What Is Up With Matt Barkley?

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Reid will solve that. WCO qb.

WCO offense is no longer in existence. The terminology still exists, but the offense as a whole is obsolete.

Present day "WCO" teams run just as many vertical concepts as any other offense.

I can make an argument that the pure WCO actually requires more arm strength then a vertical offense anyway bc you need zip to fit the ball into tighter windows.

[brat316]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

WCO offense is no longer in existence. The terminology still exists, but the offense as a whole is obsolete.

Present day "WCO" teams run just as many vertical concepts as any other offense.

I can make an argument that the pure WCO actually requires more arm strength then a vertical offense anyway bc you need zip to fit the ball into tighter windows.

we know he has the zip in the short to mid range game, which would be great for the tight windows in the wco. but has no accuracy in the deep ball.

If CK can do it, Barkley maybe able to as well.

[y.f.s.]

Originally Posted by Babylon

I actually think he moves around fairly well in the pocket. I'm probably alone in my thinking but i always thought he had a pretty strong arm.

Oh, he moves well enough when pressure forces him too, it's just that the ball has a tendency to either die out on him or he ends up making a terrible decision. Oregon game is a great example of this.

[WCH]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Reid will solve that. WCO qb.

I don't think he's quick footed enough to make it in a WCO (which, like BBD said, is somewhat obsolete). Montana, Young, Favre, McNabb...the best WCO QBs had quick feet (it's worth mentioning that young-Favre was almost a completely different QB than the old, beaten down version that's fresh in our memories). Bill Walsh was even pretty open about the fact that foot quickness was the first thing he looked for in a QB.

[y.f.s.]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

WCO offense is no longer in existence. The terminology still exists, but the offense as a whole is obsolete.

Present day "WCO" teams run just as many vertical concepts as any other offense.

I can make an argument that the pure WCO actually requires more arm strength then a vertical offense anyway bc you need zip to fit the ball into tighter windows.

Really, the only difference between most NFL offenses is how they're communicated. There are families of terminology, and every team has certain ratios of what they like to do/are good at. But (for the most part) everybody is running the same **** conceptually, and it's all a remix of what Paul Brown and Sid Gillman came up with in the 60s.

Schematically, the NFL is very, very bland on a micro-level, and incredibly complex on a micro-level.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Really, the only difference between most NFL offenses is how they're communicated. There are families of terminology, but (for the most part) everybody is running the same **** conceptually, and it's all a remix of what Paul Brown and Sid Gillman came up with in the 60s.

All NFL offenses and defenses are essentially the same ****. We want to categorize them bc in the past some concepts have revolutionized the sport, like the 46, the 3-4, the cover 2, etc, but all concepts are used by all teams.

The only difference being, depending on the preference of your coach, you'll use some concepts more than others. And build your team around that. That's really the only difference.

And the read option is a new concept that's peculiar to only some teams.

Random thought of mine: I wonder if the flex makes a comeback in some capacity with the read option becoming popular. The flex would help keep those linebackers clean and might work in neutralizing some of the effectiveness of the read option.

[brat316]

Originally Posted by y.f.s.

Really, the only difference between most NFL offenses is how they're communicated. There are families of terminology, and every team has certain ratios of what they like to do/are good at. But (for the most part) everybody is running the same **** conceptually, and it's all a remix of what Paul Brown and Sid Gillman came up with in the 60s.

Schematically, the NFL is very, very bland on a micro-level, and incredibly complex on a micro-level.

But the Giants.

They have a complex offense, both the WR and Qb need to read the same thing for the option routes to work.

Yeah I don't see why the routes would change from offense to offense. Cause routes are routes.

Everyone runs a slant, slant and go, post corner, post, streak, drag, dig, come back.

How frequently, fashion and combination with other routes is what separates the offenses, would you not say?

You are not going to see some unique new routes, like a double comeback, or run up 10 hook a right like a corner route, but then turn right again back towards LOS and then turn left after 2 yards.

[brat316]

Originally Posted by bigbluedefense

All NFL offenses and defenses are essentially the same ****. We want to categorize them bc in the past some concepts have revolutionized the sport, like the 46, the 3-4, the cover 2, etc, but all concepts are used by all teams.

The only difference being, depending on the preference of your coach, you'll use some concepts more than others. And build your team around that. That's really the only difference.

And the read option is a new concept that's peculiar to only some teams.

Random thought of mine: I wonder if the flex makes a comeback in some capacity with the read option becoming popular. The flex would help keep those linebackers clean and might work in neutralizing some of the effectiveness of the read option.

Flex would keep everything in 1 lane.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

But the Giants.

They have a complex offense, both the WR and Qb need to read the same thing for the option routes to work.

Yeah I don't see why the routes would change from offense to offense. Cause routes are routes.

Everyone runs a slant, slant and go, post corner, post, streak, drag, dig, come back.

How frequently, fashion and combination with other routes is what separates the offenses, would you not say?

You are not going to see some unique new routes, like a double comeback, or run up 10 hook a right like a corner route, but then turn right again back towards LOS and then turn left after 2 yards.

Well to be fair, we're the only team (now that Chan Gailey is fired) that runs a Run N Shoot.

Those choice routes and WR rules are a lot more complicated than your traditional "option" route.

The WR rules are much more detailed.

Do other teams run options? Every team does. Do they run Run N Shoot choice routes?

Only NYG, NE do currently to my knowledge. Buffalo used to but again, Chan is fired so they probably won't anymore.

[bigbluedefense]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

Flex would keep everything in 1 lane.

I'd like to see the Flex come back in some capacity. I think the general concept of the Flex has a place in the NFL in certain packages.

[y.f.s.]

Originally Posted by bhaarat316

But the Giants.

They have a complex offense, both the WR and Qb need to read the same thing for the option routes to work.

Eh, even the Giants aren't that different. They've borrowed some of the run-and-shoot concepts Gilbride used to run in Houston, but they've distilled them down and still run it out of a very traditional offense. We make a big deal about the option-routes being unique to the run-and-shoot, but just about every single NFL pass play has sight-adjustments built in.

Yeah I don't see why the routes would change from offense to offense. Cause routes are routes.

Everyone runs a slant, slant and go, post corner, post, streak, drag, dig, come back.

How frequently, fashion and combination with other routes is what separates the offenses, would you not say?

Yep, you're on the right track. The routes in don't mean much of anything and there are only a few true "isolation" routes designed to beat one-on-one man coverage. Passing games are like the pick-and-roll in basketball. By design, you're trying to get a two-on-one advantage or a three-on-two advantage in space and put a defender in a bind.

One-on-one is actually an advantage for the defense, which is why it's a complete misnomer when announcers say "he had single coverage" or crap like that. The NFL is a bit more of a one-on-one matchup league because you have incredible specimens that can make contested catches, but the bulk of what makes a passing game go are trying to get a numbers advantage in space.

That's why it's better to try and learn the passing game conceptually. It's easier to understand how a pass game is attacking the field - horizontal stretches, hi-lows (vertical stretches), triangle stretches, etc.

For example...All Curl/Flat is a horizontal stretch play designed to put five underneath receivers against four underneath zone defenders. The MLB's drop is the key, work opposite of him. All of the windows are horizontal - you're stretching the routes across the field. Same exact thing for a deep passing play like four verticals. It's a horizontal stretch - you're hoping to get four wide receivers across against two or three deep defenders. One is a deep horizontal stretch, the other is a short horizontal stretch, but they're conceptually the same thing.

You are not going to see some unique new routes, like a double comeback, or run up 10 hook a right like a corner route, but then turn right again back towards LOS and then turn left after 2 yards.

Yep. You'll see some tweaks here and there, but for the most part coaches are trying to come up with new route combinations as opposed to new routes.

[princefielder28]

Call me stupid but just looking at all the options for Kansas City at #1, especially if Branden Albert is re-signed, I think Barkley will be the guy. I have been as critical on Barkley for his play this past year as anyone, but when NFL teams throw in the film they'll see considerable struggles from Geno Smith following his hot start and Barkley has very good tape from his junior year to support his game.

I'd personally take Tyler Wilson #1, but that's clearly not gonna happen.

[bitonti]

Originally Posted by princefielder28

Call me stupid but just looking at all the options for Kansas City at #1, especially if Branden Albert is re-signed, I think Barkley will be the guy. I have been as critical on Barkley for his play this past year as anyone, but when NFL teams throw in the film they'll see considerable struggles from Geno Smith following his hot start and Barkley has very good tape from his junior year to support his game.

I'd personally take Tyler Wilson #1, but that's clearly not gonna happen.

He's got a hurt shoulder and comes from the school that produced Mark Sanchez. He stayed in school an extra year when he didn't have to like Matt Leinart another recently "great" USC QB.

Buffalo would be a dire place for his skills and AZ NYJ can't take another USC QB.

Matt Barkley's draft stock is early 2nd at best.

[Cp3]

What is Barkley's ceiling?

[Ozzy]

Will be interesting to see where Barkley goes. Coming into the season I think most had him the #1 pick in the draft. Has consistent production over the years, but this year it is kind of out of sight out of mind. And he did not perform all that well in the big games he did play in before the injury.

Not comparing the two but Aaron Rodgers lost his final college game, a bowl game 45-31 to Texas Tech. Cannot say that did not help him fall in the draft, lack of recent success, coming in on a bad note much like Barkley.



Now will Barkley be able to sit as long as Rodgers did and learn, I doubt it, but I also doubt Barkley is as bad as some say he is. He had some fine years for USC when they did not really have that much talent around or that much to play for.

Kid can throw the ball effortlessly, much like Rodgers coming out. But that injury with Barkley could be the thing that decides his future.

[descendency]

Originally Posted by Cp3

What is Barkley's ceiling?

Some might argue Drew Brees.

edit: I think everyone looks better until you start watching their games looking for flaws and for elite traits. You will find more flaws than elite traits almost always.

[Babylon]

Originally Posted by Cp3

What is Barkley's ceiling?

I'd be comfortable with a Matt Ryan comparison.

[FUNBUNCHER]

He'll be better than Mark Sanchez, I just don't know what his ceiling is.

[Black Bolt]

Originally Posted by Cp3

What is Barkley's ceiling?

Jay Fiedler

[TheFinisher]

Originally Posted by Cp3

What is Barkley's ceiling?

Obviously he was a much better athlete outside the pocket, but I see a lot of Rich Gannon(Oakland raiders version) in Barkley when watching him operate in the pocket. Very similar arm talent too. Not a great fit for every offense, but if he lands in an offense with WC tendencies he's gonna carve up defenses.