Jonathan Paul Manziel
-
Rennet played in the ACC, Shaw in the SEC. That's all you need to say.
The ACC may have the National Champion, but the SEC is a much stronger conference. South Carolina played 5 top 25 teams this season and beat all of them. 6 of their opponents were bowl victors this year, and South Carolina beat all 6 of those teams.
North Carolina, on the other hand, played 2 top 25 teams this year and lost to both of them.
Shaw did his damage against quality defenses in big time games. Renner did not.
Irrelevent what conference he played in, if he can do the job.
Look at the QBs left in the playoffs:
Brady/Brees/Wilson Big Ten. Manning/Newton SEC. Luck Pac 12. Rivers ACC. Kaepernick Mountain West.
You are drafting a player, not a school, not a conference.
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.Irrelevent what conference he played in, if he can do the job.
Look at the QBs left in the playoffs:
Brady/Brees/Wilson Big Ten. Manning/Newton SEC. Luck Pac 12. Rivers ACC. Kaepernick Mountain West.
You are drafting a player, not a school, not a conference.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Just saw that posted that there's possible interest. Cowboys have the 16th or 17th pick in the 1st round. If Watkins is gone by our pick.....trade with the cowboys for Romo and at least one other pick?
-
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.Irrelevent what conference he played in, if he can do the job.
Look at the QBs left in the playoffs:
Brady/Brees/Wilson Big Ten. Manning/Newton SEC. Luck Pac 12. Rivers ACC. Kaepernick Mountain West.
You are drafting a player, not a school, not a conference.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.
NO, when you draft him, he is a player.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
When scouts bottom line this, there is no such thing.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
He may be, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he played in the SEC and the other guy didn't.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
Has nothing to do with the Big Ten or anywhere else....it has to do with "who is/will be better".
Pierre Garcon is a pretty darn good receiver. He played DIII ball....so it was irrelevent. You try to choose a good player.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
Are we talking about the College rankings....or about guys playing professional football? I thought it was the latter.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
I think you just made my point. Flacco/Romo/BR all came from smaller schools.
Is it more likely that the "Power Conferences" would produce more better players? Certainly, because they naturally generally recruit the better talent. But that is not the be all end all.
E.g. : I truly don't know anything much about this Renner or Shaw. I only saw some snippets of games played by South Carolina this year, and probably none by Renner, wherever he went to school.
But, am I automatically going to conclude that Shaw will make a better Pro Quarterback prospect than Renner just because he played in the SEC? Hell no.
Wherever these guys played the NFL scouts must do their due diligence on them.
-
Shaw??
6'nothing, 200 lbs soaking wet, with an extensive injury history? With a 2013 completion percentage of only 63.4%, good for 38th in FBS I-A... Sure he plays in the SEC, but other than the bowl game against Wisconsin, his 4 best games this year came against unranked Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Coastal Carolina...
Comparing him to Renner is one thing. Comparing him to Manziel (who played in the same conference) is laughable...
I don't think Manziel is a top 10 pick, but he can easily be a 1st rounder while Shaw is a 6th or 7th pick who you hope turns into a decent backup...
#Justsayin' -
Just saw that posted that there's possible interest. Cowboys have the 16th or 17th pick in the 1st round. If Watkins is gone by our pick.....trade with the cowboys for Romo and at least one other pick?
Just saw that posted that there's possible interest. Cowboys have the 16th or 17th pick in the 1st round. If Watkins is gone by our pick.....trade with the cowboys for Romo and at least one other pick?
No. No Romo. He will be 34 next year. He would not be the Browns future. If they want to trade for our #4 pick.....give us their #16, their #1 next year....and Dez Bryant.
-
Just saw that posted that there's possible interest. Cowboys have the 16th or 17th pick in the 1st round. If Watkins is gone by our pick.....trade with the cowboys for Romo and at least one other pick?
No. No Romo. He will be 34 next year. He would not be the Browns future. If they want to trade for our #4 pick.....give us their #16, their #1 next year....and Dez Bryant.
No. No Romo. He will be 34 next year. He would not be the Browns future. If they want to trade for our #4 pick.....give us their #16, their #1 next year....and Desmond Bryant.
Oh I would take Romo in a heartbeat. He's 33 ... that's at least four years with a bonafide franchise QB.
You roll the dice on one of these rookies and it doesn't work out it is another wasted four years.
Zombo
-
No. No Romo. He will be 34 next year. He would not be the Browns future. If they want to trade for our #4 pick.....give us their #16, their #1 next year....and Desmond Bryant.
Oh I would take Romo in a heartbeat. He's 33 ... that's at least four years with a bonafide franchise QB.
You roll the dice on one of these rookies and it doesn't work out it is another wasted four years.
Zombo
Zombo said:
Oh I would take Romo in a heartbeat. He's 33 ... that's at least four years with a bonafide franchise QB.
You roll the dice on one of these rookies and it doesn't work out it is another wasted four years.
Zombo
If he is cut by the Cowboys and the Browns pick him up as a veteran FA....OK, maybe. But I am not in favor of trading draft picks for him.
-
Zombo said:
Oh I would take Romo in a heartbeat. He's 33 ... that's at least four years with a bonafide franchise QB.
You roll the dice on one of these rookies and it doesn't work out it is another wasted four years.
Zombo
If he is cut by the Cowboys and the Browns pick him up as a veteran FA....OK, maybe. But I am not in favor of trading draft picks for him.
If he is cut by the Cowboys and the Browns pick him up as a veteran FA....OK, maybe. But I am not in favor of trading draft picks for him.
I'd switch first rounders for him. He's one of the best QBs in the league.
Zombo
-
I'll take Johnny Football, he is wildly intelligent, ultra competitive and have an underrated arm. I don't think he will be running around much in the NFL but the way he feel pressure and makes the right decision under duress is pretty much the opposite of Brandon Weeden.
-
problem is we have to protect him. Cleveland is historically bad at protecting our qb. I didn't know he was going to be a FA this year. Better to go that route and keep our #1. If we were to get Romo...than for sure Watkins has to be 1st on our board with Clowney 2nd.
-
If he is cut by the Cowboys and the Browns pick him up as a veteran FA....OK, maybe. But I am not in favor of trading draft picks for him.
I'd switch first rounders for him. He's one of the best QBs in the league.
Zombo
Zombo said:
I'd switch first rounders for him. He's one of the best QBs in the league.
Zombo
-
Cowboys are not trading Romo, they just signed him to a new deal...because of the way the NFL has moved to a slotted rookie wage scale it becomes much more cost effective to have a Vet QB with a top 5 pick sitting on the bench learning the system and developing.
-
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.
NO, when you draft him, he is a player.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
When scouts bottom line this, there is no such thing.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
He may be, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he played in the SEC and the other guy didn't.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
Has nothing to do with the Big Ten or anywhere else....it has to do with "who is/will be better".
Pierre Garcon is a pretty darn good receiver. He played DIII ball....so it was irrelevent. You try to choose a good player.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
Are we talking about the College rankings....or about guys playing professional football? I thought it was the latter.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
I think you just made my point. Flacco/Romo/BR all came from smaller schools.
Is it more likely that the "Power Conferences" would produce more better players? Certainly, because they naturally generally recruit the better talent. But that is not the be all end all.
E.g. : I truly don't know anything much about this Renner or Shaw. I only saw some snippets of games played by South Carolina this year, and probably none by Renner, wherever he went to school.
But, am I automatically going to conclude that Shaw will make a better Pro Quarterback prospect than Renner just because he played in the SEC? Hell no.
Wherever these guys played the NFL scouts must do their due diligence on them.
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.
NO, when you draft him, he is a player.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
When scouts bottom line this, there is no such thing.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
He may be, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he played in the SEC and the other guy didn't.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
Has nothing to do with the Big Ten or anywhere else....it has to do with "who is/will be better".
Pierre Garcon is a pretty darn good receiver. He played DIII ball....so it was irrelevent. You try to choose a good player.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
Are we talking about the College rankings....or about guys playing professional football? I thought it was the latter.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
I think you just made my point. Flacco/Romo/BR all came from smaller schools.
Is it more likely that the "Power Conferences" would produce more better players? Certainly, because they naturally generally recruit the better talent. But that is not the be all end all.
E.g. : I truly don't know anything much about this Renner or Shaw. I only saw some snippets of games played by South Carolina this year, and probably none by Renner, wherever he went to school.
But, am I automatically going to conclude that Shaw will make a better Pro Quarterback prospect than Renner just because he played in the SEC? Hell no.
Wherever these guys played the NFL scouts must do their due diligence on them.
If your point is Flacco/Romo, it's a weak point. They're the only two starting QB's in the league from non-Division 1 schools.
If your argument is that conference affiliation isn't the end-all, be-all of talent, then it's a stupid one. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in every fact of life. That's just taking a firm stance on a weak point for no reason other than to argue.
The fact is there are more quarterbacks from power conferences than there are those from mid-level conferences. It's not debatable. It's proven.
What you are trying to debate, unsuccessfully I may add, is that quarterbacks from mid-major/division 2/division 3 schools are just as successful in the NFL, which is also untrue.
You don't have to believe scouts don't look at conference affiliation, but the stats prove that they do:
30 of the 32 starting QB's are from Division 1 schools. 7 of those are from teams affiliated with the SEC, most in the league.
Trying to misdirect the conversation to invalidate my facts isn't going to work. We are talking about both college and the pros. The fact that the SEC has 3 of the top 5 teams is a valid point, and just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's not applicable.
With scouting being the in exact science that it is, of course every variable measurable will be included. And one of those variables is conference power. As I've stated before, and most have agreed with except you, if there are two players with similar measurables and similar production, the one from the stronger conference is the better prospect.
Shaw played equally as well, if not better, against higher quality talent throughout the duration of his career.
There's literally zero scouts that have Renner ranked anywhere near Shaw. Shaw is ranked as a top ten at his position, where Renner has trouble cracking Top-20.
Considering their statistics are pretty similar, I wonder what variable they're factoring in.
I'm awesome, and I fuck dolphins. Ghoolie 12/2/2012: I have absolutely no skills, training or pride -
Shaw??
6'nothing, 200 lbs soaking wet, with an extensive injury history? With a 2013 completion percentage of only 63.4%, good for 38th in FBS I-A... Sure he plays in the SEC, but other than the bowl game against Wisconsin, his 4 best games this year came against unranked Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Coastal Carolina...
Comparing him to Renner is one thing. Comparing him to Manziel (who played in the same conference) is laughable...
I don't think Manziel is a top 10 pick, but he can easily be a 1st rounder while Shaw is a 6th or 7th pick who you hope turns into a decent backup...
Shaw??
6'nothing, 200 lbs soaking wet, with an extensive injury history? With a 2013 completion percentage of only 63.4%, good for 38th in FBS I-A... Sure he plays in the SEC, but other than the bowl game against Wisconsin, his 4 best games this year came against unranked Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, and Coastal Carolina...
Comparing him to Renner is one thing. Comparing him to Manziel (who played in the same conference) is laughable...
I don't think Manziel is a top 10 pick, but he can easily be a 1st rounder while Shaw is a 6th or 7th pick who you hope turns into a decent backup...
I don't understand the Shaw/Manziel comparison either. Shaw is a good late round prospect, but is nowhere near the prospect Manziel is.
I will say this, however. Shaw wins games. It's a worn-out cliche, but Shaw simply wins. He rarely, if ever, put South Carolina in a position to lose. He played smart, efficient football and didn't lack any explosiveness while doing it.
-
Yeah, I know he's under a big contract, I didn't start the rumor ... just saying the Browns would be crazy not to take him if they were offered.
Romo at QB, a RB like Tre Mason, a few uprgrades here and there and we have as much or better talent than anyone in the division.
Zombo
-
You are drafting a prospect, not a player. You have no idea what kind of player he'll become, therefore you evaluate all variables, including conference.
NO, when you draft him, he is a player.
When you two players with similar stats and similar measurables, you take the guy who did it against better talent.
When scouts bottom line this, there is no such thing.
You don't have to agree with it. But Shaw is a better prospect than Renner.
He may be, but it has nothing to do with the fact that he played in the SEC and the other guy didn't.
Just because you fail to accept that the SEC is a far superior conference compared to the Big Ten doesn't make it any less accurate.
Has nothing to do with the Big Ten or anywhere else....it has to do with "who is/will be better".
Pierre Garcon is a pretty darn good receiver. He played DIII ball....so it was irrelevent. You try to choose a good player.
The SEC finished with 7 Top 25 teams. The Bug Ten had 3.
The SEC had just as many Top 5 teams as the Big Ten did Top 25 teams.
Are we talking about the College rankings....or about guys playing professional football? I thought it was the latter.
The only thing that's irrelevant in this argument are the QB's you listed. Each one of them played for Top 25 ranked teams and played ranked, quality out of conference opponents. Unlike Renner. Unlike Carr. Unlike Garropolo.
Tony Romo or Joe Flacco would have been more apt comparisons, as they didn't play nearly the same level of talent in college as their counterparts.
I think you just made my point. Flacco/Romo/BR all came from smaller schools.
Is it more likely that the "Power Conferences" would produce more better players? Certainly, because they naturally generally recruit the better talent. But that is not the be all end all.
E.g. : I truly don't know anything much about this Renner or Shaw. I only saw some snippets of games played by South Carolina this year, and probably none by Renner, wherever he went to school.
But, am I automatically going to conclude that Shaw will make a better Pro Quarterback prospect than Renner just because he played in the SEC? Hell no.
Wherever these guys played the NFL scouts must do their due diligence on them.
If your point is Flacco/Romo, it's a weak point. They're the only two starting QB's in the league from non-Division 1 schools.
If your argument is that conference affiliation isn't the end-all, be-all of talent, then it's a stupid one. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in every fact of life. That's just taking a firm stance on a weak point for no reason other than to argue.
The fact is there are more quarterbacks from power conferences than there are those from mid-level conferences. It's not debatable. It's proven.
What you are trying to debate, unsuccessfully I may add, is that quarterbacks from mid-major/division 2/division 3 schools are just as successful in the NFL, which is also untrue.
You don't have to believe scouts don't look at conference affiliation, but the stats prove that they do:
30 of the 32 starting QB's are from Division 1 schools. 7 of those are from teams affiliated with the SEC, most in the league.
Trying to misdirect the conversation to invalidate my facts isn't going to work. We are talking about both college and the pros. The fact that the SEC has 3 of the top 5 teams is a valid point, and just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's not applicable.
With scouting being the in exact science that it is, of course every variable measurable will be included. And one of those variables is conference power. As I've stated before, and most have agreed with except you, if there are two players with similar measurables and similar production, the one from the stronger conference is the better prospect.
Shaw played equally as well, if not better, against higher quality talent throughout the duration of his career.
There's literally zero scouts that have Renner ranked anywhere near Shaw. Shaw is ranked as a top ten at his position, where Renner has trouble cracking Top-20.
Considering their statistics are pretty similar, I wonder what variable they're factoring in.
If your point is Flacco/Romo, it's a weak point. They're the only two starting QB's in the league from non-Division 1 schools.
If your argument is that conference affiliation isn't the end-all, be-all of talent, then it's a stupid one. Of course there are exceptions, as there are in every fact of life. That's just taking a firm stance on a weak point for no reason other than to argue.
NO, you are the one being absurd: Your hypothesis is: take the SEC QB because he has played tougher competition. I am arguing that point vis a vis all other QBs. I am saying if a QB is good, he is good.....he is not good/better just because he played in the SEC
The fact is there are more quarterbacks from power conferences than there are those from mid-level conferences. It's not debatable. It's proven.
I never claimed otherwise....I simply state that power conferences do not have exclusivity on producing NFL caliber QBs....that you CAN get them from other sources.....not that those other sources predominate.
What you are trying to debate, unsuccessfully I may add, is that quarterbacks from mid-major/division 2/division 3 schools are just as successful in the NFL, which is also untrue.
NO, NO, NO. See above....I am saying you have to look at the player. Sure, the more talented players go to power conferences.....but not every single goddamn one does.
You don't have to believe scouts don't look at conference affiliation, but the stats prove that they do:
30 of the 32 starting QB's are from Division 1 schools. 7 of those are from teams affiliated with the SEC, most in the league.
You need to break that down....because that is not what I am coming up with. (Probably due to question of there being several teams who you must ask: who is the starting QB).
Trying to misdirect the conversation to invalidate my facts isn't going to work. We are talking about both college and the pros.
NO, you may be talking about college....I am talking about NFL Quarterbacks.
The fact that the SEC has 3 of the top 5 teams is a valid point, and just because you can't disprove it doesn't mean it's not applicable.
That fact is inapplicable to who are the top prospects to be an NFL QB in this draft?
Bridgewater/Bortles/Carr/Manziel.....only one of them played in the SEC (and that team just joined).
I am saying I don't care what conference these prospects played in....who is going to be a good pro, that is what I want to know.
Hell, beyond those 4 CBS has the next ranked QBs as Carr/Fresno St., Brett Smith/Wyoming, Fales/San Jose St.. then you have Garropolo....and after that some 4-5-6 round prospects from the SEC: Mettenberger/Shaw/McCarron.
With scouting being the in exact science that it is, of course every variable measurable will be included. And one of those variables is conference power. As I've stated before, and most have agreed with except you, if there are two players with similar measurables and similar production, the one from the stronger conference is the better prospect.
Shaw played equally as well, if not better, against higher quality talent throughout the duration of his career.
There's literally zero scouts that have Renner ranked anywhere near Shaw. Shaw is ranked as a top ten at his position, where Renner has trouble cracking Top-20.
Considering their statistics are pretty similar, I wonder what variable they're factoring in.
Well, as noted: I don't even see Renner on the CBS list of QB prospects....but Shaw is in there...ranked 13th best prospect.
All I can conclude is that people think that he must be a better QB prospect.....because he is a better QB prospect, not because he played in the SEC....or else they would have ranked him higher than Fales/Smith etc.
So...by those CBS analysts opionion....things are not similar/equal vis a vis Shaw/Renner.
(And don't rely just on "statistics" Anthony Calvillo has 80,000 passing yards in the CFL....do you think he ranks with Favre/Manning/Brady on the QB scale?) No.
-
Manziel's gonna be better than Romo but I would love to have Tony throwing to Josh Gordon and Jordan Cameron, with a top 5 defense. You'd be insane not to.
1st Ezekiel Ansah, DE, BYU 3rd Darius Slay, CB, Mississippi State4th Landry Jones, QB, Oklahoma5th Earl Wolff, S, N.C. State6th Lucas Reed, TE, New Mexico -
Why would Dallas trade with us if they wanted Manziel for sure. There's no guarentee he would be there at 4. We may have to move up if that's
who we really want. Romo's had plenty of time to prove himself, and he still hasn't. When the FO solicits my opinion, I tell them no way.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login