QB options for next year

[flyerhawk]

My opinion: I really like Penix and I think he could be a star in the NFL, but I am given pause by the times I saw him struggle under pressure. I think he can overcome that and his other attributes (incredibly strong arm, deadly accurate, reads the field well (when not pressured) are great.

McCarthy: I would be absolutely shocked if he is anything better than a mediocre career backup. I just don't see anything there that looks like more than a solid college QB.

How many games of McCarthy's did you watch?

Seems like a lot of Husky fans share the same opinion.

 

[kcden]

How many games of McCarthy's did you watch?

Seems like a lot of Husky fans share the same opinion.

I'll admit not a lot. Parts of a few other than the title game, plus highlights... just nothing "jumped off the page" at me. I've only seen a slight bit more of Williams, Nix and Daniels and all 3 just notably look like they have better NFL skills than McCarthy to me. I have seen basically none of Drake Maye, so I don't have an opinion on him.

 

[kcden]

I'll add that Williams would scare the hell out of me (if my team were drafting him where you would need to draft him). So much "smoke" about character issues (not "he's a bad guy" character issues... more "he's a massive prima donna" character issues) and learning how much trouble he's had with ball security during the UW-USC game (I didn't know how bad it was until we got a fumble against him and the announcers mentioned he had lost like 30 fumbles the past 2 years)... I would not want to use the #1 pick on him.

 

[flyerhawk]

I'll admit not a lot. Parts of a few other than the title game, plus highlights... just nothing "jumped off the page" at me. I've only seen a slight bit more of Williams, Nix and Daniels and all 3 just notably look like they have better NFL skills than McCarthy to me. I have seen basically none of Drake Maye, so I don't have an opinion on him.

Obviously Youtube skills **** doesn't tell the whole story. So I don't want this to come off as me saying the guy is some clear stud.

In some ways, McCarthy is stuck with the same criticisms that Russell Wilson had early in his career. Relied on a great defense and was only asked to step up in a handful of situations. So there are certainly question marks about him. But he his very athletic and has a live arm. His slim frame is a problem that he will need to address in the pros, which is one reason why he needs a year or 2 to get "pro ready".

 

[kcden]

Obviously Youtube skills **** doesn't tell the whole story. So I don't want this to come off as me saying the guy is some clear stud.

In some ways, McCarthy is stuck with the same criticisms that Russell Wilson had early in his career. Relied on a great defense and was only asked to step up in a handful of situations. So there are certainly question marks about him. But he his very athletic and has a live arm. His slim frame is a problem that he will need to address in the pros, which is one reason why he needs a year or 2 to get "pro ready".

Yeah, tough to take a lot away from a highlight reel. He made a lot of nice plays, but even his best looking throw wasn't quite as good as Penix's average throw (just the arm strength/way the ball comes off their hands, not that he wasn't occasionally throwing into tight windows with great accuracy on that reel). A more useful reel would mix in bad plays, "misses", and boring plays where he made the right (or wrong) decisions, but I suppose I would be even less likely to sit through that.

Interesting that the last one on that highlight reel was nearly a carbon copy of his 1st (or close to 1st) play in the semifinal that very well could have set the game down a very different path if the DB had his toe slightly inbounds instead of slightly OB when he went up for the pick (except in the highlight reel the WR had position for the reception).

EDIT: I'll add that I really hate the idea of taking a guy in round 1 that didn't really get an opportunity to carry teams in college (and show he could do that) that also for sure needs a couple of years to be "pro ready"... that sounds like a 5th round pick, not 1st.

 

[flyerhawk]

EDIT: I'll add that I really hate the idea of taking a guy in round 1 that didn't really get an opportunity to carry teams in college (and show he could do that) that also for sure needs a couple of years to be "pro ready"... that sounds like a 5th round pick, not 1st.

As I've said, I'm not advocating for taking any QB. But this reasoning is kinda flawed. Lots of teams take QBs that they don't expect to immediately start. This is especially true for playoff level teams. Rodgers, Mahomes and Love for instance.

Ultimately you take the player who you think has the best chance to be great, not the guy who can contribute in year 1.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

As I've said, I'm not advocating for taking any QB. But this reasoning is kinda flawed. Lots of teams take QBs that they don't expect to immediately start. This is especially true for playoff level teams. Rodgers, Mahomes and Love for instance.

Ultimately you take the player who you think has the best chance to be great, not the guy who can contribute in year 1.

Well I think the fact that those three already had high quality starters ahead of them has a lot to do with not starting immediately and I suspect that all three would of started if that wasn't the case. Having your starting QB on a rookie contract is such a leg up for improving the roster that's it's no small thing not to take advantage of it year one of the contract. That's why QBs don't normally sit for a year as a rule nowadays as opposed to back in the day when rookie QBs hardly ever started year one. Personally I find actually doing something vs watching accelerates the learning process by a large degree. Football has come a long ways from the old days and how to develop the QB has changed.

 

[kcden]

As I've said, I'm not advocating for taking any QB. But this reasoning is kinda flawed. Lots of teams take QBs that they don't expect to immediately start. This is especially true for playoff level teams. Rodgers, Mahomes and Love for instance.

Ultimately you take the player who you think has the best chance to be great, not the guy who can contribute in year 1.

To me there is a difference in drafting a guy (highly) that you can sit and let learn as a luxury instead of a necessity (which I think we both think is the case with McCarthy). I don't like the idea of a 1st round pick being a huge project that is even less likely to pan out than the average 1st round pick.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

How many games of McCarthy's did you watch?

Seems like a lot of Husky fans share the same opinion.

McCarthy is a descent QB but I wouldn't draft him at 16.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

I'll add that I really hate the idea of taking a guy in round 1 that didn't really get an opportunity to carry teams in college (and show he could do that) that also for sure needs a couple of years to be "pro ready"... that sounds like a 5th round pick, not 1st.

Same here also I suspect there are reasons beyond a good OL and running attack for limiting throws by the QBs because a good passing attack would only help the running game IMO. No reason to think that a QB limited ( by that I mean limiting his throws) in college has the best chance to be great in the pro's, sometimes you know the QB needs to be less of a gunslinger in the pro's or will run into more complex defenses that he'll need to learn to attack but if he isn't trusted to throw in college that's not good sign for success in the pro's IMO.

 

[flyerhawk]

Well I think the fact that those three already had high quality starters ahead of them has a lot to do with not starting immediately and I suspect that all three would of started if that wasn't the case. Having your starting QB on a rookie contract is such a leg up for improving the roster that's it's no small thing not to take advantage of it year one of the contract. That's why QBs don't normally sit for a year as a rule nowadays as opposed to back in the day when rookie QBs hardly ever started year one. Personally I find actually doing something vs watching accelerates the learning process by a large degree. Football has come a long ways from the old days and how to develop the QB has changed.

You think Alex Smith was a high quality starter?

I think you keep hoping that the Seahawks will cut Geno next week and do whatever it takes to get some QB from this draft and hope for the best.

I don't think the Seahawks are going to draft a QB in the 1st round. I think it is more likely they draft an immediate position of need and maybe draft someone like Rattler later in the draft.

Having said that, I think there is a chance that they draft a QB in the 1st round IF there is one that JS thinks is a true franchise level QB. So if they do draft one, even if they move up or down in the 1st round, then I have faith that he will pick the right guy. Personally I don't care who that guy is.

 

[flyerhawk]

Same here also I suspect there are reasons beyond a good OL and running attack for limiting throws by the QBs because a good passing attack would only help the running game IMO. No reason to think that a QB limited ( by that I mean limiting his throws) in college has the best chance to be great in the pro's, sometimes you know the QB needs to be less of a gunslinger in the pro's or will run into more complex defenses that he'll need to learn to attack but if he isn't trusted to throw in college that's not good sign for success in the pro's IMO.

The only game in which Michigan was behind, at any point in the game, was against Alabama. In that game McCarthy, playing one of the best defenses in the country, was 17-27 for 224 with 3 TDs and 0 picks with a 91 QBR.

The notion that they would let their QB air the ball out just to let him throw it is kinda absurd.

Your argument would make a lot more sense if Michigan was some middle of the road team that played in some middling bowl. It doesn't make sense when they were the undefeated national champions.

 

[flyerhawk]

McCarthy is a descent QB but I wouldn't draft him at 16.

I don't really want the Seahawks to draft a QB in the 1st round at all. I'm only responding to some of the people who clearly have their West Coast bias in play.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

The only game in which Michigan was behind, at any point in the game, was against Alabama. In that game McCarthy, playing one of the best defenses in the country, was 17-27 for 224 with 3 TDs and 0 picks with a 91 QBR.

The notion that they would let their QB air the ball out just to let him throw it is kinda absurd.

Your argument would make a lot more sense if Michigan was some middle of the road team that played in some middling bowl. It doesn't make sense when they were the undefeated national champions.

Remember when RW was a rookie and Pete just leaned on the run game hard? There was a reason for that, Pete didn't trust a rookie QB to do much passing. All games start out even, so if one team is limiting the offense by being one dimensional their are reasons for that. However I suspect we will disagree on what those reasons are, but for me it means the HC doesn't trust his QB to do much passing.

 

[flyerhawk]

Remember when RW was a rookie and Pete just leaned on the run game hard? There was a reason for that, Pete didn't trust a rookie QB to do much passing. All games start out even, so if one team is limiting the offense by being one dimensional their are reasons for that. However I suspect we will disagree on what those reasons are, but for me it means the HC doesn't trust his QB to do much passing.

You also realize that Seattle was 11-5 that year, right, and not 14-0?

Michigan's average margin of victory in the regular season? 25.5 points. They were top 5 in the country in points scored. But, sure, Michigan's offense was held back because of McCarthy.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I don't really want the Seahawks to draft a QB in the 1st round at all. I'm only responding to some of the people who clearly have their West Coast bias in play.

If Penix/Nix are there I'd make that move and roll the dice hoping it's a hit. If both are off the board than take BPA for O or Dline.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

If Penix/Nix are there I'd make that move and roll the dice hoping it's a hit. If both are off the board than take BPA for O or Dline.

I agree.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I agree.

Here's a what if for ya....If Grubb is announced as new OC, does JS move up the draft to get Penix. I have thought about this since Grubb/OC rumors are running wild.

 

[flyerhawk]

If Penix/Nix are there I'd make that move and roll the dice hoping it's a hit. If both are off the board than take BPA for O or Dline.

Like I said, I'm fine with whomever JS picks but I'm not super thrilled with Nix.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Here's a what if for ya....If Grubb is announced as new OC, does JS move up the draft to get Penix. I have thought about this since Grubb/OC rumors are running wild.

Anything is possible but I feel he sit tight and hope. Have plenty of needs and already missing a second round pick ( traded away for a rent a player).