2013 NFL Draft Tyler Wilson tops Geno Smith - Josh Norris

Love it when somebody has the backbone to step outside of the accepted prospect rankings.

"Let me start by saying these quarterback rankings are not reactionary. I've felt the same way about the top four since the end of the 2012 season, with Tyler Wilson holding on to his No. 1 spot since summer evaluations. I know the Arkansas product is not a popular choice when it comes to picking the best quarterback in the 2013 NFL Draft class. However, as we've seen in every single draft, prospects who are selected later than others can often emerge as better players"

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...t-tyler-wilson-tops-geno-smith-in-qb-rankings

I'm a fan of Josh Norris and his work (great twitter follow, too), and I agree, it's nice to see someone go out on a limb occasionally instead of sticking the usual ranking. I'm also a bigger fan than most on this board with Zac Dysert, so it's cool to see him as his #3.

Geno is the next TJ, IMO and *Barkley the next Sanchez. 3 years from now, we will fully understand just how gawd-awful this draft really is for QBs. The draft is my favorite weekend of the year and while I do not profess to be a guru, I don't see a QB worth a 1st. Several will still go in the 1st and I believe those teams will suffer the consequences.

*Barkley may surpass Sanchez and Leinert because he has the benefit of learning from their slacker, GQ, primadonna ways. I don't believe he has more talent, but he will likely out work them. He will also benefit from the fact greatness is not going to be thrust upon him. The word is out on SC QBs and I think that is actually a good thing for Matt Barkley.

I like Tyler Wilson enough that I can't give Norris any grief here. That said, I'd take Barkley in a heartbeat over Wilson and I think Geno Smith has been catching too much grief lately. I wouldn't have any issue putting Wilson above Manuel/Scott/Nassib/Glennon though.

I do take some offense to him having Dysert #3. Dysert is all arm talent and nothing else- watching his tape is just like watching John Skelton. Mike Glennon has the tools to be a quality starter but his intangibles give me career backup vibes- Norris has Glennon #4 while Matt Barkley sits (insultingly) at #6 behind Ryan Nassib. I think seeing Dysert at #3 bothers me more than guys who put Nassib #1.

I agree I don't like this QB class. No one really stands out as a cannot miss. Perhaps a hidden gem in the lower rounds but I don't get any wow factor looking at any of the supposed first rounders.

HawkWow":1wzc8yfh said:

Geno is the next TJ, IMO and *Barkley the next Sanchez. 3 years from now, we will fully understand just how gawd-awful this draft really is for QBs. The draft is my favorite weekend of the year and while I do not profess to be a guru, I don't see a QB worth a 1st. Several will still go in the 1st and I believe those teams will suffer the consequences.

*Barkley may surpass Sanchez and Leinert because he has the benefit of learning from their slacker, GQ, primadonna ways. I don't believe he has more talent, but he will likely out work them. He will also benefit from the fact greatness is not going to be thrust upon him. The word is out on SC QBs and I think that is actually a good thing for Matt Barkley.

Click to expand...

I'm confident the opinion of this quarterback class will be much higher 3 years from now than where that opinion is today. Why? Because I think we are in a new era in the NFL- and I'm not referring to the read-option. We are in an era where the college game is the driving force for new football ideologies instead of the pros, and because of this we are seeing quarterbacks enter the NFL more prepared than at any time in NFL history.

We've seen that play out in the last two drafts. People knew Luck would be good, but that was basically it for a "sure thing." RG3 was raw, uneducated on NFL offenses and injury prone- a huge gamble. Ryan Tannehill was a derided top 10 pick- compared by some to Christian Ponder (as a draft reach). Russell Wilson was called the worst pick in the draft by some. This time last year, NOBODY knew we had maybe the greatest QB class of all time right in front of us.

And in 2011, nobody was talking that group up at all- and yet Cam Newton, Colin Kaepernick, and Andy Dalton have all since become franchise QBs.

Ever wonder why there has been so much success at finding QBs the last couple years? Hint: it's not because they were ultra rare QB classes. It's because the difference between the NFL and the college game has never been smaller. (And also because some very smart coaches have been drafting QBs).

Guys like Smith, Barkley, Wilson, and Nassib are all viable rookie starters because of how much they developed in college. Do I think any of them are going to be NFL MVPs? Maybe not. But that doesn't mean they aren't worth a first round pick. Just ask Baltimore how drafting Joe Flacco worked out for them. I think this QB class compares very well to 2008 at the top, but is much stronger in the 2nd tier. Before their breakout seasons in 2012 both Flacco and Ryan were good/competent QBs that brought a ton of value to their teams. I see this group being the same, it's a low floor group without the elite ceiling, but that still makes it vastly better than most QB classes pre-2011 if you actually look them up and read down the names. Then you factor in Manuel, Glennon, and Scott. Anyone who doesn't see multiple quality QBs out of that group of seven is crazy, IMO.

The Sanchez/Leinart comparisons to Matt Barkley need to stop immediately. Those quarterbacks played mostly with a different a coaching staff and against different players, they were helped by Pete Carroll in a way that Barkley did not benefit from in 3 of his 4 seasons. Barkley has 4 years experience. Sanchez had 17 total starts. Matt Leinart has no drive to excel and quit under adversity. Matt Barkley has dealt with adversity going through two death penalty seasons and then a very difficult final year, while dealing with (IMO) a dysfunctional coaching staff. Barkley's personality and intangibles are 180 degrees from Matt Leinart.

More than that, Barkley, Sanchez, and Leinart are three different prospects. Holding Sanchez and Leinart against Barkley because they went to USC- it's the same logic that people used against Aaron Rodgers in 2005 when they labelled him a "Tedford QB" in the wake of previous Cal busts like Kyle Boller. That logic failed spectacularly in 2005 (thank goodness- Aaron Rodgers would be in SF right now). It appears it will rear it's head again in 2013, this time for Matt Barkley.

I think what may end up helping this draft class look better after a few years from now, more than anything, is that teams won't be reaching for QBs like a few teams did in the first round of 2011, but instead look for value in the late first, 2nd/3rd round where those picks have had the same success rate the last two drafts as early Day 1 picks (and less a gamble)

Take 2011, again. You have to imagine that in hindsight the Titans, Vikings, and Jags would have rather waited till the 2nd round pick and gotten first stab at either Dalton or Kaep than drafted who they drafted. Teams this year seemed to have taken notice of that and treated this off-season free agency, accordingly, adding veterans who make there team at least semi-competitive, allowing them to skip over quarterbacks in the top-10 if they want.
Edit: I'm still pulling for Locker at Tennessee. He's got some time still to prove himself.

That in turn allows these rooks to either sit for a year or compete and win/earn the starting job, early. It's the Cincinnati/Seattle/San Fransisco approach to drafting QBs; add a vet to the roster, draft other positions early that can make an immediate impact, and if the rookie is NFL ready enough, he starts, or else he sits another year. And if he busts, the costs is much more manageable than a top-12 pick.

Barkley.

To me, he's the Andy Dalton of this draft class; a great leader at the position with a ton of experience (both 4-year starters, IIRC), fundamentally and mentally sound, yet both have physical limitations which require both the right offensive scheme and player personnel to put them in the best position to succeed. Without the offense and players around them, I think they both struggle. Could Barkley go as high as top-10? It's possible, but if I was a team (Buffalo, NY Jets, Arizona, etc.), I think I'd be better off, for example, drafting either Tavon Austin/Cordarrelle Patterson (or whoever) early first and then make a push for Barkley late-first, early-2nd.

And if that team misses out on Barkley, oh well. It didn't matter for Cincinnati or San Fransisco to miss out on the "top" 4 QBs (or Seattle and the "top" 3), and I don't think it'll matter this year. IMO, the gap between these QBs are not large enough to justify passing on Pro Bowl talent in the top 10 when you can get an equivalent QB at less the cost Day 2 of the draft.

Ultimately, I could see this 2013 QB class having a few franchise QBs, but it might take a couple years to see that as these guys step into the starting role after sitting for a year or two.

I'm really starting to like Josh Norris. Granted some of his QB rankings are a little off imaho, but he's not a sheep as someone at NFL.com has noticed.

"Earlier this week, I raged against the boring groupthink that takes over draft analysts during mock draft season. NFL.com draft analyst Josh Norris does not suffer from this growing disease."

I thought this was painfully obvious, so why is Norris the first I've seen to state it?

"5. Georgia's Alex Ogletree fits best as a 4-3 weak-side linebacker according to Norris, not as an inside linebacker."

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...wilson-over-geno-smith-surprising-draft-ranks