What I Saw From Derek Anderson

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 1:49 PM EST in News Comment 23 comments

I do think he has what it takes to be a pretty good, long-term solution at QB for an NFL franchise, but I was pretty unimpressed with Anderson's accuracy and feel in the short passing game. I'm not buying anything related to it being rainy, because they keep those balls pretty dry, they have gloves and towels, and Big Ben didn't have any issues.

One large part of my judgment of NFL quarterbacks is whether they have touch on the short to intermediate stuff. You can't play in the NFL if you can't throw the deep-out, so I'm not initially impressed with a QB just because he has 'arm-strength'. Quinn Gray has arm strength; so do Jay Cutler, Michael Vick, Alex Smith. Yet none of those guys, with the possible exception of Cutler has any idea whatsoever of when to throw it hard, and when to take something off it. Did anybody see Smith last night? I could only tune in for a few minutes it was so ugly. Defenses are certainly getting more complex and the defenders are stronger and faster than ever, but there's also an abundance of what I think are really mediocre QBs in the league right now. It's made for lots of unwatchable football.

I felt Anderson displayed no consistent stretches of touch and rhthym with his passes whatsoever on Sunday against the Steelers after the first drive of the game. Good news for Browns fans is he's shown he can do it. But he got rattled in the second half. He wasn't careless with the ball when under a bit more pressure that half, another very positive sign for Browns fans. But his accuracy disappeared. His receivers could have made a few more plays for him - a number of the passes were catchable, just not easy at all to grab considering how tight the coverage was for most of the second half.

Accuracy and an innate ability to instinctually know what kind of trajectory and pace you need on each throw in about 3 seconds time will keep you in this league a lot longer than arm strength. Arm strength and nothing else will just get you an initial look at Scout Day in college, but it's not going to keep you in the league. It's why Chad Pennington has been around for as long as he has (and why he was the highest rated passer back in 2002); it's why Drew Brees is one of the best QBs in the league (there's a reason other than the gameplan why Reggie Bush catches so many balls - Brees NEVER misfires on swing passes); and it's why Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are the best in the biz.

Now, it's preferable to have both - Pennington's lack of arm strength has finally caught up with him and cost him his job, and guys like Ken Dorsey will undoubtedly have a clipboard in their hands their entire careers - but I'd contend that you're going to remain competitive and keep your team in more games if you can accurately hit your safety valve and short and intermediate timing patterns, than if you can merely throw a good deep ball and the 25 yard out-patterns to the sideline.

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Anderson

Last, I believe it was Chris Mortenson that I heard saying that Derek Anderson was not as big a surprise as we all thought. He said that a scout for one of the NFL teams told him Anderson would be another Tom Brady type story (both were drafted in the 6th round). From what you're saying, I don't think so. Brady is very accurate on short passes.

On the topic of arm strength, I agree that decisions and accuracy on the short game will impact your tenure in the league more than just arm strength. You want both, though, so you can stretch the defense with the deep ball.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Nov 13, 2007 2:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pennington

Speaking of Chad Pennington, does anyone remember when he was drafted, Mel Kiper blasted the Steelers for passing on him? I can't remember who we took instead, but I have to say I'm much happier with who have at QB today.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Nov 13, 2007 2:32 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

sort of

We passed on him but we took Plaxico that draft with the eighth overall pick. Pennington was the 18th pick. Looking at this draft though there were some real duds in that first round.

"The more violent team will win tonight" - Mike Tomlin.

by cgolden on Nov 13, 2007 3:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ah

Well Pennington's no 8th overall pick, that's for sure.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So that was when we took Plax

He was a better choice, even though he disappeared in the playoffs.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Nov 13, 2007 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson

I'm not going to say he's going to be the next Brady, and I'm not going to say he's a bust. I think he has some real nice skills and seems to be cut from the same mold as Ben in terms of competitiveness.

And this is just my opinion about what I feel are important tools for a QB. Other older football fans who have seen many more QBs than me play and develop may disagree.

As for Pennington, he came in the league in 2000. We did have Mike Tomczak and Kordell Stewart playing for us since 1995, so Mort has a point when he said we would have been wise to get a smart, accurate QB that year. We floundered with Kordell and then Maddox for the next four years, and perhaps missed out on a SB (or two) in 2001 and 2002

Obviously I'm much happier with what we have. Chad Pennington at his very peak was not nearly as good as Ben has been, and it's a safe bet that Roeth's body should hold up far better for far longer than Chad's.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

True

And, noone new at the time, but in hindsight, I don't know that Pennington would have been a huge upgrade over those two. Well, ok, Tomczak was never good, and Stewart was infuriating because he could be so good at times.

As you said, right now, Ben is a much better long term solution than any of those guys.

by WolfpackSteelersFan on Nov 13, 2007 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DA

The lack of touch question dogged DA throughout his career at Oregon State, altho since Mike Hass (now with the Bears) caught everything he touched, didn't seem such a big flaw.

However, what I've seen of him this year is much better on short-intermediate routes, altho I would be surprised to ever see him start throwing floaters like Brees and Pennington.

Bottom line(s):

Floaters allow more D reaction time, and requires more separation by the receiver.

Fastballs improve run-after-catch prospects, and minimize INTs and defended passes, and we are talking about NFL receivers, right?

by captaxel on Nov 13, 2007 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

as good as Ben has been this year*

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 2:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yeah definitely

I think I mentioned that there's many times when you have to deliver a fast ball - but that's when D's are in zone and you have to fit it in a tight window. Or on slants when you've got to sometimes throw a fast, low ball away from a defender.

On lots of intermediate and short stuff though you can throw a ball that doesn't force your WR to slow down one bit, while still not making it tough to catch. If you can throw with velocity and put it on their hands, yes, NFL WRs should make the catch. But if your accuracy is compromised at all, I feel too many QBs wrongly decide not to take something off and make sure they're delivering a well-placed ball.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How about throwing the ball downfield?

I have never been impressed by this guy. And all i heard from the announcers all game was how "amazing of a season he was having." Alright but who has he played well against?

Good Games: Week 2 - Bengals, Week 4 - Ravens, Week 6 - Dolphins, Week 8 - Rams, (all losing records, Ravens the only good Defense)

Medium Games: Week 10 - Steelers (83.4 QB Rating... no pass attempts longer than 25 yards),

Bad Games: Week 1 - Steelers, Week 3 - Raiders, Week 5 - Patriots, Week 9 - Seahawks.

His yards per attempt Sunday was 3.5. Show me something against a good team. He throws one or two touchdowns against us on Sunday if we don't hand them field position

by Hines86 on Nov 13, 2007 7:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think your standards are too high.

This is Cleveland we're talking about, after all.

Try it this way. For each game, ask yourself, "What would Charlie Frye have done?"

If you can come up with more than one week in which the answer is "better," then we can talk.

by HinesField on Nov 13, 2007 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anderson

Phil Simms was slobbering over his play this year throughout the entire first half. Nary a word about Big Ben really while Anderson was doing nicely.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 13, 2007 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Shows promise

I think DA shows a lot of promise in learning those things. He also seems to have some fire as a competitor. One person I'd compare him against is Rex Grossman. Rex has a cannon for an arm and made a lot of mistakes on the shorter touch passes. (he barely looked at them sometimes) But Rex didn't seem to be a fiery competitor and his lack of drive meant he wasn't able to adjust. I'd feel a lot more comfortable with DA.

The Bears being my NFC team is really painful sometimes.

by Chicago Steeler on Nov 14, 2007 11:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ouch

The Bears have slipped into 'unwatchable' status for me. I used to tune in to watch some former Longhorns (Vasher and Benson), but Vasher's out, Benson's uninspiring, and the entire offense is just a total eyesore.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 14, 2007 12:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DA was about what I expected

He showed some flashes of being a good QB but he's still young and different defensive looks are going to confuse him. I was surprised he didn't take any sacks or throw any picks. I thought the defense would rush him into bad decisions but he instead got rid of the ball and an incomplete pass is always better than a pick. It'll be interesting to see how he finishes the season and what the Browns do in the offseason. They mortgaged thier future with Brady Quinn so they really can't afford to let him sit next year as well.

This situation actually reminds me alot of the Bengals when Palmer was drafted. Kitna responded with a really good year and almost got that team into the playoffs, but the difference is DA is still young enough to be 'the future.'

"The more violent team will win tonight" - Mike Tomlin.

by cgolden on Nov 14, 2007 12:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

QB assessment

Jaworski and Steve Young had a good discussion on MNF about evaluating college QBs. Jaworski lambasted scouts for their lack of insight into what makes a good QB, relying more on measurables and workouts than a QB's understanding of the game. Alex Smith for example looks totally lost out there.

Still, Jaworski admits he had Rivers as the highest-rated QB in the 2004 Draft, so it just goes to show how tough it is to project how a college star will do playing the toughest position in the NFL.

Young said it is difficult to actually explain how he reaches a conclusion that a QB has or doesn't have the tools to become a good NFLer. He said he just gets a sense that a guy has it or doesn't have it, implying that it's more about how a guy competes and is able to make things happen. Arm strength in his book means very little.

You can see what Young means when you look at guys like Jon Kitna and Jeff Garcia. They are good QBs that a lot of fans don't appreciate. They get the most out of their physical ability, are competitive and smart. They aren't perfect but they are good football players. It was the same discussion in Buffalo years ago between Doug Flutie and Rob Johnson. One was a football player, the other was a star only in his own mind.

I still like Pennington despite the lack of arm strength. He's a competitor. On the right team he could still do well and at the very least would be an excellent backup for anyone. He'd do a much better job than the first-stringer for a lot of pretty good teams: San Diego, Baltimore, Jacksonville (not sold yet on Garrard), Buffalo, Chicago, San Francisco, Minnesota and Carolina come to mind. The 49ers have enough talent to be .500 team but they have no chance the way Smith is playing.

I like Anderson. He has a lot to learn but he seems to have more going for him than just a good arm and a big physique. Let's see how he does next year when everyone is expecting more out of him.

I saw a great little college QB last Saturday, Tyler Donovan (6-1, 185), leadiing Wisconsin over Michigan. The previous week he was terrific against Ohio State (17-29, 2TDs, 0 Int) despite getting sacked nine times I believe. Good arm strength, mobile, tough competitor. He probably won't even get drafted but he is a guy who I think could play in the NFL as a backup at least if he is given a chance. As it is, he most likely will end up in the CFL but it would be nice to see him at an NFL camp.

by steeler lifer on Nov 14, 2007 1:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

little QBs

I'm quite curious to see how Troy Smith works out for Baltimore. I always loved watching him play at Ohio State. Certainly having a WR core of Santonio Holmes, Ted Ginn Jr. and Anthony Gonzalez helped out alot though

by schnifin on Nov 14, 2007 1:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Smith

I'd be shocked he ever got a real shot to be a starting QB.

"The more violent team will win tonight" - Mike Tomlin.

by cgolden on Nov 14, 2007 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

really?

how much worse can he be than McNair and/or Boller at this point?

by schnifin on Nov 14, 2007 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

project at best

To think a 5th round pick who was considered a project at best could come in and be productive in his rookie season is a hard pill to swallow.

"The more violent team will win tonight" - Mike Tomlin.

by cgolden on Nov 15, 2007 8:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sheesh, you'r right

That's a pretty good WR trio that Smith got to throw to in college.

by Michael Bean (Blitz) on Nov 14, 2007 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Smith cont'd

Smith also benefitted at Ohio State behind a huge offensive line and playing against a lot of weak teams. He was very productive, a great college athlete but his numbers were more a product of his situation than individual QB ability.

I had a negative view of how he would make the jump to the NFL and I don't see him lasting very long as a backup or third-stringer. Hard to explain because he made a lot of big plays at Ohio State, but he seemed to have a Kordell Stewart mindset in proving he was a passer. As good an athlete as he was in college, he never struck me as having a natural, fluid delivery or the touch required to succeed at the next level. And I don't even want to speculate if he is bright enough to do it. Maybe, maybe not.

by steeler lifer on Nov 14, 2007 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs