PFT: Browns will try for Mariota or Bradford (again)
-
Doesn't matter what I think. SEC>Pac 12 is not really debatable with any intellectual honesty. And Chip did indeed offer Johnny first and wanted him more than Mariota. That's a fact.
-
Johnny had the better deep ball and particularly more accuracy on it. His arm is stronger. The fact that they were rated so closely as prospects despite Mariota outshining him in every measurable physical category tells you how much better Johnny's arm is.
You can regard it as hypothetical, but I see Mariota shutting down in several of the big games he played in, while Manziel had his best games against Alabama (consistent top 5 defense and he did it twice), Oklahoma (whose coordinator at the time just fielded the number one defense at Clemson), Auburn (who went to the national championship that year), and was solidly impressive in his first start against a top 10 Florida defense that finished 11-2. His team was down 24 in a meaningless bowl game and Johnny brought them back.
There is no comparison in the competition level between these guys. You can post a bunch of worthless combine figures, but at the end of the day Mariota had a record pretty dang similar to every other Oregon QB, indicating he was not some elite player that took the team to another level. Johnny, on the other hand, took a 6-6 team to 11-2 and beat the defending national champion on the road as a freshman.
Meanwhile Mariota still has nightmares of a guy named Scooby.
Oh and Mariota is known for his legs. Pop in the tape and tell me who makes more/better plays with their legs. Now is that quantifiable like the numbers you posted? No. But is it obvious that the answer to that question is JFF? Yes. Did Mariota run a faster 40? Yes. Is he football-faster? Absolutely not.
Regardless though, even if we stipulate Mariota is a slightly better prospect, he still comes with the same questions re: scheme that Johnny did. And even moreso due to the aforementioned delta in competition level. Why we would waste a first rounder on that (particularly when we haven't even concluded the experiment with Johnny and we've signed a solid bridge QB), is beyond me.
Johnny had the better deep ball and particularly more accuracy on it. His arm is stronger. The fact that they were rated so closely as prospects despite Mariota outshining him in every measurable physical category tells you how much better Johnny's arm is.
You can regard it as hypothetical, but I see Mariota shutting down in several of the big games he played in, while Manziel had his best games against Alabama (consistent top 5 defense and he did it twice), Oklahoma (whose coordinator at the time just fielded the number one defense at Clemson), Auburn (who went to the national championship that year), and was solidly impressive in his first start against a top 10 Florida defense that finished 11-2. His team was down 24 in a meaningless bowl game and Johnny brought them back.
There is no comparison in the competition level between these guys. You can post a bunch of worthless combine figures, but at the end of the day Mariota had a record pretty dang similar to every other Oregon QB, indicating he was not some elite player that took the team to another level. Johnny, on the other hand, took a 6-6 team to 11-2 and beat the defending national champion on the road as a freshman.
Meanwhile Mariota still has nightmares of a guy named Scooby.
Oh and Mariota is known for his legs. Pop in the tape and tell me who makes more/better plays with their legs. Now is that quantifiable like the numbers you posted? No. But is it obvious that the answer to that question is JFF? Yes. Did Mariota run a faster 40? Yes. Is he football-faster? Absolutely not.
Regardless though, even if we stipulate Mariota is a slightly better prospect, he still comes with the same questions re: scheme that Johnny did. And even moreso due to the aforementioned delta in competition level. Why we would waste a first rounder on that (particularly when we haven't even concluded the experiment with Johnny and we've signed a solid bridge QB), is beyond me.
There's no denying that Johnny Manziel has an underhyped arm. His throw to Cameron against the Bills in the deep third showed all that it needed to about Manziel's arm strength. His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all that he has.
Those "worthless combine figures" are the only available metric when it comes to eliminating all variables and comparing prospects. From a physical standpoint, with all variables eliminated or controlled, Mariota is the far superior prospect. That's undeniable.
Manziel was tasked with playing against some of the best talent in the nation and he did surprisingly well, there is no argument. In his two years at A&M, the Aggies had the second toughest schedule (2012-13) and the eighth toughest (2013-14). In comparison, Oregon was 16th and 19th. However, in 2014-15, Oregon had the third hardest schedule in all of college football...and that, coincidentally, happened to be Mariota's strongest statistical performance.
Mariota had strong performances against #21 USC (4 TD 0 INT, 255.4 rating) and #7 Michigan State (3 TD, 0 INT, 191.5 rating). Obviously it's no Alabama, but it's not like he laid giant turds, either. As a matter of fact, Mariota never once laid a turd on the field. His worst game, a 1 TD, 1 INT loss against #14 Stanford (107.3 rating ) was still miles better than Manziel's 0 TD, 3 INT game against #6 ranked LSU (82.5 rating). Mariota only had one game where he threw more interceptions than TD's, compared to Manziel's four games with a negative ratio.
The difference in competition level may be a point of contention, however so is the difference on-field talent. While Manziel was playing against higher levels of competition, he also had significantly more talented teammates.
Mariota had the luxury of playing behind two future first round offensive tackles in 2013 (Joeckel and Matthews), a first round WR in 2014 (Evans), and a second round running back in 2013 (Michael). A&M was oozing top-notch, NFL-caliber talent at their main points of offensive interest.
Mariota, on the other hand, only had one first round pick on his offense the entire time he was there (Long). His best offensive weapons- runningbacks De'Anthony Thomas and LaMicheal James and receiver Josh Huff - were taken in the fourth, second rounds, and third rounds, respectively.
Beware, math follows:
Looking at every college game as a whole, Mariota's average game rating (174.0) is slightly higher than that of Manziel's (171.8), meaning that Mariota is, on average, a better quarterback than Manziel. Going even further, Manziel's standard deviation (44.59) is higher than that of Mariota's (41.43), meaning that Mariota is not only a better quarterback, on average, but he's also more consistent or there's less variance in his play.
While Mariota is predicted to have fewer games with a poor rating, he's also likely to have fewer games with a truly phenomenal rating. In a normal distribution, it's expected that Mariota would have a college QB rating of over 210 in 19.2% of his games, compared to Manziel's 19.5%.
However, Mariota would also be expected to have nearly 50% of his performances fall between ratings of 150 and 200. On the contrary, Manziel would only be expected to have the same results in 42.4% of his games. While that doesn't seem to be a big difference, we're looking at a difference of about 12 games over the course of a 10-year career.
So, what this tells me is that Mariota is larger, more physically gifted, possesses more intangibles, and has less performances away from his norm, whereas Manziel has a stronger arm, questionable off-the-field identity, smaller frame, and more boom-or-bust style of play.
Personally, I'd take Mariota. I understand the rationale behind taking either guy, but I'm more partial to larger, more consistent guys than I am wildcard prospects. And, truth be told, Manziel's "wildcard" aspect isn't statistically represented well at all, according to his college performance. His top performance would be a negligible upgrade over Mariota's, at best.
(The flaw in the above reasoning is that I didn't calculate off of NFL QB ratings. I just didn't have the time to convert each performance into an NFL rating, so I apologize. Even still, the point remains.)
QBR is also a statistic that factors in the strength of opponents, or else I wouldn't have included it.
-
Johnny had the better deep ball and particularly more accuracy on it. His arm is stronger. The fact that they were rated so closely as prospects despite Mariota outshining him in every measurable physical category tells you how much better Johnny's arm is.
You can regard it as hypothetical, but I see Mariota shutting down in several of the big games he played in, while Manziel had his best games against Alabama (consistent top 5 defense and he did it twice), Oklahoma (whose coordinator at the time just fielded the number one defense at Clemson), Auburn (who went to the national championship that year), and was solidly impressive in his first start against a top 10 Florida defense that finished 11-2. His team was down 24 in a meaningless bowl game and Johnny brought them back.
There is no comparison in the competition level between these guys. You can post a bunch of worthless combine figures, but at the end of the day Mariota had a record pretty dang similar to every other Oregon QB, indicating he was not some elite player that took the team to another level. Johnny, on the other hand, took a 6-6 team to 11-2 and beat the defending national champion on the road as a freshman.
Meanwhile Mariota still has nightmares of a guy named Scooby.
Oh and Mariota is known for his legs. Pop in the tape and tell me who makes more/better plays with their legs. Now is that quantifiable like the numbers you posted? No. But is it obvious that the answer to that question is JFF? Yes. Did Mariota run a faster 40? Yes. Is he football-faster? Absolutely not.
Regardless though, even if we stipulate Mariota is a slightly better prospect, he still comes with the same questions re: scheme that Johnny did. And even moreso due to the aforementioned delta in competition level. Why we would waste a first rounder on that (particularly when we haven't even concluded the experiment with Johnny and we've signed a solid bridge QB), is beyond me.
There's no denying that Johnny Manziel has an underhyped arm. His throw to Cameron against the Bills in the deep third showed all that it needed to about Manziel's arm strength. His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all that he has.
Those "worthless combine figures" are the only available metric when it comes to eliminating all variables and comparing prospects. From a physical standpoint, with all variables eliminated or controlled, Mariota is the far superior prospect. That's undeniable.
Manziel was tasked with playing against some of the best talent in the nation and he did surprisingly well, there is no argument. In his two years at A&M, the Aggies had the second toughest schedule (2012-13) and the eighth toughest (2013-14). In comparison, Oregon was 16th and 19th. However, in 2014-15, Oregon had the third hardest schedule in all of college football...and that, coincidentally, happened to be Mariota's strongest statistical performance.
Mariota had strong performances against #21 USC (4 TD 0 INT, 255.4 rating) and #7 Michigan State (3 TD, 0 INT, 191.5 rating). Obviously it's no Alabama, but it's not like he laid giant turds, either. As a matter of fact, Mariota never once laid a turd on the field. His worst game, a 1 TD, 1 INT loss against #14 Stanford (107.3 rating ) was still miles better than Manziel's 0 TD, 3 INT game against #6 ranked LSU (82.5 rating). Mariota only had one game where he threw more interceptions than TD's, compared to Manziel's four games with a negative ratio.
The difference in competition level may be a point of contention, however so is the difference on-field talent. While Manziel was playing against higher levels of competition, he also had significantly more talented teammates.
Mariota had the luxury of playing behind two future first round offensive tackles in 2013 (Joeckel and Matthews), a first round WR in 2014 (Evans), and a second round running back in 2013 (Michael). A&M was oozing top-notch, NFL-caliber talent at their main points of offensive interest.
Mariota, on the other hand, only had one first round pick on his offense the entire time he was there (Long). His best offensive weapons- runningbacks De'Anthony Thomas and LaMicheal James and receiver Josh Huff - were taken in the fourth, second rounds, and third rounds, respectively.
Beware, math follows:
Looking at every college game as a whole, Mariota's average game rating (174.0) is slightly higher than that of Manziel's (171.8), meaning that Mariota is, on average, a better quarterback than Manziel. Going even further, Manziel's standard deviation (44.59) is higher than that of Mariota's (41.43), meaning that Mariota is not only a better quarterback, on average, but he's also more consistent or there's less variance in his play.
While Mariota is predicted to have fewer games with a poor rating, he's also likely to have fewer games with a truly phenomenal rating. In a normal distribution, it's expected that Mariota would have a college QB rating of over 210 in 19.2% of his games, compared to Manziel's 19.5%.
However, Mariota would also be expected to have nearly 50% of his performances fall between ratings of 150 and 200. On the contrary, Manziel would only be expected to have the same results in 42.4% of his games. While that doesn't seem to be a big difference, we're looking at a difference of about 12 games over the course of a 10-year career.
So, what this tells me is that Mariota is larger, more physically gifted, possesses more intangibles, and has less performances away from his norm, whereas Manziel has a stronger arm, questionable off-the-field identity, smaller frame, and more boom-or-bust style of play.
Personally, I'd take Mariota. I understand the rationale behind taking either guy, but I'm more partial to larger, more consistent guys than I am wildcard prospects. And, truth be told, Manziel's "wildcard" aspect isn't statistically represented well at all, according to his college performance. His top performance would be a negligible upgrade over Mariota's, at best.
(The flaw in the above reasoning is that I didn't calculate off of NFL QB ratings. I just didn't have the time to convert each performance into an NFL rating, so I apologize. Even still, the point remains.)
QBR is also a statistic that factors in the strength of opponents, or else I wouldn't have included it.
There's no denying that Johnny Manziel has an underhyped arm. His throw to Cameron against the Bills in the deep third showed all that it needed to about Manziel's arm strength. His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all that he has.
Those "worthless combine figures" are the only available metric when it comes to eliminating all variables and comparing prospects. From a physical standpoint, with all variables eliminated or controlled, Mariota is the far superior prospect. That's undeniable.
Come on man. Yes I realize that they'er the only quantifiable metric to determine the guys. I didn't deny that Mariota had better numbers within these tests. But i've been saying from the beginning that Johnny is better on tape. You say "His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all he has." Well as far as actual tests (although there's not one for arm strength so I'm not sure why we're even limiting ourselves to actual tests), then yes, that's all Johnny has. But turn on the tape and you see Johnny is faster on the field, he's quicker, he's more elusive, he makes more plays, etc.
Manziel was tasked with playing against some of the best talent in the nation and he did surprisingly well, there is no argument. In his two years at A&M, the Aggies had the second toughest schedule (2012-13) and the eighth toughest (2013-14). In comparison, Oregon was 16th and 19th. However, in 2014-15, Oregon had the third hardest schedule in all of college football...and that, coincidentally, happened to be Mariota's strongest statistical performance.
Mariota had strong performances against #21 USC (4 TD 0 INT, 255.4 rating) and #7 Michigan State (3 TD, 0 INT, 191.5 rating). Obviously it's no Alabama, but it's not like he laid giant turds, either. As a matter of fact, Mariota never once laid a turd on the field. His worst game, a 1 TD, 1 INT loss against #14 Stanford (107.3 rating ) was still miles better than Manziel's 0 TD, 3 INT game against #6 ranked LSU (82.5 rating). Mariota only had one game where he threw more interceptions than TD's, compared to Manziel's four games with a negative ratio.
The difference in competition level may be a point of contention, however so is the difference on-field talent. While Manziel was playing against higher levels of competition, he also had significantly more talented teammates.
You don't note that in Mariota's way-better-than-Manziel performance against Arizona last year, he also had two fumbles. Nevertheless, I see your point. Mariota plays cleaner football. But you still can't argue that he doesn't get up for some of Oregon's biggest games nor can you argue that he doesn't have any games where he hurts his team (such as that Arizona game).
The difference in schedule strength is unquantifiable my friend, so we're back to that awkward position that has underlined much of this debate. People try to quantify it by saying "well Oregon played three 11-2 teams and A&M played two, therefore Oregon's schedule>>A&M's," and there's just no context to that. This past year (and I realize Johnny wasn't there anymore but just using it as an example) every single team in the SEC West could have won 10 games in either Pac 12 division, so those comparisons are not worth much to me. IIRC, Notre Dame had great strength of schedule going into the national championship game against Alabama in 2012, how'd that turn out? 42-14. Oregon surely had much better SOS than Ohio State last year, we know how that turned out.
I would pay money to watch Mariota piss down his leg against an LSU defense, particularly in a cold and rainy Death Valley (which was the situation in Johnny's game, I was there). That is bar none the fastest defense in the country and it is almost every year. Louisiana for many years led the U.S. in per capita NFL players, and you know what, LSU lands almost every single one because they're the only large school in the state. I remember when A&M landed Speedy Noil in the class of 2014 and it was the first recruit from Louisiana that LSU wanted that A&M had landed since I started following recruiting (09 class). Yeah, that team is loaded and Mariota should thank his lucky stars he never played those bayou boys, much less several other teams with similar stock each year. I mean, hell, I just remembered LSU and Oregon actually played in 2011, and it wasn't close. When I was in Death Valley the kids did a cheer to the song "Neck" where they said "suck that Tiger d*ck, b*tch!" You can't compare the pac 12 where they put 45,000 butts in the seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Football_Championship_Game) for the conference championship game to the things we do down here. You just can't.
Mariota had the luxury of playing behind two future first round offensive tackles in 2013 (Joeckel and Matthews), a first round WR in 2014 (Evans), and a second round running back in 2013 (Michael). A&M was oozing top-notch, NFL-caliber talent at their main points of offensive interest.
Mariota, on the other hand, only had one first round pick on his offense the entire time he was there (Long). His best offensive weapons- runningbacks De'Anthony Thomas and LaMicheal James and receiver Josh Huff - were taken in the fourth, second rounds, and third rounds, respectively.
Mariota's weapons are taken late because they're recognized for what they are--small players playing in a gimmick offense. Christine Michael didn't even start in the year he and Johnny coexisted. Michael averaged less than 7 carries/game. Not relevant. Can't argue with Joeckel, Matthews, Evans. I can however remind you once more that this team went 6-6 in the year before Johnny, and both Joeckel and Matthews started that year. Johnny clearly made a difference to the record of his team, Mariota didn't. The fact that we have such better talent than Oregon and have only placed 5th in the SEC in our best year is a testament to the main crux of my argument regarding Mariota and Manziel's stats.
Beware, math follows:
Looking at every college game as a whole, Mariota's average game rating (174.0) is slightly higher than that of Manziel's (171.8), meaning that Mariota is, on average, a better quarterback than Manziel. Going even further, Manziel's standard deviation (44.59) is higher than that of Mariota's (41.43), meaning that Mariota is not only a better quarterback, on average, but he's also more consistent or there's less variance in his play.
While Mariota is predicted to have fewer games with a poor rating, he's also likely to have fewer games with a truly phenomenal rating. In a normal distribution, it's expected that Mariota would have a college QB rating of over 210 in 19.2% of his games, compared to Manziel's 19.5%.
However, Mariota would also be expected to have nearly 50% of his performances fall between ratings of 150 and 200. On the contrary, Manziel would only be expected to have the same results in 42.4% of his games. While that doesn't seem to be a big difference, we're looking at a difference of about 12 games over the course of a 10-year career.
So, what this tells me is that Mariota is larger, more physically gifted, possesses more intangibles, and has less performances away from his norm, whereas Manziel has a stronger arm, questionable off-the-field identity, smaller frame, and more boom-or-bust style of play.
Personally, I'd take Mariota. I understand the rationale behind taking either guy, but I'm more partial to larger, more consistent guys than I am wildcard prospects. And, truth be told, Manziel's "wildcard" aspect isn't statistically represented well at all, according to his college performance. His top performance would be a negligible upgrade over Mariota's, at best.
(The flaw in the above reasoning is that I didn't calculate off of NFL QB ratings. I just didn't have the time to convert each performance into an NFL rating, so I apologize. Even still, the point remains.)
QBR is also a statistic that factors in the strength of opponents, or else I wouldn't have included it.
Can't argue with any raw data like that other than to again point you to the level of competition and point out that Oregon's offense is much more efficient than ours and in general it hums alot better. We have problems establishing a run game (again, SEC), and we usually run it less than 10x per game. Oregon incorporates the run well and the offense is overall alot smoother. That's not a result of Mariota, it's a result of the system. It's just so hard to put those guys on an equal plane to evaluate them when they played in vastly different conferences and in fairly different offenses (contrary to popular opinion). That's why I think my best argument is still the fact that Chip Kelly wanted Johnny before he ever knew about Mariota.
Furthermore, if stats and QBR are all that matters, where are all the passing leaders that Mike Leach put out at Tech in the NFL? I mean, surely they've brought a bunch of rings back to Lubbock, right? The numbers don't tell the whole story, my friend. The tape does. Johnny is loads better on tape. Interceptions clearly don't mean much when you look at this year's number 1 draft pick.
My other argument states that even if we stipulate that they are close to equal talents, why not let the Manziel experiment run its course before starting a nearly identical one? There will be plenty of Oregon quarterbacks that put up gaudy numbers in the future.
-
-
you're probably right, but the question is if he IS there (mariota @12) do you take him instead of a NT or DE/OLB or WR or....?
you're probably right, but the question is if he IS there (mariota @12) do you take him instead of a NT or DE/OLB or WR or....?
Sorry Mik- I don't see any way Mariota falls past #6- the Jets.
I forgot that was the only game that Mariota played in his career.
Yeah- dangerous to rate a guy off of one game- BUT- can you deny Mariota is a bigger Manziel with the same question marks? MHO it's sink or swim with McCown and Johnny Rehab this year- and if they flop it's all in on a franchise qb next year. MM is not worth giving up multiple picks to move up and get him.
-
you're probably right, but the question is if he IS there (mariota @12) do you take him instead of a NT or DE/OLB or WR or....?
Sorry Mik- I don't see any way Mariota falls past #6- the Jets.
I forgot that was the only game that Mariota played in his career.
Yeah- dangerous to rate a guy off of one game- BUT- can you deny Mariota is a bigger Manziel with the same question marks? MHO it's sink or swim with McCown and Johnny Rehab this year- and if they flop it's all in on a franchise qb next year. MM is not worth giving up multiple picks to move up and get him.
MM is not worth giving up multiple picks to move up and get him.
i agree 100%.
BUT
if he does fall to 12 w/o any need to trade up, would you take him or kevin white or shelton if they were there? that's the real tricky part. a QB with question marks or a NT with less question marks?
-
If Mariota is at 12, now doubt Farmer takes him
-
i agree 100%.
BUT
if he does fall to 12 w/o any need to trade up, would you take him or kevin white or shelton if they were there? that's the real tricky part. a QB with question marks or a NT with less question marks?
Not Mariota. I'm loth to load up on receivers before we have a QB so I'd probably go Shelton, but I wouldn't hate the White pick by a long shot.
-
that's why watching the draft on the first night has become as big as a playoff game, ratings wise for the NFL.
can't wait to see the players move up and down and the orgs do their thing.
here's to farmer pulling a couple of rabbits out the hat and maybe even have some doves fly from out his ass.
-
Swap Manziel with Stafford. Stafford struggles in the Browns offense. Meanwhile, Manziel chucks it up to Megatron, scrambles for yards, and maybe makes the Pro Bowl. Landing spot is crucial for any prospect. Wait to write off Manziel until he officially sucks, we'll know.
-
that's why watching the draft on the first night has become as big as a playoff game, ratings wise for the NFL.
can't wait to see the players move up and down and the orgs do their thing.
here's to farmer pulling a couple of rabbits out the hat and maybe even have some doves fly from out his ass.
that's why watching the draft on the first night has become as big as a playoff game, ratings wise for the NFL.
can't wait to see the players move up and down and the orgs do their thing.
here's to farmer pulling a couple of rabbits out the hat and maybe even have some doves fly from out his ass.
I hate how the first round of the draft is on Thursday Night, I honestly wish they would make a weekend event out of it.
I'd do rounds 1-3 starting at noon on Saturday and rounds 4-7 on Sunday
-
i agree 100%.
BUT
if he does fall to 12 w/o any need to trade up, would you take him or kevin white or shelton if they were there? that's the real tricky part. a QB with question marks or a NT with less question marks?
Not Mariota. I'm loth to load up on receivers before we have a QB so I'd probably go Shelton, but I wouldn't hate the White pick by a long shot.
Not Mariota. I'm loth to load up on receivers before we have a QB so I'd probably go Shelton, but I wouldn't hate the White pick by a long shot.
Chip wanting Jonny over Mariota in college makes zero difference. QB play is completely different in the NFL.
-
Not relevant to the quote you posted but ok.
We're evaluating them as NFL prospects. To do that we consider how they did in college. To do that we consider which was better in college. It helps to know what a coach who recruited both and coached one thought. I wasn't saying that Chip wanting Johnny means Johnny is a better pro prospect, merely that, everything Mariota's done, Johnny could have done at Oregon or did better at A&M. They are similar players. Maybe Mariota is slightly better, who cares? He's not ALOT better. And Johnny is already on the payroll. No point in paying double.
-
Agree... that's a tough decision. A 50/50(?) franchise QB vs. a 90/10 NT.
But we can't stand pat. Have to bring in fresh, QB blood. If that prospect is Mariota, so be it, go get him... otherwise try Hundley or Petty, but I cannot see standing pat as an option.
Consider either putting Johnny on the non-football injury list or try to get Shaw back on the PS, but somehow make room for a new prospect.
Agree... that's a tough decision. A 50/50(?) franchise QB vs. a 90/10 NT.
But we can't stand pat. Have to bring in fresh, QB blood. If that prospect is Mariota, so be it, go get him... otherwise try Hundley or Petty, but I cannot see standing pat as an option.
Consider either putting Johnny on the non-football injury list or try to get Shaw back on the PS, but somehow make room for a new prospect.
50 50?
Well ain't you the optimist?
WSS
-
Tannehill was always a QB. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the NFL. He played QB art through grade school, he was recruited as a quarterback, he played quarterback exclusively throughout his redshirt year and even when he did play receiver, he was still cross-training at QB and had the sole right to the backup job.
Miami would also be plain fools not to resign him.
Tannehill was always a QB. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the NFL. He played QB art through grade school, he was recruited as a quarterback, he played quarterback exclusively throughout his redshirt year and even when he did play receiver, he was still cross-training at QB and had the sole right to the backup job.
... and since Tannehill had only two years QB experience at the collegiate level Miami took a huge gamble. Wait... I already said that.
I'd love to see a stat about how many active NFL players were QBs through grade school.
Only comment I'll make on your running MM vs. JM discussion with TC... what their tape shows me is that one QB is far superior in operating within the scheme of an offense. The other made a name off improvisation.
I prefer the QB that can operate within a system.
50 50?
Well ain't you the optimist?
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
Tannehill was always a QB. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the NFL. He played QB art through grade school, he was recruited as a quarterback, he played quarterback exclusively throughout his redshirt year and even when he did play receiver, he was still cross-training at QB and had the sole right to the backup job.
... and since Tannehill had only two years QB experience at the collegiate level Miami took a huge gamble. Wait... I already said that.
I'd love to see a stat about how many active NFL players were QBs through grade school.
Only comment I'll make on your running MM vs. JM discussion with TC... what their tape shows me is that one QB is far superior in operating within the scheme of an offense. The other made a name off improvisation.
I prefer the QB that can operate within a system.
50 50?
Well ain't you the optimist?
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
-
i agree 100%.
BUT
if he does fall to 12 w/o any need to trade up, would you take him or kevin white or shelton if they were there? that's the real tricky part. a QB with question marks or a NT with less question marks?
Yeah- we probably take him at #12 Mik. However, the odds of him still being there @ #12 are about as good as me getting a date with Kate Upton.
-
Tannehill was always a QB. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the NFL. He played QB art through grade school, he was recruited as a quarterback, he played quarterback exclusively throughout his redshirt year and even when he did play receiver, he was still cross-training at QB and had the sole right to the backup job.
... and since Tannehill had only two years QB experience at the collegiate level Miami took a huge gamble. Wait... I already said that.
I'd love to see a stat about how many active NFL players were QBs through grade school.
Only comment I'll make on your running MM vs. JM discussion with TC... what their tape shows me is that one QB is far superior in operating within the scheme of an offense. The other made a name off improvisation.
I prefer the QB that can operate within a system.
50 50?
Well ain't you the optimist?
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
Here's a link to an old walterfootball.com article from 2010 that demonstrates what I've always thought.
http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftquarterbackriskmyth.php
People get enamored by the "big name" college QB who busts, but if you really look at it you are more likely to bust by picking a DT. Having said that, is Shelton a 90/10 prospect vs. Mariota being 50/50?? I would put them both about 50/50, just like almost any draft pick... except of course the top OTs (http://walterfootball.com/nfldraftoffensivetackles.php)
-
Tannehill was always a QB. This is one of the biggest misconceptions in the NFL. He played QB art through grade school, he was recruited as a quarterback, he played quarterback exclusively throughout his redshirt year and even when he did play receiver, he was still cross-training at QB and had the sole right to the backup job.
... and since Tannehill had only two years QB experience at the collegiate level Miami took a huge gamble. Wait... I already said that.
I'd love to see a stat about how many active NFL players were QBs through grade school.
Only comment I'll make on your running MM vs. JM discussion with TC... what their tape shows me is that one QB is far superior in operating within the scheme of an offense. The other made a name off improvisation.
I prefer the QB that can operate within a system.
50 50?
Well ain't you the optimist?
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
Quarterbacks don't start more than two years all that often in college, so I'm not sure what your point is. Is Tampa Bay taking "a huge gamble" by taking Winston who only started two years? Petty only started two years.... and since Tannehill had only two years QB experience at the collegiate level Miami took a huge gamble. Wait... I already said that.
I'd love to see a stat about how many active NFL players were QBs through grade school.
Only comment I'll make on your running MM vs. JM discussion with TC... what their tape shows me is that one QB is far superior in operating within the scheme of an offense. The other made a name off improvisation.
I prefer the QB that can operate within a system.
lol... Point was I was trying to make it harder to pick MM over Shelton whose odds of being a stud are very high. And even at 50/50, which is as low as I think his odds are for attaining "franchise QB" status, I see Mariota getting the nod in that scenario. Such is the weight of the position.
Actually I'd put MM's odds much higher... maybe as high as 70/30.
Yes, Mariota ran the system better. But again, the system itself is run better on its own already. Johnny was in the first and second year of a new regime running a vastly different offense than the one Mike Sherman did. Oregon promoted the OC when Chip Kelly left. There's more continuity there, the players know the system better, and AGAIN, no comparison in competition! Zilch.
Playing the same comp in an Oregon uniform, is there any doubt Johnny would have had pretty much the same numbers?
I'll see this again too, if great stats are all that matters, then let's just keep a pipeline to wherever Mike Leach is coaching and whenever he has a QB that keeps the interceptions down (which is pretty much all of them), we can go get him.
-
There's no denying that Johnny Manziel has an underhyped arm. His throw to Cameron against the Bills in the deep third showed all that it needed to about Manziel's arm strength. His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all that he has.
Those "worthless combine figures" are the only available metric when it comes to eliminating all variables and comparing prospects. From a physical standpoint, with all variables eliminated or controlled, Mariota is the far superior prospect. That's undeniable.
Come on man. Yes I realize that they'er the only quantifiable metric to determine the guys. I didn't deny that Mariota had better numbers within these tests. But i've been saying from the beginning that Johnny is better on tape. You say "His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all he has." Well as far as actual tests (although there's not one for arm strength so I'm not sure why we're even limiting ourselves to actual tests), then yes, that's all Johnny has. But turn on the tape and you see Johnny is faster on the field, he's quicker, he's more elusive, he makes more plays, etc.
Manziel was tasked with playing against some of the best talent in the nation and he did surprisingly well, there is no argument. In his two years at A&M, the Aggies had the second toughest schedule (2012-13) and the eighth toughest (2013-14). In comparison, Oregon was 16th and 19th. However, in 2014-15, Oregon had the third hardest schedule in all of college football...and that, coincidentally, happened to be Mariota's strongest statistical performance.
Mariota had strong performances against #21 USC (4 TD 0 INT, 255.4 rating) and #7 Michigan State (3 TD, 0 INT, 191.5 rating). Obviously it's no Alabama, but it's not like he laid giant turds, either. As a matter of fact, Mariota never once laid a turd on the field. His worst game, a 1 TD, 1 INT loss against #14 Stanford (107.3 rating ) was still miles better than Manziel's 0 TD, 3 INT game against #6 ranked LSU (82.5 rating). Mariota only had one game where he threw more interceptions than TD's, compared to Manziel's four games with a negative ratio.
The difference in competition level may be a point of contention, however so is the difference on-field talent. While Manziel was playing against higher levels of competition, he also had significantly more talented teammates.
You don't note that in Mariota's way-better-than-Manziel performance against Arizona last year, he also had two fumbles. Nevertheless, I see your point. Mariota plays cleaner football. But you still can't argue that he doesn't get up for some of Oregon's biggest games nor can you argue that he doesn't have any games where he hurts his team (such as that Arizona game).
The difference in schedule strength is unquantifiable my friend, so we're back to that awkward position that has underlined much of this debate. People try to quantify it by saying "well Oregon played three 11-2 teams and A&M played two, therefore Oregon's schedule>>A&M's," and there's just no context to that. This past year (and I realize Johnny wasn't there anymore but just using it as an example) every single team in the SEC West could have won 10 games in either Pac 12 division, so those comparisons are not worth much to me. IIRC, Notre Dame had great strength of schedule going into the national championship game against Alabama in 2012, how'd that turn out? 42-14. Oregon surely had much better SOS than Ohio State last year, we know how that turned out.
I would pay money to watch Mariota piss down his leg against an LSU defense, particularly in a cold and rainy Death Valley (which was the situation in Johnny's game, I was there). That is bar none the fastest defense in the country and it is almost every year. Louisiana for many years led the U.S. in per capita NFL players, and you know what, LSU lands almost every single one because they're the only large school in the state. I remember when A&M landed Speedy Noil in the class of 2014 and it was the first recruit from Louisiana that LSU wanted that A&M had landed since I started following recruiting (09 class). Yeah, that team is loaded and Mariota should thank his lucky stars he never played those bayou boys, much less several other teams with similar stock each year. I mean, hell, I just remembered LSU and Oregon actually played in 2011, and it wasn't close. When I was in Death Valley the kids did a cheer to the song "Neck" where they said "suck that Tiger d*ck, b*tch!" You can't compare the pac 12 where they put 45,000 butts in the seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Football_Championship_Game) for the conference championship game to the things we do down here. You just can't.
Mariota had the luxury of playing behind two future first round offensive tackles in 2013 (Joeckel and Matthews), a first round WR in 2014 (Evans), and a second round running back in 2013 (Michael). A&M was oozing top-notch, NFL-caliber talent at their main points of offensive interest.
Mariota, on the other hand, only had one first round pick on his offense the entire time he was there (Long). His best offensive weapons- runningbacks De'Anthony Thomas and LaMicheal James and receiver Josh Huff - were taken in the fourth, second rounds, and third rounds, respectively.
Mariota's weapons are taken late because they're recognized for what they are--small players playing in a gimmick offense. Christine Michael didn't even start in the year he and Johnny coexisted. Michael averaged less than 7 carries/game. Not relevant. Can't argue with Joeckel, Matthews, Evans. I can however remind you once more that this team went 6-6 in the year before Johnny, and both Joeckel and Matthews started that year. Johnny clearly made a difference to the record of his team, Mariota didn't. The fact that we have such better talent than Oregon and have only placed 5th in the SEC in our best year is a testament to the main crux of my argument regarding Mariota and Manziel's stats.
Beware, math follows:
Looking at every college game as a whole, Mariota's average game rating (174.0) is slightly higher than that of Manziel's (171.8), meaning that Mariota is, on average, a better quarterback than Manziel. Going even further, Manziel's standard deviation (44.59) is higher than that of Mariota's (41.43), meaning that Mariota is not only a better quarterback, on average, but he's also more consistent or there's less variance in his play.
While Mariota is predicted to have fewer games with a poor rating, he's also likely to have fewer games with a truly phenomenal rating. In a normal distribution, it's expected that Mariota would have a college QB rating of over 210 in 19.2% of his games, compared to Manziel's 19.5%.
However, Mariota would also be expected to have nearly 50% of his performances fall between ratings of 150 and 200. On the contrary, Manziel would only be expected to have the same results in 42.4% of his games. While that doesn't seem to be a big difference, we're looking at a difference of about 12 games over the course of a 10-year career.
So, what this tells me is that Mariota is larger, more physically gifted, possesses more intangibles, and has less performances away from his norm, whereas Manziel has a stronger arm, questionable off-the-field identity, smaller frame, and more boom-or-bust style of play.
Personally, I'd take Mariota. I understand the rationale behind taking either guy, but I'm more partial to larger, more consistent guys than I am wildcard prospects. And, truth be told, Manziel's "wildcard" aspect isn't statistically represented well at all, according to his college performance. His top performance would be a negligible upgrade over Mariota's, at best.
(The flaw in the above reasoning is that I didn't calculate off of NFL QB ratings. I just didn't have the time to convert each performance into an NFL rating, so I apologize. Even still, the point remains.)
QBR is also a statistic that factors in the strength of opponents, or else I wouldn't have included it.
Can't argue with any raw data like that other than to again point you to the level of competition and point out that Oregon's offense is much more efficient than ours and in general it hums alot better. We have problems establishing a run game (again, SEC), and we usually run it less than 10x per game. Oregon incorporates the run well and the offense is overall alot smoother. That's not a result of Mariota, it's a result of the system. It's just so hard to put those guys on an equal plane to evaluate them when they played in vastly different conferences and in fairly different offenses (contrary to popular opinion). That's why I think my best argument is still the fact that Chip Kelly wanted Johnny before he ever knew about Mariota.
Furthermore, if stats and QBR are all that matters, where are all the passing leaders that Mike Leach put out at Tech in the NFL? I mean, surely they've brought a bunch of rings back to Lubbock, right? The numbers don't tell the whole story, my friend. The tape does. Johnny is loads better on tape. Interceptions clearly don't mean much when you look at this year's number 1 draft pick.
My other argument states that even if we stipulate that they are close to equal talents, why not let the Manziel experiment run its course before starting a nearly identical one? There will be plenty of Oregon quarterbacks that put up gaudy numbers in the future.
Come on man. Yes I realize that they'er the only quantifiable metric to determine the guys. I didn't deny that Mariota had better numbers within these tests. But i've been saying from the beginning that Johnny is better on tape. You say "His arm strength is better than Mariota's, but in terms of physical attributes, that's all he has." Well as far as actual tests (although there's not one for arm strength so I'm not sure why we're even limiting ourselves to actual tests), then yes, that's all Johnny has. But turn on the tape and you see Johnny is faster on the field, he's quicker, he's more elusive, he makes more plays, etc.
That's where I disagree, though. I think each have their merits when it comes to passing the eyeball test. When watching them, I see one quarterback who operates his offense according to plan, I see another who is given carte blanche to "play football". Both styles have their merits and their place, it's just like comparing apples to oranges when trying to predict scheme compatibility.
Watching Mariota, I see a prospect constrained by his offense. Oregon's offense is efficient, but limited. It's not a grip it and rip it offense. It's a half field, read option, percentage-based offense, therefore Mariota skills aren't showcased to their full extent. Just because Mariota wasn't asked to make multiple reads doens't mean he's incapable of it, it just means he wasn't asked to do it. Just because he wasn't asked to take snaps under center doesn't mean he's incapable of it, it means that he wasn't asked to do it.
His weaknesses, as laid out by NFL scouts, are coachable aspects. His drive accuracy needs improvement. He sees blitz more often than you'd like. He drops his front shoulder on crossing routes and raises it when airing the ball out. Doesn't throw from his hips. These are all coachable errors that are corrected with time.
Watching Manziel, on the other hand, I see a prospect who operates outside of his offense. Manziel's best plays are impromptu plays. He flies by the seat of his pants and things happen. The potential for his talent to be harnessed and applied within the constraints of a functional NFL offense had scouts salivating, and I get that. While I wasn't for the Manziel pick pre-draft, I latched onto him the moment he was drafted and saw the good in his game.
You don't note that in Mariota's way-better-than-Manziel performance against Arizona last year, he also had two fumbles. Nevertheless, I see your point. Mariota plays cleaner football. But you still can't argue that he doesn't get up for some of Oregon's biggest games nor can you argue that he doesn't have any games where he hurts his team (such as that Arizona game).
Did Mariota really hurt his team more than he helped them in that Arizona game? He went 20-32 for 276 yards, threw two touchdowns and zero interceptions and also had a 26-yard receiving touchdown. That's a 110 QB rating in the NFL. Yes, the late-game fumble was unfortunate, but if you're going to pick a game where Mariota "hurt" his team, I'd probably pick a game where he had an otherwise awful performance.
You ride the "eyeball test" pretty hard when evaluating prospects...so tell me, do you think that first fumble was Mariota's fault? Because, to my eyes, Mariota climbed the pocket exceptionally well and was let down by his left tackle. I find no fault in his play on that particular play, he was absolutely demolished by a blind side hit.
As for his second fumble, he should have protected the ball much better. Carrying the ball on your hip while working up-and-out is a surefire way to fumble. That was entirely his fault.
Even with that considered, I wouldn't say he lost them that game. I'd put more blame in the defense giving up 31 at home.
The difference in schedule strength is unquantifiable my friend, so we're back to that awkward position that has underlined much of this debate. People try to quantify it by saying "well Oregon played three 11-2 teams and A&M played two, therefore Oregon's schedule>>A&M's," and there's just no context to that. This past year (and I realize Johnny wasn't there anymore but just using it as an example) every single team in the SEC West could have won 10 games in either Pac 12 division, so those comparisons are not worth much to me. IIRC, Notre Dame had great strength of schedule going into the national championship game against Alabama in 2012, how'd that turn out? 42-14. Oregon surely had much better SOS than Ohio State last year, we know how that turned out.
It actually isn't unquantifiable, that's why the strength of schedule rating was invented. I don't deal in "could have's", nor is there no way to prove that statement, so I'll just let you keep that.
And, before you get started, I was born and raised in the South, I am a Gamecock fan, and I've watched just as much SEC football as anyone else. Yes, the SEC features stronger teams as a whole. However, the big schools in each conference are, for the most part, relatively equal. It's at the bottom of the conference where the difference lies.
Don't believe me? Look what happened when your beloved SEC West teams matched up with other top teams in the nation in bowl games:
- LSU lost to Notre Dame.
- Ole Miss lost to TCU.
- Auburn lost to Wisconsin.
- Mississippi State lost to Georgia Tech.
- Alabama lost to Ohio State.
So, yes, Manziel faced tough teams throughout his career. However, for every time he faced Alabama, he also faced Sam Houston State. Everytime he faced LSU, he also faced SMU.
For the record: SMU (2x), SC State, LA Tech, Sam Houston State (2x), Rice, UTEP, Duke and Vandy. I'd say 10 of Manziel's 26 games are cupcake games.
And you're wrong. Ohio State had the second hardest schedule last season. Oregon was ranked #3.
I would pay money to watch Mariota piss down his leg against an LSU defense, particularly in a cold and rainy Death Valley (which was the situation in Johnny's game, I was there). That is bar none the fastest defense in the country and it is almost every year. Louisiana for many years led the U.S. in per capita NFL players, and you know what, LSU lands almost every single one because they're the only large school in the state. I remember when A&M landed Speedy Noil in the class of 2014 and it was the first recruit from Louisiana that LSU wanted that A&M had landed since I started following recruiting (09 class). Yeah, that team is loaded and Mariota should thank his lucky stars he never played those bayou boys, much less several other teams with similar stock each year. I mean, hell, I just remembered LSU and Oregon actually played in 2011, and it wasn't close. When I was in Death Valley the kids did a cheer to the song "Neck" where they said "suck that Tiger d*ck, b*tch!" You can't compare the pac 12 where they put 45,000 butts in the seats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific-12_Football_Championship_Game) for the conference championship game to the things we do down here. You just can't.
Mariota didn't play for Oregon in 2011.
LSU was the 8th ranked defense in 2012, the first time Manziel played them. Manziel's stat line that game: 29 - 56 / 51.8% / 276 yards / 0 TD / 3 INT / 82.5 rating
Mariota vs. 8th ranked defense Michigan State in 2014: 17 - 28 / 60.7% / 318 yards / 3 TD / 0 INT / 190.7 rating
Sure, SEC stadiums are bigger. Fans are more passionate in the South, why not. Playing in Death Valley is pretty scary, I'm sure. However, the #1 NCAA stadium in the country, as voted by the country's fans, is a Pac-12 stadium (UCLA - Rose Bowl), and Mariota has played there two times: in 2014 vs. UCLA (80,139), and then again vs. Florida State (91,322) . So, while he may not be playing in front of 60,000+ crowds every single week like most SEC teams, he's played his fair share in large, noisy venues before...including the National Championship (85,689).
Do you really think playing in front of roughly 10,000 more people per week for two years turns you into this grisled, hardened vet? Because I think that playing in three bowl games and a National Championship has a little more to do with refining your skills.
Mariota's weapons are taken late because they're recognized for what they are--small players playing in a gimmick offense. Christine Michael didn't even start in the year he and Johnny coexisted. Michael averaged less than 7 carries/game. Not relevant. Can't argue with Joeckel, Matthews, Evans. I can however remind you once more that this team went 6-6 in the year before Johnny, and both Joeckel and Matthews started that year. Johnny clearly made a difference to the record of his team, Mariota didn't. The fact that we have such better talent than Oregon and have only placed 5th in the SEC in our best year is a testament to the main crux of my argument regarding Mariota and Manziel's stats.
You're right. That's my exact point. Mariota didn't have NFL caliber weapons bailing him out, Manziel did. Yet Mariota still outperformed Manziel in every major quarterback category and then outperformed him in individual measures of talent. Your argument is that Mariota benefitted from playing in a superior offensive scheme. My argument is that Manziel benefitted from having superior offensive talent. It's two sides of the same coin, as I stated above. Would you rather have the guy with all of the physical tools who wasn't asked to do a lot? Or would you rather have the guy who is physically lacking who was maybe asked to do too much?
Can't argue with any raw data like that other than to again point you to the level of competition and point out that Oregon's offense is much more efficient than ours and in general it hums alot better. We have problems establishing a run game (again, SEC), and we usually run it less than 10x per game. Oregon incorporates the run well and the offense is overall alot smoother. That's not a result of Mariota, it's a result of the system. It's just so hard to put those guys on an equal plane to evaluate them when they played in vastly different conferences and in fairly different offenses (contrary to popular opinion). That's why I think my best argument is still the fact that Chip Kelly wanted Johnny before he ever knew about Mariota.
Once again, I think you're vastly overestimating the talent differential between the conferences. The SEC isn't some end-all-be-all marker of NCAA dominance. The SEC went 7-5 in bowl games this year against non-SEC teams. Is the SEC a great conference? Absolutely. Are they the best? I'd say so. But the level of disparity that you think exists doesn't necessarily line up with how it actually is.
Furthermore, if stats and QBR are all that matters, where are all the passing leaders that Mike Leach put out at Tech in the NFL? I mean, surely they've brought a bunch of rings back to Lubbock, right? The numbers don't tell the whole story, my friend. The tape does. Johnny is loads better on tape. Interceptions clearly don't mean much when you look at this year's number 1 draft pick.
Because none of those passing leaders were top-ranked QB prospects going into the draft. None of those prospects were physical specimens and top performers in every single measured drill at the combine. They had production and they had numbers and that's all they had. Mariota has that, plus size, plus weight, plus measurable, plus intangibles. If Mariota played in a pro-style offense and had even half of the success he had at Oregon, he'd be the consensus #1 pick. However, he DID play in a scheme that presents questions about the NFL transition.
Johnny isn't "loads better on tape", or else he would have been considered the better prospect by NFL scouts. He wasn't. There's no argument to that whatsoever, as much as you want to try.
My other argument states that even if we stipulate that they are close to equal talents, why not let the Manziel experiment run its course before starting a nearly identical one? There will be plenty of Oregon quarterbacks that put up gaudy numbers in the future.
You can conduct two experiments simultaneously. It's not a zero sum game for the Browns to draft Mariota. Drafting Mariota doesn't mean that Manziel is finished. McCown is likely going to be the starter regardless. Draft Mariota (if he's there), and see who takes better to the offense.
You seem to be too hung up on the fact that Mariota played in an Oregon offense to realize that he is a stellar prospect regardless of where he played. He's a 6'5" quarterback who runs a 4.5 40, has above average arm strength, above average athleticism, and possesses all of the intangibles necessary in an NFL QB (work ethic, football intelligence, etc.) Playing for any other program, he's easily a top prospect regardless of his production.
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