Teams that might draft a first round QB:

The skins might be higher on that list.


I hope they reach for Grossman.

 

Certainly, Grossman isn't my guy, nor is he second round level to me, but if the staff likes him (ugh, and they would) then he's still talented and midround.

Klingsbury is allright, but he's a less talented version of Boller IMO, and in a less pro offense. My big knock on Boller si that he's only had limited success before this year. They did go through some bad coaching situations, though.

 

Mags, you rate Boller over Palmer?

 

Kingsbury:
Yrds - 2916
Comp% - 68.3
TD - 28
INT - 6

Boller:
Yrds - 1832
Comp% - 55.6
TD - 19
INT - 5


Uh...
Give me Kingsbury. Boller is ok but Kingsbury is the one that is more talented.

 

Klingsbury? Again, the offense. Just MO. He's right up there, but of the two I cloose Boller. Still, Klingsbury might be the choice since his only real lack is the pinpoint throw - he's more of an arc guy. Of course, the OSU game didn't help him and he's been on fire since.

Yes, above Carson Palmer. I used to get really high on Palmer back in the day and he's finally coming around. But so is Chris Simms, some would say, who I put way down there. Palmer I put in the mix, and I wouldn't mind having him at all.

 

Sure, and I will certainly admit that there is a real chance that neither guy makes it at the next level.

Carson Palmer has always baffled me. All the physical skills in the world but just not an elite QB.

He might lack some field vision just a bit and a leaders mentality - but he would certainly be worth a gamble. He throws such a nice ball - his comp (60%) and INTs are baffling too. Not as high as second round unless you are at the bottom of the round IMO.

 

true. Palmer's vision is lacking somewhat. Boller, according to some, is only reading half the field at one time. I don't have a read on Klingsbury's vision.

But vision is somewhat of an odd one to judge. Anybody who doesn't have truly great vision (the only guy who impressed me was Brees in the last few years, save the armless Kittner/Heupel type deal), that's considered a detriment. And it is. But I seem to get down on it faster than any other flaw, which is also a detriment to the guy's game, but you don't expect perfection in most attributes...it's just harder to set vision at an acceptable level, just like trading Klingsbury's accuracy

I think KK will be a WCO guy. He's very Brady, and Brady doesn't go WCO, nor would KK need to go WCO. Everybody needs to throw deep. The other two need to be, IMO, in more of a timing type O. Funny, those really haven't spread out much.

 

That's the thing. I'm intrigued by Palmer for the first time, really, because he isn't doing those things that turned me off about him before. He isn't throwing those picks like before. His skills are superior to Sims IMO, but he's played like ass in year past. Maybe he's turned the corner.

 

To me Simms is a player that is very similar to his father. Needs to be a "manage the game" type guy to be effective. Will rarely lead a team back from a big hole and will never be a fireballer that puts up big numbers. I personally don't care for Simms at all and don't want him lulling me to sleep with his mediocrity on Sundays. No thanks, we've got Rodney Peete to do that for us.

On Kingsbury - 68% is impressive and he throws a lot in that offense. The offense certainly has something to do with the numbers, but he is at least a guy that could be decent someday. As a sleeper - he fits IMO. True though...Boller does as well - as you stated.

 

I don't think he "manages games" very well either.

He folds under pressure. Not good.

I wouldn't put it past Jerrah Jones drafting him high though.