Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809486)

Andy Reid likes smart/accurate QBs above all. Kizer and Mahomes are physical freaks, but neither is "accurate" in the way KC's offense requires. I know the combine isn't a true test for QB skills, but Kizer couldn't hit anybody in stride. Mahomes has a GREAT arm, but he is going to need a lot of work.

I think the only QB that really makes sense for KC's scheme is Watson (and he's not Mr. Accuracy either...but better than others). Yes...we would have to move up to get him, but he's a proven winner and he's stays composed under pressure.

Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809486)

Andy Reid likes smart/accurate QBs above all. Kizer and Mahomes are physical freaks, but neither is "accurate" in the way KC's offense requires. I know the combine isn't a true test for QB skills, but Kizer couldn't hit anybody in stride. Mahomes has a GREAT arm, but he is going to need a lot of work.

I think the only QB that really makes sense for KC's scheme is Watson (and he's not Mr. Accuracy either...but better than others). Yes...we would have to move up to get him, but he's a proven winner and he's stays composed under pressure.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12809499)

{facepalm}

"HE'S A WINNER!" strikes again.

I repeat - 'winners' are a myth. Great NFL QBs come from shit programs in college all the time and virtually all QBs from great programs tend to suck in the pros.

There is absolutely no correlation at all between winning percentage in college and NFL success and frankly, if I were going to bet, I'd say any degree of statistically significant figure would point to an inverse relationship.

Originally Posted by raybec 4 (Post 12809490)

Man, I couldn't disagree more. Watson is the biggest risk in the group IMO based on arm talent alone. Kizer and Mahomes can fix their mechanics and footwork, Watson's arm isn't going to get better as he ages.

Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809524)

Better to land those highly coveted KU QBs who never win based on your new inverse relationship law.

The draft is a massive crap shoot and we have two very good examples of Watson playing well against the closest thing to an NFL defense in college. What about him DON'T you like...let's start there.

Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809531)

There are *some* examples of QBs who fixed their mechanics when they got to the NFL, but they are the exception. I like Kizer's size and arm strength, but he's over valued (likely due to the ND factor). Mahomes is really interesting to me...the ball explodes out of his hand.

Watson doesn't have elite arm strength, but I think his arm talent is above average. I think the other things that matter for QBs (leadership, smarts, vision, etc.) are very high with Watson.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 12809535)

No, his arm talent isn't above average. It's not even above average in a below average class. It is, at best, average. Moreover, I don't know how you can say his vision is good one way or the other. Personally I've not seen anything to suggest it is but I'm putting that under 'inexperience' rather than a statement that he doesn't have good vision.

I won't state that he DOESN'T have good vision but I don't see any way you can categorically state that he does.

Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809540)

Just like you can't categorically state that Kizer or Mahomes can fix their mechanics and feet. Tim Tebow (your comparison guy) says HI. There are too many guys who can't do what Aaron Rogers did. He was the exception to the rule.

I'm not sold on ANY quarterback in this draft, to be honest. Every one of them has warts or is so inexperienced...who can know what they could realistically become?

Originally Posted by buddha (Post 12809524)

Better to land those highly coveted KU QBs who never win based on your new inverse relationship law.



The draft is a massive crap shoot and we have two very good examples of Watson playing well against the closest thing to an NFL defense in college. What about him DON'T you like...let's start there.