Column from Bucky Brooks of NFL Network
 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...to-change-game

It is very interesting to note that scouts are downgrading Barkley a bit for the talent level around him. In Woods and Lee, he has 2 great WR's to throw to and in Kalil, his blindside is well protected.
His story leads off on an article on Griffin 111 and looks at a few other possible draftees.

After Bucky retired from pro football, he was a regional scout for both Seattle and Carolina and has been hired as a draft expert by NFL.com. I wonder if he will replace Mayock on 'Path to the Draft' now that Mayock has other priorities.

Here's an article on Blackmon

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-best-receiver

Here's an article on Tannehill

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-only-to-lucks

Another athletic QB who's going to "change the game". How original.

Here's an article on Tannehill

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d...-only-to-lucks

Bucky is an 'informed' analyst and has access to more info on prospects than most of us, but he's still winging it.

He was very positive on Gabbert and was another naysayer on Cam Newton.
USC is good, but it's not like Barkley is quarterbacking Alabama or LSU.

THere's no written law that says elite QB prospects have to play on bad offensive teams. Luck is the only one IMO who isn't playing with any WRs.
RObert Griffin has wideouts. Tannehill has WRs. So do Jones and Barkley, as does Nick Foles.

At least it is coming from a former pro scout and gives us some incite into what the scouting community is thinking. I'll have to see him over 2 drafts to get a real impression of the value of his comments. I agree that it isn't the only opinions worth noting.

BTW I don't think there's worlds of difference between the two QBs besides Luck's mobility. Both guys IMO are capable of leading a franchise to the SB and winning it.

Brooks has been a fairly significant contributor on the draft for NFL Network for some years now.

HAHA...so true. Such a ridiculous statement and its made every few years. None of these QBs revolutionize the game - its such an annoying statement. Let's be honest to - this statement is only made when the QB happens to be black.

Manning and Brady have never been used in the "change the game" argument. A-Rod is playing lights out and is a dual threat but again - not a game revolutionizing QB. Andrew Luck is coined as a sure thing - best QB prospect in 15 years but not a QB that will "change the game".

To revolutionize something is to change it - Newton is doing nothing different than Culpepper did (obligatory comparison between two black QBs). Vick has yet to revolutionize the position - we have been waiting for him to for the past decade. Steve Young never revolutionized the position nor did Randall Cunningham. All these players had dual threat capabilities yet none of the "changed the game".

The whole athletic mobile QB thing has been around since Fran Tarkenton (probably even before him) so I would argue that Tarkenton revolutionized the position about 50 years ago.

I don't know what to think really. I mean, Luck is still the top QB, but honestly, I'm starting to not buy into all this hype as him being the best pro prospect any one has ever scouted before, which I've seen multiple 20+ year veteran draft scouts say.

I'm with you on this. I haven't watched all their games, but in the Stanford-USC game, Barkley was every bit as impressive as Luck. When you compare the Oregon games, Barkley was obviously the better QB. I have a feeling NFL teams aren't as high on Luck as draftniks are. It would not surprise me at all if, assuming Manning is healthy, the Colts trade out of that number one pick because Luck isn't the once in a lifetime, can't pass up prospect he is cracked up to be.

I like Bucky, but I don't love his analysis. I really hope he doesn't replace Mike Mayock in any capacity. Mayock is the man.

Luck has far superior size and athleticism. Those aren't things you can just toss aside lightly, those are big deals for NFL QBs. Barkley isn't a good athlete and doesn't have a big arm. He has an incredible release and a great mind, I think he'll be good, but Luck's upside and floor for success are both superior.

I've been waiting for people to hop on the Barkley > Luck bandwagon. Personally, I love both, but I still think Luck is the best college QB I've witnessed in some time. He is so sound technically. This argument was bound to happen though when he decided to return to college. It will be even more fun in a couple months when we go through the phase where both QBs are terrible.

When guys like Steve Young, Vick and Randall Cunningham were at their best, I think opposing defenses would have said they were absolutely the hardest QBs to defend against.
When you D has to commit one defender to spy the QB the entire game just in case he breaks from the pocket, that's a problem.

'Revolutionize' just means a player changes the way a position is traditionally played, or utilizes rare tools to excel at his position.

I do think there's been a gradual emphasis on QBs having functional athleticism and also the ability to move outside the pocket. Being a pure dropback passer with poor mobility used to be the prototype for an NFL QB.

Now a borderline immobile QB like a Ryan Mallett is considered a potential liability to an offense no matter how well he can throw the football.

Imagine if you could transplant Peyton Manning's head and arm onto Vince Young's body???
On third downs and in the redzone I don't know how you could stop him.

Aaron Rodgers can absolutely destroy LBs and DEs when he rolls out of the pocket because if they lose contain he can take off for 20-25 yards.

But yeah I do agree we've seen prospects similar to RGIII before. Tarkenton, Staubach, etc.

Didn't Charlie Casserly completely bungling the QB situation for the 2011 draft teach you anything about NFLN?

I'd rather listen to The NFL Network when it comes to draft prospects than Mel Kiper and Todd McShay. They both know nothing at ESPN, pretty much with 99% of there analysts. Proof: Kiper said Russell would be a top 5 QB in his 4th season. McShay said Jevan Snead would be an elite QB and top 5 pick 2010.

That is just two examples. Casserly is the man responsibile for taking Mario Williams over Reggie Bush, so I think the man might know something. Mike Mayock is probably the best one out there.

I think Luck is all that he is cracked up to be. What's not to like? He's smart, comes from a good family, played under a former NFL QB and current head coach of the 2nd best team in the NFL. Runs a pro style offense, makes multiple reads unlike most QBs, can make all the throws, mobile. Really don't see any major flaws to his game.

I feel like the people who are questioning Luck's arm and think it's a good idea to draft Matt Barkley ahead of him are similar to the people who thought it was even worth discussing Ryan Leaf over Peyton Manning. Not that I think Barkley will go the way of Leaf, but Luck as the #1 player in this or any other draft is as close to a slam dunk as there has been since Peyton was drafted.

The subject was QBs and Casserly was terrible last year in trying to figure where they were going to go. Charlie didnt even have two top 8 guys (Newton,Locker) as first round caliber players.

I do like Mayock best of all. Kiper and McShay have their share of success but at the end of the day i trust my own eyes over most of them.

Your forgetting that Barkley has tremendous talent around him, 2 superb WR's who are both likely high 1st rounders and a LT that many see as a top 5 pick.
Luck has a bunch of nobodies to throw to and Martin isn't near the LT that Kalil is.
I would estimate that Barkley has a full second or 2 to find the open receivers who have the ability to completely separate themselves from the CB's. Luck, on the other hand, gets no guarantee that any of his receivers will be open and has considerably less time to wait.
Barkley may be impressive but how will he perform as a pro with far less time to find his open receivers and with receivers who may be nowhere near as dominating as Wood and Lee.
You can absolutely forget Indy passing on Luck who IMO, has a real shot at being a great NFL QB when he gets to play with Wayne, Clark, Garcon and Gonzalez.
Barkley, again IMO, has a shot to end up being a far weaker prospect removed from playing with almost perfect cast around him and getting far less time to find his open receivers.

I think a lot of NFL personnel are passive in their assessment of junior QB's declaring, it is actually quite a new phenomenon. They seem very reluctant to give them a real high rating and feel much more comfortable in talking about far more polished senior QB's.
Junior QB's are rawer as prospects and without another year to observe them, there is no way to tell how much better they can get before they are rated as a prospect. This seems to keep the Mayock's and Casserley's from jumping all over them.
However, as junior QB's declare more and more, NFL personnel people will get used to assessing them and they will become far more positive in saying that they will be great.
I remember when the NBA first allowed high school seniors to declare, many, many NBA teams thought they would not be able to adjust to the NBA without riding the bench for a few years, and sat them accordingly. However, as one after another high school player made the adjustment to the NBA without sitting at all, but playing right away, then drafting high school seniors picked up immensely as they often quickly bypassed their senior and junior products of the college system.