2015 Game #1 -|- #1 Ohio State vs. Virginia Tech -|- September 7th, 2015 @ 8:00 PM

[BimboColesHair]

Now you guys will only lose by 24

Damn. Legit made me laugh, Saget. That was good shit.

 

[AZ_]

Right, which if you read my post, I said you weren't arguing it. But, indeed, people do. I'm on a football fan forum too and that is everyone's favorite barometer.

In addition, Tom Brady started 25 games, which, assuming Cardale starts every game this season, is between 4-7 more games. Joe Flacco had 26 starts. So, at what point is the brightline? I obviously haven't seen a quarterback drafted with as few starts as Jones that has had success, but unless you can find a brightline with logical that demonstrates why that is the case, I don't understand the argument.

There are a multitude of reasons why that is the case, but the most important of which is repetitions. The greater amount of experience you have, the more apt you are to make the tremendous leap involved with reading the defenses and adjusting to the speed of the next level.

But you did? You said, and I quote here, "And believing in big games against elite defenses has some sort of translation to the NFL is how you end up with people thinking Johnny Manziel is a first round selection." So you did compare people wanting to draft Cardale -- or the rationale established for wanting to draft Cardale -- to that which existed for Johnny. My point is that is a ridiculous comparison because the two QBs couldn't be further apart. The rationale for drafting Johnny was entirely emotional, as he had nearly no NFL intangibles. The rationale for drafting Cardale has everything to do with his NFL-like qualities.

But I didn't, I simply said that SOLELY using the rationale of "big game performance" is a useless barometer.

That comment had nothing to do with their individual talents.

Though you were the one touting "intangible" qualities in a QB, and Manziel was quite simply the definition of a prospect drafted on such immeasurable qualities.

But these aren't strict "exceptions" because I came up with those six without having to think of anything. I guarantee you, after doing a bit of research, I can find a lot more. And, if I'm correct, five out of those six were first round picks. So clearly, people who scout for a living, thought they were talented. So the whole statement that both a lot of college starts needs to be mixed with talent is, frankly, meaningless. Each quarterback is different and no strict rule should be applied.

Now, if I am misunderstanding you, and you are saying college starts is a -- read, not "the" -- tool to evaluate quarterbacks, and that is a negative against Cardale, then I totally see where you are coming from. But if you are trying to use it as evidence why any team drafting Cardale in the first would be doing so mainly because of hype (which is how I'm reading it, correct me if I'm wrong), then I take issue with that.

I think experience does play "A" role in CJ's status as a project.

Other variables would include a knack for forcing things when they aren't there and trouble understanding complexities of an offense.

He can also display erratic mechanics, thanks in part to the fact that his arm is so strong that he knows he can get away with some things. That generally gets exposed at the next level.

Needless to say, I think CJ has quite a ways to go as a prospect.

Arm talent and size only get you so far at the next level, you just seem to have a greater respect for his mental part of the game than I do.

 

[Jordan]

There are a multitude of reasons why that is the case, but the most important of which is repetitions. The greater amount of experience you have, the more apt you are to make the tremendous leap involved with reading the defenses and adjusting to the speed of the next level.

Fair enough. But does quality of repetitions matter? I.E., if you compete in a lower division are repetitions still as important of a barometer? What about if half your reps are in garbage time? The point I'm getting at here is I find number of starts to have an unverifiable impact because said impact is subject to too many variables.

But I didn't, I simply said that SOLELY using the rationale of "big game performance" is a useless barometer.

That comment had nothing to do with their individual talents.

Though you were the one touting "intangible" qualities in a QB, and Manziel was quite simply the definition of a prospect drafted on such immeasurable qualities.

First, Manziel was absolutely not the perfect "intangible" quarterback. He was known as lazy, uncoachable, low character, mentally soft, and a bad leader. Second, even if you disagree with that, I've also argued how talented Cardale is at the tangibles too.

I think experience does play "A" role in CJ's status as a project.

Other variables would include a knack for forcing things when they aren't there and trouble understanding complexities of an offense.

He can also display erratic mechanics, thanks in part to the fact that his arm is so strong that he knows he can get away with some things. That generally gets exposed at the next level.

Needless to say, I think CJ has quite a ways to go as a prospect.

Arm talent and size only get you so far at the next level, you just seem to have a greater respect for his mental part of the game than I do.

And this may be where we reach an impasse. I think CJ's knack for forcing things is, first, overblown as a weakness; but second, something that other fantastic NFL QBs had as weaknesses in college. That's easily fixable if Jones goes into the right situation. If he has to start right away, though, that will be his killer.

I think the big disagreement we have is when I watch him throw accurately under pressure as much as I do, I see him mentally strong. You, for seemingly valid reasons, do not. And maybe that's the impasse for this discussion.

Also, if we do end now, I hope you didn't take anything I said as offensive, I really value you as a poster and was having some fun arguing with you.

 

[Lee]

Now you guys will only lose by 24

 

[AZ_]

Fair enough. But does quality of repetitions matter? I.E., if you compete in a lower division are repetitions still as important of a barometer? What about if half your reps are in garbage time? The point I'm getting at here is I find number of starts to have an unverifiable impact because said impact is subject to too many variables.


First, Manziel was absolutely not the perfect "intangible" quarterback. He was known as lazy, uncoachable, low character, mentally soft, and a bad leader. Second, even if you disagree with that, I've also argued how talented Cardale is at the tangibles too.


And this may be where we reach an impasse. I think CJ's knack for forcing things is, first, overblown as a weakness; but second, something that other fantastic NFL QBs had as weaknesses in college. That's easily fixable if Jones goes into the right situation. If he has to start right away, though, that will be his killer.

I think the big disagreement we have is when I watch him throw accurately under pressure as much as I do, I see him mentally strong. You, for seemingly valid reasons, do not. And maybe that's the impasse for this discussion.

Also, if we do end now, I hope you didn't take anything I said as offensive, I really value you as a poster and was having some fun arguing with you.

Same.

And by February, Cardale could very well elevate to levels not yet seen.

The track record OSU is building regards to development is unlike anything I've ever seen.