QB class of 2005

What awaits them in the next few years? Who'll probably be most likely to bust, who'll be in the best position?

1. Alex Smith, SF
2. Aaron Rodgers, GB
3. Jason Campbell, Washington
4. Charlie Frye, Cleveland
5. Andrew Walter, Oakland
6. David Greene, Seattle

 

IMO, SF made the wrong pick with Smith. He's got tangible assets, but I didn't find him to be the right talent. He could make plays in more ways than Rodgers, and that'll help a team that'll be low on talent for a few years. I guess if you figure in their receivers, who are at best slow and non-threatening, Smith can dump off and attempt to make his plays himself. Rodgers would need better receivers, but SF will need better receivers anyway. I don't know that Smith is a WCO fit, either.


Rodgers is the most chancy - he could bust out and be an efficient playmaker like Brady on a team that is as often hurt as helped by Favre's chances lately. But that's a huge shadow to live up to, and that's a wildcard you can't overlook. Obviously fits the O, prefers the diverse assortment of targets he'll get.


You could as well write off Campbell right now - he's got the tools. But I don't see them being able to catch him up as quickly as they'll need him, and therefore they'll force him out there just to do it. He'll rely on his physical gifts, and he'll never develop mentally the way he'll need, and the way that he never really attempted in college. If the Redskins would develop an offensive philosophy, it'd help, but if they could've done that, they would've stuck with Johnson/George/Rosenfels/Graham/Ramsay/Brunell/etc, and that's a trend that just doesn't look good for Campbell. For that matter, being in year two of Gibbs' assumed 3-4 year run, it's not likely they'll have the patience they'd need with this guy.


Frye, IMO, might have a chance. He's unknown right now, so there's not a ton of scouting on how to beat him...in that, I mean that nobody's gotten his tendencies. Should Crennel put up a decent team, he could keep pace; I think most guys like this burst onto the scene, make their fire, and then flame out because they can't adjust to teams finding the ways to beat him...some call it a sophomore slump, but it has more to do with finding new ways to do what they won't let you do. I think he has the ability to get into that type growth early.


Walter will probably play by year 3. He's got a lot of the better attributes that Collins has, and after enough fumbling and sacking, Collins will wear thin. How Walter will actually do, though, is hard to say. I'm guessing Greene will be a good looking backup, he'll depart before Hasselbeck flames out, and the Seahawks will be stressed to find someone to fill the void, but none of that should happen within the next couple years.

 

i take it stephan isn't worth discussing?

 

Adrian McPherson will end up being the best outta this class.

 

Do you anticipate Jake failing for some specific reason? Personally, I've had enough arguing about our backups on this team to fill me for a few lifetimes, but if I've gotta do it, I'd rather do it to bitch at people wanting Lefors to start/replace Weinke/etc in September, as people always do with the athletic QB in camp, than do it now when nothing's going on.

 

Even though he's not on the list, I'd say that Kyle Orton is in a good place. Aside from Smith in SF, and perhaps Frye, he may have the best shot of seeing action this year. And unlike Cleveland or San Fran, Chicago isn't at the starting point of a rebuilding process.

Agreed. It's unfortunate that he had to end up in Washington, of all places. Hopefully, I'm wrong. I like really like Campbell, and I'd hate to see him fail just because the coaches are complete bafoons.

I do think that Gibbs is wise enough to settle for Ramsey and/or Brunell before rushing Campbell, but we'll see.

Nah, at least not in the context of busting. Personally, I don't have any big expectations regarding Stefan. Could he be a reliable backup? Sure. But I don't think we drafted him as the heir apparent to Jake.

 

I would be surprised if Leflours is in the league in 2 years. I have noting against him, just being realistic.

 

I think Rodgers could hit it big. Has a great veteran in front of him to learn from, some good talent around him...

However he could become that insigificant guy they brought in that will never live upto a legend and ends up the "segway guy" to someone who does better.

But out of the group I did like Rodgers the best, I think he has the potential to be the best of the group.

 

Orton's not too bad in that situation, and could actually be forced into action without major consequence. But it's hard to say where he fits in - if Chicago had any sense at all they'd have a vet backup.
I don't have high hopes for Grossman, but Rex could be a solid starter.

I think they liked him, and for whatever reason a lot of the guys we've brought in have been able to run. He might be the heir apparent; he might be just a guy they thought could be a solid enough backup in the future.


That said, I didn't mention Orton above, since I didn't find him significant; there's not a huge chance he'll start. Same for Lefors. Either way, I don't see Jake faltering any time soon, and therefore in the grand scheme of this year's QBs, I don't see him being one of the few that'll have made the greatest impact.


I do know that his ridiculously high completion percentage will go out the window, and ball placement is huge in this O, where he didn't have to put it right in the basket at UL. Other than that? Dunno. It's as likely that he's gone before Jake as anything else, realistically.

 

Check the "ball placement" on a replay of X-Clown sometime. If he can make plays, he's got a chance in this O or any O.