Bortles:
The blue indicates his mechanics and where they should lead the ball.The red indicates where the ball actually goes. Incomplete pass.
I see...OK, maybe not.
What's pretty clear in this thread is that many of you haven't really paid attention to what Greg Cosell really actually says about these players. - He was asked about Ryan Nassib at a time when Geno Smith was the consensus #1 QB by just about everyone (Mayock had Smith number 1). He said that he liked him the best, and specifically liked him better than Geno Smith. He also pointed out that nobody in the class was as good as Luck, RGIII, or even Tannehill, and called the entire class weak. And how do we know Nassib isn't the best QB in last year's class? Glennon's clearly the best so far, and he's so good that 50% of the board demands we replace him. - I don't know if he ever called Tyler Wilson #2, but he didn't rate him all that highly. He called him "intriguing" because his tape was boom or bust. He noted that at times he looked like a "free agent." When the Raiders drafted him, he said he could see him developing into a "solid starter" and if everything went exactly right a Matt Schaub-level guy. - Justin Hunter was compared to Randy Moss by tons of people well before the draft. Mostly, that's because stylistically he's similar and they both were almost exactly the same size. Everything I ever read about Cosell and Hunter was that he thought Hunter was "like a raw AJ Green." Every article about it also mentions that "others" not Cossell have made the Moss comparison. Oh yeah - his other favorite WR? Keenan Allen, the guy who went 76th overall and had by far the best season of any WR. I don't think there's anything remotely "intellectually bankrupt" about his approach, which is very methodical (and it seems weird to hear that phrase in a statement used in contrast to Kiper). But that also doesn't mean he doesn't make mistakes. His breakdowns are food for thought, because he watches a ton of NFL film. As for his credibility, he's been breaking down film for NFL films since 1984. I think it's fair he knows a little something, and if you've ever heard NFL people talk about him, you'd know that. I think FRG's right about a few things though. He has a few beliefs that may blind him to certain types players. He basically believes that over the long-term, you have to be able to produce in the pocket and so some of these recent college guys that are heavy on making plays with their feet and making things happen when things break down aren't going to be high on his list UNLESS they also show the traits in the pocket. He also has to see it on film. So for example, this nonsense about Luck and RGIII was more about the fact that he didn't see Luck have to make certain throws that he'd have to make in the NFL - not that he couldn't do it, only that there wasn't much evidence of it in the games he had watched. Here's the thing - you cherry-pick anybody's track record on this stuff and there are going to be hits and misses. This is after all, an NFL where:- There was a legitimate discussion about Leaf v. Manning- There was a legitimate discussion about Bledsoe v. Mirer. - Mirer went #2 overall and it was considered a smart pick.
Good post Booker.
Bortles:
What exactly does this add to the conversation? Just curious. It seems like a completely random and pointless attempt to make it appear Bortles has no accuracy. Maybe he was trying to fake out the secondary and throw to a different receiver? Can't tell because this useless shot isn't zoomed out far enough to see what was going on in the secondary.
Bortles:
What exactly does this add to the conversation? Just curious. It seems like a completely random and pointless attempt to make it appear Bortles has no accuracy. Maybe he was trying to fake out the secondary and throw to a different receiver? Can't tell because this useless shot isn't zoomed out far enough to see what was going on in the secondary.
That his throwing mechanics are pretty bad and will have to be adjusted (if thats possible) for him to succeed at the next level.
Bortles:
What exactly does this add to the conversation? Just curious. It seems like a completely random and pointless attempt to make it appear Bortles has no accuracy. Maybe he was trying to fake out the secondary and throw to a different receiver? Can't tell because this useless shot isn't zoomed out far enough to see what was going on in the secondary.
That his throwing mechanics are pretty bad and will have to be adjusted (if thats possible) for him to succeed at the next level.
If he threw the ball on that blue line, it could/would have been picked... nice deke move on 7, tho'...
I'm not buying that his bad mechanics cause him to throw balls 20 yards off target. Sorry. This picture claims he was aiming at the back corner of the endzone and instead hit the goal post. That's ridiculous. Not even Tebow was that bad.
Bortles:
What exactly does this add to the conversation? Just curious. It seems like a completely random and pointless attempt to make it appear Bortles has no accuracy. Maybe he was trying to fake out the secondary and throw to a different receiver? Can't tell because this useless shot isn't zoomed out far enough to see what was going on in the secondary.
That his throwing mechanics are pretty bad and will have to be adjusted (if thats possible) for him to succeed at the next level.
If he threw the ball on that blue line, it could/would have been picked... nice deke move on 7, tho'...
He's not throwing it there? He never intended it to?Do you not understand that you make safeties move with your eyes, not with your lower body? That the worst kind of throw you can make is across your body?
I'm not buying that his bad mechanics cause him to throw balls 20 yards off target. Sorry. This picture claims he was aiming at the back corner of the endzone and instead hit the goal post. That's ridiculous. Not even Tebow was that bad.
20 yards off target? Holy hyperbole Batman who said that!The picture is claiming that, Bortles has poor lower body mechanics. He does. Sorry. Wanna watch the play, go ahead. He throws it into double coverage and its nearly picked off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6JLz-M9E8E
I don't have a strong opinion about Bortles, but that's a pick in the pros. I read somewhere earlier (on twitter) that people who like Bortles have to be comfortable that they can fix his mechanics.
4 would have gotten flagged in the pros... unless he was a panther.
Coseel is a clown
No, he is one of the better analysts, especially with QB and he picked up what the main concern with JFF is. It's not size, arm strength, accuracy or athleticism. It's the fact that he looks uncomfortable in the pocket at times and routinely fails to deliver the ball on time and rather chose to "make a play" by rolling out of the pocket. Mike Vick struggled with that and he ran a 4.2. JFF will run a 4.55 or 4.6. He needs to stand in the pocket and deliver the ball on time and he just can't do that right now.Not saying he won't be good, but like I've said for a few months now, he's much more of a project than people want to admit.
He is definitely a project and needs to sit at least a year. Which makes him a good pick for us. We can roll with Glennon in 2014 and if he stinks we will already have his replacement. If he plays well, we still give Johnny a chance to compete. and see how things work out. We could be looking at a 49ers Smith/Kap situation.
I don't have an opinion on Bortles one way or another, but lots of college players at other positions have poor mechanics for whatever they do at their position. What you look for is that the player has the athletic potential to overcome them. Bortles is very mobile and athletic which should lead you to pretty easily believe he can develop more polished footwork.
Yep. Tried to fit it into a tight space and didn't quite get it. The very next pass is a perfect touch lob to the back corner of the endzone for a TD.I think the bigger picture from that game is that he went 20 of 27 for 288 yards and 3 TDs to 1 Int.,,,,and they beat Penn State. Instead of focusing on some silly still frame that shows nothing.
