wargograw Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 FSU's total D in 2013 was #3. In 2012 it was 2. 2011 it was 4. Not sure why any of that matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 FSU's total D in 2013 was #3. In 2012 it was 2. 2011 it was 4. Not sure why any of that matters. It doesn't too much but I appreciate you getting us that info War. FSU owned that conference until Watson was a soph and jr. The reason I brought up the drastic improvement in the ACC out of conference record and Bowl record in 2016 is because I wanted to show Caine that Watson did take that team to another level if we factor in the conference opponents were stronger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaineDeSoulis Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 It doesn't too much but I appreciate you getting us that info War. FSU owned that conference until Watson was a soph and jr. The reason I brought up the drastic improvement in the ACC out of conference record and Bowl record in 2016 is because I wanted to show Caine that Watson did take that team to another level if we factor in the conference opponents were stronger. That is not a statistically accurate statement it is an opinion. This is also why some draft sites have Watson as a high end QB and a lot of others have him in rounds 2-4. He's a good QB that played on a GREAT team. He faces the same stigma Alabama QB's face in that he doesn't HAVE to be good for his team to succeed. Like OSU QB's there has not been a good NFL QB prospect at OSU in over a decade. My Point is if your going to look at an individual you cant look at win/loss/championships and TEAM stats to measure their performance. Watson was not a transformative player at HIS position for Clemson. Manziel was a transformative player at his position at Texas am as were Bortles,Carr,Luck,Winston,Lynch,Goff,Mariota,Wentz,Trubisky,Bridgewater,Griffin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 That is not a statistically accurate statement it is an opinion. This is also why some draft sites have Watson as a high end QB and a lot of others have him in rounds 2-4. He's a good QB that played on a GREAT team. He faces the same stigma Alabama QB's face in that he doesn't HAVE to be good for his team to succeed. Like OSU QB's there has not been a good NFL QB prospect at OSU in over a decade. That the team elevated to new heights during the time Watson was the starter is undeniable. We can argue about whether he was the cause of it or not (recruiting rankings say yes), but it is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaineDeSoulis Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 That the team elevated to new heights during the time Watson was the starter is undeniable. We can argue about whether he was the cause of it or not (recruiting rankings say yes), but it is a fact. While Watson was the starter Clemson did get better but it was not because of QB play as indicated by the stats. the biggest change during watsons tenure at clemson was the Defense. QB Play remained unchanged to slightly worse from the years prior. If you can provide statistics otherwise let me know.If it pertains to QB play of course. ACC this and conference records! and Look at the alabama games! are not measurements of QB Play. I'm not saying anything other draft experts are not saying about Watson. in all honesty i don't think he will be able to transfer well into the nfl but he has the potential too. if I were the browns i would go as high as the 1st pick in the 3rd round and see if he develops into a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballpeen Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Just make me the fucking quarerteback. Before games I'll stop by to eat a few burgers and drink a few brews and orange shit before I have to head off to the stadium to throw my 4 TD passes. In games where the other team is moving the ball, I'll play two way and slobberknock a few of their players. They will be heading off the field, wiping away a 6 inch snotdrop before telling their coach they don't want to play anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 That is not a statistically accurate statement it is an opinion. This is also why some draft sites have Watson as a high end QB and a lot of others have him in rounds 2-4. Clemson wasn't competing for National Championships until Watson was a soph and jr. That's not my opinion, it's what happened. I just gave you the scores of his only 2 losses in a 28-2 record for his soph and jr years. One loss was 45-40 to Bama and the other was 43-42 to Pitt. What looked worse in those scores, their defense or their offense? Keep in mind, I don't want a QB in round 1 so let's not lose that in the context of our debate. I gave you Joe Montana's unsexy college TD:INT ratio and comp % in this thread. All the same stuff was being said about Montana from his lack of arm strength, to INTs to his comp % of 42,52 and 54 before SF drafted the HOF QB near the end of round 3 at #82 overall. As for ACC's improvement overall, I heard it on ESPN radio about the out of conference record of the ACC being the best in 2016 and here's the results of Bowl season from an article on 1/3/17 (before Clemson beat Alabama in the National Championship): 2016 Conference Bowl Records ACC 8-3 Big 12 4-2 SEC 6-6 Pac-12 3-3 Big Ten 3-7 Last but not least, when you're saying Watson will be drafted between rounds 2 and 4 - do you remember Tajh Boyd wasn't drafted until round 6? Why would that be if Boyd was so much better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaineDeSoulis Posted February 5, 2017 Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Clemson wasn't competing for National Championships until Watson was a soph and jr. That's not my opinion, it's what happened. I just gave you the scores of his only 2 losses in a 28-2 record for his soph and jr years. One loss was 45-40 to Bama and the other was 43-42 to Pitt. What looked worse in those scores, their defense or their offense? Keep in mind, I don't want a QB in round 1 so let's not lose that in the context of our debate. I gave you Joe Montana's unsexy college TD:INT ratio and comp % in this thread. All the same stuff was being said about Montana from his lack of arm strength, to INTs to his comp % of 42,52 and 54 before SF drafted the HOF QB near the end of round 3 at #82 overall. As for ACC's improvement overall, I heard it on ESPN radio about the out of conference record of the ACC being the best in 2016 and here's the results of Bowl season from an article on 1/3/17 (before Clemson beat Alabama in the National Championship): 2016 Conference Bowl Records ACC 8-3 Big 12 4-2 SEC 6-6 Pac-12 3-3 Big Ten 3-7 Last but not least, when you're saying Watson will be drafted between rounds 2 and 4 - do you remember Tajh Boyd wasn't drafted until round 6? Why would that be if Boyd was so much better? Watson is Taller and Faster than Boyd. Lol we're all agreed that not watson in round 1. It's pretty irrelevant the reasons why. Can we agree that if we reach on a QB it should be trubisky? also if you look at Tajh Boyds draft profile http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/tajh-boyd?id=2543703 it shows that he was projected to be selected between rounds 2 and 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted February 5, 2017 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2017 Watson is Taller and Faster than Boyd. Lol we're all agreed that not watson in round 1. It's pretty irrelevant the reasons why. Can we agree that if we reach on a QB it should be trubisky? You did good Caine! I like both Trubisky and Watson as long as we don't reach on them. I was only trying to encourage people to keep an open mind on Watson if we go that route after round 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 You did good Caine! I like both Trubisky and Watson as long as we don't reach on them. I was only trying to encourage people to keep an open mind on Watson if we go that route after round 1. That's where I am on it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 Nevertheless, he's a no-doubt franchise QB. In your mind perhaps... I prefer to speak for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 You did good Caine! I like both Trubisky and Watson as long as we don't reach on them. I was only trying to encourage people to keep an open mind on Watson if we go that route after round 1. OK, I'll try to keep an open mind- the Combine, Pro Days and private workouts await. But it's going to take a hell of a lot more convincing on my part Watson isn't a terribly overrated RG IV in the making. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 In your mind perhaps... I prefer to speak for myself. Fair enough. But it wasn't just in my minds. Pretty much a general consensus of the football world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 "pretty much" and "general"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 6, 2017 Report Share Posted February 6, 2017 While true Gips, can we stop pretending the Blaine Gabberts, Matt Leinarts, Ryan Leafs, RG3s, Cade McNowns, Akili Smiths, Jake Lockers, Mike Phipps, Brandon Weedens, Brady Quinns, Jamarcus Russells, Partick Ramseys, JP Losmans, Joey Harringtons, Kyle Bollers, and countless other bad first round picks at QB do not exist? Nobody on this board used to have as much fun as you pointing out how many QBs that were drafted after round 1 went on to very successful NFL careers inclusive of SB Sundays. That is, prior to a recent QB prospect that played high school ball in Mentor, Ohio came along to change your fondness of those takes. Am I fair or right in pointing this out to you? Oh no, of course, everything you say is correct. In fact, I even said that taking MT is a risk...which I am fully aware of, and am fully willing to accept that risk. I guess the point is...which you make...is that taking a QB in round one really is a 50/50 proposition. (Or in the Browns case...a 0/100 proposition ) But, the further you go down....the risk is even worse. Lets put it this way as I have checked. Since 2000, there have been 40 QBs taken in round 6. Only 2 of them can be said to have had solid NFL careers. Of course, one guy may have had the best career of any QB taken anytime anywhere...Mr. Brady. But then ONLY Marc Bulger can be said to have had a plus career as a 6th round QB. (Note: Derek Anderson and Tyrod Taylor also 6th rounders...but I cannot in all honesty say they have had productive careers) So, for 6th rounders it is like a 5/95 proposition. And I suspect that if I did all the rounds from 2 on down, those percentages would be worse than the round 1 pct. So...yes, absolutely, taking a 1st round QB is a risk....half of them bust. But some times a team has to take a chance...even if it is a 50/50 chance of working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 7, 2017 Report Share Posted February 7, 2017 "pretty much" and "general"? A general consensus of the football world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 And Mike Mayock weighs in: Mayock: I'd be scared to death to draft QB in top 10 this year NFL clubs that are considering taking a quarterback with one of the top 10 picks of the 2017 draft do so at their own peril.Clemson's Deshaun Watson, North Carolina's Mitch Trubisky and Notre Dame's DeShone Kizer are considered three of the most promising options in a relatively weak pool of draftable quarterbacks, and NFL Network draft expert Mike Mayock left little doubt about whether any of them merit a top-10 selection in the draft. "All three of these quarterbacks, to me, I would be scared to death in the top 10," Mayock told The College Draft podcast. The Cleveland Browns certainly have a need at the position, and hold the No. 1 overall pick, as well as the No. 12 pick. If NFL clubs see the quarterback field as Mayock does, the Browns could potentially address a different position with the No. 1 pick and still have their pick of any quarterback at No. 12. Other clubs with a top 10-pick and a quarterback need include the San Francisco 49ers, Chicago Bears and New York Jets. Mayock addressed concerns on each of Watson, Trubisky and Kizer. Whether Watson has the ability to maintain accuracy when his first read is not open, particularly while remaining in the pocket, is among the questions NFL clubs will want answered about him, per Mayock. As for Trubisky, who was a backup at UNC to Marquise Williams for two seasons prior to 2016, a lack of college experience for a one-year starter is a top concern. "If (Trubisky is) so talented and gifted, and a top-10-type pick, one of the first questions a lot of teams are asking is, why couldn't he beat out Marquise Williams the last couple years at North Carolina? What's the answer to that one?," Mayock said. Mayock believes Kizer has the highest ceiling of the three, but his play at critical times for the Fighting Irish wasn't impressive. "The problem I have is that (Kizer's) pocket mechanics seem to break down at the worst times. He got removed in the fourth quarter from two or three games last year. He got replaced at Stanford, he got replaced at USC. I've watched five of his games so far, and in almost every game at critical times, the pocket mechanics, the feel in the pocket, the decisions you're making with the football, seems to break down when the team needs him the most." As tempting as it might be for an NFL club to address the most important position on the field with the best any given draft has to offer, drafting for need over value is reputed to be a bad strategy. And if the teams needing a quarterback stick to value-based picks early in the draft, the top QBs could slide for a while. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000784491/article/mayock-id-be-scared-to-death-to-draft-qb-in-top-10-this-year Mike is a very smaert man... especially when he agrees with me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 And DJ is on the same page as I posted on the other draft thread. Neither thinks any of the QBs belong in the top 10 overall. Those are the two pickers I respect the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Last year, both Mayock and Polian said that no QB in that draft was worth taking in the first round. Look what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark O Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Last year, both Mayock and Polian said that no QB in that draft was worth taking in the first round. Look what happened. I would say at this point they right in more cases than wrong. Goff is horrible. Wentz is very very average. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Last year, both Mayock and Polian said that no QB in that draft was worth taking in the first round. Look what happened. And you agreed. Now you don't. So it's pretty irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 And you agreed. Now you don't. So it's pretty irrelevant. Everything we do and say here is irrelevent. But yes, I disagree with them this year? You got a problem handling a diversity of opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wargograw Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 I'm just not sure what citing them does here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Everything we do and say here is irrelevent. But yes, I disagree with them this year? You got a problem handling a diversity of opinion? It's that one year you hold these guys as the bastion of footballing knowledge - they say this, so clearly this is the case, and you also happen to agree. Now a year later, their football knowledge is in fact, not all that and a bag of potato crisps, and it's the opinion contrary to yours. So, to the outsider, the obviously very false impression you give is that you pick and choose who you put on a footballing pedestal based on whether they agree with you or not. Does that clear up the problem 'handling a diversity of opinion'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 It's that one year you hold these guys as the bastion of footballing knowledge - they say this, so clearly this is the case, and you also happen to agree. Now a year later, their football knowledge is in fact, not all that and a bag of potato crisps, and it's the opinion contrary to yours. So, to the outsider, the obviously very false impression you give is that you pick and choose who you put on a footballing pedestal based on whether they agree with you or not. Does that clear up the problem 'handling a diversity of opinion'? You see, there is a difference......yes, my opinion does differ this year from what they said about last year's group of QBs. As in all walks of life, one person may have 100 opinions....and I may agree with half of them and not agree with another half of them. I said I agreed with Polian on his opinion about Garropolo, but that I disagreed with him here. I may agree or disagree with both or either of them again on something sometime. Is that going to upset you? Is that not allowed? If I agree with somebody on one thing am I obligated to agree with everything they say forever and ever? I think not. But, some people on here seem to take it as a personal affront that I don't agree with their opinions on the QB issue etc. They want to block me or ignore me or chastise me over that opinion. I, on the other hand, have no problem if others have the opinion that we should draft the DL or whatever. They have valid reasons for those opinions, but I just disagree on what our priorities should be there. I don't threaten to ignore them or block them, and I don't throw a conniption fit because they disagree with me. Ergo, I clearly am not the one that has trouble accepting a diversity of opinion. Does that clear things up for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 How about "inconsistency of opinion"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 How about "inconsistency of opinion"? Self reference? Or do you also think that just because I have agreed with a person one time....that I must agree with him over and over and over and over again. Guess what? Life does not work that way. Where is the inconsistency in saying: I think MT is a far better prospect than Goff/Wentz etc. were. I have not wavered, I have not stuttered. In fact, in some grading system that someone posted on here, it said that MTs grade was the highest that had come out in like 4-5 years. Again...it seems that what it is you saying "if you don't agree with me, then you are inconsistent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 And Mike Mayock weighs in: Mayock: I'd be scared to death to draft QB in top 10 this year Mike is a very smaert man... especially when he agrees with me... And we can't disagree with his opinion? I'd be happy as a pig in mud if Mitch slid to #12. Only complaint- lack of experience? In other words, he looked pretty good this year- but. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyceRolls Posted February 9, 2017 Report Share Posted February 9, 2017 Only complaint- lack of experience? In other words, he looked pretty good this year- but. but...he's only 5'9" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canton Dawg Posted February 10, 2017 Report Share Posted February 10, 2017 Mitch is only 5'4", see how he towers over his 4'6" mother. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.