer rating.
Shotgun trends are definitely on a secular upswing in the NFL. Every year you can chart the percentages and they inch up further and further. The 10 most shotgun-oriented passers in the league are now in the 75 to 80+ percent range as far as percentages of shotgun passes. The Cleveland Browns decided that not only would they completely buck this trend and go the other direction, but that they'd do it with a quarterback who played in a shotgun Air Raid derivative offense in 2010 and 2011.
No question, and great points.... overlooked points in fact. The 3 main knocks that I saddled Weeden with coming out were ball placement, inexperience under center, and being turnover prone. He still graded out as my #2 quarterback, although at the top of the 2nd round. Cleveland is so desperate for a receiver that can simply catch a football that they traded for Davone Bess. That alone speaks volumes.
Seattle was damn near a .500 football team with Tarvaris Jackson as their quarterback. Let that sink in for a moment.
They were able to plug Wilson in to a philosophy around him that already worked. I'm not taking anything away from Wilson, but them's the facts. He's outstanding in the huddle, and his composure is obvious. However, the point is that he wouldn't look so hot in the situations Weeden or Luck were playing in as rookies.
I understand that there's folks like BlueFin around here that wouldn't trade Ryan Tannehill for Joe Montana in his prime for whatever reason, much less a Brandon Weeden. However, that's not exactly a bold stance to begin with. For example, I wouldn't trade Tannehill for Robert Griffin no matter how much hype he gets.... because I've always taken more of a long term point of view. There was a thread last year asking who would trade Tannehill for Griffin and I said absolutely not. Again, it has more to do with how I viewed Griffin long term as opposed to being convinced Tannehill was ever going to make an elite quarterback.
I realize you and Jim1 pumped Weeden up to the point of nauseum during the months prior to the draft. While I also had a positive evaluation on Weeden, I dinged him more for his flaws, and it was a close call between him and Tannehill as my #2 and #3 quarterbacks just ahead of Griffin. It's still too close to call in my estimation. Neither has had anything to work with.