(02-15-2019, 11:39 AM)Talented Kalamari Wrote:

(02-14-2019, 03:04 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: He's the size of a middle school boy.

That's enough for me.

Yeah, because drafting a huge tall QB worked out so well for us last time.. Bortles and Flacco sure are lighting it up in the league, huh? You sound like a child. Quit getting your opinions from analysts and watch the actual game. He's one inch shorter than Russel Wilson, with better speed and a better arm. I'm taking that over Haskins or Foles any day.

---

(02-14-2019, 03:08 PM)TJBender Wrote: I would rather our QB be bigger than a kicker.

Stupid, non football reasons. Analyze him as a Qb then we can talk

But you presume that height is a non football related reason for not drafting him.

There is a reason that QBs 6-3 to 6-5 are deemed the prototype by professional scouts, coaches, and GMs.

Generally, they can see the field better.  Generally, they will have fewer passes batted down.  Generally, less than perfectly placed shotgun snaps they can still field would either sail over the head of a 5'9 (?) QB or throw off the timing enough to turn the play into chaos.  Generally, coaches can call more conventional and less restrictive game plans with a bigger QB.  With a shorter QB, a coach will have to call for more rollouts/moving pockets to compensate for the inability to see over the OL/DL.  That was exactly how it transpired with Flutie.  Those plays tend to limit the passing options available on a play of that nature.   Rightly or wrongly, there is also the question of durability.

In a risk averse enterprise that is the NFL drafting of QBs, drafting a guy 5'9" (at best) runs against that...for football reasons.

Murray may prove to be the exception's exception, but I wouldn't want the team to take that risk to find out...for football reasons.

---