NewEra Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 That's okay. Biscuit just thinks the fan base clamored and begged for EJ to be benched and that's why we switched. That's not the case. It was the players. Prove it.
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Off the top of my head: Tom Brady, Drew Brees & Russell Wilson. Well, 2 of those guys are like 15 years ago. And you're right on Wilson. But he did spend the majority ofhis career in the ACC, which IMO has produced more elite defensive talent. but good catch. what do you mean there isn't a ton of elite talent in the conference? The "tests" the SEC QBs are getting sure isn't helping them in the nfl. What was the last good QB out of the SEC? Newton? 4 yrs ago and debateable at this point. There are 5 big 10 QBs starting in the nfl right now, including the one who just won the SB. I don't think there isn't a question about how much superior talent is being produced in the SEC compared to the Big 10. My general thoughts on college QBs is be wary of the guy that plays on the powerhouse team. It's why USC guys were a bust. It's why I think Bradford is overrated. You generally should value guys that have to carry their teams more than guys who play with blue chippers. It's a lazy comparison but is Cook really that much better than Cousins, who was a 4th rounder?
PromoTheRobot Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 This is where all the talk shows and media hurts sports. QB is such a difficult position to master. Yet, the second a young guy struggles, people want to call him a bust or get rid of him. Newsflash, all Qbs are going to struggle. This knee jerk reaction to every game is silly. It's why I give EJ a much bigger leash than ORton. I have a 9 year history of watching Orton be average at best. The expectations of young quarterbacks are unrealistic. I blame Madden football...and Obama.
C.Biscuit97 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I remember going to the home game vs. GB in 2006. The Packers were the league's worst against the pass and JPL managed to throw for only 102 yards that day. Now, I know Jauron and Fairchild weren't offensive masterminds, but a QB who can't do better than that probably isn't going to succeed in the NFL. QB's take time to develop, but watching EJ play he's not even remotely close to being able to adapt on-field. He came from a system (like most college QB's do) which didn't require much more than reading half the field and making a throw to his primary receiver. Now that he's moved on to the NFL that's not going to work and I've seen nothing from year 1 to year 2 in improvement. If there's little to no gain in that time frame, the chance a QB will become successful is minimal IMO. 14 games isn't close to enough to evaluate a young qb. Losman didn't play until his 2nd year. And he was like one of the worst qbs ever bad. He improved in his 3rd year. EJ had several game winning drives as a rookie, including one against the #2 defense in the NFL. If EJ was sitting behind Brett Farve like Rodgers did, it's one thing. It's debatable if the offense has been better with Orton than it was with EJ. Barring a miracle finish, we just wasted a year developing Kyle Orton. That's awful.
The Big Cat Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) This is where all the talk shows and media hurts sports. QB is such a difficult position to master. Yet, the second a young guy struggles, people want to call him a bust or get rid of him. Newsflash, all Qbs are going to struggle. This knee jerk reaction to every game is silly. It's why I give EJ a much bigger leash than ORton. I have a 9 year history of watching Orton be average at best. I agree. But while EJ probably has a much, much higher ceiling than Orton, he also--currently--has a much lower floor. So, which are we hoping will rise first? And in the meantime, while he struggles to figure it out (not a knock on him, I believe the point of this thread is to discuss what reasonable expectations should be for a young quarterback who WILL struggle), we have a world class defense that's compromised by his low floor. I think it's Orton's higher floor that brought him here in the first place, and if we go into 2015 with the same QB's, what will earn him the starting job next September too. EJ's not ready. And it's not worth risking what we DO have for him to develop, IMO. there was a thought that nfl and college offenses were getting more similar the last few years - but it looks like that gap is widening back out with RG3, CK, Cam not being able to transition the spread with read option stuff into the NFL game. The development of traditional, pro style, nfl qbs at the college level is an interesting discussion. Russ Tucker--former Bill--was in an interview this week talking about this, specifically how the read option took the league by storm in 2012, and how it's the best option for Kap, Newton and RGIII but that owners/GM's are the ones pumping the brakes not wanting to risk their high-worth investments. The gradual phase-out of the read-option has corresponded to each of their declines. So no, as has been common wisdom, I guess college-style offenses that expose the QB won't catch on in the NFL. Prove it. Woods said that Orton does what receivers want them to do: give them a chance to catch the ball and make a play. That's a backhanded critique of EJ, but he's also made the most of that opportunity, making the plays when they're there to be made. Sammy famously said that Orton runs things "differently" (read: better). Woods and Sammy were pouting all over the field in weeks three and four. To say that wide receiver morale didn't play into the decision is to ignore the before and after. Edited December 3, 2014 by The Big Cat
YoloinOhio Posted December 3, 2014 Author Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Well, 2 of those guys are like 15 years ago. And you're right on Wilson. But he did spend the majority ofhis career in the ACC, which IMO has produced more elite defensive talent. but good catch. I don't think there isn't a question about how much superior talent is being produced in the SEC compared to the Big 10. My general thoughts on college QBs is be wary of the guy that plays on the powerhouse team. It's why USC guys were a bust. It's why I think Bradford is overrated. You generally should value guys that have to carry their teams more than guys who play with blue chippers. It's a lazy comparison but is Cook really that much better than Cousins, who was a 4th rounder? Have you watched these two QBs in college? Serious question, I could not tell if you had. There is no comparison, IMO. Ditto for Stanton and Hoyer. The Big 10 has plenty of elite talent. Whether or not the SEC produces "more" is opinion, lots of variables there as to when and what you are measuring. Pure size/speed? Recruiting classes? Draft volume/position? # of of top 100 NFL players? Are you judging by their pre-draft ranking, or what they do once they get in the league? The best defensive player in the NFL is from the Big 10. The SB winning QB is from the Big 10. The best running back in CFB is from the Big 10. The conference would not matter to me when drafting a player other than the fact that kids in the sourthern and Cali schools do not have to play multiple games per year in inclement weather, which will be required of any player un the NFL yet is not something many kids have ever done in HS or college in the south. I would like the fact that a Big 10 QB or RB or WR not only ran a sub 4.4 but also was prepared to hang onto a ball that was like a rock in below 20 degree weather and snow, wind and rain. I would not assume a player is more "elite" because he came from the SEC. OSU lost a heisman candidate QB 10 days before the season and replaced in 10 days with a freshman who then became a heisman candidate. Many schools outside the SEC have 4 and 5 star recruit up and down the bench waiting to get on the field including the Big 10, Big 12 and Pac 12. I am more concerned with how they will translate to the NFL. Big 10 players do play outside of the Big 10 as you know. Non conference and bowl games. Cook beat Stanford last year and was offensive Rose Bowl MVP. Edited December 3, 2014 by YoloinOhio
section122 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 there was a thought that nfl and college offenses were getting more similar the last few years - but it looks like that gap is widening back out with RG3, CK, Cam not being able to transition the spread with read option stuff into the NFL game. The development of traditional, pro style, nfl qbs at the college level is an interesting discussion. Running qbs to me always blessed with an advantage of being able to make plays with their feet while they learned how to become pocket passers. Case in point was D McNabb. he came in as a dual threat and then ran less and less as he became a better passer. It helps them learn on the job while also being succesful. Unfortunately RG3 and CK have not been able to do that. They are running less but never quite developed the passing skills to balance that out. As for Cam I am willing to throw this whole year out for him. His line is terrible, he missed all of the offseason with an ankle injury, he only has Benjamin and Olsen to throw to, and no running game at all. He also is a much better passer to me but he still has a lot to learn especially when it comes to touch on his throws. As an aside.... It also drives me crazy that College and the Pros use 2 different balls. What is the point? Why not just have one ball. It would help qbs especially get an early jump on learning how to throw the longer, skinnier ball. Off the top of my head: Tom Brady, Drew Brees & Russell Wilson. The Big 10 is not nearly what it once was. Brady and Brees come from a completely different era of Big 10 ball and Wilson spent the majority of his time in the ACC. Currently starting from the Big 10 in the NFL: Drew Stanton - backup forced in by injury Orton - drafted in 2005 Hoyer - about to lose his job Brady - drafted in 2000 Brees drafted in 01 R WIlson - he is an ACC qb in my mind. Not exactly a whos who of recent success. Brees and Brady are 13 and 14 year vets. The others are back end of the league talent.
YoloinOhio Posted December 3, 2014 Author Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) Running qbs to me always blessed with an advantage of being able to make plays with their feet while they learned how to become pocket passers. Case in point was D McNabb. he came in as a dual threat and then ran less and less as he became a better passer. It helps them learn on the job while also being succesful. Unfortunately RG3 and CK have not been able to do that. They are running less but never quite developed the passing skills to balance that out. As for Cam I am willing to throw this whole year out for him. His line is terrible, he missed all of the offseason with an ankle injury, he only has Benjamin and Olsen to throw to, and no running game at all. He also is a much better passer to me but he still has a lot to learn especially when it comes to touch on his throws. As an aside.... It also drives me crazy that College and the Pros use 2 different balls. What is the point? Why not just have one ball. It would help qbs especially get an early jump on learning how to throw the longer, skinnier ball. The Big 10 is not nearly what it once was. Brady and Brees come from a completely different era of Big 10 ball and Wilson spent the majority of his time in the ACC. Currently starting from the Big 10 in the NFL: Drew Stanton - backup forced in by injury Orton - drafted in 2005 Hoyer - about to lose his job Brady - drafted in 2000 Brees drafted in 01 R WIlson - he is an ACC qb in my mind. Not exactly a whos who of recent success. Brees and Brady are 13 and 14 year vets. The others are back end of the league talent. This has as much to do with Connor Cook as a QB prospect as Mariota has to do with Aaron Rodgers and Winston has to do with EJ Manuel. Edited December 3, 2014 by YoloinOhio
Jauronimo Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I agree. But while EJ probably has a much, much higher ceiling than Orton, he also--currently--has a much lower floor. So, which are we hoping will rise first? And in the meantime, while he struggles to figure it out (not a knock on him, I believe the point of this thread is to discuss what reasonable expectations should be for a young quarterback who WILL struggle), we have a world class defense that's compromised by his low floor. I think it's Orton's higher floor that brought him here in the first place, and if we go into 2015 with the same QB's, what will earn him the starting job next September too. EJ's not ready. And it's not worth risking what we DO have for him to develop, IMO. Russ Tucker--former Bill--was in an interview this week talking about this, specifically how the read option took the league by storm in 2012, and how it's the best option for Kap, Newton and RGIII but that owners/GM's are the ones pumping the brakes not wanting to risk their high-worth investments. The gradual phase-out of the read-option has corresponded to each of their declines. So no, as has been common wisdom, I guess college-style offenses that expose the QB won't catch on in the NFL. Woods said that Orton does what receivers want them to do: give them a chance to catch the ball and make a play. That's a backhanded critique of EJ, but he's also made the most of that opportunity, making the plays when they're there to be made. Sammy famously said that Orton runs things "differently" (read: better). Woods and Sammy were pouting all over the field in weeks three and four. To say that wide receiver morale didn't play into the decision is to ignore the before and after. The rules changed after RG3, Kaep, and Wilson had success using the read option. The QB is now fair game after they hand the ball off. This was a major reason for teams moving away from the read option. Also, I don't think he read option was ever meant to be a long term approach. I see the read option as QB training wheels. Its a useful tool for young QBs which allows them to produce while they develop into pocket passers.
NewEra Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I agree. But while EJ probably has a much, much higher ceiling than Orton, he also--currently--has a much lower floor. So, which are we hoping will rise first? And in the meantime, while he struggles to figure it out (not a knock on him, I believe the point of this thread is to discuss what reasonable expectations should be for a young quarterback who WILL struggle), we have a world class defense that's compromised by his low floor. I think it's Orton's higher floor that brought him here in the first place, and if we go into 2015 with the same QB's, what will earn him the starting job next September too. EJ's not ready. And it's not worth risking what we DO have for him to develop, IMO. Russ Tucker--former Bill--was in an interview this week talking about this, specifically how the read option took the league by storm in 2012, and how it's the best option for Kap, Newton and RGIII but that owners/GM's are the ones pumping the brakes not wanting to risk their high-worth investments. The gradual phase-out of the read-option has corresponded to each of their declines. So no, as has been common wisdom, I guess college-style offenses that expose the QB won't catch on in the NFL. Woods said that Orton does what receivers want them to do: give them a chance to catch the ball and make a play. That's a backhanded critique of EJ, but he's also made the most of that opportunity, making the plays when they're there to be made. Sammy famously said that Orton runs things "differently" (read: better). Woods and Sammy were pouting all over the field in weeks three and four. To say that wide receiver morale didn't play into the decision is to ignore the before and after. So prove that's the reason the change was made. All the comments were made post QB change. What did they say prior to the change to force the coaching staff to make the change? I don't remember any. If there were, I must've missed them. Lots of fans and people in the media were calling for it prior to the change. Not saying that has anything to do with the change, but I don't think the players were the reason the change was made, from what I've read/noticed. Looked to me like Marrone thought Ej couldn't hack it (no pun intended) and went with the seasoned vet. Ooooh, good one.
section122 Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 This has as much to do with Connor Cook as a QB prospect as Mariota has to do with Aaron Rodgers and Winston has to do with EJ Manuel. I was speaking more to the lack of QB talent to come out of the Big 10 than anything else. I agree that it doesn't correlate to success or failure. I think though that it can help you determine whether it is a player exceeding against a certain level of talent (good or bad), exceeding WITH a certain level of talent around them (good or bad), or exceeding because they ARE the talent.
The Big Cat Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 The rules changed after RG3, Kaep, and Wilson had success using the read option. The QB is now fair game after they hand the ball off. This was a major reason for teams moving away from the read option. Also, I don't think he read option was ever meant to be a long term approach. I see the read option as QB training wheels. Its a useful tool for young QBs which allows them to produce while they develop into pocket passers. That's all true. But perhaps working toward stellar pocket passer and abandoning what WILL work is letting perfect be the enemy of good. May be it's time to reevaluate the QB position? So prove that's the reason the change was made. All the comments were made post QB change. What did they say prior to the change to force the coaching staff to make the change? I don't remember any. If there were, I must've missed them. Lots of fans and people in the media were calling for it prior to the change. Not saying that has anything to do with the change, but I don't think the players were the reason the change was made, from what I've read/noticed. Looked to me like Marrone thought Ej couldn't hack it (no pun intended) and went with the seasoned vet. I can't prove anything and you know that. That could be the response to--literally--every assertion made on this board.
Jauronimo Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 That's all true. But perhaps working toward stellar pocket passer and abandoning what WILL work is letting perfect be the enemy of good. May be it's time to reevaluate the QB position? With the rule change, good has a very short shelf life in this example.
NoSaint Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 (edited) With the rule change, good has a very short shelf life in this example. which could easily turn into "worst" if the big injury hits. its a tricky balance on this one. Edited December 3, 2014 by NoSaint
NewEra Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 That's all true. But perhaps working toward stellar pocket passer and abandoning what WILL work is letting perfect be the enemy of good. May be it's time to reevaluate the QB position? I can't prove anything and you know that. That could be the response to--literally--every assertion made on this board. I do. Just making fun of your cohort✨
Jauronimo Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 which could easily turn into "worst" if the big injury hits. its a tricky balance on this one. Which is why the read option still has its place but only as QB training wheels. Ween them off of read option and on to the hard stuff. Pocket passing.
NoSaint Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 Which is why the read option still has its place but only as QB training wheels. Ween them off of read option and on to the hard stuff. Pocket passing. i dont disagree - think its a fair approach. and its always in the back pocket as an option for down the road.
The Big Cat Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 With the rule change, good has a very short shelf life in this example. Right. And just as we've seen a devaluation of RB contracts because of that shelf life, perhaps the "seismic" shift in professional QB's could follow a similar path. I'm completely spit balling here. I'm not saying it WILL happen, but I am saying it's within the realm of possibility.
dave mcbride Posted December 3, 2014 Posted December 3, 2014 I know you're a Big Ten guy, but when was the last good Big Ten NFL QB? I know every guy is different but there isn't a ton of elite talent in the conference so I don't think Cook is getting the same tests as someone in the SEC. Besides if he struggles, we're going to want him benched for a journeyman anyways. Um ... Russell Wilson. And of course Brady and Brees (although they're long in the tooth). Other guys include Hoyer (OK; not great), Orton (OK; not great). You can say the same about every conference. The ACC and PAC 10 grade out best, but there are only 2 elite QBs from those conferences (Ryan/Rivers; Rodgers/Luck). Good QBs come from anywhere. Moreover, other excellent QBs like Roethlisberger and Romo essentially played in Big 10 territory (Illinois/Ohio). There are a lot of SEC guys (Manning/Manning/Newton/Cutler/Stafford), but Payton is the only great one. Eli is of course pretty good and has produced, and Stafford shows a lot of potential but hasn't put it all together yet. I think Newton is in a downward spiral and Cutler just too uneven. I watch almost every MSU game (wife went there). I think Cook makes a lot of poor decisions (throwing into double-triple coverage and getting picked as a result), so I'm leery of him. He's also blessed with a great D, a fantastic running game, and good receivers. It's a very, very talented team -- as talented as SEC teams over the past couple of years judging from where guys have been drafted and where they're projected to draft after this season. That said, he has tools and can improve. I think he should stay in college another year.
Recommended Posts