Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
shepwrite

McCoy: Let's Just Get This Out There (!)

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only a QB discussion can create a 4 page thread in July.

 

 

But hey, they're fun!

 

Anyone else itching to get out to a few training camps?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI shep, this thread has 78 posts and you've made 30 of them, so there is a reason QB threads "never die"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI shep, this thread has 78 posts and you've made 30 of them, so there is a reason QB threads "never die"

 

Not really... it just means I'm the moderator of this one. Without those other 50 posts, I've never had a discussion like this by myself, right?

 

But it's true with or without me. Check out any Browns board anywhere. And just as sure as the quarterback threads are by far the hottest... you'll see a handful of people saying nobody wants them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we don't have Clausen and I personally am glad. In my opinion, he is vastly overrated. I think he will go the way of recent ND qb's. Yes, he came from a pro-style offense, but he was not a winner with it. He MAY have an accurate arm. but he wasn't #1. Why wouldn't you want #1?

 

We all know that long passes may be thrown just a yard and the receiver takes it 95 yards. The qb gets credit for a 96 yard pass. So who has the most long throws? We'll just have to go with the stats.

 

There may have been problems with the ND defense, but they had good receivers -- when Clausen got them the ball.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with Shep about the QB threads.

Like the Lewinski coverage everybody bitched but that's what got ratings.

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, we don't have Clausen and I personally am glad. In my opinion, he is vastly overrated. I think he will go the way of recent ND qb's. Yes, he came from a pro-style offense, but he was not a winner with it. He MAY have an accurate arm. but he wasn't #1. Why wouldn't you want #1?

 

We all know that long passes may be thrown just a yard and the receiver takes it 95 yards. The qb gets credit for a 96 yard pass. So who has the most long throws? We'll just have to go with the stats.

 

There may have been problems with the ND defense, but they had good receivers -- when Clausen got them the ball.

 

Quarterbacks make the WRs, with VERY few exceptions. Given that Tate had route running issues and isn't a burner, I'm betting Clausen did more for him than the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, Adam Caplan's Scout.com chat included a blurb that basically said: McCoy has a shot to start in the future IF the Browns go to a full WCO. He simply doesn't have the arm to "drive the ball downfield."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quarterbacks make the WRs, with VERY few exceptions. Given that Tate had route running issues and isn't a burner, I'm betting Clausen did more for him than the other way around.

 

 

No more than 50 50 says I.

If that.

A couple drive killing drops hurt you nearly as much as ints.

If not for Stallworth Swan etc pulling in Bradshaws bombs who knows//////

 

 

 

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watching a replay of the 2009 Big 12 Champ game on ESPN Classic, and it's by far the most I've ever seen Colt play..........He looks like he should have gone in the draft right where he did. I'm not impressed at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching a replay of the 2009 Big 12 Champ game on ESPN Classic, and it's by far the most I've ever seen Colt play..........He looks like he should have gone in the draft right where he did. I'm not impressed at all.

 

 

I don't understand that comment at all. I'm of an opinion, if someone doesn't impress you at all, you don't draft them anywhere, let alone in the 3rd round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Watching a replay of the 2009 Big 12 Champ game on ESPN Classic, and it's by far the most I've ever seen Colt play..........He looks like he should have gone in the draft right where he did. I'm not impressed at all.

 

um so we got value????

 

your a dumb xxxx..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCoy's games last year against Oklahoma and Nebraska probably were the worst of his career. I wouldn't evaluate him based on either of those games alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, Alo. He had some games against some less than stellar opponents -- and then there was Nebraska. Everybody thinks McCoy had everything a quarterback could want in 2009. The truth is that he had a poor offensive line, a running game that was practically non-existant if he didn't run it himself. And he had only one outstanding receiver. The defense was good, but the offense with which McCoy had to work was not the best support he could have had. This is where his leadership came in. That's how Texas won. And that is how he became the winningest qb in NCAA history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×