McCoy: Let's Just Get This Out There (!)
-
Also, I think Payton is a QB lover and he did exactly the right think in insisting on Brees over Culpepper and then giving Brees the keys to the kingdom. That's how important a QB SHOULD be to your team, like Manning is in Indy. The position is so clearly the most important in team sports, it's about equal to four great starting pitchers.
I look at a few things in about this order:
1. Is he a good passer? And by that, I mean, is he consistently accurate? Does he throw a consistent spiral? Does he have a natural motion and a quick release? Does he have enough arm to make all the throws? This is actually where I question McCoy... a lot.
2. Is he SMART? Not just spatial on-field reactions, but BOOK SMART? Playbooks are complex and huge these days. Starting QBs have higher Wonderlics than non starters, playoff QBs have higher scores than non-playoff QBs, and Super Bowl QBs have the highest of all. That's the league we watch now. Dumbass QBs need not apply anymore.
3. Is he coming from a pro style offense? It isn't absolutely necessary (Bradford)... but the transition is real.
4. Does he have reasonable size? Over 6'0" and 210?
5. Finally, is he athletic enough? This is low because the paradigm for NFL QBs is Manning/Brady/Brees... and none are runners. They're the gold standard. Mike Vick and Vince Young are not.
-
I just see way too much evidence to the contrary, Thaak... and I'm not that huge of a Parcells fan because he isn't known for the care and feeding of QBs like Walsh, and I think that's the single biggest key to winning in this league.
Clausen would get a "winner" tag, I think, because the passing game is literally all that ND team had (no D, no running game). And he led a team record four fourth-quarter comebacks.
I don't think McCoy was a passenger, but neither was the other Colt (Brennan)... and he isn't doing shit in the NFL. I don't think Dorsey or Wuerffel or Walsh were passengers, either... but that didn't make them great pros.
I'm trying to think of a great NFL quarterback who won everything in college... and I'm not coming up with any. If the best right now are Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Favre, and Schaub... did any of those guys win anything big n college?
I just see way too much evidence to the contrary, Thaak... and I'm not that huge of a Parcells fan because he isn't known for the care and feeding of QBs like Walsh, and I think that's the single biggest key to winning in this league.
Clausen would get a "winner" tag, I think, because the passing game is literally all that ND team had (no D, no running game). And he led a team record four fourth-quarter comebacks.
I don't think McCoy was a passenger, but neither was the other Colt (Brennan)... and he isn't doing shit in the NFL. I don't think Dorsey or Wuerffel or Walsh were passengers, either... but that didn't make them great pros.
I'm trying to think of a great NFL quarterback who won everything in college... and I'm not coming up with any. If the best right now are Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Favre, and Schaub... did any of those guys win anything big n college?
I'm not saying that every winning QB in college translates to the pros. And you know that's not what I'm saying, so stop it!
What I'm saying is, that almost every successful QB in the pros was a winner in college.
Clausen cannot be considered a winner despite his stats and 4th quarter come backs. Why? Because his team didn't win. Part of the criteria regards the idea of knowing how it feels to win, or knowing how to lose. When you lose enough times, it starts to become ok to lose.
Now before you jump on this, I'm not saying that Clausen is ok with losing. I'm saying that's part of the criteria that Parcells put together.
And before you comment further here, let me say, Parcells has had some very good success in the NFL. So if he shares his criteria in talent evaluation, you have to at least listen to it with respectful interest.
We aren't that far off on our idea on what makes an good QB Shep. But please, don't just discount my ideas because they run contrary to yours.
-
I'd be ecstatic if McCoy turned out as good as Jeff Garcia. Jeff started for over a decade in the league and took several teams to the playoffs.
Once again shep is posting just to post. How many times do we need to hear about how Clausen is obviously better than McCoy, even though neither has played a down in the NFL and both quite possibly won't at all this year.
-
I just see way too much evidence to the contrary, Thaak... and I'm not that huge of a Parcells fan because he isn't known for the care and feeding of QBs like Walsh, and I think that's the single biggest key to winning in this league.
Clausen would get a "winner" tag, I think, because the passing game is literally all that ND team had (no D, no running game). And he led a team record four fourth-quarter comebacks.
I don't think McCoy was a passenger, but neither was the other Colt (Brennan)... and he isn't doing shit in the NFL. I don't think Dorsey or Wuerffel or Walsh were passengers, either... but that didn't make them great pros.
I'm trying to think of a great NFL quarterback who won everything in college... and I'm not coming up with any. If the best right now are Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers, Favre, and Schaub... did any of those guys win anything big n college?
I'm not saying that every winning QB in college translates to the pros. And you know that's not what I'm saying, so stop it!
What I'm saying is, that almost every successful QB in the pros was a winner in college.
Clausen cannot be considered a winner despite his stats and 4th quarter come backs. Why? Because his team didn't win. Part of the criteria regards the idea of knowing how it feels to win, or knowing how to lose. When you lose enough times, it starts to become ok to lose.
Now before you jump on this, I'm not saying that Clausen is ok with losing. I'm saying that's part of the criteria that Parcells put together.
And before you comment further here, let me say, Parcells has had some very good success in the NFL. So if he shares his criteria in talent evaluation, you have to at least listen to it with respectful interest.
We aren't that far off on our idea on what makes an good QB Shep. But please, don't just discount my ideas because they run contrary to yours.
I'm not saying that every winning QB in college translates to the pros. And you know that's not what I'm saying, so stop it!
What I'm saying is, that almost every successful QB in the pros was a winner in college.
Clausen cannot be considered a winner despite his stats and 4th quarter come backs. Why? Because his team didn't win. Part of the criteria regards the idea of knowing how it feels to win, or knowing how to lose. When you lose enough times, it starts to become ok to lose.
Now before you jump on this, I'm not saying that Clausen is ok with losing. I'm saying that's part of the criteria that Parcells put together.
And before you comment further here, let me say, Parcells has had some very good success in the NFL. So if he shares his criteria in talent evaluation, you have to at least listen to it with respectful interest.
We aren't that far off on our idea on what makes an good QB Shep. But please, don't just discount my ideas because they run contrary to yours.
I'm not discounting them... and I actually know a lot of people who agree with you... I just see it differently. It's an interesting topic and I saw Jamie Dukes and Charles Whatsisname on NFLN having a snappy debate on it.
-
I'd be ecstatic if McCoy turned out as good as Jeff Garcia. Jeff started for over a decade in the league and took several teams to the playoffs.
Once again shep is posting just to post. How many times do we need to hear about how Clausen is obviously better than McCoy, even though neither has played a down in the NFL and both quite possibly won't at all this year.
I'd be ecstatic if McCoy turned out as good as Jeff Garcia. Jeff started for over a decade in the league and took several teams to the playoffs.
Once again shep is posting just to post. How many times do we need to hear about how Clausen is obviously better than McCoy, even though neither has played a down in the NFL and both quite possibly won't at all this year.
Huh? What does that mean, "Posting just to post?" I believe it was Ate who said he was looking forward to debating/discussing McCoy with me. Are you saying something real or did you just wanna take a little shot? It's fine either way, I guess.
-
Great post Shep! We have different criteria of what makes a franchise QB.....to me McCoy is a real candidate. He got better every year and he won nearly all of his big games. Those are my most important measurement stats. Claussen to me lead ND to mediocre. Mediocre at college usually resutls in more mediocre. I am happy we got McCoy and I truly believe he can be the guy. OF course anyone who knows anything about me............QB is way more important than any position..........and I hope we finaly got one
Welcome back my man and lets debate on all issues ...................too cool
Winning in college doesn't mean much. Tee Martin won the national championship the year after Manning went to the Colts, for instance. Who quarterbacked the OSU national champions? Where's the Gator QB who won it all under Spurrier... or the one who won it OVER the Buckeyes? What about the Oklahoma national champion QB?
See? I don't even know their names!
Favre never won shit. Manning couldn't win the big one. Brees never won anything. Rivers never won anything. Rodgers never won anything. Brady never won anything. It just doesn't matter.
Winning in college doesn't mean much. Tee Martin won the national championship the year after Manning went to the Colts, for instance. Who quarterbacked the OSU national champions? Where's the Gator QB who won it all under Spurrier... or the one who won it OVER the Buckeyes? What about the Oklahoma national champion QB?
See? I don't even know their names!
Favre never won shit. Manning couldn't win the big one. Brees never won anything. Rivers never won anything. Rodgers never won anything. Brady never won anything. It just doesn't matter.
Yes, you make a very valid point. Having success in college, leading a team to a national championship does not really mean diddly when it comes to NFL success. Some of the names you couldn't come up with: Craig Krenzel of OSU, Chris Leak of Fla., Danny Weurfell of Fla., Jason White of OK.....all had little if anything of an NFL career. (might Tebow join this list?). We could probably come up with quite a few more names. But, that doesn't mean that because you have led your team to a national title, or national title game that you won't be any good. I am sure if we looked hard enough we would find some success stories amongst national title contending QBs who have done well in the NFL..
-
No doubt. good NFLers come from all types of programs.
I will say thing about winning....all other things being equal, the player who won probably does get a bump in the ratings. While it may not mean all that much, it means more than nothing.
-
Yeah, it's a gray area and I think you have to take it case by case. If two quarterbacks with NFL skills play on contending teams, I'd certainly look at the QB who caused wins (as opposed to taking snaps on a team that won, which happens in college but not in the pros).
There are a lot of "passenger" QBs on good college teams, is what I'm saying.
To wear out my Clausen fetish: The Irish were ranked like 87th in defense and 85th in rushing... but still managed to have one of the best pass offenses in the entire nation. That's tough, given that everybody knows what you're gonna do. On top of that, Clausen only threw 4 picks against 28 TDs, so I don't think he blew too many games. He also set a record for comeback wins.
So my point on Clausen: If you're looking for reasons for their 6-6 record, you don't look at anybody involved with the passing game (Clausen, Tate, Floyd, the TE, etc.). It's like blaming Marino or Fouts for their teams not winning the Super Bowl.
I believe Favre's team went 5-6 his senior year. Obviously Cutler's team wasn't good. Schaub's Virginia team was so-so. Again... I can't think of any national championship QBs tearing up the league right now. Leinart gets his shot in 2010.
-
Yeah, it's a gray area and I think you have to take it case by case. If two quarterbacks with NFL skills play on contending teams, I'd certainly look at the QB who caused wins (as opposed to taking snaps on a team that won, which happens in college but not in the pros).
There are a lot of "passenger" QBs on good college teams, is what I'm saying.
To wear out my Clausen fetish: The Irish were ranked like 87th in defense and 85th in rushing... but still managed to have one of the best pass offenses in the entire nation. That's tough, given that everybody knows what you're gonna do. On top of that, Clausen only threw 4 picks against 28 TDs, so I don't think he blew too many games. He also set a record for comeback wins.
So my point on Clausen: If you're looking for reasons for their 6-6 record, you don't look at anybody involved with the passing game (Clausen, Tate, Floyd, the TE, etc.). It's like blaming Marino or Fouts for their teams not winning the Super Bowl.
I believe Favre's team went 5-6 his senior year. Obviously Cutler's team wasn't good. Schaub's Virginia team was so-so. Again... I can't think of any national championship QBs tearing up the league right now. Leinart gets his shot in 2010.
Yeah, it's a gray area and I think you have to take it case by case. If two quarterbacks with NFL skills play on contending teams, I'd certainly look at the QB who caused wins (as opposed to taking snaps on a team that won, which happens in college but not in the pros).
There are a lot of "passenger" QBs on good college teams, is what I'm saying.
To wear out my Clausen fetish: The Irish were ranked like 87th in defense and 85th in rushing... but still managed to have one of the best pass offenses in the entire nation. That's tough, given that everybody knows what you're gonna do. On top of that, Clausen only threw 4 picks against 28 TDs, so I don't think he blew too many games. He also set a record for comeback wins.
So my point on Clausen: If you're looking for reasons for their 6-6 record, you don't look at anybody involved with the passing game (Clausen, Tate, Floyd, the TE, etc.). It's like blaming Marino or Fouts for their teams not winning the Super Bowl.
I believe Favre's team went 5-6 his senior year. Obviously Cutler's team wasn't good. Schaub's Virginia team was so-so. Again... I can't think of any national championship QBs tearing up the league right now. Leinart gets his shot in 2010.
The winning criteria has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Nothing. And for the record, the other 4 criteria wouldn't allow a "passenger" QB to be drafted anyways. The winning criteria has everything, and only, to do with the QB "knowing" what it feels like to be a winner and being a leader of that "winning."
Vince Young looked decent for awhile, then fell apart, then last year looked decent. He won a national championship in 2006. The jury is still out I suppose, but it is likely that he will prove to be a good (maybe not great) starter in the NFL.
Smith also could have played for a national championship (he's been crap for awhile, but things are looking up for him) if it weren't for the BCS stupidity.
-
But that's exactly my point, Andy: Smith and Young are not tearing up the NFL, although in a protected offense, Young did play better last year. Big winners in college... but not great quarterback prospects.
I'd say the water gets really murky when you try to credit college quarterbacks with wins and losses, because the levels of play AND playing styles are so wildly different. Not so in the NFL, where replacing Delhomme with Manning on the Panthers last year probably makes them a contender. QB is a much clearer X factor at the NFL level.
-
But that's exactly my point, Andy: Smith and Young are not tearing up the NFL, although in a protected offense, Young did play better last year. Big winners in college... but not great quarterback prospects.
I'd say the water gets really murky when you try to credit college quarterbacks with wins and losses, because the levels of play AND playing styles are so wildly different. Not so in the NFL, where replacing Delhomme with Manning on the Panthers last year probably makes them a contender. QB is a much clearer X factor at the NFL level.
But that's exactly my point, Andy: Smith and Young are not tearing up the NFL, although in a protected offense, Young did play better last year. Big winners in college... but not great quarterback prospects.
I'd say the water gets really murky when you try to credit college quarterbacks with wins and losses, because the levels of play AND playing styles are so wildly different. Not so in the NFL, where replacing Delhomme with Manning on the Panthers last year probably makes them a contender. QB is a much clearer X factor at the NFL level.
Again, you have completely missed the point. It isn't about the QB skills when considering wins and losses. It isn't about attributing those wins and losses to the QB.
It is about coming from an winning organization.
Secondly, while Young and Smith aren't "tearing up the NFL" being starters in the league are a lot different than not being in the league at all (Krenzel and Leak).
-
Here is a list of QBs who have either won the BCS title game or have lost the BCS title game. It may no be perfectly complete, but it does give some names to go with what is being said here:
Tee Martin
Chris Weinke
Jason White
Troy Smith
Vince Young
Tim Tebow
Matt Flynn
John David Booty
Craig Krenzel
Ken Dorsey
Chris Leak
Scott Frost
Sam Bradford
Todd Boeckman
Matt Leinert
Now, name the superstar NFL QB off this list. The closest at this point is probably Vince Young, but he has only had a good rookie season, a couple of very bumpy seasons in between, then a good year last year. But, I am not sure I, nor anyone else is prepared to declare him an NFL superstar.
-
Compare the above list for those QBs who are, say, considered the Top 15 in the NFL. Here is one possible Top 15 NFL QB list. How close did any of these come to winning a title in college:
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Favre
Rivers
A. Rodgers
E. Manning
C. Palmer
McNabb
Romo
Schaub
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
? Wild Card #15...insert your own.
Except for Payton Manning and maybe Carson Palmer, did any of these come close to winning a BCS title? I don't think so.
-
Compare the above list for those QBs who are, say, considered the Top 15 in the NFL. Here is one possible Top 15 NFL QB list. How close did any of these come to winning a title in college:
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Favre
Rivers
A. Rodgers
E. Manning
C. Palmer
McNabb
Romo
Schaub
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
? Wild Card #15...insert your own.
Except for Payton Manning and maybe Carson Palmer, did any of these come close to winning a BCS title? I don't think so.
Compare the above list for those QBs who are, say, considered the Top 15 in the NFL. Here is one possible Top 15 NFL QB list. How close did any of these come to winning a title in college:
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Favre
Rivers
A. Rodgers
E. Manning
C. Palmer
McNabb
Romo
Schaub
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
? Wild Card #15...insert your own.
Except for Payton Manning and maybe Carson Palmer, did any of these come close to winning a BCS title? I don't think so.
No, but all but a couple had at least a .700 winning percentage while at their college program.
-
We'll agree to disagree. But know that it's an ongoing debate between a lot of pretty smart analysts. Interesting stuff.
-
Compare the above list for those QBs who are, say, considered the Top 15 in the NFL. Here is one possible Top 15 NFL QB list. How close did any of these come to winning a title in college:
P. Manning
Brady
Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Favre
Rivers
A. Rodgers
E. Manning
C. Palmer
McNabb
Romo
Schaub
Matt Ryan
Joe Flacco
? Wild Card #15...insert your own.
Except for Payton Manning and maybe Carson Palmer, did any of these come close to winning a BCS title? I don't think so.
No, but all but a couple had at least a .700 winning percentage while at their college program.
No, but all but a couple had at least a .700 winning percentage while at their college program.
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
-
No, but all but a couple had at least a .700 winning percentage while at their college program.
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
I think it's about the slippery slope of judging college quarterbacks based on their teams' records.
-
No, but all but a couple had at least a .700 winning percentage while at their college program.
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
Nope, that’s what Shep is trying to say that I’m saying, but that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I’m saying that of 5 criteria, one of them (ONE), according to Parcells, should include the winning percentage of the team from when the QB started there. I’ve also clearly stated this isn’t the most important criteria, but it is still one of Parcells’ and he has a proven track record of success as a coach, GM, and talent evaluator (including QB’s).
I don’t know why Shep is arguing with me about this as though I’m saying it’s the only thing that matters, or that winning equates BCS championship (not what I’m saying at all).
-
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
Nope, that’s what Shep is trying to say that I’m saying, but that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I’m saying that of 5 criteria, one of them (ONE), according to Parcells, should include the winning percentage of the team from when the QB started there. I’ve also clearly stated this isn’t the most important criteria, but it is still one of Parcells’ and he has a proven track record of success as a coach, GM, and talent evaluator (including QB’s).
I don’t know why Shep is arguing with me about this as though I’m saying it’s the only thing that matters, or that winning equates BCS championship (not what I’m saying at all).
Nope, that's what Shep is trying to say that I'm saying, but that's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that of 5 criteria, one of them (ONE), according to Parcells, should include the winning percentage of the team from when the QB started there. I've also clearly stated this isn't the most important criteria, but it is still one of Parcells' and he has a proven track record of success as a coach, GM, and talent evaluator (including QB's).
I don't know why Shep is arguing with me about this as though I'm saying it's the only thing that matters, or that winning equates BCS championship (not what I'm saying at all).
Who cares about what Parcells says, he never won anything without BELICHICK so who really was the brains behind his success. Winning the BCS is a total crap shoot with way more variables than winning in the NFL. They should not be compared. Meanwhile QB's who win at lower levels usually keep winning at higher levels the NFL.............
and that is exactly why I never wanted Brady Quinn he sucked in nearly every big game in College......it is documented
Meanwhile Ben took a pile a crap to a Big time Bowl game Win
It is was it is great QB's make teams winners........or die in the process..............
-
Maybe I haven't been following the thrust of this argument carefully. I thought it had to do with QBs who win a BCS title becoming "studs" in the NFL. No? Or is it just about being a winning QB in college.
Nope, that’s what Shep is trying to say that I’m saying, but that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I’m saying that of 5 criteria, one of them (ONE), according to Parcells, should include the winning percentage of the team from when the QB started there. I’ve also clearly stated this isn’t the most important criteria, but it is still one of Parcells’ and he has a proven track record of success as a coach, GM, and talent evaluator (including QB’s).
I don’t know why Shep is arguing with me about this as though I’m saying it’s the only thing that matters, or that winning equates BCS championship (not what I’m saying at all).
Nope, that’s what Shep is trying to say that I’m saying, but that’s not what I’m saying at all.
I’m saying that of 5 criteria, one of them (ONE), according to Parcells, should include the winning percentage of the team from when the QB started there. I’ve also clearly stated this isn’t the most important criteria, but it is still one of Parcells’ and he has a proven track record of success as a coach, GM, and talent evaluator (including QB’s).
I don’t know why Shep is arguing with me about this as though I’m saying it’s the only thing that matters, or that winning equates BCS championship (not what I’m saying at all).
Andy, who are you arguing with? I'm not ascribing anything to you! We're just discussing a very interesting topic!
1. I'm not trying to say that you said it was BCS champions. I used some BCS champion QBs versus some other QBs who didn't win it all or even come close to make the point that using a college team's record as a barometer of quarterback talent is a slippery slope. That's all.
2. I'm not being mean nor am I demeaning your side of the argument at all. Read back.
3. We're not arguing. We're discussing. In Planet Draftnick, this is an interesting topic BECAUSE there are two sides to it!
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