Charlie Pallilo played audio of some draft "expert" a few years ago talking about how great Blaine Gabbert was going to be because of his superior mechanics and that he wouldn't be surprised if the Panthers chose him first overall. Just goes to show you how valuable all of these highly regarded opinions are.
The problem is he was uber effective reading Florida's defense in the Sugar Bowl year before last. I mean, really effective! I was really impressed with that.
Go watch that game again and really pay attention to Teddy's passes... It was a check down festival. Plus Louisville's defense was dominating Florida's offense for the first 3 quarters (Louisville's defense was the 1st to put points on the board) so Teddy was never under any pressure to force the issue. Teddy isn't even the best pro prospect on his own team _ Calvin Pryor is...
Oh remmi I really hope u ain't pulling for Bortles because guess what bro he read the same damn defenses. Just saying
No he didn't. Blake had S. Carolina, Baylor, Penn State, and the #1 defense in the nation in Louisville on his schedule. Blake faced 3 ranked teams this year and Teddy faced none... But they both left much to be desired against UH... BUT, Sammy Watkins is the guy I'm pulling for but that's a lonnnng shot.
If Bridgewater does slip a QB desperate team that drafted early and passed on a QB will probably trade up into the first to get him before he makes it to the 2nd. Maybe even the Texans.
It's better than not being able to read mickey mouse defenses. Watch Bortles struggle against Southern Florida on anything past one progression. Bortles reads one side of the field only and still has trouble. His accuracy drops off tremendously when he has to do more than one read. He is not in TB's league when it comes to footwork and handling pressure. If you watched film closer you would see that. By the way TB was 2 years younger than Bortles when he faced one of the best D's in college and picked them apart like no one else had. TB has flaws but SOS is a stupid excuse to use when you consider how porous his O-Line was. If TB had Bortles O-Line and Bortles his Tb would be a lock for #1 and Heisman winner and bortles would be a middle round prospect.
This is where your BS wreaks out. You can't say Louisville has a number one ranked defense and then say they have crap competition. It's one or the other. If they have crap competition than there defense sucks because they gave up too much. When they played the same competition in USF Bridgewater looked great and Bortles stunk up the field. And that Houston Cougar you are touting as a wash, just watch it again. Teddy Bridgewater played much better against Houston than Bortles. TB starts the 1st series 5 for 5 and they score but the next 3 series either sacks penalties or both put them in 3rd and 22 , 3rd & 18, 3rd & 23. Of the 10 passes he missed 4 were dropped in their hands one the reciever slipped, 1 was deliberately thrown away as the last play of the half and another was batted down at the line. In Bortles game he was not under pressure nearly as much but when he was he played poorly. He only completed 3 out of 12 the first half and one of those completions and one of those completions was to the Cougars for an interception. Storm Johnson and the offensive line won that game for UCF not Bortles. If TB had nearly as good an O-Line and someone besides Devante Parker who could catch the ball the outcome would have been much different. Bortles looked very similar against Houston under pressure has he has all season. About 20-25% completions. And TB looked the same as usual about 65% completion ratio. That's what you ignore and no matter how clear film shows that you dis it. The fact is Bortles is a better QB on pro day and without pressure. There is no doubt about that. I would say it's not even that close. But under pressure TB is the best and it's not even close. If you want someone to shine on pro day you got to go with Bortles.
Are you sure about that OMR...? Both players faced Rutgers. Watch "QB Blake Bortles vs Rutgers 2013" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SWyWwP7hYU&feature=youtube_gdata_player Stunk up the field huh... What film are you watching...??? And Blake does a lot of the things in that vid that you say he can't.
I was referring to the USF game and stunk up the field is only in relation to Teddy. I wouldn't say that if I wasn't trying to make a point to you. Bortles is not terrible. Maybe he's worth a first round pick but IMO he willtake time to get it. maybe a lot and there are no guarantees he will. Bridgewater already gets it. You can avoid him because he doesn't have the greatest arm and he is on the lean side but not because the way he plays the game. As for your rutgers comparison again you can't just read statlines are watch highlights. You gotta watch every play. Bortles threw 16-12 without pressure downfield, 8-6 on screen passes. he was 6-3 under pressure and threw one nice TD in there. Best I've seen him yet but doesn't tell the whole story. He was sacked 5 times. He rushed 13 time, a few of those were keepers but if you add those up he was under pressure 21 times and only managed to complete three passes. On paper he looks better and this was one of his better games when watching it but you have to ask your self how many of those sacks would Teddy have avoided and secondly do you really think Bortles is going to rush 13 times in the NFL. Yeah he's a big guy but he will get killed quickly doing that in the nfl. As for Bridgewater it definitely wasn't one of his best games but 14-9 without pressure. 1-1 on screens and 16 - 10 underpressure. 3 0f those pressures he got slammed as he threw the ball. he threw a TD under pressure and an interception. He was sacked once and hit from behind and fumbled another time. He did run 7 times. If you add up his pressures it was like 23-10. Looking at the same team that you picked because you thought it put Bortles in a better light and it's easy to see he still can't handle pressure. What it also shows consistently is that he is very damn accurate without pressure. He will have another great pro day. Rutgers was a very good pass rushing team and both Louisville and UCF struggled against them but Bridgewater managed to avoid them more than Bortles. Bortles is till who I thought he was a great screen passing open throwing QB. he should do great in his combine and maybe move up on some boards. But he is at best an inconsistent Andrew Luck lite and IMO Andrew Luck was overrated. Luck will never be a Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brett Favre or even a healthy Ben Rothliesberger. Luck is a top ten QB and not a hall of famer. And Bortles is less than that. I am not sure why he struggles so much under pressure. But do you want to bet he figures it out and also figures out how to read more than half the field. Do you have the best O-Line in the league because that's what you will need for him to be successful the way he's playing now.
I'm not a Texans fan, but I've been looking at this forum the past few weeks because you guys have had a really interesting discussion on what to do with your number 1 pick. Since Bridgewater's pro day his stock has dropped in a lot of people's eyes. One thing I do not understand given the draft's past history is why? Todd Mcshay made an excellent point on how one of the best pro days he has ever been to was Jamarcus Russell's pro day; he said the worst he has seen, before Bridgewater's, was Matt Ryan's pro day. One interesting thing he said was when talking to older scouts that had attended Peyton Manning's pro day, he mentioned how Manning's pro day was underwhelming as well. His arm strength was not where it needed to be and the ball wobbled out of his hand on many throws. Now first I would like to mention I am not saying Bridgewater is as good as a Matt Ryan or Peyton Manning; I saw neither of them in college, what I am saying is that pro days can be very deceiving about a QB's ability. From what I got out of the podcast and previous articles I've read when comparing Leaf to Manning was the fact that Manning may have had better film, but Leaf had a bigger arm and likely a better pro day. This brings us to our next question. Why do certain QB's fail and others succeed? More recently why have guys like Gabbert, Ponder, Sanchez, Freeman, Weeden, Quinn, possibly Dalton and maybe a Bradford fail? Why do guys like Luck, Wilson, Newton, Ryan, and maybe a Foles have success? One thing I've noticed when thinking back to a Tom Brady who fell in the draft; as well as a guy like Russell Wilson and even a Matt Ryan, who should've been a number 1 pick, is that they do not fit the mold of what you'd want for a prototypical QB. They may have the height of a Matt Ryan, but for him he did not have an elite arm and did not wow anyone in college. Tom Brady, very similar, the prototypical height, but too skinny and did not have any stand out physical attributes. Russell Wilson is an interesting case; he broke records in college, he worked in a pro style offense, was accurate, good arm, and to be honest when watching film, at least from what I've seen, he looked better than Luck. It seems when it comes to evaluating talent, many people tend to focus on the wrong things. People who had guys like Russell Wilson low on their draft board were so caught up in his height and the fact that many starting QBs don't look like him. I feel Teddy is getting caught up in the same thing to a much lesser extent; he will be a 1st round pick. He has all the qualities that successful QBs have at the next level. The only question is if he will ever be a star instead of just another average QB. He has excellent arm strength in the short to intermediate area where he only has issues when the ball goes 25+ yards in the air. The reason this is not a bigger issue is that anyone who follows the NFL realizes most passes are made in the short to intermediate area. He has excellent accuracy in those areas with phenomenal footwork on film. The thing that separates him is the fact that he has excellent pocket presence where he is not easily flustered under pressure and makes some of his best plays on the run. I asked at the beginning why some QBs fail. From what I've seen from film and watching games I'll give a brief statement why I think some of the QBs on my list failed Gabbert- Awful pocket presence, moved up only because he looked like a QB with a strong arm and great in interviews. Ponder- Inconsistent accuracy, bad pocket presence where he left the pocket too early at times. Manziel has the same issues to a lesser extent. He also had very average arm strength that cannot be overcome without better accuracy than what he has. Sanchez-Does not show great pocket presence, highly inconsistent decision making and accuracy. Freeman- Bad decision making and serious accuracy issues coming out that have only been more emphasized at the NFL level. Weeden- Played in a system in college that required one read and was never forced to make multiple reads. He could not make an adjustment to going through progression reads. Brady Quinn- He never had great pocket presence and the NFL exposed that. Not the greatest arm strength either and did not have the accuracy to make up for it. I'm sure guys who have watched these guys more than me could go into greater detail on why these guys fail. I would write more on why certain guys have had success but this has already run a bit long. I'll say this, a QB who does not have great pocket presence, in which he flusters easily under pressure, does not have the ability to maneuver in or outside the pocket, and make accurate throws when pressured. There is no QB in the league who has below average pocket presence that is able to maintain a starting job without at least good pocket presence. I feel that Bridgewater will be a great QB at the next level personally and if not I see him at least being a serviceable QB. My next post may go into more detail comparing him to the "elite" QB prospects that have come out the past few years.
I don't understand this type of argument. Was Gabbert an exception or the norm? I know "highly regarded opinions" were gushing over Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck too. They're looking pretty right so far. Cam Newton shot up the draft with his combine and pro day stuff. Carolina's certainly not regretting that decision for sure. I have no idea if a bad pro day indicate anything. But I do wish people can intricately evaluate things like pro days and see if there's conclusive evidence of how much correlation they have with actual success? This would establish how much should teams factor in pro days. If you're picking individual instances, then one can literally prove that nothing in the evaluation process matters.
Best first post I've ever read. Waiting for second. Please read Remii. This is Bortles problem, average pocket presence.
Cam supposedly had a bad pro day, but it was notable because his bad pro day was better than his horrible combine workout which was supposedly one of the most disastrous ever. He was picked #1 in spite of his pro day and the combine, not because of it. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/03/08/cam-newton-goes-50-for-60-at-tuesday-pro-day/
Doesn't this imply that pro day matter? If pro days don't matter, then Carolina must've drafted Newton based purely on his supposed combine results and his college career, correct?
Blake had a better game against Rutgers than Teddy did and his receivers were even dropping balls (dropped a couple of TD passes). You're just trying to spin it in Teddy's favor because you're such a big supporter of his and have been pumping him up for so long. Blake has the most talent and upside and it's obvious. And Blake is more like Cam (with a better understanding of the offense) than Luck because Blake actually won in college. We'll see what teams these guys end up with and who has the better pro career.
