I was hoping to ask Gruden how in his experience, coaches and GMs approach the draft when looking at a more finished product vs. a guy with more raw potential. Unfortunately, there were a ton of people on there and I did not come up in the question queue.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'll start by saying that the guys we have here on TKP who know football and share their knowledge are second to none. They are all awesome and I love reading all of their works.
That being said, they're only focused on one team. ESPN 'analysts' have 119 D1 teams to focus on and they're dictated by their employer to focus more on teams/players that will generate more revenue. In all honesty, LT3 isn't as much of a revenue generator as Johnny Fball as far as ESPN is concerned.
I personally don't really like to listen to Jon Gruden (his voice and cadence really annoy me) but the man knows football. He probably doesn't have a lot of time to spend watching LT3 or VT so he has to piece things together pretty quickly. He's also catering to an audience, the majority of which aren't Hokies, that knows (or even cares) very little about Logan Thomas. A good speaker/presenter has to be able to connect with the majority of the audience.
Jon Gruden is not bad at his job. To me, however, it is not surprising at all that our very own TKP analysts do a better job of analyzing VT players and teams. They are more passionate about VT and they spend a lot more time focusing on VT. I'm certain if Gruden spent all of his time focused on just one team he would be on par with French and Mason, if not even better. (no disrespect to the VT gurus)
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I agree with most of what you said. I do disagree about listening to Gruden, I tend to gravitate toward his shows because they break these athletes down to the basics. Last year I watched EJ Manuel on his show. Keep in mind I'm a Bills fan. Going into the draft I no way wanted the Bills to draft Manuel or Smith (still glad on that one). But after Gruden go into that Manuel, I wished the Bills took Manuel and wouldn't you know it they did. Gruden does very well at breaking down guys. He takes apart the things that they struggle with. I think he's good at what he does. But I agree that we see LT3 every week and watch these things over and over and we see how balls get dropped or overthrown or not delivered on time and we know better than Gruden or other analysts. It's hard for these guys to be right all the time because they don't have the time to spend on every single guy on every single team. It truly is a crap shoot, but sometimes I think teams just have to roll the dice and put in the time.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm fairly certain that the guys on TKP could develop very good articles for anyone over the course of a season. We have guys with good minds who have an eye for this kind of thing. They aren't doing it solely because its about VT, they're doing it because they like doing that kind of thing. If you asked them to evaluate the starting QB for any big school where getting highlights was not difficult, I'm sure they'd put out top notch material on them as well. Why? Because they're top notch guys at doing what they do.
And lets not forget that Gruden is PAID to evaluate players like that. The guys we have on TKP do it on their spare time, or at best, as a secondary source of income. If they were paid the same money for their analysis that Gruden is paid for his, and able to spend all their time focusing on it, I can only imagine how great the quality would be.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Speculating here, my Gruden probably spends time doing each of the following leading up to the draft week:
Analyzing QBs/footage - making his own observations
Working with ESPN to decide what to share (ESPN doesn't want to overwhelm the average fan)
Preparing/practicing for on camera
Pre-shooting work
Recording and Re-recording takes for Sportscenter
Long story short, the guy is probably working a ~50 hour week between everything leading up to the draft. I think the level that he (and ESPN for the most part) analyze things is appropriate. Perhaps they could offer a detailed analysis for each team as an online segment, but I doubt it makes business sense - which is all that matters.
Side rant:
The only thing ESPN really does badly IMO is their coverage of smaller sports. For example, when doing tennis highlights, I've heard Stuart Scott call a "Backhand Volley" a "Backhander". That is inexcusable.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
The only thing ESPN really does badly IMO is their coverage of smaller sports. For example, when doing tennis highlights, I've heard Stuart Scott call a "Backhand Volley" a "Backhander". That is inexcusable.
I don't play tennis and that doesn't bother me at all... I have a feeling there's a reason the coverage of small market sports is not as good as the large market ones.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
As someone who's played competitive tennis since I was 10, it drives me fucking nuts haha. Imagine Gruden referring to a wide receiver screen as a "Bubbler Screen."
But I realize that sports with larger markets get/need better coverage and higher pay resources. It makes business sense and I understand that ESPN has limited resources and must appeal to consumers other than just me.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
On ESPN's tennis coverage: I do not like Brad Gilbert commentating. He bugs me to no end. His "nicknames" for some of the top players are useless and just annoying. "RogFed," "the Djoker" and, "DelPo" particularly get under my skin. I have to cut the volume when he's speaking (or when the women are playing - I can't deal with all of that screeching). It probably also doesn't help that the commentating can't be as in depth as I'd want it.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Oh man BG/Fowler/Johnny Mac are my favorite commentating crew of any sport. BG offers the coach's perspective, McEnroe offers the player's perspective and Fowler offers the fan perspective. I'm indifferent about the nicknames, but I can't think of a commentator in any sport that correctly predicts outcomes like Gilbert does. He has an understanding of match ups, both physical and mental that no one else in tennis (or many other sports) has.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Gotta agree on that assessment. Gruden does a great job analyzing players. TKP guys spend more time on our Hokies, obviously. That's the difference. I've not been on that long, but I've found the analysis done on here to be extremely thorough, and on the level of anything I find in the 'national media'. I do really appreciate the fact we're getting our players dissected. I can still remember sitting on Saturday evenings, watching the network news to learn about game scores. Slippery Rock always got mentioned, and we (virtually) never did, unless we played the sacrificial lamb to an SEC or SWC team. That's a tangent, but anyway...
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I'm surprised that Logan THomas is not in the first round discussion when he's in fact further along as a QB than Cam Newton was after college. In the right situation , supporting cast, and talent manager, LT3 will do what Russell Wilson did with Seattle.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Russell Wilson's problem was his size, not his ability. Comparing Manziel to Wilson would be more accurate.
Senior Stats (NCAA ranking):
Wilson: 72.8% Comp (3rd), 94.2 QBR (1st)
Manziel: 69.9% Comp (4th), 86.3 QBR (3rd)
Thomas: 56.5% Comp (98th), 52.5 QBR (80th)
Newton: 66.1% Comp (16th), 90.1 QBR (3rd)
Comparisons between Logan with Newton or Wilson aren't there. Newton may have been in a less Pro-style offense, but he was much more polished passer. And Wilson is just an extremely accurate, playmaking QB.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Wilson was a winner. He would take teams without as much talent and put them on his back and carry them to a win. He did it his entire career at NCSU and he did it at Wisky. Very rarely could you point to him being a main reason those teams lost a game. He made the guys around him better.
The same does not apply for LT3. For every Miami game there were a couple absolute stinkers. LT3 did make the players around him better, he needed the players around him to be NFL caliber to be successful.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
LT3 did take Tech to the ACC Championship and to a BCS bowl game. Russell is a good QB but he never achieved that with NC State. He wasnt the main reason Seattle won the Super Bowl. It was a total team effort.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
He also needed to be surrounded by NFL talent to get there. Danny Coale, David Wilson, etc. Once the good players from the team left, the program took a big step backwards. And yes, I know its difficult to ask someone to make a team really good when the great players leave, but that's exactly what Russell Wilson was able to do. He made the players around him at NC State and Wisconsin better. Unfortunately, I just never saw that happen with LT3. I never saw him make the rest of the guys on the team better. He was sometimes a bright spot on a mediocre team and other times he was a bad player on a bad team.
Logan did a lot for Tech while he was here, but making the guys around him play above their heads... that was not one of them. Its one of the main reasons I think he's going to struggle to make it in the NFL as a QB. He has all the talent in the world to be a great player, but I just don't think he has that 'it' factor that even guys like Tyrod Taylor have.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I get what you are saying, and I agree so far as the college game goes.
But Pro-ball is different. Everyone there is already NFL-quality by default. You don't have to elevate everyone around you to be a success in the NFL. It certainly is a big help if you do, but that job is up to the coaches and the people who decide the team roster.
The NFL has any number of successful QB's in its history that were not terribly charismatic. The best tend to elevate their team-mates, and will tend to have a leg-up on the competition on draft-day, all other things being equal.
But I think you may be over-stating the importance of that quality as it applies to the Pros.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I actually think it kind of does. Players like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Donovan McNabb, Steve Young, Dan Marino, John Elway, Aaron Rodgers... Heck, I'd even throw in the likes of Philip Rivers, Cam Newton, and RG3... These guys either are making or have made careers out of taking teams that probably had absolutely no business being competitive and turning them into contenders. These are teams that, it really doesn't matter who the receivers are, you know that these QBs are going to go out and make the team better just by being out there. These are all guys who either had or are going to have long, successful careers in the NFL as a QB, and all of them, except for Brady (who was never given a chance) showed this potential in college, taking teams that didn't have a very good supporting cast, and having them play well above their heads.
I don't see LT3 in this category. If I was a GM in the NFL, I'd have a difficult time drafting him in the Top 5 rounds. Yes, he has the physical skills to dominate the game, but I just don't see the 'it' factor with him. I mean, even Matt Ryan was able to get Boston freakin College to #2 overall in the country with a roster devoid of talent, and he's showing in recent years that even he needs great NFL players around him to have a good season. If anything, things aren't going to get easier in the NFL because you have better talent around you, they're going to get harder because the talent you're facing on defense will be lightyears tougher.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
With the number of balls that got dropped at the beginning of last season, even Tom Brady, Payton Manning, Drew Brees , Rogers wouldve had horrible stats and low QBR in their senior season. LT3 is better that his statistics show.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
If you're going to cherry pick one stat over the course of a couple games, you can also say that I rarely see Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, etc turn the ball over 9 times in 2 games with the season on the line like LT3 did against Duke and Boston College.
And its been documented on here that even if you converted half those dropped passes into catches this year, LT3 still comes up with a completion % at 61%, which would still have him outside the Top 50 nationally. So yes, while those drops hurt, its not like they were the end all be all of why his stats were bad last year.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Keep in mind that a few of those drops directly led to turnovers. And those are just the drops, not even counting the wrong routes and missed assignments. Shoot, after what we all thought was a horrible read/throw that led to a pick in the spring game last year, Josh Stanford came out and said he just ran the wrong route and Logan put it right where he should have been. Did Logan make every throw 100% accurate 100% of the time? No, but neither did Andrew Luck and to expect more is ridiculous. Did Logan do much better as a passer and as a QB than people give him credit for? I think so, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a GM agree in a week.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
We think about the drops that lead to turnovers, but we often forget about the dropped interceptions and balls that would've been picked off by better DBs. It all evens out. I will say that I think a lot of the "WHO THE FUCK WAS THAT TO?!" passes we saw were the result of receivers running poor routes.
If I were a team with an aging but established first string QB and a reliable/serviceable second string QB, I would consider Logan as high as the third round. He has every tool but accuracy. He has a reputation as a hard worker who is very coachable. Assuming you're confident in your QB coach, I could see any of the following teams drafting him in the third round and trying to fix his issues:
Steelers
Patriots
Green Bay
Broncos
Any other team, I would wait until the fifth round. He seems to every skill you can't teach (size, strength, work ethic, etc), and one-two skills that you can (accuracy, decision making). How confident are you that you can teach him these skills? At what cost do you pay for this challenge (How much money will he cost, how much time will coaches spend with him instead of other players, what other talent are you forgoing in this draft, etc)?
I will say, I do think he has the charisma to be a leader one day. Just because he's not yelling in the huddle doesn't mean he's not a leader. Actions speak louder than words (please excuse the cliche), and if Logan works hard to improve his accuracy, watches tape and EARNS a starting job as a qb, other players will follow. I can't think of anytime in NFL history this hasn't been true.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Thomas will not have to wait until his NFL receivers learn to catch with their fingertips. The WR better not quit on their routes at that level.
Center snaps in shotgun will almost always get to him at least waist level.
You think Edelmann would whine about the passes coming at him too fast?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Did Wilson have a dumpster fire of an offense so that the first play from scrimmage was a center snap to a loose ball in the end zone?
We're 30% of his shotgun snaps caught at his shins?
Tell me exactly what the offense was in 2012, other than Thomas?
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Wilson was 18-14 as a starter at NC State and had a completion %'s of about 54.5, 59.3 & 58.4%. He threw a lot of TDs but also threw alot of INTs his soph & jr years (11 & 14). While NC State wasn't loaded when he was there, they probably had 19-14 or better talent.
If Russell Wilson had been drafted by, say, the Browns or the Vikings or half the other teams in the league, we wouldn't be talking about him. Much as with Wisconsin, he is a good fit for the Seahawks and the Seahawks are a good fit for him. But if you try to put a team on Wilson's back and force him to win games for you, it's probably not going to work.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
a buddy of mine is a big vikes fan and he's all about them taking logan. he makes a good point that they would be a good fit for him, strong running game, three pro bowlers on the oline, patterson going deep with jennings as a security blanket, let him learn while cassel starts for a while.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Im going to piggyback on Alum07 here because Logan Thomas's inconsistency has been his problem all along. I doubt that Gruden watched a whole bunch of tape.......why the EFF would ESPN pay him to do that when Heather Dinich, the ACC football giraffe, could feed Gruden all he needed to know to pander to the masses. Not saying that he or she is wrong.....just saying that the guy probably isn't doing a whole lot of individual analysis. At the same time...dude is a SB winning coach and I think the players connect well with him. I do watch Gruden segments despite the generic result. I particularly enjoyed his sitdown with Tahj Boyd - he's a good kid and he would have made a great Hokie.
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
I wish I could upvote this more than once! I missed Callendo doing Gruden with Gruden the other day because my wife had to see something on HGTV....(sigh).
Log in or register to post comments about the Virginia Tech Hokies
Comments
Man, Gruden really stepped out on a limb with that analysis of Logan. He has consistency issues? Who knew!
I find it interesting that guys on here can put in better work on a more consistent basis than the guys on ESPN.
I remember the Canes really thought he'd be their next Coach after Randy Shannon got the ax.
I remember the Canes really thought the "U" was back
I remember too, then we curb stomped them at Lane in the Rain and my iPhone died a glorious death
Is that rain, or snot?
Yes.
Had a buddy who told me we'd have our come-uppance that game. Afterwards he talked about the rain......
I was hoping to ask Gruden how in his experience, coaches and GMs approach the draft when looking at a more finished product vs. a guy with more raw potential. Unfortunately, there were a ton of people on there and I did not come up in the question queue.
Random side note, I've been watching House on netflix and you look just like a young Dr. Wilson in your thumbnail picture.
I'll start by saying that the guys we have here on TKP who know football and share their knowledge are second to none. They are all awesome and I love reading all of their works.
That being said, they're only focused on one team. ESPN 'analysts' have 119 D1 teams to focus on and they're dictated by their employer to focus more on teams/players that will generate more revenue. In all honesty, LT3 isn't as much of a revenue generator as Johnny Fball as far as ESPN is concerned.
I personally don't really like to listen to Jon Gruden (his voice and cadence really annoy me) but the man knows football. He probably doesn't have a lot of time to spend watching LT3 or VT so he has to piece things together pretty quickly. He's also catering to an audience, the majority of which aren't Hokies, that knows (or even cares) very little about Logan Thomas. A good speaker/presenter has to be able to connect with the majority of the audience.
Jon Gruden is not bad at his job. To me, however, it is not surprising at all that our very own TKP analysts do a better job of analyzing VT players and teams. They are more passionate about VT and they spend a lot more time focusing on VT. I'm certain if Gruden spent all of his time focused on just one team he would be on par with French and Mason, if not even better. (no disrespect to the VT gurus)
I agree with most of what you said. I do disagree about listening to Gruden, I tend to gravitate toward his shows because they break these athletes down to the basics. Last year I watched EJ Manuel on his show. Keep in mind I'm a Bills fan. Going into the draft I no way wanted the Bills to draft Manuel or Smith (still glad on that one). But after Gruden go into that Manuel, I wished the Bills took Manuel and wouldn't you know it they did. Gruden does very well at breaking down guys. He takes apart the things that they struggle with. I think he's good at what he does. But I agree that we see LT3 every week and watch these things over and over and we see how balls get dropped or overthrown or not delivered on time and we know better than Gruden or other analysts. It's hard for these guys to be right all the time because they don't have the time to spend on every single guy on every single team. It truly is a crap shoot, but sometimes I think teams just have to roll the dice and put in the time.
I'm fairly certain that the guys on TKP could develop very good articles for anyone over the course of a season. We have guys with good minds who have an eye for this kind of thing. They aren't doing it solely because its about VT, they're doing it because they like doing that kind of thing. If you asked them to evaluate the starting QB for any big school where getting highlights was not difficult, I'm sure they'd put out top notch material on them as well. Why? Because they're top notch guys at doing what they do.
And lets not forget that Gruden is PAID to evaluate players like that. The guys we have on TKP do it on their spare time, or at best, as a secondary source of income. If they were paid the same money for their analysis that Gruden is paid for his, and able to spend all their time focusing on it, I can only imagine how great the quality would be.
Looks like we need to find ways to generate more revenue for the site then, don't we?
We could put you out to stud... that should help
definitely do not google image this^.
I'll take one for the team.
THIS.
Speculating here, my Gruden probably spends time doing each of the following leading up to the draft week:
Long story short, the guy is probably working a ~50 hour week between everything leading up to the draft. I think the level that he (and ESPN for the most part) analyze things is appropriate. Perhaps they could offer a detailed analysis for each team as an online segment, but I doubt it makes business sense - which is all that matters.
Side rant:
The only thing ESPN really does badly IMO is their coverage of smaller sports. For example, when doing tennis highlights, I've heard Stuart Scott call a "Backhand Volley" a "Backhander". That is inexcusable.
I don't play tennis and that doesn't bother me at all... I have a feeling there's a reason the coverage of small market sports is not as good as the large market ones.
As someone who's played competitive tennis since I was 10, it drives me fucking nuts haha. Imagine Gruden referring to a wide receiver screen as a "Bubbler Screen."
But I realize that sports with larger markets get/need better coverage and higher pay resources. It makes business sense and I understand that ESPN has limited resources and must appeal to consumers other than just me.
On ESPN's tennis coverage: I do not like Brad Gilbert commentating. He bugs me to no end. His "nicknames" for some of the top players are useless and just annoying. "RogFed," "the Djoker" and, "DelPo" particularly get under my skin. I have to cut the volume when he's speaking (or when the women are playing - I can't deal with all of that screeching). It probably also doesn't help that the commentating can't be as in depth as I'd want it.
Oh man BG/Fowler/Johnny Mac are my favorite commentating crew of any sport. BG offers the coach's perspective, McEnroe offers the player's perspective and Fowler offers the fan perspective. I'm indifferent about the nicknames, but I can't think of a commentator in any sport that correctly predicts outcomes like Gilbert does. He has an understanding of match ups, both physical and mental that no one else in tennis (or many other sports) has.
He absolutely has some great analysis, but yea - those nicknames have been always killed me.
Gotta agree on that assessment. Gruden does a great job analyzing players. TKP guys spend more time on our Hokies, obviously. That's the difference. I've not been on that long, but I've found the analysis done on here to be extremely thorough, and on the level of anything I find in the 'national media'. I do really appreciate the fact we're getting our players dissected. I can still remember sitting on Saturday evenings, watching the network news to learn about game scores. Slippery Rock always got mentioned, and we (virtually) never did, unless we played the sacrificial lamb to an SEC or SWC team. That's a tangent, but anyway...
Yeah, you wanna see a real life example of the "Walking Dead" go work for $ec$pn.
I'm surprised that Logan THomas is not in the first round discussion when he's in fact further along as a QB than Cam Newton was after college. In the right situation , supporting cast, and talent manager, LT3 will do what Russell Wilson did with Seattle.
Actually I think Derek Carr is in that position. Not to be a downer. But I think he could be a sleeper in the draft.
Russell Wilson's problem was his size, not his ability. Comparing Manziel to Wilson would be more accurate.
Senior Stats (NCAA ranking):
Wilson: 72.8% Comp (3rd), 94.2 QBR (1st)
Manziel: 69.9% Comp (4th), 86.3 QBR (3rd)
Thomas: 56.5% Comp (98th), 52.5 QBR (80th)
Newton: 66.1% Comp (16th), 90.1 QBR (3rd)
Comparisons between Logan with Newton or Wilson aren't there. Newton may have been in a less Pro-style offense, but he was much more polished passer. And Wilson is just an extremely accurate, playmaking QB.
Wilson was a winner. He would take teams without as much talent and put them on his back and carry them to a win. He did it his entire career at NCSU and he did it at Wisky. Very rarely could you point to him being a main reason those teams lost a game. He made the guys around him better.
The same does not apply for LT3. For every Miami game there were a couple absolute stinkers. LT3 did make the players around him better, he needed the players around him to be NFL caliber to be successful.
LT3 did take Tech to the ACC Championship and to a BCS bowl game. Russell is a good QB but he never achieved that with NC State. He wasnt the main reason Seattle won the Super Bowl. It was a total team effort.
He also needed to be surrounded by NFL talent to get there. Danny Coale, David Wilson, etc. Once the good players from the team left, the program took a big step backwards. And yes, I know its difficult to ask someone to make a team really good when the great players leave, but that's exactly what Russell Wilson was able to do. He made the players around him at NC State and Wisconsin better. Unfortunately, I just never saw that happen with LT3. I never saw him make the rest of the guys on the team better. He was sometimes a bright spot on a mediocre team and other times he was a bad player on a bad team.
Logan did a lot for Tech while he was here, but making the guys around him play above their heads... that was not one of them. Its one of the main reasons I think he's going to struggle to make it in the NFL as a QB. He has all the talent in the world to be a great player, but I just don't think he has that 'it' factor that even guys like Tyrod Taylor have.
I get what you are saying, and I agree so far as the college game goes.
But Pro-ball is different. Everyone there is already NFL-quality by default. You don't have to elevate everyone around you to be a success in the NFL. It certainly is a big help if you do, but that job is up to the coaches and the people who decide the team roster.
The NFL has any number of successful QB's in its history that were not terribly charismatic. The best tend to elevate their team-mates, and will tend to have a leg-up on the competition on draft-day, all other things being equal.
But I think you may be over-stating the importance of that quality as it applies to the Pros.
I actually think it kind of does. Players like Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Donovan McNabb, Steve Young, Dan Marino, John Elway, Aaron Rodgers... Heck, I'd even throw in the likes of Philip Rivers, Cam Newton, and RG3... These guys either are making or have made careers out of taking teams that probably had absolutely no business being competitive and turning them into contenders. These are teams that, it really doesn't matter who the receivers are, you know that these QBs are going to go out and make the team better just by being out there. These are all guys who either had or are going to have long, successful careers in the NFL as a QB, and all of them, except for Brady (who was never given a chance) showed this potential in college, taking teams that didn't have a very good supporting cast, and having them play well above their heads.
I don't see LT3 in this category. If I was a GM in the NFL, I'd have a difficult time drafting him in the Top 5 rounds. Yes, he has the physical skills to dominate the game, but I just don't see the 'it' factor with him. I mean, even Matt Ryan was able to get Boston freakin College to #2 overall in the country with a roster devoid of talent, and he's showing in recent years that even he needs great NFL players around him to have a good season. If anything, things aren't going to get easier in the NFL because you have better talent around you, they're going to get harder because the talent you're facing on defense will be lightyears tougher.
With the number of balls that got dropped at the beginning of last season, even Tom Brady, Payton Manning, Drew Brees , Rogers wouldve had horrible stats and low QBR in their senior season. LT3 is better that his statistics show.
If you're going to cherry pick one stat over the course of a couple games, you can also say that I rarely see Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, etc turn the ball over 9 times in 2 games with the season on the line like LT3 did against Duke and Boston College.
And its been documented on here that even if you converted half those dropped passes into catches this year, LT3 still comes up with a completion % at 61%, which would still have him outside the Top 50 nationally. So yes, while those drops hurt, its not like they were the end all be all of why his stats were bad last year.
Keep in mind that a few of those drops directly led to turnovers. And those are just the drops, not even counting the wrong routes and missed assignments. Shoot, after what we all thought was a horrible read/throw that led to a pick in the spring game last year, Josh Stanford came out and said he just ran the wrong route and Logan put it right where he should have been. Did Logan make every throw 100% accurate 100% of the time? No, but neither did Andrew Luck and to expect more is ridiculous. Did Logan do much better as a passer and as a QB than people give him credit for? I think so, and I wouldn't be surprised to see a GM agree in a week.
We think about the drops that lead to turnovers, but we often forget about the dropped interceptions and balls that would've been picked off by better DBs. It all evens out. I will say that I think a lot of the "WHO THE FUCK WAS THAT TO?!" passes we saw were the result of receivers running poor routes.
If I were a team with an aging but established first string QB and a reliable/serviceable second string QB, I would consider Logan as high as the third round. He has every tool but accuracy. He has a reputation as a hard worker who is very coachable. Assuming you're confident in your QB coach, I could see any of the following teams drafting him in the third round and trying to fix his issues:
Any other team, I would wait until the fifth round. He seems to every skill you can't teach (size, strength, work ethic, etc), and one-two skills that you can (accuracy, decision making). How confident are you that you can teach him these skills? At what cost do you pay for this challenge (How much money will he cost, how much time will coaches spend with him instead of other players, what other talent are you forgoing in this draft, etc)?
I will say, I do think he has the charisma to be a leader one day. Just because he's not yelling in the huddle doesn't mean he's not a leader. Actions speak louder than words (please excuse the cliche), and if Logan works hard to improve his accuracy, watches tape and EARNS a starting job as a qb, other players will follow. I can't think of anytime in NFL history this hasn't been true.
Thomas will not have to wait until his NFL receivers learn to catch with their fingertips. The WR better not quit on their routes at that level.
Center snaps in shotgun will almost always get to him at least waist level.
You think Edelmann would whine about the passes coming at him too fast?
Did Wilson have a dumpster fire of an offense so that the first play from scrimmage was a center snap to a loose ball in the end zone?
We're 30% of his shotgun snaps caught at his shins?
Tell me exactly what the offense was in 2012, other than Thomas?
Wilson was 18-14 as a starter at NC State and had a completion %'s of about 54.5, 59.3 & 58.4%. He threw a lot of TDs but also threw alot of INTs his soph & jr years (11 & 14). While NC State wasn't loaded when he was there, they probably had 19-14 or better talent.
If Russell Wilson had been drafted by, say, the Browns or the Vikings or half the other teams in the league, we wouldn't be talking about him. Much as with Wisconsin, he is a good fit for the Seahawks and the Seahawks are a good fit for him. But if you try to put a team on Wilson's back and force him to win games for you, it's probably not going to work.
As for being drafted by browns or vikings.....I am not sure I could name another QB who we WOULD be talking about on those piss-poor teams.
a buddy of mine is a big vikes fan and he's all about them taking logan. he makes a good point that they would be a good fit for him, strong running game, three pro bowlers on the oline, patterson going deep with jennings as a security blanket, let him learn while cassel starts for a while.
Im going to piggyback on Alum07 here because Logan Thomas's inconsistency has been his problem all along. I doubt that Gruden watched a whole bunch of tape.......why the EFF would ESPN pay him to do that when Heather Dinich, the ACC football giraffe, could feed Gruden all he needed to know to pander to the masses. Not saying that he or she is wrong.....just saying that the guy probably isn't doing a whole lot of individual analysis. At the same time...dude is a SB winning coach and I think the players connect well with him. I do watch Gruden segments despite the generic result. I particularly enjoyed his sitdown with Tahj Boyd - he's a good kid and he would have made a great Hokie.
That being said, Gruden and all the walking dead there can still lick my shiny metal ass.
Frank Caliendo is a riot
I wish I could upvote this more than once! I missed Callendo doing Gruden with Gruden the other day because my wife had to see something on HGTV....(sigh).