There are 72 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Better NFL QB: McCoy or Bradford

Better NFL QB: McCoy or Bradford

Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by wailers15:
i'm in man. i like him. much bettr than bradford. i do like tebow allot though. i just don't see him being an nfl qb. i still think we should draft tebow though. the guy is a warrior. wildcat!

I like both of them better than Bradford. Bradford lost to McCoy and Tebow I believe they are better under pressure than Bradford who tends to fold.

LOL Yes he folded so much that he won the Heisman trophy and put up crazy numbers. I guess it was his fault that Florida was a faster and more athletic team than Oklahoma. Yes.. he folded in that Texas game alright. That is if you call 28-39 for 387 yards and 5 TDS folding. They only scored 35 points so I guess he folded under the pressure.

Seriously, you have no credibility at all when you say things like Bradford tends to fold. Trust me.. he will be drafted way ahead of either Tebow or McCoy.

First of all it does not matter where you are drafted you should know better than that, so you have no credibility as well. 2nd the Heisman trophy Numbers is over rated, its a popularity contest like the pro bowl. 3rd what did Bradford do to win the game? Nothing he lost the game, Tebow and McCoy had better games than him. If florida is a faster and more athletic team what does that tell you about Oklahoma? Texas should of been in that Title game anyway.

Playoffs Please!!!!

LOL That might be one of the lamest posts I have seen in a long time. You said initally he tends to fold. If he folded so much how did he put up such incredible stats to be the Heisman winner or even considered for it? Also.. how did he fold against Texas when he threw for 387 yards and 5 touchdowns? Your comment about what did he do to win the game was just ridiculous. Last I checked he doesnt play defense and Oklahoma gave up 45 points.

Try to make a little more sense next time.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by wailers15:
i'm in man. i like him. much bettr than bradford. i do like tebow allot though. i just don't see him being an nfl qb. i still think we should draft tebow though. the guy is a warrior. wildcat!

I like both of them better than Bradford. Bradford lost to McCoy and Tebow I believe they are better under pressure than Bradford who tends to fold.

LOL Yes he folded so much that he won the Heisman trophy and put up crazy numbers. I guess it was his fault that Florida was a faster and more athletic team than Oklahoma. Yes.. he folded in that Texas game alright. That is if you call 28-39 for 387 yards and 5 TDS folding. They only scored 35 points so I guess he folded under the pressure.

Seriously, you have no credibility at all when you say things like Bradford tends to fold. Trust me.. he will be drafted way ahead of either Tebow or McCoy.

First of all it does not matter where you are drafted you should know better than that, so you have no credibility as well. 2nd the Heisman trophy Numbers is over rated, its a popularity contest like the pro bowl. 3rd what did Bradford do to win the game? Nothing he lost the game, Tebow and McCoy had better games than him. If florida is a faster and more athletic team what does that tell you about Oklahoma? Texas should of been in that Title game anyway.

Playoffs Please!!!!

LOL That might be one of the lamest posts I have seen in a long time. You said initally he tends to fold. If he folded so much how did he put up such incredible stats to be the Heisman winner or even considered for it? Also.. how did he fold against Texas when he threw for 387 yards and 5 touchdowns? Your comment about what did he do to win the game was just ridiculous. Last I checked he doesnt play defense and Oklahoma gave up 45 points.

Try to make a little more sense next time.

If you read my comment correctly then it would of made sense. In Crunch time who would you rather want? I rather have Tebow and McCoy over Bradford any day of the week that is all I stated. Oklahoma either blew out there opponent or lost close games. That is where he needs to improve or tends to fold. Like I said Texas was better than Oklahoma last year and got screwed by the BCS. McCoy did a lot with less talent and a horrible line. You might like Bradford, but I rather take the Qb's that deal with pressure better.
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by wailers15:
i'm in man. i like him. much bettr than bradford. i do like tebow allot though. i just don't see him being an nfl qb. i still think we should draft tebow though. the guy is a warrior. wildcat!

I like both of them better than Bradford. Bradford lost to McCoy and Tebow I believe they are better under pressure than Bradford who tends to fold.

LOL Yes he folded so much that he won the Heisman trophy and put up crazy numbers. I guess it was his fault that Florida was a faster and more athletic team than Oklahoma. Yes.. he folded in that Texas game alright. That is if you call 28-39 for 387 yards and 5 TDS folding. They only scored 35 points so I guess he folded under the pressure.

Seriously, you have no credibility at all when you say things like Bradford tends to fold. Trust me.. he will be drafted way ahead of either Tebow or McCoy.

First of all it does not matter where you are drafted you should know better than that, so you have no credibility as well. 2nd the Heisman trophy Numbers is over rated, its a popularity contest like the pro bowl. 3rd what did Bradford do to win the game? Nothing he lost the game, Tebow and McCoy had better games than him. If florida is a faster and more athletic team what does that tell you about Oklahoma? Texas should of been in that Title game anyway.

Playoffs Please!!!!

LOL That might be one of the lamest posts I have seen in a long time. You said initally he tends to fold. If he folded so much how did he put up such incredible stats to be the Heisman winner or even considered for it? Also.. how did he fold against Texas when he threw for 387 yards and 5 touchdowns? Your comment about what did he do to win the game was just ridiculous. Last I checked he doesnt play defense and Oklahoma gave up 45 points.

Try to make a little more sense next time.

If you read my comment correctly then it would of made sense. In Crunch time who would you rather want? I rather have Tebow and McCoy over Bradford any day of the week that is all I stated. Oklahoma either blew out there opponent or lost close games. That is where he needs to improve or tends to fold. Like I said Texas was better than Oklahoma last year and got screwed by the BCS. McCoy did a lot with less talent and a horrible line. You might like Bradford, but I rather take the Qb's that deal with pressure better.

Again.. try and make sense over Bradford not performing when he threw for almost 400 yards and 5 tds against Texas. He cant play defense and you somehow seem to want to fault him for that. I read your post completely and correctly and you said that Bradford folds which could not be further from the truth. It is just a stupid comment. You might like Tebow or McCoy more and that is certainly your right to have your opinion. I think you are completely wrong but again thats my opinion. I just think your reasoning is totally off base.
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by Norwalks_Best:
Originally posted by wailers15:
i'm in man. i like him. much bettr than bradford. i do like tebow allot though. i just don't see him being an nfl qb. i still think we should draft tebow though. the guy is a warrior. wildcat!

I like both of them better than Bradford. Bradford lost to McCoy and Tebow I believe they are better under pressure than Bradford who tends to fold.

LOL Yes he folded so much that he won the Heisman trophy and put up crazy numbers. I guess it was his fault that Florida was a faster and more athletic team than Oklahoma. Yes.. he folded in that Texas game alright. That is if you call 28-39 for 387 yards and 5 TDS folding. They only scored 35 points so I guess he folded under the pressure.

Seriously, you have no credibility at all when you say things like Bradford tends to fold. Trust me.. he will be drafted way ahead of either Tebow or McCoy.

First of all it does not matter where you are drafted you should know better than that, so you have no credibility as well. 2nd the Heisman trophy Numbers is over rated, its a popularity contest like the pro bowl. 3rd what did Bradford do to win the game? Nothing he lost the game, Tebow and McCoy had better games than him. If florida is a faster and more athletic team what does that tell you about Oklahoma? Texas should of been in that Title game anyway.

Playoffs Please!!!!

LOL That might be one of the lamest posts I have seen in a long time. You said initally he tends to fold. If he folded so much how did he put up such incredible stats to be the Heisman winner or even considered for it? Also.. how did he fold against Texas when he threw for 387 yards and 5 touchdowns? Your comment about what did he do to win the game was just ridiculous. Last I checked he doesnt play defense and Oklahoma gave up 45 points.

Try to make a little more sense next time.

If you read my comment correctly then it would of made sense. In Crunch time who would you rather want? I rather have Tebow and McCoy over Bradford any day of the week that is all I stated. Oklahoma either blew out there opponent or lost close games. That is where he needs to improve or tends to fold. Like I said Texas was better than Oklahoma last year and got screwed by the BCS. McCoy did a lot with less talent and a horrible line. You might like Bradford, but I rather take the Qb's that deal with pressure better.

Again.. try and make sense over Bradford not performing when he threw for almost 400 yards and 5 tds against Texas. He cant play defense and you somehow seem to want to fault him for that. I read your post completely and correctly and you said that Bradford folds which could not be further from the truth. It is just a stupid comment. You might like Tebow or McCoy more and that is certainly your right to have your opinion. I think you are completely wrong but again thats my opinion. I just think your reasoning is totally off base.

I want to see how Bradford rebounds and performs in pressure games because he has not impress me enough as Tebow or McCoy. This season is crucial for him.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,142
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.

Tell me.. why should we trust a University of Texas QB more than a USC QB. I cant think of one successful Texas QB EVER! Vince Young and Chris Simms have been total busts to this point. At least USC can claim one of the top QBs in football in Palmer (when healthy) and Cassal was pretty damned good even if it was just one year. This bashing of USC QBS has gotten out of hand. Basically one player.. Matt Leinart has not lived up to expectations.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,142
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.

Tell me.. why should we trust a University of Texas QB more than a USC QB. I cant think of one successful Texas QB EVER! Vince Young and Chris Simms have been total busts to this point. At least USC can claim one of the top QBs in football in Palmer (when healthy) and Cassal was pretty damned good even if it was just one year. This bashing of USC QBS has gotten out of hand. Basically one player.. Matt Leinart has not lived up to expectations.

That has nothing to do with anything. For the record Bobby Layne played QB at Texas and won 3 NFL championships, which would be more than any USC QB, learn your history. I don't think a good QB ever came out of Delaware St, so I guess Flacco shouldn't have been drafted, Roethlisberger, etc. I don't care about what school a guy comes from, I used facts to back up my argument, and fact is Sanchez played one year of college ball on a loaded team in a lousy conference. That is all.
The discussion was about McCoy vs. Bradford, Sanchez fanboy is the one who made it about Sanchez, so I offered some irrefutable facts about both QBs. If you're a fanboy too then I'm not going to bother arguing with you. As far as the past Simms wasn't any good at UT, we hated him when he played here. VY was a freak who's skills don't really translate, but he was a winner. McCoy has both, he's clutch, will be a 4 year starter (VY was not), and throws an accurate ball and can scramble. Like I said before I'll reserve judgement on Bradford until after this season when I see how he performs with a little adversity.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.

Tell me.. why should we trust a University of Texas QB more than a USC QB. I cant think of one successful Texas QB EVER! Vince Young and Chris Simms have been total busts to this point. At least USC can claim one of the top QBs in football in Palmer (when healthy) and Cassal was pretty damned good even if it was just one year. This bashing of USC QBS has gotten out of hand. Basically one player.. Matt Leinart has not lived up to expectations.

That has nothing to do with anything. For the record Bobby Layne played QB at Texas and won 3 NFL championships, which would be more than any USC QB, learn your history. I don't think a good QB ever came out of Delaware St, so I guess Flacco shouldn't have been drafted, Roethlisberger, etc. I don't care about what school a guy comes from, I used facts to back up my argument, and fact is Sanchez played one year of college ball on a loaded team in a lousy conference. That is all.
The discussion was about McCoy vs. Bradford, Sanchez fanboy is the one who made it about Sanchez, so I offered some irrefutable facts about both QBs. If you're a fanboy too then I'm not going to bother arguing with you. As far as the past Simms wasn't any good at UT, we hated him when he played here. VY was a freak who's skills don't really translate, but he was a winner. McCoy has both, he's clutch, will be a 4 year starter (VY was not), and throws an accurate ball and can scramble. Like I said before I'll reserve judgement on Bradford until after this season when I see how he performs with a little adversity.

Actually you were the one who brought up Cassel and Palmer in your argument . So.. dont say now you dont care about what college guys go to. If that is the case, then why did you even bring them up at all. Your quote: I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) Maybe you forgot what you said 1 post earlier. LMAO

As for what happened a zillion years ago ( Bobby Layne) who gives a damn. Again, you were the one who brought up schools specifically that you are not sold on USC QBS. Bringing up a guy who played before we were all born is just idiotic.
Also.. dont even try to test me on history. I promise I know as much about sports history (all sports) as most anyone in here.

I agree that you should not emphasize what schools they went to. THANK YOU FOR MAKING MY POINT! I was being sarcastic about Texas because of all the BS about USC Qbs. SHould teams never draft Texas Lineman because they are considered soft? Of course not. Every individual should be evaluated for their strengths and not where they went to school.

I would never say that McCoy will be a bust because I just am not sold on Texas QBs after Simms and Young. That is retarded. McCoy will be judged on his performance and his ability. I dont think he is as good as Bradford but there is another year to sort that out before the draft.

Oh.. one more thing. Saying that PAC10 was a lousy conference is NOT a fact. That is an opinion in case you dont understand the difference.
[ Edited by Ninerjohn on May 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM ]
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,142
Ninerjohn: I know you think you're Mr Knowitall as according to you you're never wrong about anything, bottom line, you said no UT QB ever, that would mean ever right? Bobby Layne was a long time ago, but that still qualifies as ever, so you= owned.
As far as the USC QB thing I was referencing recent history and more due to the hype they receive than the players themselves.
As for the pac10 sucking, pretty much any national media said all year the same thing, only pac10 homers seem to disagree, as usual.
I'm not going to get in to one of these circular debates you like to have, because again, you have yet to admit being wrong on any subject ever, so argue with yourself, and I'll let my facts speak for themselves.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Ninerjohn: I know you think you're Mr Knowitall as according to you you're never wrong about anything, bottom line, you said no UT QB ever, that would mean ever right? Bobby Layne was a long time ago, but that still qualifies as ever, so you= owned.
As far as the USC QB thing I was referencing recent history and more due to the hype they receive than the players themselves.
As for the pac10 sucking, pretty much any national media said all year the same thing, only pac10 homers seem to disagree, as usual.
I'm not going to get in to one of these circular debates you like to have, because again, you have yet to admit being wrong on any subject ever, so argue with yourself, and I'll let my facts speak for themselves.

Hey Texas.. as I said I was being sarcastic about Texas to show a point. Trust me.. you could never "own" me on anything regarding sports history.

I am confused however. On one post you say you dont trust USC Qbs and throw out Palmer, Cassel, and Leinart. On the next post you say the college doesnt matter. SO WHICH IS IT? At least be consistent and cut the BS. You know damn well that you DO have a bias because of the school so just admit it.

Again.. saying the PAC 10 was a lousy conference is NOT a fact. Its your opinion and I'm sure there would be many people that would disagree with you. The fact that "pretty much any national media" said that.. well I'd love to see links to reputable media that said the Pac 10 was lousy. I think they went 5-0 in bowl games and were 1-0 aganst the Big12. Just saying...

If I was wrong about this I would admit it. But I am not. Show me when I was wrong and refused to admit it before you make stupid remarks like that. You talk out of both sides of your mouth and then say you will let "your facts" speak for themselves. Tell me.. what facts have you really shown that I should be so impressed with or believe to be true?

I am not a USC homer in the least. I really dont even like SOuthern California teams at all. Can you say the same about Texas?
Bradford
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.

Palmer was drafted in 2004 - not quite a decade... And of those 5 seasons he only played in 3 of them (pine rider for his rookie year and injured basically all of last year)... So yes - 2 pro bowl seasons in 3 is pretty good if you ask me...

When we are done with all of this - will you teach me math??? Im always looking for a good laugh.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by nannite:
Originally posted by abowers1984:
Originally posted by nannite:
Excuses, excuses.

McCoy started over Snead because he had more experience...
Booty started over Sanchez because he had more experience...

Talent is talent and the coaches see these players play every day. They get at most 4 years plus 1 rs year from these players, why would they sit them?

The fact of the matter is that McCoy came onto the team as an 18/19 year old and was immediately the best QB on the team, which gives him the proper trajectory to become a great NFL QB. Sanchez wasn't the best QB on the team until the mediocre Booty left, that puts him on the Alex Smith trajectory.

You have absolutely no perspective on the situation - so dont try to act like it is black and white, when it is much more convoluted than that... I attended USC when Sanchez and Booty were both shooting for the starting job and had several buddies on the team, all of whom possessed the same opinion about the situation:

Sanchez was clearly the more talented of the two both physically and mentally, but Booty had the inside track on the starting job as he had 2 1/2 more years of experience in the system (graduated from High School a year early).

More specifically, they said that Sanchez was a born leader from the day he came in, whereas Booty was quiet and jittery in the huddle and under center - had a serious problem with fumbling snaps - but only during 11 on 11 scrimages.


This always been Pete Carrol's MO... and is currently on display with Aaron Corp being named the started over the much more talented Matt Barkley - who will undoubtedly be the 1st overall pick when he declares.

Heres my perspective on the matter: the NFL is littered with highly drafted one year wonders, ranging from Alex Smith to Akili Smith. The fact is that in the last decade there has never been a QB drafted in the first round who didn't at least start two years in college. Mark Sanchez is breaking new ground, but dozens of other one year wonders have been drafted and have failed. There is no precedent for a highly drafted one year wonder to succeed in the NFL. None.

Maybe Carroll is very conservative and that will be Sanchez's saving grace. Maybe he will be the first QB in the past decade to succeed despite sitting behind someone else for two years. Its unprecedented, but not impossible.

The main point I was trying to make was that if a QB is destined for NFL greatness, he will be on that trajectory from the day he enters college. He will be the best QB on the roster at 18 years old and dominate the competition for 40+ games over his college career.

What I am saying is not radical. If you don't believe what I am saying, look it up. Highly drafted QBs who don't start 3+ seasons in college don't have successful NFL careers. It has never happened. Meanwhile almost every QB who started 3+ seasons in college, thrown for over 60% completion and was highly drafted in the NFL has been very successful.

You are completely right about pretty much everything. You can't argue with some USC homers when it comes to Sanchez. The main evidence is the fact that almost no Qbs have been successful in the NFL with only one year starting. Cassell is the exception and he was in a perfect situation talent/ coaching wise, and I don't think he's really that good. We'll see in KC.

I admit I am a USC fan and alum, but dont try to discredit my opinion because of that. My opinions of NFL prospects are still 100% objective - evidenced by the fact that I was leading the anti - Matt Leinart Bandwagon in 05' and am currently not all that fond of Taylor Mays.

To be more specific, back when the niners had the first pick and Leinart was considering leaving school to enter the draft, I was 100% against drafting him due to his physical limitations and was absolutely ecstatic when he decided to return to school... and this was when I was actually still in school.

But back to the matter at hand, I wasnt speaking to what Sanchez will do in the NFL - even though my opinions on that subject are well documented - just refuting nannite's original statement that Sanchez wont succeed because he couldnt even beat out Booty for the starting job... Thats a false premise, and I was simply acknowledging that.

Now how objective are you in your assessment of Colt McCoy there buddy???

I've been very objective. What's not to like? Plays in major conference that's actually competetive. Set records for freshman following a Texas legend, big 12 frosh of the year. 4 year starter on a team that has been in the top 10 pretty much all 4 years. Won every bowl game he's played in. Set record for accuracy, which is the most important stat to me. Makes plays in the clutch when it counts more often than not (best quality, it factor). Has improved and gotten bigger and stronger each year. Has scrambling ability. Has never had a dominant running game or line. Has shown he can overcome adversity (ie 4th Q comebacks, big leads) Has adequate height and by season's end, weight.
Only real downside is not a rocket arm (which almost no pro bowl QBs do) and played in spread (which nowadays is going to be the norm for 90% of prospects)
Now out of that list your boy Sanchez has... well none of those qualities and he doesn't have a rocket arm either so how can you rate him so high and not a guy who's about 1000 times more accomplished?

Jame-Gumb said it perfectly... well almost perfectly - He demonstrated success while operating out of a pro-style offense which required him to make the same reads that he will be required to make in the NFL... And thats the major difference.

And please dont try to claim that colt having success in the Big-12 is some kind of accomplishment - Not one team (other than oklahoma every now and then) plays a lick of defense.

And while there is a correlation between having more game experience in college and experiencing success in the NFL - That experience doesnt necessarily make you a better QB.


But if you want to continue to bash sanchez - then lets make a friendly wager on what type of stats he will put up this year, assuming he wins the starting job... What type of stats would you expect from him coming straight into the league with only one year of starting experience in college, as is his situation???

Where in this post did I bash Sanchez? I thought we were talking about McCoy? As far as the big12, who exactly in the pac10 plays any defense? last I chaecked the big12 had 3 teams in the top 5 at one point and something like 6 in the top 25 by year's end. The pac10 has been one of the worst conferences in NCAA for years now. While being under center may give you an advantage out of the gate, a decent QB coach should be able to ready a guy from a spread within one year. After that, talent is talent and you can't teach ice water in the veins and making plays in the clutch. Again, I've seen McCoy handle adversity, no one has seen how Sanchez will because he never had to. It's easy to look good when you're always playing with a lead and face little pass rush while throwing to open receivers.
As far as a wager, I'm not a betting man, but I can on record. I would expect Sanchez to do quite badly, like 99% of all rookie QBs thrust in to a starting role too soon do. He has no WRs, but he does have a decent line and running game. The fact that he's never faced a 3-4 defense like he'll see in the AFC east doesn't help. Also I'm pretty sure Ryan will want the play calling to be like he had in Balt, run, run, and run some more.

I would expect this:
2000 yds 61% comp (due to likely throwing short early and often) 12TDs 18INTs

This entire thread was started by Nannite bashing Sanchez - we only started talking about McCoy because you called me a homer for sanchez and I simply employed the "im rubber and you're glue" tactic by replacing sanchez with McCoy... Try to keep up buddy.

Regarding the Pac-10, we were the 2nd rated conference behind the SEC two years ago by most analysts and went 6-0 in bowl games last year including 2 BCS bowls... And the offensive support that you claim Sanchez had is fairly exaggerated - If these WR's are always wide open while operating out of one of the few pro-style offenses in all of college football, then tell me why not one of them (with the possible exception of damian williams) will be picked in the 1st or 2nd round???

And on the subject of Sanchez's stats - I will certainly bet the over if we are using the line that you expect... The wager - if he does better you must post a new thread praising Sanchez and admiting that you were completely wrong; and I will denounce him if he fails to reach the stated baseline... Deal???

I must say that a 61% completion rate is fairly impressive for a rookie however...

Did Sanchez play 2 years ago? Or was it last year when the pac10 was almost as bad as the big10? The only reason they won all the bowl games was because they were matched against lousy teams. Try to keep up buddy. And no I won't be praising Sanchez until he makes a pro bowl. I explained the 61%, screens and dump offs will be 80% of what he does. And again, who cares where his Wrs are drafted, the fact that the defense was so good is why he had no pressure on him and I beleive they were drafted in record setting fashion. But again, I listed everything McCoy has done and none of it has been refuted, fact is he's 100 times more accomplished than Sanchez was and I would grade him as a better prospect right now. We'll see after the season.

Oh I get it... You were trying to be witty by saying the same thing that I said, but just in a different context that makes no sense - You clever guy you...

So, you're saying that it was his defense that enabled his receivers to get open??? OK - I get it...

What if he puts up Matt Ryan like numbers in his first year - would that be enough to make you a Mark Sanchez fan... Or does your longhorn blood completely preclude you from ever supporting a trojan???

And no, it wasnt last year that the Pac-10 was almost as bad as the Big-10... But I do remember the Longhorns almost loosing to a buckeye team that didnt even belong on the same field as my trojans last year... and no Beanie Wells did not make that big of a difference.

No I was mocking your "buddy comment" not rewording and it makes perfect sense, please, stay on topic. As far as supporting a trojan, I beleive Lott was one and I supported him. I'm just not as sold on their QBs (Palmer has had 2 good seasons in almost a decade, Leinart is a bust and Cassell had one good year on a championship calibur team) , but historically they put out solid defenders. I've said this many times.

As far as my comment on the defense taking pressure off, any fool can make the assumption that: if you get the ball at midfield half the time, your defense actually scores, the other team has basically no chance to move the ball, then yes there is little to no pressure on the QB to make plays with any risk involved, or he has the freedom to make risky plays with open WRs because he knows his D will handle business. It's like a pitcher who gets 5 runs in the first, no pressure. As far as being a Sanchez fan, that will never happen unless he ends up in SF. I don't support every Longhorn otherwise I'd be a fan of every team in the NFL.

And yes, last year as a conference the pac10 was as bad if not worse than the big10. Take away USC and you had nothing of merit. As far as beating OSU at home early in the season against a freshman QB with only a few starts under his belt, with no Beanie Wells, anyone who follows sports would know that makes a huge difference. Again, no one is refuting how good USC's defense was, I'll be the first to say it was better than UT and that was the differnce in that game. Wells was one of if not the best back in the country. The OSU in the bowl had a QB with a full season starting, a healthy Wells to start (notice how UT took over once he was GONE) and like 30 weeks to prepare for the game on a neutral field. HUGE difference.

Tell me.. why should we trust a University of Texas QB more than a USC QB. I cant think of one successful Texas QB EVER! Vince Young and Chris Simms have been total busts to this point. At least USC can claim one of the top QBs in football in Palmer (when healthy) and Cassal was pretty damned good even if it was just one year. This bashing of USC QBS has gotten out of hand. Basically one player.. Matt Leinart has not lived up to expectations.

That has nothing to do with anything. For the record Bobby Layne played QB at Texas and won 3 NFL championships, which would be more than any USC QB, learn your history. I don't think a good QB ever came out of Delaware St, so I guess Flacco shouldn't have been drafted, Roethlisberger, etc. I don't care about what school a guy comes from, I used facts to back up my argument, and fact is Sanchez played one year of college ball on a loaded team in a lousy conference. That is all.
The discussion was about McCoy vs. Bradford, Sanchez fanboy is the one who made it about Sanchez, so I offered some irrefutable facts about both QBs. If you're a fanboy too then I'm not going to bother arguing with you. As far as the past Simms wasn't any good at UT, we hated him when he played here. VY was a freak who's skills don't really translate, but he was a winner. McCoy has both, he's clutch, will be a 4 year starter (VY was not), and throws an accurate ball and can scramble. Like I said before I'll reserve judgement on Bradford until after this season when I see how he performs with a little adversity.

Look at you just making false accusations - Why dont you look at the first post of this discussing before claiming I started it... Nannite came out bashing Sanchez, and all I did was defend him. Also, I suggest you consider removing your nose from Colts asscrack before throwing around the fanboy comments...

You're ability to get lost in your own incessant rambling and totally detract from the topic at hand is truly amazing.
So now that the season is over and we are seeing some more analysis on how Tebow, Mc Coy & Bradford are going to project at the next level how does everyone feel? Bradford played and won the least games and is projected ahead of the other 2 guys who were both one win away from the national championship. At some point this year most of the draft "experts" projected all 3 as first rounders, and now only one remains in most people's eyes. What does everyone think?
  • KRS-1
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 26,934
Originally posted by YourHuckleberry:
Originally posted by GoFD74:
Originally posted by YourHuckleberry:
Originally posted by DANADA:
well ill take Bradford

but I want Tebow

Why? He's gonna be terrible.

Hey YourHuckleberry...I'll bet you $100 Tebow wins a Super Bowl championship before either Bradford or McCoy.

Done!

Tebow is just another big-body, Vince Young type quarterback who wants to run first and pass second.

Can't wait to see who wins this bet.

[ Edited by KRS-1 on Mar 5, 2010 at 09:46:23 ]