Darron Thomas to enter draft.
Could certainly be interesting if he is available late.
4 months ago
wetzelcoal
11 comments
0 recs |
Comments
He strikes me as a "point guard-type" QB
He’s a little thin and seems to “push” the ball a little bit, but played a conservative passing game and was able to make plays with his legs. I’d give him an invitation to camp.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 15, 2012 11:51 AM PST reply actions
And here's a post from Kip at SDB suggesting he might not be a huge reach at #11/#12
…while Thomas could perhaps be labeled a bit of a game manager, he is capable of carrying an offense on his back from time to time. Thomas has a lot of similarities to Robert Griffin, and is, in my opinion, easily superior as a prospect to Ryan Tannehill. Robert Griffin could go as high as #2 overall, and if you buy into the source Rob cited the other day, there is a very real top 15 buzz for Ryan Tannehill right now.
http://seahawksdraftblog.com/darron-thomas-declares-for-the-2012-nfl-draft
Rotoworld is initially calling him a late-rounder with a chance at going undrafted:
http://www.rotoworld.com/player/nfl/7470/darron-thomas
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 15, 2012 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
Well this is a fun new thing I'm doing.
Kip’s reaching quite a bit there I think. Thomas would have to really impress at the combine and even then I can’t imagine him going any higher than the third. The comparison to Griffin is pretty absurd.
Yeah, I mentioned it was Kip
I think Osweiler and Thomas in the 1st are big reaches, but so is Tannehill and so were Locker, Ponder and Dalton. The point that Kip is making is that the new CBA reduces the risk of drafting QBs high so “reaches” on them may be more common in the future.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 15, 2012 1:08 PM PST up reply actions
Osweiler makes more sense than Thomas at least.
I understand the argument Kip is making, where I disagree is with his scouting of Thomas. He’s the lesser half of a read option offense.
Probably
but I don’t think the difference between Thomas and Tannehill is all that great.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Jan 15, 2012 3:09 PM PST up reply actions
I value how much a quarterback has to take on quite a bit.
The A&M offense depends on Tannehill, Thomas seems like he’s just a cog. Tannehill also seems like he has more room to grow, being a receiver last year.
I might be down on Thomas more than most though.
No, I don't see Thomas with any future playing QB.
He’ll probably be re-positioned.
70% of space is covered by dark matter, the rest by ET.
Osweilers release is so god damn ugly to me.
If it works it works, but damn.
by twocolorcrayon on Jan 17, 2012 12:20 PM PST up reply actions






























