McCoy: Let's Just Get This Out There (!)
-
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!
-
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..............
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..............
My point is that the talent variance in college makes this way less true than in the NFL.
In the NFL, the teams with the best quarterbacks tend to win the most because every team is talented... and they all play about the same schemes on both sides of the ball (is anybody NOT running an offense loosely inspired by the WCO?).
In other words, a lot of college teams win a lot of games, including BCS bowls, WITHOUT a great quarterback, including the ones listed elsewhere in this thread.
So once you know that, once you know a mediocre quarterback can win it all... how does quarterbacking a winning college team really qualify you for the next level? How is it an important criterion? Given that mediocre quarterbacks do it all the time?
Now to Andy's point: All other things being equal as far as talent, would you like the guy who's been under the spotlight? Who's won games, rather than gone along for the ride? Who actually CAUSED the wins, in the toughest of competitions?
Definitely. But shit, there are some teams like Texas and Ohio State and Florida and USC and Oklahoma who could win just as well with Craig Krenzel or Ken Dorsey as with Clausen or McCoy or Bradford or Leinart. They're dominant all over the field. That's not gonna happen at the next level.
That's why scouts like private workouts and all-star games. It evens the field, takes them out of that specific context.
-
When people expect you to win and you do it, that is good.
When people expect you to win and you don't do it, that is bad.
McCoy won. Clausen didn't. Simple.
Clausen may have a great arm. But so does Jamarcus Russell. Are you really sure you want to make arm strength a sink-or-swim criterion for success as an NFL qb? Russell is also larger than Clausen. Is size really one of those definitive traits of a great quarterback? (BTW, Kiper increased his rating of McCoy's arm strength after his pro day).
I can't understand badmouthing someone who has been successful while wishing we had chosen someone who was not successful.
But I love the way you set the criteria for good quarterbacks where only one qb in the entire draft could meet them. I also admire the way you can excuse all the faults that Clausen has. At least you are consistant in supporting your man.
-
I wanna go on the record (again) and say that I thought outside of Bradford, McCoy was the best QB in the draft. Although he wasn't a top 10 or even a 1st round option for us, he was a steal in the 3rd and at that spot, it's a low-risk, high reward pick. I have never liked Clausen and predicted a free fall in the draft for him. I think if McCoy can sit for a few years, he'll be excellent. I think if Clausen sits for a few years, he'll be, Josh McCown.
"Chances are, if you think Jay Leno is funny, I don't care for you as a person" - Peter Griffin -
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..............
My point is that the talent variance in college makes this way less true than in the NFL.
In the NFL, the teams with the best quarterbacks tend to win the most because every team is talented... and they all play about the same schemes on both sides of the ball (is anybody NOT running an offense loosely inspired by the WCO?).
In other words, a lot of college teams win a lot of games, including BCS bowls, WITHOUT a great quarterback, including the ones listed elsewhere in this thread.
So once you know that, once you know a mediocre quarterback can win it all... how does quarterbacking a winning college team really qualify you for the next level? How is it an important criterion? Given that mediocre quarterbacks do it all the time?
Now to Andy's point: All other things being equal as far as talent, would you like the guy who's been under the spotlight? Who's won games, rather than gone along for the ride? Who actually CAUSED the wins, in the toughest of competitions?
Definitely. But shit, there are some teams like Texas and Ohio State and Florida and USC and Oklahoma who could win just as well with Craig Krenzel or Ken Dorsey as with Clausen or McCoy or Bradford or Leinart. They're dominant all over the field. That's not gonna happen at the next level.
That's why scouts like private workouts and all-star games. It evens the field, takes them out of that specific context.
My point is that the talent variance in college makes this way less true than in the NFL.
In the NFL, the teams with the best quarterbacks tend to win the most because every team is talented... and they all play about the same schemes on both sides of the ball (is anybody NOT running an offense loosely inspired by the WCO?).
In other words, a lot of college teams win a lot of games, including BCS bowls, WITHOUT a great quarterback, including the ones listed elsewhere in this thread.
So once you know that, once you know a mediocre quarterback can win it all... how does quarterbacking a winning college team really qualify you for the next level? How is it an important criterion? Given that mediocre quarterbacks do it all the time?
Now to Andy's point: All other things being equal as far as talent, would you like the guy who's been under the spotlight? Who's won games, rather than gone along for the ride? Who actually CAUSED the wins, in the toughest of competitions?
Definitely. But shit, there are some teams like Texas and Ohio State and Florida and USC and Oklahoma who could win just as well with Craig Krenzel or Ken Dorsey as with Clausen or McCoy or Bradford or Leinart. They're dominant all over the field. That's not gonna happen at the next level.
That's why scouts like private workouts and all-star games. It evens the field, takes them out of that specific context.
Is it fair to say that some college programs may in fact excel better when they DON'T have an NFL caliber QB leading them?
I mean, it seems that the likes of Tommy Frazier, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch did wonders for that teams system (Nebraska), which may in fact have had no place for an NFL prospect.
Perfect example: Troy Aikman. Aikman originally signed on with the Oklahoma Sooners, but the Sooners were running the Wishbone for which a QB name Jamel Holloway was a far better fit for. Barry Switzer recognized that Aikman was a square peg in a round hole and encouraged him to transfer to another school that ran more of a pro style system. Aikman went to UCLA and the rest is history. Holloway won a national title running the Sooners. Aikman did well in college such that he became the first pick in the NFL draft....and he went on to win three Super Bowls with the Dallas Cowboys....one of which his HC was none other than Barry Switzer, the guy that encouraged him to go elsewhere to develop his talents.
(and in my view this negates all those who denigrate Switzer capability as a coach. He was an outstanding coach.)
-
I wanna go on the record (again) and say that I thought outside of Bradford, McCoy was the best QB in the draft. Although he wasn't a top 10 or even a 1st round option for us, he was a steal in the 3rd and at that spot, it's a low-risk, high reward pick. I have never liked Clausen and predicted a free fall in the draft for him. I think if McCoy can sit for a few years, he'll be excellent. I think if Clausen sits for a few years, he'll be, Josh McCown.
I wanna go on the record (again) and say that I thought outside of Bradford, McCoy was the best QB in the draft. Although he wasn't a top 10 or even a 1st round option for us, he was a steal in the 3rd and at that spot, it's a low-risk, high reward pick. I have never liked Clausen and predicted a free fall in the draft for him. I think if McCoy can sit for a few years, he'll be excellent. I think if Clausen sits for a few years, he'll be, Josh McCown.
Don't forget, Joe Montana was a weak armed, late third round QB who ran a system in college which at that time was nothing like the systems being run in the pros.
-
When people expect you to win and you do it, that is good.
When people expect you to win and you don't do it, that is bad.
McCoy won. Clausen didn't. Simple.
Clausen may have a great arm. But so does Jamarcus Russell. Are you really sure you want to make arm strength a sink-or-swim criterion for success as an NFL qb? Russell is also larger than Clausen. Is size really one of those definitive traits of a great quarterback? (BTW, Kiper increased his rating of McCoy's arm strength after his pro day).
I can't understand badmouthing someone who has been successful while wishing we had chosen someone who was not successful.
But I love the way you set the criteria for good quarterbacks where only one qb in the entire draft could meet them. I also admire the way you can excuse all the faults that Clausen has. At least you are consistant in supporting your man.
Clausen is NOT my favorite quarterback of the past several drafts. That was started by others, not me.
I liked Bradford better in this draft. I just might like some combination of Locker, Luck, and/or Ponder in the next one.
I liked Sanchez about the same, if not slightly more.
I saw Clausen as a Top 10-20 guy, though, admittedly.
Obviously, Clausen is NOTHING like Russell. Russell is lazy and stupid, which I said at the time. Clausen is neither. If Russell were smart and hard working, he'd be an amazing QB. It's a sad tale.
Clausen doesn't have a gun, but he has an NFL arm. He's very accurate. He succeeded in an NFL offense. He has enough mobility. He can throw on the run. He's tall enough. No, he's not a super-elite prospect. I don't think that and never have. But I do think he's a first round draft pick, or should've been. I really do. I am not in love with him, however.
Aaron Rodgers? Yeah, I was crazy about him.
And no team can be expected to win a lot of games with a defense ranked 87th in the nation.
When people expect you to win and you do it, that is good.
When people expect you to win and you don't do it, that is bad.
McCoy won. Clausen didn't. Simple.
Clausen may have a great arm. But so does Jamarcus Russell. Are you really sure you want to make arm strength a sink-or-swim criterion for success as an NFL qb? Russell is also larger than Clausen. Is size really one of those definitive traits of a great quarterback? (BTW, Kiper increased his rating of McCoy's arm strength after his pro day).
I can't understand badmouthing someone who has been successful while wishing we had chosen someone who was not successful.
But I love the way you set the criteria for good quarterbacks where only one qb in the entire draft could meet them. I also admire the way you can excuse all the faults that Clausen has. At least you are consistant in supporting your man.
-
Another way to look at it: Would Colt McCoy have won anything if Texas had the 87th ranked defense? If they gave up points in droves?
No. Of course not. Nobody would. It's tough to do a lot more than Notre Dame's passing offense or Clausen did (3rd in the nation), so that answer is easy.
I had the quarterbacks ranked like most: Bradford, Clausen, McCoy. Then I liked Mike Kafka a ton and wouldn't have minded the Browns taking him as high as 92. Truth be told, I liked Kafka and McCoy about the same. I may have grown to like Kafka slightly better.
I don't think Tebow does shit in the NFL... at least at QB.
-
Another way to look at it: Would Colt McCoy have won anything if Texas had the 87th ranked defense? If they gave up points in droves?
No. Of course not. Nobody would. It's tough to do a lot more than Notre Dame's passing offense or Clausen did (3rd in the nation), so that answer is easy.
I had the quarterbacks ranked like most: Bradford, Clausen, McCoy. Then I liked Mike Kafka a ton and wouldn't have minded the Browns taking him as high as 92. Truth be told, I liked Kafka and McCoy about the same. I may have grown to like Kafka slightly better.
I don't think Tebow does shit in the NFL... at least at QB.
Another way to look at it: Would Colt McCoy have won anything if Texas had the 87th ranked defense? If they gave up points in droves?
No. Of course not. Nobody would. It's tough to do a lot more than Notre Dame's passing offense or Clausen did (3rd in the nation), so that answer is easy.
I had the quarterbacks ranked like most: Bradford, Clausen, McCoy. Then I liked Mike Kafka a ton and wouldn't have minded the Browns taking him as high as 92. Truth be told, I liked Kafka and McCoy about the same. I may have grown to like Kafka slightly better.
I don't think Tebow does shit in the NFL... at least at QB.
That's a valid point. However, I still think it is important for the demeanor of your QB, that he come from a winning organization. I don't care what the reasons for the mediocrity or crap were, even if they were in spite of the QB instead of because him. It may not be "fair", but I think it is a valid way to break ties everything else being roughly the same.
-
Fair point. Being in pressure packed situations in the biggest games is a huge training ground. It changes a person.
Hey, I like things about McCoy. I think at #85 he's interesting. He has the mental framework of a winner, he's a smart kid and a hard worker, and he's a terrific athlete. If his arm continues to get stronger, it may not be an issue in a year.
We'll see.
-
-
That's funny, because on my last board, we had a lot of people bitching about quarterback threads...
At the same time the three most popular threads by miles were all... wait for it... quarterback threads.
If people actually hated quarterback threads, the market would speak. They'd die quickly. Fact is, they never do. On the contrary, they spark the hottest debates of all.
Let's face it: Quarterback is THE position not just in football but all of team sports. And if you're on a team that still doesn't have a serious guy there, you're gonna be talking about it until they do. A lot.
It's tough to imagine 1,500 hits on a "Elam V. Adams" thread. Or on whether Rogers should move to DE.
-
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