just another man's opinion...I'm no fan of King's but it is an interesting read nonetheless...the following is from Lincoln Riley, OK head coach...
"Phoning from Oklahoma the other day, Riley said: “Throughout all the years with both Baker and Kyler, I can’t ever remember there being a time where we said, We want to run this play, or use this scheme, or protect this way but we can’t do it because these guys are 5-10 or 6-foot instead of 6-4. It never really entered into the equation. I don’t think their pro coaches are going to think about it either.”
Riley watched the draft process last year culminate in Mayfield going number one. He watched the success Mayfield had as the dominant presence in helping the Browns from 0-16 to 7-8-1. He thinks Murray will have the same impact on his NFL team.
“I will be shocked,” Riley said, “if five players get their name called on draft day before Kyler.”"
Link - (
New Window )
That said, I'm on record as saying I think anyone who has Murray lasting until the bottom of the 1st or even beyond that are crazy - someone is going to take him early and I have a feeling he'll be the first QB off the board. Even over Haskins.
In the same way, if we take a QB not named Murray and he has a better pro career than Haskins or Lock, it will alway be woulda coulda shoulda.
All this assuming we go QB with the first round pick. Imagine if we don’t and any of the QB’s we xouks have drafted turn out to be very good?
But, he can make plays for sure in the Big12... NFL? I guess we're gonna find out.
The Giants trade down far enough in the first to get a third this year, and a two next year. Then trade the lower first for Rosen.
Not going to happen IMO. I think they are rolling with Rosen.
I remember Bobby Bowden talking up Danny Kanell as a quality NFL quarterback. Hahahaha...
The Giants trade down far enough in the first to get a third this year, and a two next year. Then trade the lower first for Rosen.
Ok Sonny (Kevin Costner character from Draft day).
The Giants were willing to gamble on Ereck Flowers despite the fact that there were major concerns about his technique. Why not take a chance on a QB who's only real concern is his height?
Many are underestimating the difficulty of focusing on two sports. Murray was that good with his attention split between baseball and football. Imagine how much better he will get when he is focused solely on football.
His agent claimed that he is already up to 205 lbs. He still needs to add to his frame but that will come with time. IIRC Eli was 215 lbs when the Giants drafted him.
Murray is listed as being 5'10, 195. We'll know for sure after the combine. Joe Montana was listed as 6'2. I've seen his weight listed at 195, 200, or 205.
The one thing the Giants cannot do is miss these early picks. We are in this situation because of that mentality. Oh, Flowers has all the tools and he is young. He'll develop them. Apple has the tools and upside. There are countless others. People are scared off with the safe play? Why? Barkley was safe. Hernandez was safe. Is safe another code word for basically a finished product? Good. Give me the almost finished product. At least I know what I am getting and not gambling with this team's future on having an NFL player learn basic things at the NFL level. It is too hard with the limited practices and limited hitting.
Rumored to be over 200 already. Not sure if he can carry it long term, but not far from Russ.
Put on another 15 pounds?
Quote:
has more to do with weight than height
His agent claimed that he is already up to 205 lbs. He still needs to add to his frame but that will come with time. IIRC Eli was 215 lbs when the Giants drafted him.
Russell Wilson was 205 when he was drafted. And he was 3 years older than Murray...
The combine will tell us what we really need to know.
😂😂
...Giants will trade up to secure either Dwayne Haskins or Kyle Murray.
Whoever they like best.
...Giants will trade up to secure either Dwayne Haskins or Kyle Murray.
Whoever they like best.
As with yours, these are ALL opinions. Many here say, they wouldn’t take either QB at 6. You’re saying it might take a trade up..Wonder what Shurmur (and DG) thinks?
Going to college coaches for opinions on their own players is an amusing practices. We know how that works already.
Quote:
has more to do with weight than height
Rumored to be over 200 already. Not sure if he can carry it long term, but not far from Russ.
I seriously doubt he can carry much more than 200 lbs and be effective running. He really is slightly built. That picture standing next to Haskins and Tua at the Heisman Award Ceremony was pretty revealing on how small he is. IIRC Tiki came to the Giants at about the same size and after 3 years was up to 210. So it is possible, but I also think Tiki had a larger frame to begin with.
I think he will do well, but injury concerns for a #6 pick are large.
FWIW, I'd be surprised if DG tried to move up.
How many short qbs failed and how many of those same short qbs failed as a direct result of being short???
The narrow minded thinking towards guys like Murray makes me crazy.
It's more that those guys don't even get a chance to play. You're right that there's just no historical point of reference in the modern era.
It's because QB's that size rarely even get this far - usually BECAUSE of those limitations.
There's a reason why we have such little comparable data to go by.
I'm not writing him off yet - he and Haskins are the 2 QB's for me in this draft. I'm not interested in the other guys. But the size concerns are legitimate. We can't just completely ignore them. It is a factor and will come into play in the pros.
Russell Wilson is the shortest QB at 5'11 and 27 of the 32 starting QB's are between 6'2" and 6'5".
In the last 30 years, only 4 QB's have been selected in the first round that were under 6 feet.
In the last decade, only 10 QB's total have been drafted than were 6'1" or shorter.
So, have guys like Cody Kessler, Johnny Manziel, Aaron Murray, Colt McCoy, Pat White or Nate Davis "failed"? Or are they unfit to be starters?
A lot of times, QB's who are short aren't drafted or are asked to play different positions.
I also think the NFL is evolving maybe more towards the mobile type QB.
Murray is definitely and intriguing possibility.
Russell Wilson is the shortest QB at 5'11 and 27 of the 32 starting QB's are between 6'2" and 6'5".
In the last 30 years, only 4 QB's have been selected in the first round that were under 6 feet.
In the last decade, only 10 QB's total have been drafted than were 6'1" or shorter.
So, have guys like Cody Kessler, Johnny Manziel, Aaron Murray, Colt McCoy, Pat White or Nate Davis "failed"? Or are they unfit to be starters?
A lot of times, QB's who are short aren't drafted or are asked to play different positions.
While I agree with your poiint, half the failures you listed were Browns.
They were talking about this earlier on ESPN. 91% of Murray’s passes this season were from the pocket. Where is everyone getting the idea that he’s not a pocket passer first?
Quote:
I think Murray is a bust. I've never seen a Flutie type QB succeed, and its also rare a running QB succeeds (they need to be pocket guys first like Mahomes). Murray is both, so IMO he is a big risk
They were talking about this earlier on ESPN. 91% of Murray’s passes this season were from the pocket. Where is everyone getting the idea that he’s not a pocket passer first?
In a conference with zero defense and a hell of an OL.
At 6th overall, you should be picking a talent that is a borderline HOFer. At 2nd overall, as sure fire an HOFer as possible. Barkley checked that box.
That's exactly what I fear/think will happen with Murray - he's going to be the new flavor of the month, make electric plays, have everyone saying "he should have gone 1st overall," we'll hear a chorus of "I told you so's" if the Giants aren't the ones who draft him, and then it'll get cut short. Either teams will figure out how to slow him down, or he'll wind up hurt.
"Kyler Murray is the kind of player who can take you to the playoffs or get hurt his second game. He is exciting and a great college player, but he is undersized and a big part of his game is mobility, and mobile quarterbacks in the NFL don’t last very long … I would be hesitant [to draft him].”
Haskins is the one who doesn't catch your eye quite as quickly, but the more you get to know him, the more you see stability and long-term potential and uncover some great things you didn't even know were there at first glance. A more traditional path/arc and someone who can be there for you for the long-haul.
(I know this is a fucking weird analogy to use with football players - but I think it's a fairly relatable point for anyone who has ever socialized in their 20's!)
In football, one player is not enough no matter who the player is. Aaron Donald was a beast but look at when he was with Fisher. They were one of the worst teams in the league.
Look at Rodgers. GB needs a ton of help.
Look at KC. They hit their HR with Mahomes and it still wasn't good enough even though they have a lot of talent too.
Now, look at NE. They don't look for the HRs. They look for the players who'll fit their system and excel within it. They'd rather hit singles and doubles and go with the "safe" guy over and over because that'll be more beneficial than swinging for the fences and missing more often than now.
I am not saying not too look at upside. I am just saying you need tp be honest of the downside as well. You have tk look at the whole picture. Where will you team be if you are missing picks in the top ten oc the draft? It is easy to say to take a certain guy. But if you had to put your house on that player working out do you make the same decision?
I wish Murray well but trust is extremwly important for any player especially a QB. I don't trust Murray so no way am I putting my house up to back up him working out in the NFL.
Also, if you are a team as stackdd as NE or another team then you can takd more chances. If you have as many needs as we do then we need to hit these picks. Beckham is a top WR in the NFL. Barkley is a top RB in the NFL. And we still are not where any of us want this team to be. It isn't about the HRs for this team. It is about all the misses we've had.
Spud Webb was marveled at, but he wasn't an amazing basketball player - he was a decent starter.
I feel this is one of those times in the franchise where you can't gamble and lose. Can't try and buck probability that Murray is going to be a Superstar.
Just build a solid football team
Haskins is the one who doesn't catch your eye quite as quickly, but the more you get to know him, the more you see stability and long-term potential and uncover some great things you didn't even know were there at first glance. A more traditional path/arc and someone who can be there for you for the long-haul.
(I know this is a fucking weird analogy to use with football players - but I think it's a fairly relatable point for anyone who has ever socialized in their 20's!)
this is great. Its the classic conversation an older brother has after he's married with kids. We all love to take down the hot chick, but the one with stability stands with you through thick and thin
I know the name of the game is winning, but there are other benefits to taking him. I wouldn't base my decision on that, but a team like Miami might...
Every QB EVER needs to play in a system that is tailored to what He does well, and what He "Wants to Do" as a Player and Athlete...and Murray wants to RUN---about 10 times per game. It's what makes Him, HIM...and it's what Makes hom effective.
Guys who run the ball 10 times per game have a limited shelf life...whether they're big or small....whether they're qb's, rb's, wr's.
I have a high interest in Mobility...and I like guys who can make smart plays with their legs. I Like a guy who can make ONE necessary step to create a throw...I hate feeding Running Plays to a QB!!!!!! I hate PLANNING collisions for My QB.
Pass the Ball!...PASS on Murray!!!
Look at KC. They hit their HR with Mahomes and it still wasn't good enough even though they have a lot of talent too.
I'd take issue with this example. Is there really a question that Mahomes puts that team on a different level? If you make the question "Does one player guarantee a championship?", then yeah, no player will ever meet that standard. But one player, an MVP caliber QB in the NFL, certainly puts you on track for sustained success.
One, Arizona could still take Murray number one overall. If they do he feels Rosen could be had for a late first or early second.
Two, the Jets could trade down out of their spot.
Three, if Oakland stays put he can see them taking Murray but they may want to move out of that spot.
Four, Jax and Miami are candidates to trade up for a QB. If Miami trades up it is for Murray.
So, with all of that said, Murray may not even be an option for us unless we trade up ourselves.
Quote:
Look at KC. They hit their HR with Mahomes and it still wasn't good enough even though they have a lot of talent too.
I'd take issue with this example. Is there really a question that Mahomes puts that team on a different level? If you make the question "Does one player guarantee a championship?", then yeah, no player will ever meet that standard. But one player, an MVP caliber QB in the NFL, certainly puts you on track for sustained success.
My point was one player is never enough. Mahomes definitely made them better. He was the MVP. But with football you neeed a ton of help no matter how good one player is. I thought I was pretty clear with my post.
To relate that to us is if we hit a HR then great but how much will that really change our team? We need to be more consistent overall.
One, Arizona could still take Murray number one overall. If they do he feels Rosen could be had for a late first or early second.
Two, the Jets could trade down out of their spot.
Three, if Oakland stays put he can see them taking Murray but they may want to move out of that spot.
Four, Jax and Miami are candidates to trade up for a QB. If Miami trades up it is for Murray.
So, with all of that said, Murray may not even be an option for us unless we trade up ourselves.
Per #1, I would much rather have Rosen for our #2 than Murray with our #1.
Quote:
In comment 14299264 robbieballs2003 said:
Quote:
Look at KC. They hit their HR with Mahomes and it still wasn't good enough even though they have a lot of talent too.
I'd take issue with this example. Is there really a question that Mahomes puts that team on a different level? If you make the question "Does one player guarantee a championship?", then yeah, no player will ever meet that standard. But one player, an MVP caliber QB in the NFL, certainly puts you on track for sustained success.
My point was one player is never enough. Mahomes definitely made them better. He was the MVP. But with football you neeed a ton of help no matter how good one player is. I thought I was pretty clear with my post.
To relate that to us is if we hit a HR then great but how much will that really change our team? We need to be more consistent overall.
I get your point, we're just conversing. Hitting a HR can cover a lot of the gap and get you closer to where you need to be. Yes, one player isn't going to do it all, but let's not downplay how big the piece of the puzzle QB is.
Sticking with the Mahomes example, they had a great season even while it was generally acknowledged that their defense is bad.
Not every player is going to have that kind of impact, I understand.
Who gets hit hard in the Big 12? ;)
I get your point. And there is recent talk that baseball players who play football - specifically the QB - have the sliding skill that also helps them avoid hits when on the run...
If he's a HR, but so is Haskins or Lock, then is the risk or bucking the probabilities worth it? I think a lot of people have the take that Murray is so electrifying that no peer is in his stratosphere, and I think that's crap.
It was sort of like the Luck/RGIII debates. RGIII had a lot of "upside", and he's essentially a player nearly out of the game. His year of upside was very good, and then it flamed out very quickly.
I get you. I do think that you run the risk of overlooking the skills that he has which would allow him to succeed at this level when you get a laser focus on risk factors.
So much was made about Baker Mayfield's size and character and college opponents that people kind of forgot or didn't see that he was simply an excellent passer with an NFL arm.
What is the IT factor? That he's small and played well? The amount of guys who have an IT factor basically are said to because it give them some generic intangible.
Manziel had an IT factor. RGIII had an IT factor. If you ask me, Trevor Lawrence has an IT factor. But what IT means? I have no fucking clue.
Quote:
There is an IT factor about him as well
What is the IT factor? That he's small and played well? The amount of guys who have an IT factor basically are said to because it give them some generic intangible.
Manziel had an IT factor. RGIII had an IT factor. If you ask me, Trevor Lawrence has an IT factor. But what IT means? I have no fucking clue.
When I see the "It" factor, I have flashbacks to the Danny Kanell years and how so many argued that his awful arm was made up for because he had IT. Different scenario but in the end having IT means very little without the physical ability
That's today's NFL - where the playoff teams change by 50% or more almost every year and the new trend gets bucked quickly.
That's not to say mobile QB's aren't successful or that the trend isn't moving less towards them - it is just that it takes more than a flash in the pan example to constitute a trend.
This year it's "hire coaches who ever met Sean McVay"
Murray - obvious question is size, but he is an excellent thrower of the ball. More explosive and better thrower than Russell Wilson.
Haskins - Has tools, but questions about his footwork and field vision. Poor footwork and inability to slide in pocket impacts accuracy. High ceiling but not a sure thing...needs good coaching and refinement. Compared to Jameis Winston.
Lock - Major arm talent to make throws to all parts of the field. Loose with mechanics and fundamentals; footwork and drop back skills need work. Compared to early Matt Stafford. Used the term "wild stallion".
Jones - Success is going to have to be based on pre-snap reads and field vision. Needs to be fit into the right scheme and coaching. Compared to Nick Foles.
Based on listening to Cosell, if it's going to be one of these four I hope it's Murray. I don't think I want any part of the other three.
Well, he also ran for 1K yards and 140 carries. So there is an inclination to run. Not sure how many were designed vs ad-libbed, but Murray/Riley did not shy away from using Murray's wheels.
Jay Cutler. Agree - major pass for me.
Did he really? Yikes.
Peter from NH (formerly CT) : 1:10 pm : link : reply
as detailed in the article, 90% of his throws were from the pocket. He is more a pocket passer with mobility than a mobile passer.
It could actually indicate the opposite. He throws from the pocket if the initial read is open, but if it isn't, he takes off running. For mobile guys, while this sound counter-intuitive, this only records the times he throws the ball. Not the times, he tucked it and ran after abandoning the pass, or on straight called running plays.
Meanwhile, you could have a QB like Eli have designed rollouts where he throws the ball, and technically it is not considered being in the pocket.
The stat itself isn't just misleading - it really can't be used to define if a player is a "pocket passer" or not.
Link - ( New Window )
Pete, I findmyself agreeing with you yet again!
Murray does not take big hits just as Russell Wilson and Tiki didnt. He is even smaller which males him an even smaller target. He is smart when he runs and I would absolutely take him at 6. With guys his size its usually arm strength that we worry about...not the case here.
Quote:
There is an IT factor about him as well
What is the IT factor? That he's small and played well? The amount of guys who have an IT factor basically are said to because it give them some generic intangible.
Manziel had an IT factor. RGIII had an IT factor. If you ask me, Trevor Lawrence has an IT factor. But what IT means? I have no fucking clue.
Again - Johnny Manziel had "IT". He just slung the ball and won. You can basically say any of the top players have "IT". It is the quantifying of what "IT" is that really has the impact.
It's like when the Panthers went to the Super Bowl and it kept being said about Cam that he just loves the game and has fun. Then they lost, he had a meltdown at the press conference and it wasn't so much fun.
Having "IT" really doesn't mean a lot.
Again - Johnny Manziel had "IT". He just slung the ball and won. You can basically say any of the top players have "IT". It is the quantifying of what "IT" is that really has the impact.
It's like when the Panthers went to the Super Bowl and it kept being said about Cam that he just loves the game and has fun. Then they lost, he had a meltdown at the press conference and it wasn't so much fun.
Having "IT" really doesn't mean a lot.
Often times, penicillin cures "it," but not always.
If he measures under 5'10". If he weighs less than 190. If his hand size is too small, he could fall out of the first round.
On the other hand, if he's 5'11" 200 pounds and has an average hand size, he could go very early.
If he measures under 5'10". If he weighs less than 190. If his hand size is too small, he could fall out of the first round.
On the other hand, if he's 5'11" 200 pounds and has an average hand size, he could go very early.
I think once he checks in under 5'9" 1/2 and has average hands at best - remember, the college football is actually smaller than an NFL ball - I think the new car smell on Murray wears off and he drops.
Yikes. Cosell couldn't have been more wrong on both Webb and Mahomes if he tried. That would definitely make me not listen to anything he says about QB again.
Quote:
will be critical for Murray.
If he measures under 5'10". If he weighs less than 190. If his hand size is too small, he could fall out of the first round.
On the other hand, if he's 5'11" 200 pounds and has an average hand size, he could go very early.
I think once he checks in under 5'9" 1/2 and has average hands at best - remember, the college football is actually smaller than an NFL ball - I think the new car smell on Murray wears off and he drops.
Incorrect. The NFL ball is slightly smaller. However so much slightly smaller that its not even worth talking about.
The NFL Rule :
The Ball must be a “Wilson,” hand selected, bearing the signature of the Commissioner
of the league,...
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) rubber bladder enclosed
in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.
It shall have the form of a prolate spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis,
11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2 inches; short circumference, 21
to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces.
The NCAA Rule:
The ball shall meet the following specifications:
a. New or nearly new. (A nearly new ball is a ball that has not been altered and retains the properties and qualities of a new ball.)
b. Cover consisting of four panels of pebble-grained leather without corrugations other than seams.
c. One set of eight equally spaced lacings.
d. Natural tan color.
e. Two 1-inch white stripes that are three to three and one-quarter inches from the end of the ball and located only on the two panels adjacent to the laces.
f. Conforms to maximum and minimum dimensions and shape indicated in the accompanying diagram.
g. Inflated to the pressure of 12-1/2 to 13-1/2 pounds per square inch(psi).
h. Weight of 14 to 15 ounces. The short circumference is 20 3/4" to 21 1/4"
The long circumference is 27 3/4" to 28 1/2". The long axis is 10 7/8 to 11 7/16.
Me too
Again - Johnny Manziel had "IT". He just slung the ball and won. You can basically say any of the top players have "IT". It is the quantifying of what "IT" is that really has the impact.
It's like when the Panthers went to the Super Bowl and it kept being said about Cam that he just loves the game and has fun. Then they lost, he had a meltdown at the press conference and it wasn't so much fun.
Having "IT" really doesn't mean a lot.
Leadership, ability to elevate and inspire the play of people around you, ability to perform in the clutch, etc. These things do matter. It is not all about stats and measurables.
Quote:
The football used in NCAA contest is slightly smaller than the Balls used in the NFL. The balls used in the NCAA also have 2 white stripes.
The NFL Rule :
The Ball must be a “Wilson,” hand selected, bearing the signature of the Commissioner
of the league,...
The ball shall be made up of an inflated (12 1/2 to 13 1/2 pounds) rubber bladder enclosed
in a pebble grained, leather case (natural tan color) without corrugations of any kind.
It shall have the form of a prolate spheroid and the size and weight shall be: long axis,
11 to 11 1/4 inches; long circumference, 28 to 28 1/2 inches; short circumference, 21
to 21 1/4 inches; weight, 14 to 15 ounces.
The NCAA Rule:
The ball shall meet the following specifications:
a. New or nearly new. (A nearly new ball is a ball that has not been altered and retains the properties and qualities of a new ball.)
b. Cover consisting of four panels of pebble-grained leather without corrugations other than seams.
c. One set of eight equally spaced lacings.
d. Natural tan color.
e. Two 1-inch white stripes that are three to three and one-quarter inches from the end of the ball and located only on the two panels adjacent to the laces.
f. Conforms to maximum and minimum dimensions and shape indicated in the accompanying diagram.
g. Inflated to the pressure of 12-1/2 to 13-1/2 pounds per square inch(psi).
h. Weight of 14 to 15 ounces. The short circumference is 20 3/4" to 21 1/4"
The long circumference is 27 3/4" to 28 1/2". The long axis is 10 7/8 to 11 7/16.
Then I stand corrected. I had always yhought that while the college ball had more diameter, the NFL ball was heavier.
Apologies to bw if that is not the case.
Quote:
as detailed in the article, 90% of his throws were from the pocket. He is more a pocket passer with mobility than a mobile passer. He actually plays the game more like Luck than RG3. Not saying he is Luck, but he is definitely not RG3 in terms of style of play.
Well, he also ran for 1K yards and 140 carries. So there is an inclination to run. Not sure how many were designed vs ad-libbed, but Murray/Riley did not shy away from using Murray's wheels.
Some of those 140 carries were sacks, as sacks count as rushes in college football. I'm not saying a lot of those 140 carries were sacks (they were not), but some were. There were not a ton of designed runs in that offense. Even if 20 of the carries were sacks, that leaves 120 carries across 14 games. That's about 9 carries a game, which isn't a ton, particularly when you look at how other mobile QBs have been used in the past.
If you watched Oklahoma play, you saw a guy in Murray who looked to throw first and run second. The 49 yard TD pass in the semifinals against Alabama is a perfect example of that. Many of his runs are because there is no one to throw to and he sees 25 yards available in front of him. That is extremely valuable to a team as well.
Robbie,
Kyler Murray put up essentially the same passing stats in 2018 as Baker Mayfield did in 2017. It just so happens that he also tacked on 1000 yards and 12 TDs rushing. But the kid can go through progressions and IMO is the best natural passer of this class.
A poster cited the fact that 91% of Murray's passes were from the pocket and you shot it down saying "well he had an amazing o-line".
Tell me: what would Murray have to have done to prove to you that he can be a successful pocket-passer? It feels to me like you are citing his mobility as a reason why he is not a good pocket-passer. To me, he has proven he could be an excellent pocket-passer and his mobility is simply a wonderful added bonus.
Whether a QB is mobile or immobile does not tell you whether he will be injury-prone or not. I watched him play several times this year and I rarely saw him take massive hits running downfield. I think everyone looks at RGIII as a reason to be cautious but RGIII was always careless and fearless in taking hits, to a fault obviously because injuries derailed his career. I see no reason to link Murray to RGIII though simply because they are both mobile QBs.
Quote:
Playing in the conference championships. All pocket QBs. Mahomes can run but he is primarily a pocket passer. These running QBs are a fad. And most Giants fans want one because our OL has been so bad. I get it. They want to mask the issues. But give me a better OL and a QB that can stand tall in the pocket. As another poster said, mobility is different than running. Running QBs run most of the time because their first target is not open. They don't go through their progressions. That is playground football. That isn't NFL football. And maybe one guy comes along and wins a super bowl like that but that doesn't make it a trend. Plays still need to be made in the pocket and a good OL is still needed to wik games. Too many fans are scared from our OL over the years that they want to find an alternative instead of addressing the real problem. But every QB even if he is a runner needs a strong OL.
Robbie,
Kyler Murray put up essentially the same passing stats in 2018 as Baker Mayfield did in 2017. It just so happens that he also tacked on 1000 yards and 12 TDs rushing. But the kid can go through progressions and IMO is the best natural passer of this class.
A poster cited the fact that 91% of Murray's passes were from the pocket and you shot it down saying "well he had an amazing o-line".
Tell me: what would Murray have to have done to prove to you that he can be a successful pocket-passer? It feels to me like you are citing his mobility as a reason why he is not a good pocket-passer. To me, he has proven he could be an excellent pocket-passer and his mobility is simply a wonderful added bonus.
Whether a QB is mobile or immobile does not tell you whether he will be injury-prone or not. I watched him play several times this year and I rarely saw him take massive hits running downfield. I think everyone looks at RGIII as a reason to be cautious but RGIII was always careless and fearless in taking hits, to a fault obviously because injuries derailed his career. I see no reason to link Murray to RGIII though simply because they are both mobile QBs.
I hope he goes before our pick because it will push hopefully Haskins or Lock down to us (or allow us to trade for Rosen). Right or wrong, Giants will not take Murray as it is the polar opposite of their prototype at QB.
Quote:
In comment 14299322 Peter from NH (formerly CT) said:
Quote:
as detailed in the article, 90% of his throws were from the pocket. He is more a pocket passer with mobility than a mobile passer. He actually plays the game more like Luck than RG3. Not saying he is Luck, but he is definitely not RG3 in terms of style of play.
Well, he also ran for 1K yards and 140 carries. So there is an inclination to run. Not sure how many were designed vs ad-libbed, but Murray/Riley did not shy away from using Murray's wheels.
Some of those 140 carries were sacks, as sacks count as rushes in college football. I'm not saying a lot of those 140 carries were sacks (they were not), but some were. There were not a ton of designed runs in that offense. Even if 20 of the carries were sacks, that leaves 120 carries across 14 games. That's about 9 carries a game, which isn't a ton, particularly when you look at how other mobile QBs have been used in the past.
If you watched Oklahoma play, you saw a guy in Murray who looked to throw first and run second. The 49 yard TD pass in the semifinals against Alabama is a perfect example of that. Many of his runs are because there is no one to throw to and he sees 25 yards available in front of him. That is extremely valuable to a team as well.
Though I dont believe the Giants will touch him , it doesnt mean I think he'll stink as a QB. I actually think he could be a very dynamic QB in the pros in the right system. The problem will be with that body type can he stay healthy. NFL hit and speed are very different than College. Even Vick and Wilson have much bigger frames (thicker bodied) than Kyler.
Or is he?
The Cardinals should be less worried about making statements and more concerned about building the team in Kliff Kingsbury's image. Everything starts at quarterback, of course.
Rosen is a quality prospect and, in most cases, he would be the right guy to build a franchise around. He's not the right guy for Arizona based on its trajectory. Kingsbury knows Oklahoma's Kyler Murray is the right choice for the No. 1 overall pick.
"Here's the thing—we don't know what Kliff Kingsbury is going to want or how much control he'll have," an AFC personnel director told Bleacher Report's Matt Miller. "But he didn't draft Josh Rosen [last year], and he isn't tied to him. If he wants Kyler, he can get him."
Murray is listed at 5'10" and 195 pounds—the quarterback's agent, Erik Burkhardt, said on Comeback SZN that Murray weighs 205 pounds—so questions exist about whether or not he can handle the NFL's physicality, but his combination of arm talent, athleticism to work inside and outside the pocket and understanding of the Air Raid passing concepts Kingsbury wants to implement make him the ideal choice.
Link - ( New Window )
What are they supposed to do, not publicly support their player?
Agreed. Any team taking Murray must make it a priority to teach the kid to NOT take the hits. Slide or fall down at all costs.
Murray is a pass first QB who actually has a really impressive arm and should be able to make all of the NFL throws - I didn't feel like Griffin was ever really that.
If Murray were 6'2" and ~210, he'd be the first pick in this draft.
I actually think he's still going to wind up being the first pick.
Murray is a pass first QB who actually has a really impressive arm and should be able to make all of the NFL throws - I didn't feel like Griffin was ever really that.
If Murray were 6'2" and ~210, he'd be the first pick in this draft.
I actually think he's still going to wind up being the first pick.
I really like Murray. The talent is undeniable and the upside is pretty ridiculous in the right system.
However he really is the total opposite of the Giants prototype at QB. I cannot see our ultra-conservative, slow to move from their ways organization taking that leap of faith so to speak.
There has already been reports confirming the Giants wouldn't go after that small a player at QB (which is in line with things we've heard for years about what they like at that position).
With that said, I do hope he goes before us hopefully sliding Haskins or Lock down to us (or even a trade of Rosen).
I think Murray is definitely a better prospect - the only issue is the size. If you told me Murray would be able to play all 16 games in his first 5 NFL seasons, I'd trade up for him and make sure I got him.
I just don't have that confidence - which is why I like Haskins more. But still consider this a 2 QB draft for the most part - with Haskins and Murray being the 2.
Trying to make him more of a traditional passer wouldn't have worked, IMO. He doesn't have that ability and it's why he's still standing on the sidelines now and can't get anyone to even consider him for another starting gig after it didn't work in Cleveland.
Trying to make him more of a traditional passer wouldn't have worked, IMO. He doesn't have that ability and it's why he's still standing on the sidelines now and can't get anyone to even consider him for another starting gig after it didn't work in Cleveland.
RGIII was a smart enough kid and only seemed (again, perception) to become uncoachable after he found initial pro success. It's tough to establish a negative, but considering some of the morons who've figured out how to make a couple reads I think he could have managed if he'd been given the opportunity to learn before being asked to shoulder the weight of the franchise pretty much from the outset.
If the conviction is to come out of the #6 pick with Eli's successor, I'd want to come out of it with either Murray or Rosen in trade. Murray dropping to #6 probably isn't realistic. Maybe trading for Rosen is the move.
Haskins isn't in the same league as Rosen as a passer. His footwork is a problem that I would want no part of. No thanks on Haskins.
Not surprising, but wrong.
Weaknesses
- Durability is a concern
- Carries slight build and has had injury issues dating back to high school
- Carries ball low in pocket with slight upward pre-throw hitch
- Too casual in pocket set-up
- Decision making and post-snap reads are inconsistent
- Refuses easy throws at times
- Arm talent and strength are below average
- May need to make greater effort to drive field and seam throws
- Poor career deep ball completion rate
- Excess air under ball allows challenges
- Lacks gun to challenge safeties with rip throws over the top
- Needs better anticipation
- Poor mobility
- Struggles to elude early pressure
- Completed just 42.4 percent of his throws when forced to move
- Too much hero ball
- Extends plays and takes unnecessary chances rather than throwing it away
- Scouts question his passion for football and whether he will be a willing student
Which of these concerns did he take off the table for you in year 1 when he threw more INT's than TD passes, played on the worst team in the NFL, and completed just 55% of his passes?
Which part of his performance was so other-worldly that we're now ready to decide that Haskins isn't even in the same universe as Josh Rosen?
I'd love to know what allows you to speak with this unfounded certainty about prospects and players you barely watch.
Quote:
Dwayne Haskins IS a pocket passer who is extremely accurate. He also doesn't have Josh Rosen's concussion or injury history.
Haskins isn't in the same league as Rosen as a passer. His footwork is a problem that I would want no part of. No thanks on Haskins.
Rosen is probably the better pure passer of the two, with picture perfect footwork and mechanics (and possibly the best of last years class even). He was in a horrific situation in his rookie year so the flashes were few.
However Haskins is by no means a slouch in this area either. He may not be quite the level Rosen is but he isn't far off and shows many translateable NFL QB traits even as a first year QB.
I don't understand why we arbitrarily decide that footwork is a reason to take a player off the board and not consider him - but are totally willing to invest in a guy with an injury history, and a laundry list of his own concerns.
Haskins outperformed Rosen in college - Rosen didn't do anything close to what Haskins did in his first full season. If we want to say it's because Haskins had better players around him, had less pressure to deal with, alright...
Rosen was actually the guy I liked most in last year's class by the time we got to the draft... which wasn't that popular an opinion. But even I had concerns about him. There's a hell of a lot more to playing QB than mechanics alone.
I don't understand why we arbitrarily decide that footwork is a reason to take a player off the board and not consider him - but are totally willing to invest in a guy with an injury history, and a laundry list of his own concerns.
Haskins outperformed Rosen in college - Rosen didn't do anything close to what Haskins did in his first full season. If we want to say it's because Haskins had better players around him, had less pressure to deal with, alright...
Rosen was actually the guy I liked most in last year's class by the time we got to the draft... which wasn't that popular an opinion. But even I had concerns about him. There's a hell of a lot more to playing QB than mechanics alone.
All very solid points Arc.
I though am downgrading him less than you are based off of last season. I don't think any QB would have been successful with that team from a combination of system, lack of talent and OL play. Let alone a rookie QB.
My point is - if those were the things scouts were concerned about when he was drafted, what did he do in year 1 to eliminate them? I'd argue little to nothing as a result of what is generally considered an "incomplete" season for him.
I just don't get the need for the silly hyperbole. Saying Haskins isn't even in Rosen's league as a passer is just plainly false. Points don't get stronger by overexaggerating them.
Like Rosen more than Haskins? That's fair.
Think we should explore a trade for Rosen rather than draft Haskins? Also a fair opinion.
Do we really need to make everything all or nothing? Completely removing Haskins from consideration because of footwork is something a really shitty GM would do. I'd want Gettleman fired if he took Haskins off the board for that.
No matter who we draft, we're going to have to develop and work with them. That's what Pat Shurmur is here for.
My point is - if those were the things scouts were concerned about when he was drafted, what did he do in year 1 to eliminate them? I'd argue little to nothing as a result of what is generally considered an "incomplete" season for him.
I just don't get the need for the silly hyperbole. Saying Haskins isn't even in Rosen's league as a passer is just plainly false. Points don't get stronger by overexaggerating them.
Like Rosen more than Haskins? That's fair.
Think we should explore a trade for Rosen rather than draft Haskins? Also a fair opinion.
Do we really need to make everything all or nothing? Completely removing Haskins from consideration because of footwork is something a really shitty GM would do. I'd want Gettleman fired if he took Haskins off the board for that.
No matter who we draft, we're going to have to develop and work with them. That's what Pat Shurmur is here for.
All salient points.
Footwork is not a reason to take someone off the board unless its so bad that it greatly affects his accuracy and our ability to properly set and you feel there is little potential for him to improve upon it.
We have seen many a QB be very successful in this league without textbook mechanics or footwork. It all depends on how he is able to work within his given skillset. Some require improvment or will not be successful others have those 'get 'er done' mechanics and can be very effective ala Farve, Mahomes ,possibly Darnold etc.
Which.... won't get us Josh Rosen.
If we want Rosen, Arizona is going to want #6. I can't see them moving off that.
Quote:
but he also doesn't believe Rosen is worth the #6 pick and thinks the Giants should trade something of lesser value than that for Rosen.
Which.... won't get us Josh Rosen.
If we want Rosen, Arizona is going to want #6. I can't see them moving off that.
Then they'll end up with 2 QBs. Unless they never intended to take Murray in the first place ((which is probably the actual truth).
Recouping a high first for Rosen, taking Murray 1st overall, and adding a premier talent through the draft as well would actually be smart for Arizona and I'd absolutely explore that route if I were them.
Quote:
but he also doesn't believe Rosen is worth the #6 pick and thinks the Giants should trade something of lesser value than that for Rosen.
Which.... won't get us Josh Rosen.
If we want Rosen, Arizona is going to want #6. I can't see them moving off that.
We give up the #6 pick but get their 2nd or 3rd and its a heck of a trade. They pick at the top of each of those rounds and this class is very deep in red chip prospects and on OL and DL especially (both spots where we need help).
But I also think that them drafting Murray is a fan or click thing more than anything in AZ's reality. But, if they did have an huge desire for Murray, then they're going to unload Rosen for best offer. It doesn't have to be #6. But if that's the case, then it would likely be some other team as the destination. From the Giant's side, I don't see value there or, more to the point, a desire this year that was absent last year.
But I also think that them drafting Murray is a fan or click thing more than anything in AZ's reality. But, if they did have an huge desire for Murray, then they're going to unload Rosen for best offer. It doesn't have to be #6. But if that's the case, then it would likely be some other team as the destination. From the Giant's side, I don't see value there or, more to the point, a desire this year that was absent last year.
#6 has a fighting chance to be the best offer they'd get (or at least close to it). Not any team above us is really Qb needy (barring a surprise) and Jax might be the most likely destination for Foles. Broncs at 10 just got Flacco. The wild card is a team trading up of course.
Quote:
Murray.
But I also think that them drafting Murray is a fan or click thing more than anything in AZ's reality. But, if they did have an huge desire for Murray, then they're going to unload Rosen for best offer. It doesn't have to be #6. But if that's the case, then it would likely be some other team as the destination. From the Giant's side, I don't see value there or, more to the point, a desire this year that was absent last year.
#6 has a fighting chance to be the best offer they'd get (or at least close to it). Not any team above us is really Qb needy (barring a surprise) and Jax might be the most likely destination for Foles. Broncs at 10 just got Flacco. The wild card is a team trading up of course.
In that case, if we really wanted Rosen (I do not), then there would be no harm in giving them a lower than #6, either one of our later picks or, if there actually would be some competition, by trading back in the first round.
Quote:
In comment 14300013 Bill L said:
Quote:
Murray.
But I also think that them drafting Murray is a fan or click thing more than anything in AZ's reality. But, if they did have an huge desire for Murray, then they're going to unload Rosen for best offer. It doesn't have to be #6. But if that's the case, then it would likely be some other team as the destination. From the Giant's side, I don't see value there or, more to the point, a desire this year that was absent last year.
#6 has a fighting chance to be the best offer they'd get (or at least close to it). Not any team above us is really Qb needy (barring a surprise) and Jax might be the most likely destination for Foles. Broncs at 10 just got Flacco. The wild card is a team trading up of course.
In that case, if we really wanted Rosen (I do not), then there would be no harm in giving them a lower than #6, either one of our later picks or, if there actually would be some competition, by trading back in the first round.
We could maybe get their 2nd or 3rd back in a deep red chip draft.
Quote:
In comment 14300040 Pan-handler said:
Quote:
In comment 14300013 Bill L said:
Quote:
Murray.
But I also think that them drafting Murray is a fan or click thing more than anything in AZ's reality. But, if they did have an huge desire for Murray, then they're going to unload Rosen for best offer. It doesn't have to be #6. But if that's the case, then it would likely be some other team as the destination. From the Giant's side, I don't see value there or, more to the point, a desire this year that was absent last year.
#6 has a fighting chance to be the best offer they'd get (or at least close to it). Not any team above us is really Qb needy (barring a surprise) and Jax might be the most likely destination for Foles. Broncs at 10 just got Flacco. The wild card is a team trading up of course.
In that case, if we really wanted Rosen (I do not), then there would be no harm in giving them a lower than #6, either one of our later picks or, if there actually would be some competition, by trading back in the first round.
We could maybe get their 2nd or 3rd back in a deep red chip draft.
Sure. I don't want him at all. So, I would need their 2nd *and* 3rd and maybe Peteron. hahaha