Weeden, Every Throw

[YahooFanChicago]

mattvan1 wrote:

It's like when we were kids playing sandlot football. Run the 5 yard out long enough until the magical "out and up" is a reality.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

....the real test of a great salesman....can you sell the out on the first play of the game and end up laughing in the endzone 12 seconds later.

Greatet play ever and as simple as it is it still works even 20+ years later in the Chicago Social Club league.

[Gradysmanldy]

Still near the very bottom in YPA (yards per attempt). Clearly not the sole proprietor of the dink and dunk philosophy which seems more every day like a staple of the coaching staff and not any given QB.

Sad part of that is that the kid has genuine good touch on those 15-20 yard throws. I'm sure you can debunk it with stats, but the last three weeks i've seen him throw some lasers downfield......seems every time we're playing catch up or need a score, they run some deeper routes and the defense gets knocked back on its heels.

Weeden would look like a boss in a more vertical scheme. Makes me miss Chudzinski.

Doesn't hurt that he has the receivers to pull it off, either. (Gordon/Benjamin/Cameron) Haven't had deep threats like that since Braylon had the toasters installed on his wrists.

[Hikohadon]

Weeden is top 10 in passing yards. That's something right?

And the bottom 5 in completion percentage and bottom 2 for QB rating (for QBs with more than 2 games).
I am cautiously optimistic about him, though. He's got a bit of a cannon for an arm... can throw the long ball moreso than anyone we've had in some time. And I think he's got some toughness... I never felt McCoy had any toughness.

Disregarding the first game, Weeden has an 80.76 rating (24th in the NFL, ahead of Stafford, Cutler, Vick, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, etc.), 60% completions (20th in the NFL, ahead of Brees, Tannehill, Vick, Newton, Fitz, Cutler, Freeman, Luck, Sanchez, etc.), 11.97 yards/completion, and is averaging 280 yards per game (extrapolates to 4480 yards for a season).

Not great, but compares favorably with the other rookies. Except RG3 of course, who I try not to watch since it hurts.

[motherscratcher]

Weeden is top 10 in passing yards. That's something right?

And the bottom 5 in completion percentage and bottom 2 for QB rating (for QBs with more than 2 games).
I am cautiously optimistic about him, though. He's got a bit of a cannon for an arm... can throw the long ball moreso than anyone we've had in some time. And I think he's got some toughness... I never felt McCoy had any toughness.

Disregarding the first game, Weeden has an 80.76 rating (24th in the NFL, ahead of Stafford, Cutler, Vick, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, etc.), 60% completions (20th in the NFL, ahead of Brees, Tannehill, Vick, Newton, Fitz, Cutler, Freeman, Luck, Sanchez, etc.), 11.97 yards/completion, and is averaging 280 yards per game (extrapolates to 4480 yards for a season).

Not great, but compares favorably with the other rookies. Except RG3 of course, who I try not to watch since it hurts.

Has anyone watched Tannehill? I'm curious how he looks. It seems like opinions are all over the board from "he looks great" to "he's an abomination". I haven't actually seen him.

[FUDU]

Weeden is top 10 in passing yards. That's something right?

And the bottom 5 in completion percentage and bottom 2 for QB rating (for QBs with more than 2 games).
I am cautiously optimistic about him, though. He's got a bit of a cannon for an arm... can throw the long ball moreso than anyone we've had in some time. And I think he's got some toughness... I never felt McCoy had any toughness.

Disregarding the first game, Weeden has an 80.76 rating (24th in the NFL, ahead of Stafford, Cutler, Vick, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, etc.), 60% completions (20th in the NFL, ahead of Brees, Tannehill, Vick, Newton, Fitz, Cutler, Freeman, Luck, Sanchez, etc.), 11.97 yards/completion, and is averaging 280 yards per game (extrapolates to 4480 yards for a season).

Not great, but compares favorably with the other rookies. Except RG3 of course, who I try not to watch since it hurts.

Has anyone watched Tannehill? I'm curious how he looks. It seems like opinions are all over the board from "he looks great" to "he's an abomination". I haven't actually seen him.

Good point Hiko, I was going to point that out the other day about Weeden (excusing game 1, which I know in reality you can't), if not for just sayin sake. But in RE: to week 1, it looks like that is well behind him and it is a bit reassuring his week 1 actually took place in week 1 as opposed to week 6, no?

Mo, Tannehill looks just OK IMO, good enough to let him carry out the rest of the season at least, to see what you really have going into next year anyway.

[Hikohadon]

Has anyone watched Tannehill? I'm curious how he looks. It seems like opinions are all over the board from "he looks great" to "he's an abomination". I haven't actually seen him.

He looks decent. Certainly better than I thought he'd be. They are very reserved with him, not many passes lean heavily on their run game, but he does pretty well with what they ask him to do.

It doesn't hurt that Philbin/Sherman are probably 100x better offensive minds than Shurmur/Childress.

[Hikohadon]

Good point Hiko, I was going to point that out the other day about Weeden (excusing game 1, which I know in reality you can't), if not for just sayin sake. But in RE: to week 1, it looks like that is well behind him and it is a bit reassuring his week 1 actually took place in week 1 as opposed to week 6, no?

Mo, Tannehill looks just OK IMO, good enough to let him carry out the rest of the season at least, to see what you really have going into next year anyway.

To me, Week 1 seems like a complete anomaly rather than the norm, and since it was his first ever game, I have no problem excluding it.

If others don't want to, that's their prerogative.

What's weird is that I think you could make a solid argument that the rookie QB that has looked worst is Luck. And, for a rookie, on a crappy team, I still think he's looked fine.

This crop is much better than 2011's.

[FUDU]

Agree on all points. I don't even consider week 1 as ever happening in the true context of what this year is. all about. Weeden's whole body of work this year is what we need to be looking at in January.

Luck, eh, to me he's looked OK, he's had more downs than ups but I think you can still see "it's" there with him. Too many tools in his bag to not go well into next year before questioning his possible lack of progress (if it exists).

[Gradysmanldy]

Weeden is top 10 in passing yards. That's something right?

And the bottom 5 in completion percentage and bottom 2 for QB rating (for QBs with more than 2 games).
I am cautiously optimistic about him, though. He's got a bit of a cannon for an arm... can throw the long ball moreso than anyone we've had in some time. And I think he's got some toughness... I never felt McCoy had any toughness.

Disregarding the first game, Weeden has an 80.76 rating (24th in the NFL, ahead of Stafford, Cutler, Vick, Sanchez, Tannehill, Luck, etc.), 60% completions (20th in the NFL, ahead of Brees, Tannehill, Vick, Newton, Fitz, Cutler, Freeman, Luck, Sanchez, etc.), 11.97 yards/completion, and is averaging 280 yards per game (extrapolates to 4480 yards for a season).

Not great, but compares favorably with the other rookies. Except RG3 of course, who I try not to watch since it hurts.

Those numbers are fantastic by any Cleveland QB standard, and against no joke defenses. Room to improve, too.

Not saying Weeden is the answer, but he's certainly made watching Browns football on a Sunday enjoyable this season.

[pod2dawg]

Do teams even guard Little anymore?

[leadpipe]

Good point Hiko, I was going to point that out the other day about Weeden (excusing game 1, which I know in reality you can't), if not for just sayin sake. But in RE: to week 1, it looks like that is well behind him and it is a bit reassuring his week 1 actually took place in week 1 as opposed to week 6, no?

Mo, Tannehill looks just OK IMO, good enough to let him carry out the rest of the season at least, to see what you really have going into next year anyway.

To me, Week 1 seems like a complete anomaly rather than the norm, and since it was his first ever game, I have no problem excluding it.

If others don't want to, that's their prerogative.

What's weird is that I think you could make a solid argument that the rookie QB that has looked worst is Luck. And, for a rookie, on a crappy team, I still think he's looked fine.

This crop is much better than 2011's.

ILO the glaring difference between Weeden and Tanneyhill is in the pocket. Very suprised at how Tanneyhill seems to have a real good feel for the things going on around him. I would expect a top level athlete with little experience to "take off" out of the pocket etc. But he's actually been really good at a step up here or there.

And Weeden is about what I expected with this, which was one reason I wasn't real interested, and why the difference between the two is so glaring.

Pocket presence is a prereq in today's NFL, so if I'm in Miami I'm pretty good with what's going on. At the end of the day, the difference between these two (and why Luck is a virtual lock to be good) is recognizing shit at the line. HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN 2012. There's a reason Mike Vick stinks - cause he's the worst QB in the league at recognizing what's going on at the snap. Uber athlete means shit - unless you got this along with it. Cam Newton's career depends about soley on this, as an example.

For Weeden, I have little doubt he can hit wide open guys or guys covered by linebackers 30 yards downfield. There's a minimun number of those plays. My question is if he has the ability to get his game out of "Mark Sanchez speed" as far as recognizing stuff, and get it on par with the good QB's.

He's goten better, which is all you can hope for, I'm just concerned about the ceiling, and if that ceiling is tall enough to win under.

[motherscratcher]

ILO the glaring difference between Weeden and Tanneyhill is in the pocket. Very suprised at how Tanneyhill seems to have a real good feel for the things going on around him. I would expect a top level athlete with little experience to "take off" out of the pocket etc. But he's actually been really good at a step up here or there.

And Weeden is about what I expected with this, which was one reason I wasn't real interested, and why the difference between the two is so glaring.

Pocket presence is a prereq in today's NFL, so if I'm in Miami I'm pretty good with what's going on. At the end of the day, the difference between these two (and why Luck is a virtual lock to be good) is recognizing shit at the line. HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN 2012. There's a reason Mike Vick stinks - cause he's the worst QB in the league at recognizing what's going on at the snap. Uber athlete means shit - unless you got this along with it. Cam Newton's career depends about soley on this, as an example.

For Weeden, I have little doubt he can hit wide open guys or guys covered by linebackers 30 yards downfield. There's a minimun number of those plays. My question is if he has the ability to get his game out of "Mark Sanchez speed" as far as recognizing stuff, and get it on par with the good QB's.

He's goten better, which is all you can hope for, I'm just concerned about the ceiling, and if that ceiling is tall enough to win under.

I guess time will tell. We've got plenty of that.

[Hikohadon]

ILO the glaring difference between Weeden and Tanneyhill is in the pocket. Very suprised at how Tanneyhill seems to have a real good feel for the things going on around him. I would expect a top level athlete with little experience to "take off" out of the pocket etc. But he's actually been really good at a step up here or there.

And Weeden is about what I expected with this, which was one reason I wasn't real interested, and why the difference between the two is so glaring.

Pocket presence is a prereq in today's NFL, so if I'm in Miami I'm pretty good with what's going on. At the end of the day, the difference between these two (and why Luck is a virtual lock to be good) is recognizing shit at the line. HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN 2012. There's a reason Mike Vick stinks - cause he's the worst QB in the league at recognizing what's going on at the snap. Uber athlete means shit - unless you got this along with it. Cam Newton's career depends about soley on this, as an example.

For Weeden, I have little doubt he can hit wide open guys or guys covered by linebackers 30 yards downfield. There's a minimun number of those plays. My question is if he has the ability to get his game out of "Mark Sanchez speed" as far as recognizing stuff, and get it on par with the good QB's.

He's goten better, which is all you can hope for, I'm just concerned about the ceiling, and if that ceiling is tall enough to win under.

I watch a lot of the Dolphins since that's my wife's team (otherwise, I wouldn't bother, they're pretty boring), and I personally see not a helluva lot of discernible difference in their pocket presence (add Luck and Wilson into that too), but I guess that's why it's an opinion.

Recognition/understanding... it's hard to gauge that at this point due to development and wild cards such as play design, whether they're allowed to audible, and if their receivers/linemen do the things they expect them to do.

[leadpipe]

ILO the glaring difference between Weeden and Tanneyhill is in the pocket. Very suprised at how Tanneyhill seems to have a real good feel for the things going on around him. I would expect a top level athlete with little experience to "take off" out of the pocket etc. But he's actually been really good at a step up here or there.

And Weeden is about what I expected with this, which was one reason I wasn't real interested, and why the difference between the two is so glaring.

Pocket presence is a prereq in today's NFL, so if I'm in Miami I'm pretty good with what's going on. At the end of the day, the difference between these two (and why Luck is a virtual lock to be good) is recognizing shit at the line. HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN 2012. There's a reason Mike Vick stinks - cause he's the worst QB in the league at recognizing what's going on at the snap. Uber athlete means shit - unless you got this along with it. Cam Newton's career depends about soley on this, as an example.

For Weeden, I have little doubt he can hit wide open guys or guys covered by linebackers 30 yards downfield. There's a minimun number of those plays. My question is if he has the ability to get his game out of "Mark Sanchez speed" as far as recognizing stuff, and get it on par with the good QB's.

He's goten better, which is all you can hope for, I'm just concerned about the ceiling, and if that ceiling is tall enough to win under.

I watch a lot of the Dolphins since that's my wife's team (otherwise, I wouldn't bother, they're pretty boring), and I personally see not a helluva lot of discernible difference in their pocket presence (add Luck and Wilson into that too), but I guess that's why it's an opinion.

Recognition/understanding... it's hard to gauge that at this point due to development and wild cards such as play design, whether they're allowed to audible, and if their receivers/linemen do the things they expect them to do.

I watch the Dolphins because I listen to a radio show outta Miami 5 days a week.

Suprised you don't see a pretty big difference under pressure. Weeden has some panic in him in the face of an initial rush, whereas Tanneyhill seems to find himself a spot. And panic is probably too strong a word with Weeds - it's not that bad, it just seems to me that Tanneyhill has that ability to keep the switch on a lillte longer in order to make a play.

And the good in Wilson is about all intangible at this point. Which is OK in some ways, cause some of that ya gotta have, but he's behind the others in the tanglible areas ILO. Not sure I'd wanna be him tonight.

[Hikohadon]

ILO the glaring difference between Weeden and Tanneyhill is in the pocket. Very suprised at how Tanneyhill seems to have a real good feel for the things going on around him. I would expect a top level athlete with little experience to "take off" out of the pocket etc. But he's actually been really good at a step up here or there.

And Weeden is about what I expected with this, which was one reason I wasn't real interested, and why the difference between the two is so glaring.

Pocket presence is a prereq in today's NFL, so if I'm in Miami I'm pretty good with what's going on. At the end of the day, the difference between these two (and why Luck is a virtual lock to be good) is recognizing shit at the line. HAVE TO HAVE THIS IN 2012. There's a reason Mike Vick stinks - cause he's the worst QB in the league at recognizing what's going on at the snap. Uber athlete means shit - unless you got this along with it. Cam Newton's career depends about soley on this, as an example.

For Weeden, I have little doubt he can hit wide open guys or guys covered by linebackers 30 yards downfield. There's a minimun number of those plays. My question is if he has the ability to get his game out of "Mark Sanchez speed" as far as recognizing stuff, and get it on par with the good QB's.

He's goten better, which is all you can hope for, I'm just concerned about the ceiling, and if that ceiling is tall enough to win under.

I watch a lot of the Dolphins since that's my wife's team (otherwise, I wouldn't bother, they're pretty boring), and I personally see not a helluva lot of discernible difference in their pocket presence (add Luck and Wilson into that too), but I guess that's why it's an opinion.

Recognition/understanding... it's hard to gauge that at this point due to development and wild cards such as play design, whether they're allowed to audible, and if their receivers/linemen do the things they expect them to do.

I watch the Dolphins because I listen to a radio show outta Miami 5 days a week.

Suprised you don't see a pretty big difference under pressure. Weeden has some panic in him in the face of an initial rush, whereas Tanneyhill seems to find himself a spot. And panic is probably too strong a word with Weeds - it's not that bad, it just seems to me that Tanneyhill has that ability to keep the switch on a lillte longer in order to make a play.

And the good in Wilson is about all intangible at this point. Which is OK in some ways, cause some of that ya gotta have, but he's behind the others in the tanglible areas ILO. Not sure I'd wanna be him tonight.

Thought Tanny looked uncomfortable/panicky the first few weeks then setttled down and looks decent now, similar to Weed's arc. Both light years ahead of where, say, Gabbert was as a rook (and prob even now).

I see decision making as more an issue for Weeds than pocket presence.

[Hikohadon]

Last night was my first extended look at Wilson this year, and man did he look un-good.

Granted, the SF D makes lots of QB's look bad, and the drops in the first half were awful, but I remembered his arm being better. There's not a ton of velocity on his passes, and lots of them were INT bait if the Corner just turned around. That pick he had in the 2nd Half, you could see that coming for 3 or 4 drives.