Who Will Have A Better NFL Career: Geno or Barkley

[PossibleCabbage]

It really depends on what situation they land in, but I personally feel that Barkley's not going to end up as better than "a starting QB that you're looking to replace." Geno could actually be pretty good if he lands in the right spot.

I think Barkley can end up as one of the 32 best QBs in the NFL, but probably in the bottom 12.

[SuperPacker]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Point is arm strength is just arm strength. Alone it doesn't make or break a QB. Obviously, Peyton has attributes that make up for it, but I'm not comparing him to Barkley. I'm using him in an example about arm strength.

Classic evil vidae.

What about Kellen Moore as an example? Can I use him?

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

What about Kellen Moore as an example? Can I use him?

Can I use Jamarcus Russell?

Thing about the NFL, I really do think it's about opportunity almost as much as it is about talent. Big arms will get you more of an opportunity, but it makes me think about how all the old spread QBs never got a chance. Would they have succeeded in today's NFL better? Talking about all the old Texas Tech guys and such. It's obviously become less of an issue now. Guys like Brandon Weeden and Geno Smith can be talked about as 1st round picks. What if Reggie McNeal was in this draft? lolz. FutureScout reference - 95% of the guys here probably won't remember that poster. He was fun.

[vidae]

Please don't put Geno in the same sentence as Brandon Weeden. It makes me sad.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by vidae

Please don't put Geno in the same sentence as Brandon Weeden. It makes me sad.

Sorry, I meant Pat White. lol jk.

Any experts on the offensive system at WVU, which other programs share it and if there are any successful QBs who came from it?

[SuperPacker]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Can I use Jamarcus Russell?

Thing about the NFL, I really do think it's about opportunity almost as much as it is about talent. Big arms will get you more of an opportunity, but it makes me think about how all the old spread QBs never got a chance. Would they have succeeded in today's NFL better? Talking about all the old Texas Tech guys and such. It's obviously become less of an issue now. Guys like Brandon Weeden and Geno Smith can be talked about as 1st round picks. What if Reggie McNeal was in this draft? lolz. FutureScout reference - 95% of the guys here probably won't remember that poster. He was fun.

You can if you want. But just like Peyton Manning and Kellen Moore, focusing on a one player, looking at one similar trait that they share and using it as an example as to why that player will succeed or fail is absolutely pointless.

If all you're trying to say is "Matt Barkley COULD be good, look at Peyton Manning" then that is again totally pointless.

[Trogdor]

Voted Barkley but I want it to be said that when someone bumps this next year with "GENO SMITH IS TEH GREATESTZZZZZ" it will be premature. If we are voting for NFL career then I think Barkley will be the better pro. If we are voting for best rookie year it'll be Geno as I think he's the only QB in the draft that will be forced into starting whether ready or not.

As far as Barkley's arm strength it is NFL worthy but he has got to generate more velocity when he can't set his feet. Whether that is a technique failure or a physical failure will have to be seen.

Geno has a lot of Pat White qualities which would scare the living crap out of me if I was looking to draft him #1 overall. Granted Geno is a much better passer and in my honest opinion will end up being an NFL starting QB.

[SuperPacker]

What is the rationale for Barkley > Geno?

Barkley has a better arm? No, Barkley has a below average arm. Barkley is a smarter QB? No, he makes a ton of stupid mistakes. Barkley is more athletic? No, not at all. Barkley hasn't had Bailey and Austin? Yes true, he's had Woods and Lee....

Barkley what? Someone please tell me.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

You can if you want. But just like Peyton Manning and Kellen Moore, focusing on a one player, looking at one similar trait that they share and using it as an example as to why that player will succeed or fail is absolutely pointless.

If all you're trying to say is "Matt Barkley COULD be good, look at Peyton Manning" then that is again totally pointless.

Stop trying. You're making my head burst with your inability to comprehend what is being said. You're so off it ain't even funny.

[Robbieb7]

Geno by far

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by SuperPacker

What is the rationale for Barkley > Geno?

Barkley has a better arm? No, Barkley has a below average arm. Barkley is a smarter QB? No, he makes a ton of stupid mistakes. Barkley is more athletic? No, not at all. Barkley hasn't had Bailey and Austin? Yes true, he's had Woods and Lee....

Barkley what? Someone please tell me.

If I had to pick the important ones, I'd say better poise and natural feel for the position. Experience in a pro style system where he's been making calls since high school. Much more advanced in reading defenses and knowing what to do. Leadership is on another level. Barkley chose to go to a school with a huge expectations to uphold and he's done it for 4 years (no other USC QB has done that). Great competitor who doesn't shy from pressure. Doesn't get rattled under the big lights. Better accuracy and ball placement. When you have a QB that just knows what to do all the time and handles himself well on and off the field, he naturally becomes a franchise QB you can trust.

[soybean]

Geno's a diva. I hate divas.

Anyways the way the game is set up these days, more and more young qbs are seemingly succeeding; cause everything is built up especially game planning for these guys to succeed.

[ChiFan24]

That Barkley-Clausen comparison isn't bad at all. They have a lot of the same tendencies.

Also, this pro style garbage needs to stop. USC is a cookie cutter offense just like the rest of college football. Being on the same field as a fullback doesn't make a QB good. And more importantly, regardless of offensive style, nobody in college football faces anything resembling a real, complex defense. You want an intelligent, quick thinking, composed QB. You can surmise some of those skills by watching the guy play, but NFL teams have a huge advantage over us draftniks in that their coaches can spend hours talking to QB's, putting them on the whiteboard, etc. From what I can see, from a mental standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to think Barkley is more able to step into an NFL offense than Geno Smith.

[BallerT1215]

Went Barkley...

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by ChiFan24

That Barkley-Clausen comparison isn't bad at all. They have a lot of the same tendencies.

Also, this pro style garbage needs to stop. USC is a cookie cutter offense just like the rest of college football. Being on the same field as a fullback doesn't make a QB good. And more importantly, regardless of offensive style, nobody in college football faces anything resembling a real, complex defense. You want an intelligent, quick thinking, composed QB. You can surmise some of those skills by watching the guy play, but NFL teams have a huge advantage over us draftniks in that their coaches can spend hours talking to QB's, putting them on the whiteboard, etc. From what I can see, from a mental standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to think Barkley is more able to step into an NFL offense than Geno Smith.

The comparison is horrendous.

I might liken Geno Smith to Darron Thomas then. If system is a non-factor as you say, then why did Thomas go undrafted being an athletic, 6'3", 220 QB who threw for nearly 6000 yards, 63 TDs against 16 INTs in 2 seasons? His measurables at the combine matched Andrew Luck. Seems awfully similar to Geno. Similar size, similar body type, both more of a passer than runner. Thomas was coached up by the hottest spread offense HC in college football. So what makes up the major difference in draft stock between the undrafted Thomas and the suppposed #1 overall pick in Smith?

[ChiFan24]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

The comparison is horrendous.

I might liken Geno Smith to Darron Thomas then. If system is a non-factor as you say, then why did Thomas go undrafted being an athletic, 6'3", 220 QB who threw for nearly 6000 yards, 63 TDs against 16 INTs in 2 seasons? His measurables at the combine matched Andrew Luck. Seems awfully similar to Geno. Similar size, similar body type, both more of a passer than runner. Thomas was coached up by the hottest spread offense HC in college football. So what makes up the major difference in draft stock between the undrafted Thomas and the suppposed #1 overall pick in Smith?

Because Thomas was a terrible QB prospect, and Smith isn't? I don't remember much about Thomas because I didn't feel the need to pay attention to him as a prospect, especially since it came as a total surprise when he declared. I know that he didn't have NFL arm talent, and that Geno does.

I'm not even arguing for Geno as a prospect. I don't know what to think about him yet. But I hate the notion that Barkley comes from this super complex NFL style system and that Geno has a huge learning curve ahead of him. It's all the same ****.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by ChiFan24

Because Thomas was a terrible QB prospect, and Smith isn't? I don't remember much about Thomas because I didn't feel the need to pay attention to him as a prospect, especially since it came as a total surprise when he declared. I know that he didn't have NFL arm talent, and that Geno does.

I'm not even arguing for Geno as a prospect. I don't know what to think about him yet. But I hate the notion that Barkley comes from this super complex NFL style system and that Geno has a huge learning curve ahead of him. It's all the same ****.

Why do you think other highly successful Air Raid Offense QBs aren't starting in the NFL?

Might be a good topic for discussion.

[Bob Sanders Dreadlock]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Why do you think other highly successful Air Raid Offense QBs aren't starting in the NFL?

Might be a good topic for discussion.

Lack of arm strength? RG3 says hello

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by Bob Sanders Dreadlock

Lack of arm strength? RG3 says hello

RG3 is 1. Weedend is 2. Can't think of any others. The percentage is so small. That's my point.

Throughout the years they all have been critically downgraded because of that so called "system QB" label. I've been on both sides of the argument. So what? Is that now a thing of the past? They're all treated as equals now?

[Forenci]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Don't see the Barkley to Clausen comparison from an intangibles standpoint so I don't like that one. Other than they were both top preps, I don't know a lot of things they are similar in either.

What? Scott said, and I quote, "Very smart with an excellent football IQ --- Knows how to operate under center, recognize blitzes, read coverages and go through progressions --- Takes care of the ball --- Tough and will play through pain and injuries --- Is confident with a fiery field presence and ice water in his veins --- Hard worker --- Media savvy and has proven that he can handle the spotlight."

That's incredible praise for his tangibles. Now, granted, I didn't agree at all with this assessment and along with many others thought Clausen sucked. I just don't see how you can use that argument though. Everyone supposedly called his intangibles superb.

I don't see it from Barkley. He reminds me A LOT of Clausen. Not just in physical attributes, but in attitude as well. Seems very aloof.

At BEST I see him as Andy Dalton type QB. And I'd refrain from comparing him to Manning. Not only does Manning have a better arm than Barkley, but he just wrecks him in those "smarts" and intangible areas.

And I don't really pay attention to the system. Pro system or spread makes no difference. I just pay attention to the QB individually. It was like with Sam Bradford. Everyone wanted to write him off because of his system, but when I watched him I just saw a damn good QB. Now Sam still has yet to prove himself, but he's been pretty good. Great? Not yet, but I think he's done A LOT with what he's been given. Now when I watch a Colt Brennan, or Darren Thomas as you've mentioned, I just saw an average passer taking advantage of his system. Nothing ever wowed me.

System means squat. Don't bother looking at the system. Look at the guy and the throws he makes. Look at his foot work, his mechanics, the type of throws he's able to make with his arm. Look at the type of accuracy he has on certain routes. Anyone can throw dump off and check down type routes and have 70% accuracy these days. Evaluating accuracy is much more about ball placement on certain routes than how often a receiver catches the ball and ups his percentage.

I'll take Geno all day every day over Barkley.

[scottyboy]

Originally Posted by D-Unit

Sorry, I meant Pat White. lol jk.

Any experts on the offensive system at WVU, which other programs share it and if there are any successful QBs who came from it?

the system that White and Feno played in are entirely different. WVU's "system" has changed since the days of "hey, Pat and Jarrod, if it breaks down, run freakin' wild on 'em".

Geno's "system" other than his tendencies to not progress his 2nd and 3rd reads all that well, shouldn't be a knock on him at all.

And that knock isn't the system. He didn't run an Oregon/Pat White system offense

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by scottyboy

the system that White and Feno played in are entirely different. WVU's "system" has changed since the days of "hey, Pat and Jarrod, if it breaks down, run freakin' wild on 'em".

Geno's "system" other than his tendencies to not progress his 2nd and 3rd reads all that well, shouldn't be a knock on him at all.

And that knock isn't the system. He didn't run an Oregon/Pat White system offense

He played in the Airraid system that is butt ass simple. That system works more because of how they practice repetition over and over than because of how complex it is. Which is alarming when people knock Geno over not being able to make mutliple reads. ALARMING.

[niel89]

I don't really like either but I would say Geno. Him + Reid is a considerably higher chance of success than Barkley on some crappy team. Team and development are major factors in a QBs success. I never buy that argument that a good QB will flourish no matter what. Good players have failed because of bad coaching and environments.


Arm strength isn't that make or break, but it helps out a ton if you have a good arm. It makes it easier to attack all part of the field and to make more spontaneous big plays. Manning can get by with a decent arm because he is a master of his offense.

I hate to bring up Alex Smith/Kaepernick, but it really is a decent example. Smith was great but they couldn't attack the field for bigger plays, so drives had to be long and methodical which is very hard to sustain in the NFL. They only took a few shot plays every now and then with him. Kaepernick was able to do so much more in the passing game because of his ability and willingness to push the ball.

This recent Superbowl has probably biased a lot of people because both QBs have outstanding arm talent, but arm strength is still a valuable asset. It can be the split second difference between a catch and or a CB batting it away. A great QB can still be great with an average arm, but having a gun makes it easier.

Its similar to a RB who runs a 4.3 or a 4.6. A RB that runs a 4.6 could be a great player because he possess great vision/balance/strength, but he will always struggle to get those explosive homerun plays. He can still be productive and great, but not being able to make those explosive plays make his job that much harder. On the flip side, the 4.3 guy might be fast but if he lacks vision/balance/strength then he probably won't be very good overall. Bad speed doesn't completely ruin a good RB, but it makes it more difficult.

Great arm strength does not make a QB great, but a weak arm can make make his job considerably more difficult. It's not impossible to be an elite QB with an average/above average arm but it is a big obstacle.

[D-Unit]

Originally Posted by Forenci

What? Scott said, and I quote, "Very smart with an excellent football IQ --- Knows how to operate under center, recognize blitzes, read coverages and go through progressions --- Takes care of the ball --- Tough and will play through pain and injuries --- Is confident with a fiery field presence and ice water in his veins --- Hard worker --- Media savvy and has proven that he can handle the spotlight."

That's incredible praise for his tangibles. Now, granted, I didn't agree at all with this assessment and along with many others thought Clausen sucked. I just don't see how you can use that argument though. Everyone supposedly called his intangibles superb.

I don't see it from Barkley. He reminds me A LOT of Clausen. Not just in physical attributes, but in attitude as well. Seems very aloof.

At BEST I see him as Andy Dalton type QB. And I'd refrain from comparing him to Manning. Not only does Manning have a better arm than Barkley, but he just wrecks him in those "smarts" and intangible areas.

And I don't really pay attention to the system. Pro system or spread makes no difference. I just pay attention to the QB individually. It was like with Sam Bradford. Everyone wanted to write him off because of his system, but when I watched him I just saw a damn good QB. Now Sam still has yet to prove himself, but he's been pretty good. Great? Not yet, but I think he's done A LOT with what he's been given. Now when I watch a Colt Brennan, or Darren Thomas as you've mentioned, I just saw an average passer taking advantage of his system. Nothing ever wowed me.

System means squat. Don't bother looking at the system. Look at the guy and the throws he makes. Look at his foot work, his mechanics, the type of throws he's able to make with his arm. Look at the type of accuracy he has on certain routes. Anyone can throw dump off and check down type routes and have 70% accuracy these days. Evaluating accuracy is much more about ball placement on certain routes than how often a receiver catches the ball and ups his percentage.

I'll take Geno all day every day over Barkley.

Trust me, you're in the majority when it comes to believing in Geno over Barkley. No big declaration there. Just trying to give another view out there that can be debated.

The Clausen comparison is just a huge silly reach. C'mon... every QB with good intangibles is now the same? I know that's not the point you're trying to make right?

...and as for Pro System or Spread making no difference, we'll just agree to disagree. Also, there are different variations, so that makes it difficult to make generalized statements.

...and as for Manning, that was just an example to point out how arm strength isn't the end all for QBs. There was never a comparison made to point out that Barkley is Manning.

[SchizophrenicBatman]

Geno will be decent. I don't see special. Probably Sam Bradford-level play.

Barkley will either be a back up or an awful starter. So there's your answer.