Trubisky/Watson game comparison

[Bearly]

Wait, losses don't define him but you don't like him as much because of team losses.

 

[Bearly]

When you start a drive basically in the red zone then yes you need to score the TD particularly late in the game.

And who said losses define him. They don't define him anymore than Ints define Watson. Losing games he should have won is just one of the criticisms I have of Trubisky just like throwing too many picks is one of the criticisms I have of Watson.

For someone that minces words as much as you do, calling the 25 basically the red zone is inappropriate and shows bias. What about the offside that made it 2nd and 15 from the 30? Was that on Trubisy too?

 

[Midwaymonster75]

There have been plenty of scouting reports on here that note he has the arm to make all the throws which I presume is looking at the types of throws he has made over his 30 or so games.

What throw do you think he isn't able to make? Further why do you think it's necessary to show every type of throw in an single game.

I think the throws a QB makes in a given game are based on the game plan and the opponent. This isnt a check the box exercise where before you are allowed to win a game, you have to make each type of throw.

Cutler can make every type of throw and what good is that to the Bears? Great Trubisky allegedly made every type of throw against a shitty Duke team on the way to losing to that same shitty Duke team because he made 2 pretty good thows right to the opposition.

(Facepalm)

 

[remydat]

Wait, losses don't define him but you don't like him as much because of team losses.

Because I'd still happily take him with the third pick in the draft. I just like Watson and Kizer more. If the losses defined him then he wouldn't still be that high a pick for me.

For someone that minces words as much as you do, calling the 25 basically the red zone is inappropriate and shows bias. What about the offside that made it 2nd and 15 from the 30? Was that on Trubisy too?

Now you are just being silly. Any QB that gets the ball that deep in opponent's territory should punch it in. Are you really going to pretend that the expectation from that close isn't that they should score the TD?

If Cutler got the ball at the 25, you would be happy if all the a Bears got was a field goal? If so then you and I have huge differences in expecations. I expect an offense to be able to gain 25 yards.

You and I both know that from that close its considered a win by the D if they can hold the opposing O to just a FG in that situation. So not sure why all of a sudden you want to act like this isn't the case just because its Trubisky.

 

[Bearly]

If you would take him at 3, I take that bit back and obviously misunderstood. Seems your a bit down on a guy you would accept that early but apparently not.

 

[remydat]

If you would take him at 3, I take that bit back and obviously misunderstood. Seems your a bit down on a guy you would accept that early but apparently not.

I'm not down on him at all. I just think he is a bigger risk that Watson or Kizer because of the minimal game experience and the fact I do believe he has struggled a bit in some of the big moments. Those are things that can potentially get sorted out at the next level so not a big deal but I don't think we should sugar coat things. And I probably criticize him more because we are generally discussing him in the context of which QB you prefer so naturally, I will be pointing out more often than not the reasons why I prefer Watson over Trubisky.

 

[Bearly]

College game experience. I think you'll find scouts are more interested in traits and abilities. Cassel never started a game and still got drafted.

 

[ClydeLee]

College game experience. I think you'll find scouts are more interested in traits and abilities. Cassel never started a game and still got drafted.

With 5 years of college experience

It's the old Bill Parcells influence of Belichick in wanting guys who play those intellectual key spots to have stated to soak up so much even before being NFL talents to gain positional knowledge there.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

 

[run and shoot]

Wait, losses don't define him but you don't like him as much because of team losses.

You keep using these terms....."like" or "dislike". The draft is a hiring process. Therefore ya should want the most qualified. The one most likely to make a impact and help us win. This should be based on accomplishments i.e. game performance, clutch performance

 

[Bearly]

With 5 years of college experience

It's the old Bill Parcells influence of Belichick in wanting guys who play those intellectual key spots to have stated to soak up so much even before being NFL talents to gain positional knowledge there.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

Never started a game. It wasn't an intellectual get. He had good traits.

 

[Bearly]

You keep using these terms....."like" or "dislike". The draft is a hiring process. Therefore ya should want the most qualified. The one most likely to make a impact and help us win. This should be based on accomplishments i.e. game performance, clutch performance

I guess every Heisman trophy winner is a can't miss yet 1/2 bust out.

Who were the last 2 QBs to win NCAA titles and win a SB? Here's a hint. Kenny Stabler was the most recent. The other guy played for bama and wore fur. Aikman's team did but he was on IR that year.

It's not mutually exclusive but it also gets way over emphasized. I don't dislike Watson but his competitiveness is only part of the equation. I do appreciate that he'll be an asset in the training room, locker room and field but I can probably say that about all of the top 3 QBs. I like this group and always have, despite the pundits poor early take on them.

 

[ClydeLee]

I guess every Heisman trophy winner is a can't miss yet 1/2 bust out.

Who were the last 2 QBs to win NCAA titles and win a SB? Here's a hint. Kenny Stabler was the most recent. The other guy played for bama and wore fur. Aikman's team did but he was on IR that year.

It's not mutually exclusive but it also gets way over emphasized. I don't dislike Watson but his competitiveness is only part of the equation. I do appreciate that he'll be an asset in the training room, locker room and field but I can probably say that about all of the top 3 QBs. I like this group and always have, despite the pundits poor early take on them.

Brain Gresie did

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

 

[Bearly]

Brain Gresie did

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk

On the bench. Selected round 3.

 

[remydat]

College game experience. I think you'll find scouts are more interested in traits and abilities. Cassel never started a game and still got drafted.

Cassel was a 7th round draft choice who sat behind Palmer and Leinart. Sort of a unique situation and not particularly relevant when discussing a potential top 10 draft pick. Of course, traits and abilities are one of the major focuses but the intangibles are precisely why QB is so hard to evaluate and they bust so much.

If traits and abilities were all that made a good QB then selecting one would be easy and a guy like Tom Brady who didn't have elite traits or abilities according to scouts wouldn't be one of the greatest QBs of all time as a 6th round pick.

Personally once it is established that a prospect has NFL arm talent, I look to their intangibles. Their arm talent gets them in the door but it's their intangibles that in my mind will ultimately separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[Bearly]

Cassel was a 7th round draft choice who sat behind Palmer and Leinart. Sort of a unique situation and not particularly relevant when discussing a potential top 10 draft pick. Of course, traits and abilities are one of the major focuses but the intangibles are precisely why QB is so hard to evaluate and they bust so much.

If traits and abilities were all that made a good QB then selecting one would be easy and a guy like Tom Brady who didn't have elite traits or abilities according to scouts wouldn't be one of the greatest QBs of all time as a 6th round pick.

Personally once it is established that a prospect has NFL arm talent, I look to their intangibles. Their arm talent gets them in the door but it's their intangibles that in my mind will ultimately separate the wheat from the chaff.

Um, drafted by NE.

 

[remydat]

Its kind of interesting if you look at some of the top QB draft picks from over the years. Terry Bradshaw was from LA Tech, Dan Pastorini was from Santa Clara, Ken O'Brien was from Cal-Davis, Don Coryell churned out NFL QBs when SDSU was still Division II, Ken Anderson was a DIII (!!!) QB and was drafted in the 3rd round.

More recently you had Wentz from NDSU go #2, Bortles from UCF went #3, Flacco was a 1st rounder from Delaware.

Teams are more willing to ignore college resume when looking at a QB, because so much of it is traits and attributes, IMO. Also, 'intangibles' are the opposite of 'traits and attributes', so I don't know why you are using those terms interchangeably.

No one said anything about having to come from a top program. I said you have to look at what they did on the field. If a guy has ridiculous traits and abilities but his teams suck or he struggles then one would question why he can't translate those traits and abilities on the field when a good QB should be able to lead his team to wins on the field given how important that position is.

No one is ignoring Wentz's resume. Wentz performed on the field. He made two championship games at his level and won two MVP awards in those games. His evaluation would be different if he was getting his ass handed to him. Bradshaw was 9-2 and 8-2 as a starter at LA Tech. They produced in college. Just for smaller programs which is perfectly fine.

And I am not using intangibles interchangeably. I am saying intangibles are vitally important at the QB position in addition to traits and abilities.

Um, drafted by NE.

What does his being drafted by NE have to do with the point. The point here is obviously his like of playing time affected his draft position as he was a 7th round draft pick. If he had started at USC then more than likely he would have been drafted higher.

 

[remydat]

Yeah, obviously. I doubt an NFL team would draft a QB from NDSU #2 overall if he struggled at the D1-AA level. That has nothing to do with my point, which was that college resume is much less important than traits/attributes when drafting a QB.

What is an 'intangible' of Watson's that you like?

I never said it was as important or more important. So I am not sure why you are responding to me as if we disagree on something here.

As for Watson, the pressure doesn't seem to get to him at all which bodes well for his future. He possess the arm talent to make all the throws and I think his poise and ability to perform under pressure will allow him to develop the things he needs to in order to succeed.

A guy like Watson when you see how he performs when the stakes are high and when you see how he gets hit and it doesn't faze him, it makes me feel comfortable that he can learn to calmly go through his progressions at the NFL level. Something he wasn't required to do in college. It's a projection and there is a chance he simply won't be able to process things as quickly as he needs to at the NFL level but his "IT" factor gives me more to project with than a guy that's got the physical skills but doesn't appear to have the cool.

 

[remydat]

I hate it when you go back and edit your post after I've already replied. Not very gallant of you.

Of course Wentz and Bradshaw produced in college...could you imagine a scenario where they didn't produce in college, yet the Steelers use the 1st overall pick on a QB from LA Tech that sucked and the Eagles take a D1AA QB who sucked with the #2 overall pick?

What is your point with any of this?

I was editing it before I saw your reply as I usually end up editing a lot of my posts after reading them a few times.

The point was as I said to Pickles. In addition to traits and abilities, one also has to produce on the field. You see from time to time, guys that weren't overly productive in college but then because of the combine or their measurables, scouts fall in love with them.

I'm not sure where I said I disagreed with you. I simply pointed out the numerous small college QBs that were drafted because of their 'traits and attributes'.

Right and I am saying, I am not sure why you quoted me and pointed this out when it really wasn't relevant to anything I said. I am aware that small school college QBs like big school college QBs get drafted in part because of their traits and abilities. Thanks for sharing I guess.

I'm looking more into Carson Wentz. NDSU usually wins their league championship every year, so the fact that Carson Wentz won two league titles isn't really extraordinary. Looking at on-field performance, lets compare Wentz to his NDSU immediate predecessor, Brock Jensen.

QB #1 = Junior year, 25 passing TDs, 3600 yards. Senior year, 17 passing TDs, 1600 yards.

QB #2 = Junior year, 17 passing TDs, 2300 yards. Senior year, 34 passing TDs, 2800 yards.

Can you tell me which one is Wentz?

He is the first QB although the drop in TDs his second year was because of injury. He only played 7 games that year. If you take his TD percentage in his 2nd year and apply it to the number of pass attempts in his first year then he would project to throw for 30 TDs his second year.

But again on field performance and traits and abilities should be looked at collectively not in isolation. That was kind of the point. It's not just about one or the other. You like to see both if you are going to draft a QB really high and obviously traits and abilities rank higher.

 

[Bearly]

So he didn't play most of his senior year in the Missouri Valley Football Conference and was a top 2 pick. Is this because a large body of work at a high level is a hugely important consideration for scouts?

 

[ClydeLee]

So he didn't play most of his senior year in the Missouri Valley Football Conference and was a top 2 pick. Is this because a large body of work at a high level is a hugely important consideration for scouts?

There's different valued ideals of different scouting systems.

Some will focus more on traits ability but there's some who value the "maturity" and experience.

Why panic when you can panik? via da Tapatalk