Make it make sense: JJ criticized for “not playing in a pro-style offense”
Here’s the full quote, (Athletic for the full article) then my questions:
McCarthy was still viewed as the biggest projection of the group. Michigan’s system didn’t have many pro-style attributes, and McCarthy wasn’t asked to open it up and win the game through the air. Now, he’ll go from sprinkling in the occasional NFL throw to doing it on a down-by-down basis.
Forgive my ignorance but I feel like UM ran/runs one of the most pro-style offenses in CFB? UM assuredly ran the ball a lot more than most NFL teams, but that doesn’t make ours a college offense? Does it?
FWIW they do have JJ ranked 2nd in their projected success rankings so maybe this is making a mountain out of a mole hill, but the analysis that goes “yeah he has all the tools and he’s tough as nails and only wins and is a spectacular leader who everyone loves BUT did he throw enough in college?” just rubs me the wrong way. Bummed the Lions have to play him twice a year but excited to see him ball out and prove all these guys wrong
Here is a longer evaluation they ran which is a different read. Lots of glowing praise for his ability to throw on the run, the hockey mentality, an allusion to his being younger than the other QBs in the draft, etc. The only real negative is that he wasn't featured as much in Michigan's run up their ass offense (I think it was this group who in another story mentioned that in most of Michigan's games he was handing off in the 4th quarter or on the bench due to commanding leads). I believe the moral of the story is "A good analysis requires thought, time and some volume," not that The Athletic always sucks.
By the way, that "good analysis" lesson applies to a LOT of stuff in life. I lose patience in a hurry with people who jump on easy answers to avoid the pain of thinking. Specific to Michigan, there's the CHEATERS! narrative without parsing what the rule says and what competitive advantage was gleaned. THAT'S where The Athletic (and especially the idiots in the comments) fucked up.
This is what happens when reporters are asked for new content every 3.4 seconds. It’s a dumb take. JJ has the arm, is happy to be a team player, and wins. But, you’d have to actually do research to know that. Minnesota did the work.
I do believe he is 61-3 as a starter between HS and his time leading the current national champions.
The hardest thing to quantify is the mental make-up of a qb. It doesn't matter if you can throw the ball 80 yards like Joe Milton or run a 4.3 like Justin Fields if you're not a leader of men, can read a defense, be accurate, not turn the ball over.
Thinking of best qb's you look at the physical traits of Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Steve Young, Joe Montana, and Patrick Maholmes. Now compare them to JaMarcus Russell, Joe milton, Ryan leaf, Carson wentz. Trey Lance, Zach Wilson.
I felt JJ should have been pick 3 to NE, but I think there are legit criticisms of his game. I don't really care if people make him out to be a late 1st round talent (calling him a 2nd rounder is just being a hater).
That said, I have heard some of the dumbest shit when people try to tell you why JJ is bad. Like calling him inaccurate, or bad in high pressure situations, or other complete nonsense.
The people who took the time to scout JJ generally liked him, the people who just started with the assumption that he was bad and then had to find a reason ended up telling on themselves.
All these people who talk crap about JJ dont know shit about football. Michigan runs the most pro program in all of college football.