I know Mahomes is the comp for Williams for a lot here, but doesn't seem Sy is as big on him as some are (wanting to trade up to 1 for him). Says he is closer to Mayfield and Murray than he is Mahomes.
Just posted this today so thought it was an interesting watch.
Link - (
New Window )
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
Sy, don't let it bother you. If people are not intelligent enough to get when you are writing "read between the lines" you are not going to get an honest answer out of them anyway.
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
Damn, Sy, that's a hell of a quote speaking directly to my concerns with CW. I'm assuming you share this concern with him?
A comparable between college prospect Murray and Williams is a compliment to Williams. A comparable between professional Murray and Williams is also complementary.
I would absolutely take a less-physically-gifted QB with a sterling mental makeup than I would an uber-physical talent who doesn't have it between the ears. With this position, the stakes are so high, particularly drafting in the first round, and that QB has to be an extension of the head coach in the locker room, in the huddle and between the snap and the whistle. You have to at once be a leader of men and be humble enough to take an out-sized share of the blame when things go poorly, and be humble enough to be coachable and completely buy-in to your coaching staff.
I see what you see in the talent-level of Williams. And yet, I'm not there with him.
On the other hand, here are first-day investment examples of what you like:
As far as I'm concerned, we took a less gifted player in Jones who apparently has all of intangibles.
The Jets invested a high pick in Chad Pennington. Great guy who was also a Rhodes Scholar candidate. But he had a rag arm and limited physical skills overall.
The Steelers took Pickett a few years ago. Small hands, limited arm, but also a guy with good intangibles.
Chiefs selected a great guy in Alex Smith. Had all of the attributes you admire. But he was limited physically, too.
Denver made a first-round investment in Mr. Leadership - Tom Tebow. And outside of his bully-ball ability, he was mostly a joke throwing the ball.
Minnesota took a first-round flyer on Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater was another high character guy. But limited arm talent.
At the end of the day, and I'm sure you agree, it takes more art than science to figure out the QB position...
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
There are no perfect prospects - Caleb Williams included.
Quote:
In comment 16404376 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
This isn't a courtroom, it's gambling. And stuff like this has to be part of the overall eval for a front office. It doesn't mean anything definitive, but ignore it as if it doesn't matter? It's a point of concern.
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
On the flip side...
Moss thanking CW... - ( New Window )
Quote:
I would absolutely take a less-physically-gifted QB with a sterling mental makeup than I would an uber-physical talent who doesn't have it between the ears. With this position, the stakes are so high, particularly drafting in the first round, and that QB has to be an extension of the head coach in the locker room, in the huddle and between the snap and the whistle. You have to at once be a leader of men and be humble enough to take an out-sized share of the blame when things go poorly, and be humble enough to be coachable and completely buy-in to your coaching staff.
I see what you see in the talent-level of Williams. And yet, I'm not there with him.
On the other hand, here are first-day investment examples of what you like:
As far as I'm concerned, we took a less gifted player in Jones who apparently has all of intangibles.
The Jets invested a high pick in Chad Pennington. Great guy who was also a Rhodes Scholar candidate. But he had a rag arm and limited physical skills overall.
The Steelers took Pickett a few years ago. Small hands, limited arm, but also a guy with good intangibles.
Chiefs selected a great guy in Alex Smith. Had all of the attributes you admire. But he was limited physically, too.
Denver made a first-round investment in Mr. Leadership - Tom Tebow. And outside of his bully-ball ability, he was mostly a joke throwing the ball.
Minnesota took a first-round flyer on Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater was another high character guy. But limited arm talent.
At the end of the day, and I'm sure you agree, it takes more art than science to figure out the QB position...
EQ isn't IQ. It's not just doing all the things right in your brain. EQ relates to how well someone plays under pressure, reacts to adversity, how their mind works, it's far beyond being a role model athlete and having a high IQ.
Would you bless us taking him?
There are no perfect prospects - Caleb Williams included.
The thing is, if it doesn't show up in internet mock drafts, Producer isn't interested.
Quote:
If you want to be Caleb Williams's white knight, go ahead.
There are no perfect prospects - Caleb Williams included.
The thing is, if it doesn't show up in internet mock drafts, Producer isn't interested.
give em the business end of a blender will ya!!
my all time favorite line on BBI
Quote:
In comment 16404380 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 16404376 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
This isn't a courtroom, it's gambling. And stuff like this has to be part of the overall eval for a front office. It doesn't mean anything definitive, but ignore it as if it doesn't matter? It's a point of concern.
It's not a data point germane to the subject. I'm fine with actual criticism of the player. Neither this, nor the quote Sy mentions above, speak to Williams necessarily. They are vague comments/quotes, and like a Rorschach test, can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Quote:
I would absolutely take a less-physically-gifted QB with a sterling mental makeup than I would an uber-physical talent who doesn't have it between the ears. With this position, the stakes are so high, particularly drafting in the first round, and that QB has to be an extension of the head coach in the locker room, in the huddle and between the snap and the whistle. You have to at once be a leader of men and be humble enough to take an out-sized share of the blame when things go poorly, and be humble enough to be coachable and completely buy-in to your coaching staff.
I see what you see in the talent-level of Williams. And yet, I'm not there with him.
On the other hand, here are first-day investment examples of what you like:
As far as I'm concerned, we took a less gifted player in Jones who apparently has all of intangibles.
The Jets invested a high pick in Chad Pennington. Great guy who was also a Rhodes Scholar candidate. But he had a rag arm and limited physical skills overall.
The Steelers took Pickett a few years ago. Small hands, limited arm, but also a guy with good intangibles.
Chiefs selected a great guy in Alex Smith. Had all of the attributes you admire. But he was limited physically, too.
Denver made a first-round investment in Mr. Leadership - Tom Tebow. And outside of his bully-ball ability, he was mostly a joke throwing the ball.
Minnesota took a first-round flyer on Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater was another high character guy. But limited arm talent.
At the end of the day, and I'm sure you agree, it takes more art than science to figure out the QB position...
I didn't like Pickett at his investment cost, thought he was a day 2 talent. I had DJ as a 2nd rounder. I didn't believe in Tebow as an NFL QB. Pennington was back in a day I wasn't really into following the draft much. Bridgewater I had no opinion of because he was drafted at a time when we had Eli and had no plans to draft a successor yet. I follow prospects from a Giants-centric perspective.
I'll remind you that I said the athletic/physical baseline part is also mandatory to start with. I didn't love any of those prospects you mentioned, because of on-field or physical deficiencies. Particularly with DJ, I do think he has strong EQ, but it's clear that his on field IQ is not where it needs to be for a starting NFL QB. Note, you can be highly intelligent, but have poor on-field IQ. I suspect this is DJ. Sy had one of the greatest write-ups for a draft prospect to this respect in his QB draft preview of Daniel Jones, absolutely nailed it with respect to this.
You're looking for the whole package here, the IQ/EQ on field and off, and the physical and athletic attributes. You can't parse one over the other. You can and should weight certain attributes higher than others, sure. But to pretend I'm stopping at IQ and EQ and saying, "YASSS, draft this guy," that isn't at all what I've talked about. You have to evaluate everything and put it together as part of your grade/analysis. If you have a guy with poor EQ, though, it's a recipe for disaster, even if you have positive grades on the other stuff. Same goes for on-field IQ. I don't think Steve Young is a mensa-candidate, but he had great on-field IQ (often referred to as football instincts), strong EQ, and a strong physical profile to go with...that's a player I would like. I don't need him to be as smart as my head coach, I need him to be a smart decision-maker and processor of information very quickly on the field, and smart enough in a more traditional sense to be able to know a playbook in and out and translate that to what he's looking for on the football field. I hope this clarifies my position.
Quote:
If you want to be Caleb Williams's white knight, go ahead.
There are no perfect prospects - Caleb Williams included.
The thing is, if it doesn't show up in internet mock drafts, Producer isn't interested.
You're being silly. If you think these two quotes are germane to the subject, Williams' character, please tell me how. he isn't even mentioned. Nobody ever clarifies. They are just internet noise.
Quote:
In comment 16404406 Manhattan said:
Quote:
In comment 16404380 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 16404376 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
This isn't a courtroom, it's gambling. And stuff like this has to be part of the overall eval for a front office. It doesn't mean anything definitive, but ignore it as if it doesn't matter? It's a point of concern.
It's not a data point germane to the subject. I'm fine with actual criticism of the player. Neither this, nor the quote Sy mentions above, speak to Williams necessarily. They are vague comments/quotes, and like a Rorschach test, can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Yeah sure, you can't definitively say he was referencing CW in that quote, but it's also hardly a stretch to think he was.
Quote:
In comment 16404357 allstarjim said:
Quote:
I would absolutely take a less-physically-gifted QB with a sterling mental makeup than I would an uber-physical talent who doesn't have it between the ears. With this position, the stakes are so high, particularly drafting in the first round, and that QB has to be an extension of the head coach in the locker room, in the huddle and between the snap and the whistle. You have to at once be a leader of men and be humble enough to take an out-sized share of the blame when things go poorly, and be humble enough to be coachable and completely buy-in to your coaching staff.
I see what you see in the talent-level of Williams. And yet, I'm not there with him.
On the other hand, here are first-day investment examples of what you like:
As far as I'm concerned, we took a less gifted player in Jones who apparently has all of intangibles.
The Jets invested a high pick in Chad Pennington. Great guy who was also a Rhodes Scholar candidate. But he had a rag arm and limited physical skills overall.
The Steelers took Pickett a few years ago. Small hands, limited arm, but also a guy with good intangibles.
Chiefs selected a great guy in Alex Smith. Had all of the attributes you admire. But he was limited physically, too.
Denver made a first-round investment in Mr. Leadership - Tom Tebow. And outside of his bully-ball ability, he was mostly a joke throwing the ball.
Minnesota took a first-round flyer on Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater was another high character guy. But limited arm talent.
At the end of the day, and I'm sure you agree, it takes more art than science to figure out the QB position...
I didn't like Pickett at his investment cost, thought he was a day 2 talent. I had DJ as a 2nd rounder. I didn't believe in Tebow as an NFL QB. Pennington was back in a day I wasn't really into following the draft much. Bridgewater I had no opinion of because he was drafted at a time when we had Eli and had no plans to draft a successor yet. I follow prospects from a Giants-centric perspective.
I'll remind you that I said the athletic/physical baseline part is also mandatory to start with. I didn't love any of those prospects you mentioned, because of on-field or physical deficiencies. Particularly with DJ, I do think he has strong EQ, but it's clear that his on field IQ is not where it needs to be for a starting NFL QB. Note, you can be highly intelligent, but have poor on-field IQ. I suspect this is DJ. Sy had one of the greatest write-ups for a draft prospect to this respect in his QB draft preview of Daniel Jones, absolutely nailed it with respect to this.
You're looking for the whole package here, the IQ/EQ on field and off, and the physical and athletic attributes. You can't parse one over the other. You can and should weight certain attributes higher than others, sure. But to pretend I'm stopping at IQ and EQ and saying, "YASSS, draft this guy," that isn't at all what I've talked about. You have to evaluate everything and put it together as part of your grade/analysis. If you have a guy with poor EQ, though, it's a recipe for disaster, even if you have positive grades on the other stuff. Same goes for on-field IQ. I don't think Steve Young is a mensa-candidate, but he had great on-field IQ (often referred to as football instincts), strong EQ, and a strong physical profile to go with...that's a player I would like. I don't need him to be as smart as my head coach, I need him to be a smart decision-maker and processor of information very quickly on the field, and smart enough in a more traditional sense to be able to know a playbook in and out and translate that to what he's looking for on the football field. I hope this clarifies my position.
rank your top 6 QBs in this draft...
Quote:
In comment 16404412 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 16404406 Manhattan said:
Quote:
In comment 16404380 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 16404376 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
This isn't a courtroom, it's gambling. And stuff like this has to be part of the overall eval for a front office. It doesn't mean anything definitive, but ignore it as if it doesn't matter? It's a point of concern.
It's not a data point germane to the subject. I'm fine with actual criticism of the player. Neither this, nor the quote Sy mentions above, speak to Williams necessarily. They are vague comments/quotes, and like a Rorschach test, can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Yeah sure, you can't definitively say he was referencing CW in that quote, but it's also hardly a stretch to think he was.
He could be referencing a thousand things. And it takes a hit job to assume it was about Williams. There has to be more, or it is just noise.
Quote:
In comment 16404445 Manhattan said:
Quote:
In comment 16404412 allstarjim said:
Quote:
In comment 16404406 Manhattan said:
Quote:
In comment 16404380 Go Terps said:
Quote:
In comment 16404376 Sy'56 said:
Quote:
But you can read this:
“It’s a good positive moment. I still think more so for the team than me personally,” Moss said. “These six weeks since UCLA weren’t about any individual. They were about us, the people who wanted to be here and play this game and wanted to come together.”
^Backup QB from USC that won (and he dominated) after the Bowl win. The UCLA game? Williams' last game
This backs up what you're saying. Link - ( New Window )
This doesn't meet even the basic threshold of hearsay. You're way smarter than this.
This isn't a courtroom, it's gambling. And stuff like this has to be part of the overall eval for a front office. It doesn't mean anything definitive, but ignore it as if it doesn't matter? It's a point of concern.
It's not a data point germane to the subject. I'm fine with actual criticism of the player. Neither this, nor the quote Sy mentions above, speak to Williams necessarily. They are vague comments/quotes, and like a Rorschach test, can mean whatever you want them to mean.
Yeah sure, you can't definitively say he was referencing CW in that quote, but it's also hardly a stretch to think he was.
He could be referencing a thousand things. And it takes a hit job to assume it was about Williams. There has to be more, or it is just noise.
That's very generous. Just since the UCLA game? Why not before? What changed? Look, I already know you're not going to consider this at all. I'm just glad you're not Joe Schoen. With respect, of course. We can agree to disagree. We agree on plenty of other things, but I think this quote has a pretty thin veil.
Quote:
In comment 16404405 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16404357 allstarjim said:
Quote:
I would absolutely take a less-physically-gifted QB with a sterling mental makeup than I would an uber-physical talent who doesn't have it between the ears. With this position, the stakes are so high, particularly drafting in the first round, and that QB has to be an extension of the head coach in the locker room, in the huddle and between the snap and the whistle. You have to at once be a leader of men and be humble enough to take an out-sized share of the blame when things go poorly, and be humble enough to be coachable and completely buy-in to your coaching staff.
I see what you see in the talent-level of Williams. And yet, I'm not there with him.
On the other hand, here are first-day investment examples of what you like:
As far as I'm concerned, we took a less gifted player in Jones who apparently has all of intangibles.
The Jets invested a high pick in Chad Pennington. Great guy who was also a Rhodes Scholar candidate. But he had a rag arm and limited physical skills overall.
The Steelers took Pickett a few years ago. Small hands, limited arm, but also a guy with good intangibles.
Chiefs selected a great guy in Alex Smith. Had all of the attributes you admire. But he was limited physically, too.
Denver made a first-round investment in Mr. Leadership - Tom Tebow. And outside of his bully-ball ability, he was mostly a joke throwing the ball.
Minnesota took a first-round flyer on Teddy Bridgewater. Bridgewater was another high character guy. But limited arm talent.
At the end of the day, and I'm sure you agree, it takes more art than science to figure out the QB position...
I didn't like Pickett at his investment cost, thought he was a day 2 talent. I had DJ as a 2nd rounder. I didn't believe in Tebow as an NFL QB. Pennington was back in a day I wasn't really into following the draft much. Bridgewater I had no opinion of because he was drafted at a time when we had Eli and had no plans to draft a successor yet. I follow prospects from a Giants-centric perspective.
I'll remind you that I said the athletic/physical baseline part is also mandatory to start with. I didn't love any of those prospects you mentioned, because of on-field or physical deficiencies. Particularly with DJ, I do think he has strong EQ, but it's clear that his on field IQ is not where it needs to be for a starting NFL QB. Note, you can be highly intelligent, but have poor on-field IQ. I suspect this is DJ. Sy had one of the greatest write-ups for a draft prospect to this respect in his QB draft preview of Daniel Jones, absolutely nailed it with respect to this.
You're looking for the whole package here, the IQ/EQ on field and off, and the physical and athletic attributes. You can't parse one over the other. You can and should weight certain attributes higher than others, sure. But to pretend I'm stopping at IQ and EQ and saying, "YASSS, draft this guy," that isn't at all what I've talked about. You have to evaluate everything and put it together as part of your grade/analysis. If you have a guy with poor EQ, though, it's a recipe for disaster, even if you have positive grades on the other stuff. Same goes for on-field IQ. I don't think Steve Young is a mensa-candidate, but he had great on-field IQ (often referred to as football instincts), strong EQ, and a strong physical profile to go with...that's a player I would like. I don't need him to be as smart as my head coach, I need him to be a smart decision-maker and processor of information very quickly on the field, and smart enough in a more traditional sense to be able to know a playbook in and out and translate that to what he's looking for on the football field. I hope this clarifies my position.
rank your top 6 QBs in this draft...
I don't do that before combine...will come after. But right now Daniels is my top guy, subject to change.
That's very generous. Just since the UCLA game? Why not before? What changed? Look, I already know you're not going to consider this at all. I'm just glad you're not Joe Schoen. With respect, of course. We can agree to disagree. We agree on plenty of other things, but I think this quote has a pretty thin veil.
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
I don't do that before combine...will come after. But right now Daniels is my top guy, subject to change.
A player who's arm isn't top 5 - IN THIS DRAFT CLASS. Yes, we agree on some things but like you, I'm glad you're not Joe Schoen ;).
Quote:
In comment 16404461 Manhattan said:
That's very generous. Just since the UCLA game? Why not before? What changed? Look, I already know you're not going to consider this at all. I'm just glad you're not Joe Schoen. With respect, of course. We can agree to disagree. We agree on plenty of other things, but I think this quote has a pretty thin veil.
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Respectfully, please stop strawmanning me. It's exhausting and not productive. I've been pretty clear wrt to overall profile analysis and that you don't base a decision on any one thing, and you know this. Including this quote. It would cause me as an NFL GM to investigate further, to dig really deep.
Quote:
In comment 16404457 AROCK1000 said:
I don't do that before combine...will come after. But right now Daniels is my top guy, subject to change.
A player who's arm isn't top 5 - IN THIS DRAFT CLASS. Yes, we agree on some things but like you, I'm glad you're not Joe Schoen ;).
It seems you only define arm talent in terms of arm strength. I do not. Further, as I said in other threads, I think arm talent is important to have a baseline threshold, and anything over that is extra, certainly helps the grade, but isn't a requirement to be a top QB. Daniels is in the top 5 in arm talent. I think his arm strength will easily meet the baseline. Hopefully Ourlads will publish the QB velocity numbers again. As I've said before, with QBs, there's so much more than arm talent, and it's the worst predictor of future success. I've posted Ourlads' combine velo testing result history before. A casual look at this list would tell you that some of the strongest names on that list are not close to NFL starters.
Instincts, processing, decision-making, accuracy, all better aspects I want to see than simply arm strength. I think Daniels rates very highly in these other areas.
A player I didn't like because I didn't feel like he had an NFL starting QB quality arm? Lamar. Another player I didn't like who had a really good arm? Rosen. I'm not perfect, no one is, but I want a 1st round QB draft investment to be able to at least throw it 52 mph. I would consider a QB slightly under that given other profile attributes, and my strongest preference would be a QB that can throw it at least 55mph. But you don't need to throw it 60 mph+, it's a nice to have. Can you make all the throws (the 15 yard out route from opposite hash?), can you throw with accuracy to all levels? Daniels can, and with enough velo. I've seen him make some pretty strong darts to the intermediate level.
So I don't care if he's the 5th or 6th rated QB in this class based on just his ability to throw with velocity. It's just one part of the formula. I do think there's a very strong chance his arm will be in the top 5 in velo, though.
Quote:
In comment 16404410 Go Terps said:
Quote:
If you want to be Caleb Williams's white knight, go ahead.
There are no perfect prospects - Caleb Williams included.
The thing is, if it doesn't show up in internet mock drafts, Producer isn't interested.
You're being silly. If you think these two quotes are germane to the subject, Williams' character, please tell me how. he isn't even mentioned. Nobody ever clarifies. They are just internet noise.
Why do you get so defensive every time I bring up Producer?
Would you bless us taking him?
Who else is there?
Quote:
In comment 16404461 Manhattan said:
That's very generous. Just since the UCLA game? Why not before? What changed? Look, I already know you're not going to consider this at all. I'm just glad you're not Joe Schoen. With respect, of course. We can agree to disagree. We agree on plenty of other things, but I think this quote has a pretty thin veil.
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
The NYG aren't trading 3 1st rounders plus for a guy with question marks related to his character and mentality. So, you're theoretical positing is pointless buddy.
Guy on bus to his son: "I think Caleb Williams is overrated as a prospect."
M/P across the aisle: "How can you possibly say that? What data points do you have to support that claim? You are talking about a guy that when he sets foot on a field will be a certified top 10 QB before he throws a pass. THAT'S how good he is."
:: Guy on bus frantically pressing the stop request button ::
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Do you see my other link above on Miller Moss?
Quote:
I am reading between the lines with what you said about character issues...that being said,if he fell to us at 6...
Would you bless us taking him?
Who else is there?
wow...the very question speaks volumes Sy
For me Maye looks the part,but none of them really jump out as a franchise QB.
I am in the "trade down and take advantage of someone else"camp.
We can fill alot of holes that way
Quote:
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Do you see my other link above on Miller Moss?
I had missed this. Thanks for posting.
Kind of takes the wind out of the unfortunate conspiracy theory so gleefully repeated here that Caleb was a problem child and a bad teammate. Will the usual suspects display an ounce of circumspection and admit they went too far with their insinuations? Doubtful.
Quote:
In comment 16404498 Manhattan said:
Quote:
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Do you see my other link above on Miller Moss?
I had missed this. Thanks for posting.
Kind of takes the wind out of the unfortunate conspiracy theory so gleefully repeated here that Caleb was a problem child and a bad teammate. Will the usual suspects display an ounce of circumspection and admit they went too far with their insinuations? Doubtful.
Dude you are a broken record. That article bw posted had a non-quote of Moss thanking CW for his help in developing him. What was he supposed to say? "Well obviously my teammate thought himself too big gor this game and he was a j/o the entire season." He absolutely had to say that.
How can anybody take you seriously, you were into Pickett and Willis and all you do is talk about how CW is the anointed one. Your track record sucks for forecasting QB success. How's that for a data point?
Quote:
In comment 16404654 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16404498 Manhattan said:
Quote:
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Do you see my other link above on Miller Moss?
I had missed this. Thanks for posting.
Kind of takes the wind out of the unfortunate conspiracy theory so gleefully repeated here that Caleb was a problem child and a bad teammate. Will the usual suspects display an ounce of circumspection and admit they went too far with their insinuations? Doubtful.
Dude you are a broken record. That article bw posted had a non-quote of Moss thanking CW for his help in developing him. What was he supposed to say? "Well obviously my teammate thought himself too big gor this game and he was a j/o the entire season." He absolutely had to say that.
How can anybody take you seriously, you were into Pickett and Willis and all you do is talk about how CW is the anointed one. Your track record sucks for forecasting QB success. How's that for a data point?
Lol how's that for a data point haha. I'm really wondering if he's just going to become a fan of the Bears or Commanders when they draft him, seems like it?
Dude you are a broken record. That article bw posted had a non-quote of Moss thanking CW for his help in developing him. What was he supposed to say? "Well obviously my teammate thought himself too big gor this game and he was a j/o the entire season." He absolutely had to say that.
The link I added actually has Moss's X account and him thanking CW...
Quote:
In comment 16404654 bw in dc said:
Quote:
In comment 16404498 Manhattan said:
Quote:
Just to be clear , you think Joe Schoen should dismiss drafting elite talent because of a vague quote made by a backup QB, where said player wasn't even mentioned by name. It sounds ridiculous just typing it. That's how you wind up with a team of Daniel Jonses.
Do you see my other link above on Miller Moss?
I had missed this. Thanks for posting.
Kind of takes the wind out of the unfortunate conspiracy theory so gleefully repeated here that Caleb was a problem child and a bad teammate. Will the usual suspects display an ounce of circumspection and admit they went too far with their insinuations? Doubtful.
Dude you are a broken record. That article bw posted had a non-quote of Moss thanking CW for his help in developing him. What was he supposed to say? "Well obviously my teammate thought himself too big gor this game and he was a j/o the entire season." He absolutely had to say that.
How can anybody take you seriously, you were into Pickett and Willis and all you do is talk about how CW is the anointed one. Your track record sucks for forecasting QB success. How's that for a data point?
You are confusing me with someone else, Mr. January 2024. Personally, I never liked Willis much. On other platforms I thought Pickett had a chance to be the best QB from that class. So what? You sound like someone who is still butthurt over Daniel Jones. I've been polite to you, I deserve the same treatment in return. Until you can behave yourself in public... so long...
As far as my registration being last month, its apparently only 1 month after your latest new mask. Sorry I just think that is lame.
I ignored your repetitive posts before finally having enough of so many threads tainted by your drivel and seeing other felt the same way. I would love to say "so long" but chances are you will be everywjere.
What do you mean by "made it"?
Rodney Peete, Mark Sanchez, Pat Haden were decent NFL players.
Carson does appear to be the best of the bunch.
But I hope you aren't suggesting this is somehow a reason not to draft a USC QB?
Helmet scouting is for losers.
I hear you. Definitely want to draft based on staying away from a specific school that's had limited success. On the flip side, looking at guys from coaches who've had smashing success developing QB's for the pros is a sure path to glory.
Quote:
Honest question, how many USC QB made it in the NFL? I know Carson Palmer. Don't USC QBs have a history of not impressing in NFL?
What do you mean by "made it"?
Rodney Peete, Mark Sanchez, Pat Haden were decent NFL players.
Carson does appear to be the best of the bunch.
But I hope you aren't suggesting this is somehow a reason not to draft a USC QB?
Rich Gannon?
Made it means, a solid career, highly successful, franchise QB. If we're looking for a franchise QB why go to a school that hasn't been very successful at producing them.
Rich Gannon?
Delaware.
Quote:
Rich Gannon?
Delaware.
I keep confusing him with Sean Salisbury... Lol. Thanks.
Quote:
Honest question, how many USC QB made it in the NFL? I know Carson Palmer. Don't USC QBs have a history of not impressing in NFL?
Made it means, a solid career, highly successful, franchise QB. If we're looking for a franchise QB why go to a school that hasn't been very successful at producing them.
This is what everyone said about C.J. Stroud and Ohio State QBs until C.J. Stroud balled out.
You evaluate the player. A school doesn't "produce" a player. That's what his momma and daddy did.
A school has very little to do with it.
FWIW.
Matt Miller, draft expert for ESPN, and he's very good, said CW is as good a prospect as Burrow. And could grade out higher than because of his running...