Better NFL QB: McCoy or Bradford

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???

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by TX9R:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by yoda76:

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.

Tebow will be a situational QB at best. The "Wildcat" craze should have Tebow thanking his lucky stars. It will actually get him behind center in the NFL.

I like McCoy more than Bradford. Bradford put up huge stats with one of the best O-Lines in college football. Now that he's lost some of his help we will see how good he truly is.

McCoy has a good arm, amazing accuracy, very mobile and hasn't had as good of an offense around him either.

But we will see.

Texas has a great offensive line too with a tackle that will most likely be a #1 pick this year. Bradford gets discounted because of his line but BOTH players had excellent offensive lines and received wonderful protection.

You don't watch many Texas games apparently. Last year was one of the worst Olines they've had in a decade. 1 good OT doesn't make for a good line. Colt ran for his life and took a beating most of they year, also they opened no holes and had no running game. They should be improved this year, but last year OU had far and away the best line in the big12.

I dont claim to watch every UT game like I am sure you do. However, UT did have a 1st team All big 12 tackle that many say will be in top 10 in next years draft, and two other lineman that were honored with 2nd team and honorable mention status. It would be surprising that there line would be as bad as you claim and have 3 of their 5 lineman given such lofty praise.

In any case, my point was really more about Bradford than it was about McCoy. Its just ridiculous that anyone would say that the kid folds under pressure. We will see what happens this year but I fully expect Bradford to have another great year and be the first QB off the board next April.

I hope Bradford is the first off the board...that would give us a better chance at McCoy or even Snead...i think McCoy will be the best QB in the NFL for the reasons TX9R said above....

not only that but McCoy would be perfect on our team for the fact that he can perform with little O-Line Help...something he would have to do here in SF

and yes i agree that Texas' O-Line leaves a lot to be desired right now....beside Ulatoski the Texas line was mediocre because of injuries and inexperienced players coming in to play....this year the UT line should be much better and i expect a much better season out of Colt McCoy

Bottom line i would love any of those tree QBs mentioned....in order i would want

McCoy
Snead
Bradford

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?

Originally posted by TX9R:
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?

Because he operates under huddle.

I'm as big a Texas homer as anyone, but I try to look at these players objectively. I love Colt and he's a great college QB, but I just can't see using a first-round pick on him. He belongs in the NFL, though.

Now Kindle, on the other hand, I'd use a high first on. I think he's THE 3-4 rush LB in this draft.

Originally posted by Apples:

Originally posted by GoFD74:

Originally posted by Apples:

Originally posted by DANADA:
well ill take Bradford

but I want Tebow

Why? He's gonna be terrible.

Hey Apples...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.

yeah, and so was this other quarterback coming out of college, who ended up in the NFL as one of the best ever, and is now in the hall of fame....oh hey, that guy was a lefty also...

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???

Originally posted by abowers1984:
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.

This is the only statement with which I take issue. No one really knows whether the good offenses of the Big 12 were a function of poor Big 12 defenses or vice versa. And I dont' want to hear that Colt's completion percentage was tainted by dump offs and screens...because he still set the NCAA record. If it were that easy, it would have been done before.

Colt has had success against just about every defense for three years. He was better than just about any other QB in the country last year and some people say he was better than all other QBs in the country.

To be fair, I'd be much more comfortable taking a first-round chance on Sanchez than Colt. That doesn't mean I think he'll be better, just that he's a safer choice.

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

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...

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.