Brick wrote:
NME wrote:
And again, that list is pretty much useless because it lacks context. That list doesn’t tell you that Tommy Frazier (for example) was recruited by Nebraska (a traditional powerhouse school back then) simply because he fit their system. No one thought he’d be Joe Montana at the next level tho.
I don't know what you mean by context here. You are correct that Nebraska quarterbacks weren't a good choice to draft. That helps my point.
NME wrote:
It also doesn’t seem to account for ‘traditional powerhouse schools’ changing every once in a while. I mean, Clemson was never considered a ‘traditional powerhouse’ till the last few years. Bama decades ago was, but wasn’t shit again till Saban showed up.
Strange to use the Clemson example when I considered them a powerhouse in my list.
NME wrote:
It also doesn’t seem to want to include the ‘powerhouse conference’ as a whole which shows top tier talented QB’s having to compete routinely against these factory schools.
The discussion isn't "Should you draft a P5 QB?". It's should you draft a quarterback from a traditional power. It's not context to completely change the entire discussion.
NME wrote:
I’m sorry, but that list was put together by someone who set out to make a certain point and so they tailored the subject matter as much as they could leaving out any context so they could draw their preconceived conclusion that ‘good QB’s mostly don’t come from big schools’.
I provided a list that was decent enough of the top 25 quarterbacks of the 2010s. Only two clearly come from traditional powers. 3 others are borderline but you have to include Wisconsin and Auburn in there.
Your counterpoint to pointing out that of the 25 best quarterbacks of the 2010s, only 2-5 of them came from traditional powers, is to repeat "context" a bunch of times and say I'm wrong.
1. My lord you are either actually dense or willfully obtuse. The recruiting for scheme -not prototype QB- is part of ‘context’ there. That changes success rate at the next level, and your article doesn’t account for that.
2. No, Clemson backs up my point -that I single out by the way- that the definition of ‘powerhouse school’ changes on the regular and this article cherry picks. LSU is a powerhouse some years, Florida, is a powerhouse some years, Auburn is a powerhouse some years, Oregon is a powerhouse some years.. does this really have to be explained to you? Really?
3. And my point is it’s irrelevant to use ‘P5’ school as any sort of outlier when A. P5 school vary’s every few seasons, and B. The school is irrelevant to the player as an individual and what their actual skill set is -especially these days. Coaches change, schemes change, rules change.. this article talks about none of this. Accounts for none of this.
4. No you brought up an irrelevant list consisting of a grab bag of gobbledygook that doesn’t provide any reason for rate of success or failure outside of ‘here’s a bunch of names from schools we think are awesome but didn’t produce good QB’s at the next level’.
Oh, well, gee whiz, thanks for the ground breaking analysis there Mr Wizard. Why don’t you throw up an article about how most shark attacks occur closer to shore while you’re at it.
That article lacks ‘context’, and I called it out for that. You can throw your hands up and claim my use of context here is just weird all you want to but the fact is -that list is meaningless if there’s no dive into the ‘why’ part of it. And that is my point.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
The only thing he could have added was your ability to include 30 quotes flawlessly.