I began following college football when good old Lloyd was hired and I bet some older kid in the 6th grade (I was in the 4th) that UM will beat OSU, not knowing anything at all about the sport or that OSU had Eddie George and were favorites to beat us. The only thing I knew was the hype surrounding the game as evidenced by the various activities that went on in school. What caught my eye was that Monday after the game, the kid I made the bet with handed me 100 pennies, as UM had won. Since then I have been an avid follower of the team, but unfortunately only recently (last three years) have been keeping up with recruiting. I was just curious to see if anyone had any stats of our recruiting rankings in the 1990's and the star ratings, if there were any, that accompanied our most successful players from that time.
Recruiting in the 90's
since recruiting rankings only go back to 2002 on rivals and scout. i've always wanted to see ratings on players such as woodson, a-train, brady, ect. I know there was one year (1998?) where we had a bunch of the #1 rated players though. I'll be curious to see if anyone can find anything
i think its widely agreed that brady would have been a solid but not spectacular 4 * recruit, a top 15 pro-style QB. maybe in the clayton richards mold. woodson i'd give a high 4 *, a la justin turner, guy who played more RB in high school but projected as a big cornerback in college. A-Train may have been fringe 5*. Beanie Wells type. He was physically ready to play from day one. Henson, Terrell, Walker, Fargas were all 5*. Brian Griese? 2*, maybe 3. These are just guesses, of course.
Tom Brady had to almost beg the coaches to give him an offer. IIRC, he had to do quite the sales job to play here. I think he was probably a mid-level 3 star by that description.
Yeah I can see that. You've probably seen the video tape his high school coach put together for colleges. It doth reeked of desperation. But I think, in the mid 90's, being a 6'5 QB with a good arm, from California, with a Michigan offer, bumps him into the 4* range. I think some of the rivals guys have said that. And he was drafted by the Montreal Expos, right? So that's something. I think.
, I can't remember which, you can go back quite a few years and see what players star ratings were. There are a lot of names I never heard of because players just never panned out.
the first year I can remember recruiting being followed with any kind of intensity was 1998. That was the year many thought we had secured the top QB- Henson, the top RB- Fargas, and the top 2 WRs- Terrell and Walker. Before that, I do remember some hype regarding Anthony Thomas coming out of Louisiana in '97.
I think Bo said something like this about recruiting: 1/3 of your recruits will meet expectations, 1/3 will surpass them and 1/3 will disappoint. Sounds about right
I'm pretty sure that Woodson would at least be high 4-star, as I remember hearing a ton of hype about him in the 1995 class. I don't remember hearing about Brady at the time, but I heard great things about him during his redshirt year (i.e. we've got Dreisbach and Griese now, but there's some incredible stud on the bench). He had to be at least 4-star. Griese, I guess, would be 3-star, since IIRC he did get offers from other schools, but chose to walk onto Michigan instead.
The 1998 class was outrageously good. Henson, Fargas, Terrell, and Walker would all be considered 5-star. There were some other big names in that one, but that class suffered badly from attrition and injuries.
This fact begs to be repeated whenever recruiting rankings are discussed.
Mike Hart = 3*
Kevin Grady = 5*
ALL. Will Paul was also a 5 star guy for UM and look at his brilliant career.
As does this fact
Terrelle Pryor = 5*
Nick Sheridan = ...did he actually get any offers? He's not even listed in the Rivals recruiting database.
"Whether or not you try to use anecdotal evidence to discredit recruiting rankings" should be a fundamental test to tell whether a person is actually reading and comprehending what Brian writes.
This fact begs to be repeated whenever recruiting rankings are discussed.
Mike Hart = 3*
Kevin Grady = 5*
star ratings indicate the liklihood of a player being good. it doesn't promise anything.
you should probably read that
That's a good point. And I don't deny the recruiting rankings are more right than not. Again, I defer to Bo: 1/3 meet, 1/3 fail, 1/3 surpass expectations. Let's face it, some guys are can't miss: Lamarr Woodley comes to mind
These are the 5 stars Michigan has recruited since 2002.
All of the ones who have graduated are in the NFL, either starting or fairly comfortable on the active roster. Outside of Grady, all the others are current, multi-year starters, Mallett excepted for obvious reasons. I'd say the ratings are pretty accurate.
You're right, those guys were all studs coming out, no question they all had/have big talent. But to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that of that list, only 3 had 5* careers at Michigan:
Henne, Graham, Woodley.
Jury's still out on Warren and Schilling with two years to go, those guys look to be future All Big Ten, potential All-Americans but we'll see.
And Dave Harris was better than Prescott Burgess-- I believe he was 3*.
Mike Hart, again, better than Grady.
Alan Branch was better than Gabe Watson.
Nick Sheridan is obviously superior to Ryan Mallett. Er, no wait, nevermind.
I think grain of salt is the cliche I would employ when it comes to rankings.
A 5 star doesn't mean he'll be the best player at his position that the team will ever see. Almost every 5 star we've had, you can probably pick a guy who was rated below him who was better. But if I listed every 4 star we've had over that same period, there would be WAY more guys who were non-contributors or who played a minor role on the team. Grady is the only guy who falls into that category, out of 8. That's not a bad percentage.
I wouldn't say that Henne had a 5-star career at Michigan. His sophomore year was mediocre, at best and his inability to move the team against bad defenses that year (e.g. Notre Shame, Minnesota, Wisconsin) cost Michigan numerous times. Against Norhtwestern, he threw three interceptions against the dead last ranked passing defense in I-A. His career efficiency numbers are pretty average for a guy who played with Jake Long protecting his blind side while he threw to Mario Manningham, Adrian Arrington, Steve Breaston, Jason Avant, and Braylon Edwards during an era where Notre Dame and the rest of the Big 10 had a lot of weak defenses.
He was picked at the top of the 2nd round and finished his career holding several Michigan passing records. Your standards are pretty damn high if you don't think he deserved a 5-star ranking in retrospect.
I don't care what round he was picked in. Lots of quarterbacks with average careers get picked in the NFL draft because of their physical tools.
The records that he leaves Michigan with are the result of playing for 4 years and accumulating a shitton of passing attempts. It's the same reason why Anthony Thomas graduated with some Michigan records even though he was crummy to mediocre for his first three years and ranks firmly behind Hart, Wheatley, Boles, Morris, Biakabutuka, and Woolfolk in a list of the greatest Michigan backs ever.
You clearly missed the point that rankings are based on pro prospects. So, yeah, the fact that Henne had the physical tools to be drafted in the 2nd round is exactly why he got 5-stars, and exactly why he deserved the.
Well the discussion was who had 5-star careers at Michigan, and that was my opinion on Henne. The fact that Michigan went to a BCS game his freshman year shows that he deserved his high school accolades, but in my opinion, Henne lacked a certain factor between the ears that kept him from developing into a truly great one like Brady, Grbac, Harbaugh, Collins, or Henson.
Also, I don't see where the star rankings are solely intended for evaluating a prospect's chances of getting drafted in the NFL. Tim Tebow, for example, was a 5-star recruit and he has had an incredible college career, but nobody considers him a high NFL prospect.
The fact that he's not considered a high NFL prospect has more to do with the offense he runs than his gifts. If Tebow had gone to a program like USC or Michigan with a pro-style offense (before Rodriguez came, obviously), he would probably be considered a high first round pick. As it is, he spends too much time running the ball and throwing bubble screens from the shotgun formation for scouts to have a good read on what his abilities might be in a classic NFL system.
Ah hahahahahahahahahaha. Do you know anything about football? The offensive system he runs does NOT impair the ability of professional scouts to get a good read on his abilities.
Seriously? For real?
I hope you're not serious. If you are in fact serious, please name a successful NFL quarterback who ran the read option almost exclusively in college. And Vince Young doesn't count, since he got benched in favor of Kerry Collins and was arguably unsuccessful even before he hurt his knee.
First off, the argument is based off this:
"As it is, he spends too much time running the ball and throwing bubble screens from the shotgun formation for scouts to have a good read on what his abilities might be in a classic NFL system."
So the debate is whether the system impairs the scouts abilities to evaluate players. However, you immediately narrow my defense to a SUCCESSFUL NFL QB that ran a read option ALMOST exclusively. Then, fucking then, you remove Vince Young because he got benched for Kerry Collins, which was because he's a fucking headcase, not because he sucks at football.
Also, your argument is horrible anyway because of Matt Cassel. He never even fucking played at USC and was drafted. Ergo, NFL scouts not only don't give 2 shits what system you ran in college, they don't fucking care if you even played for your college team if you have NFL talent.
You lose, now please shut the fuck up.
1. He almost exclusively takes snaps out of the shotgun. Most NFL systems require a majority of snaps from under center and require the QB to drop back, which is much different.
2. Vince Young has 22 career touchdowns and 32 career interceptions. You cannot tell me that he has developed into a successful NFL quarterback, even if you take away the fact that he was benched.
3. When I said "almost exclusively" I was referring to the offense. The "read option spread" is a general name for the offense Rodriguez and Urban Meyer run. It doesn't necessarily mean they run that play every snap.
4. Matt Cassel's example actually supports my argument, because he played in a pro style offense and is now playing pretty well in the NFL.
But nice try.
Since your argument was that Tebow spends too much time in college doing NON NFL type things to be evaluated.
Information on Cassel's college career, from Wiki: "As a result of Leinart's success, Cassel spent time at tight end, even making his lone collegiate start at that position. During his four seasons at USC, Cassel completed 19 of 33 passes for 192 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception."
Somehow, I think Tebow has made more than 33 NFL type throws while playing at Florida.
He was also the backup QB in the pro style offense, which means he played in a pro style offense every single day in practice, got backup QB snaps, and played against perhaps the most talented defensive players in the nation. Hell, his practice throws were probably against better defenses than what he would have faced every Saturday in Pac-10 games.
Which is why he got drafted. However, your point that the system impairs players to get adequately evaluated is still wrong.
Yeah, but when did NFL scouts see any of this? Your argument against Tebow is that NFL scouts only see him running a spread shotgun offense. Those same scouts didn't see Cassel do anything and yet were able to determine that he was capable of being an NFL quarterback.
And Cassel WASN'T EVEN DRAFTED UNTIL THE 7TH ROUND. I don't even know why he's in the conversation. Some team took a flyer on him toward the end of the draft. I never said Tebow wouldn't get drafted or would go in the 7th round.
You guys are saying they will take a player late in the draft from a pro style offense who was a backup in college.
I'm saying Tebow won't be a top 10 pick in part because of the offense he runs.
Those two things are completely independent from each other.
But Magnus - you've drawn an insanely limiting scope here, as defined by "the offenses that Urban Meyer and Rich Rodriguez run". OK, so out of Pat White, Rasheed Marshall, Adam Bednarik, Woody Dantzler, Shaun King, Tim Tebow, Chris Leak, Josh Harris, and Alex Smith, which are "successful pros"?
Well, Shaun King was an NFL starting QB that brought his team to the Super Bowl. That is, at least marginally, successful.
The fact that Alex Smith isn't good doesn't obscure the fact that he was a first pick overall running an offense that you say prohibits Tebow from being thought of as a viable NFL QB.
Look at Tom Brady, he ran pro style and spent most of last season running a shotgun spread formation.
That's kind of the point we're trying to make to Magnus. That the college system you run (or in the case of Cassel, watch Leinart and Palmer run) does not impair NFL scouts from adequately judging your talent. Nor does it necessarily mean anything, seeing as Alex Smith was a #1 draft pick, meaning scouts, despite seeing him throwing these bubble screens and running, determined he had the ability to be a top QB.
I have no idea how Magnus arrives at the conclusions he does.
It would be more accurate to say that Meyer's offensive system HELPED Smith's draft status.
Which is the exact OPPOSITE of Magnus' argument.
You are absolutely correct. Alex Smith is excellent proof that running a spread option well qualifies a quarterback to be a high draft pick. I stand corrected on the issue.
Magnus, you're moving the goalposts again. I never said Alex Smith was a successful NFL QB. You claimed that the Read Option hindered Tebow from being a high NFL draft pick. My point was that the read option turned an utterly unqualified QB into THE FIRST PICK OVERALL. Those two are the exact opposite.
And the correlation I hoped you would see through the sarcasm is this:
Alex Smith ran Meyer's offense at Utah. Scouts thought he was worth the first pick in the draft. He wasn't. Doesn't it seem as though scouts might have learned their lesson from Smith's failure?
this column is very skinny
It is much easier to move from under center to shotgun than it is to move from shotgun to under center. The footwork is different, the reads are different, the progression is different. Play action from under center often cuts the field in half, whereas play action from shotgun doesn't. Etc. Etc.
Brad Johnson was the starting quarterback of the Bucs when they went to the Super Bowl, not Shaun King.
I'm aware they won the SB with Johnson, but I thought King took them to one they lost, which I now realize was 1999 when they almost beat the Rams in the NFC championship.
I didn't limit it to the offenses that Rodriguez and Meyer run. I was talking about the spread option, which several coaches run. And you're right. I guess Shaun King counts as a moderately successful NFL quarterback, but looking back at his career, did his success really warrant a high first round (like we're discussing with Tebow)? I honestly don't know. If a GM were promised a few decent years and a Super Bowl loss from a first round QB, would he pick that guy or would he risk it on someone else?
I thought this was what the Chicago Bears were offered with Rex Grossman. We should ask their GM. Seriously though, I'm pretty sure when they picked him with the 26th pick, they didn't plan on him sucking. However, given their refusal to draft a functioning QB and waste so much talent everywhere else, I say they deserve it.
Donovan McNabb was an option QB in college.
But did he run the SPREAD option ALMOST exclusively?
Was he a successful NFL QB?
Ohh, he was both? Well he doesn't count because he never won a Super Bowl and I have a man crush on Terrell Owens.
My two cents:
Magnus, you made a claim about Tebow, then completely changed the discussion when Shock obviously made a better point. I'm not attacking you right now but I want to explain this. These boards should be for discussion, they often turn into pissing matches because when someone (in this case you) has their point beat like it was, they change the debate to favor themselves. This is why it's so frustrating. I'm wrong all the time and will admit that. None of us know each other so who care is we say, "yeah, you're right, I didn't think of that". Unless you just prefaced your whole argument incorrectly in the first place, in which case, just put a little more thought into it. Again, I'm not attacking, but I think if we want to avoid this place becoming Scout or Rivals, we need to self-police and just be willing to say we were wrong.
I will get off my soapbox now, but just think about it a little.
KRK: I appreciate your objective viewpoint. If you read this, could you please tell me where I changed the subject? My original comment was about how Tebow has suffered in the eyes of NFL scouts because he hasn't run a typical NFL offense. I feel like I've been arguing that point all along. How did I change it? Thanks.
Isn't all of this what the combine is for? Senior bowl? Work outs?
Comments 26-30 with you and shock are where it starts. The argument was the Tebow would be noticed better by NFL scouts at USC or Michigan (pre-RR) but won't be at Florida. Then it got shifted to "name one read-option QB who has been successful". They are similar arguments, but Shock mentions that the system doesn't tell you much, it's the talent or potential talent that scouts look for. The way I read it was "Tebow won't get as much notice". Then it shifted to, "name a good read option QB". One thing that I think makes this wrong is that Tebow is the first of his kind (bruising runner not a speedster, okay passer though better than most running QB's) which is why he might translate better than Pat White. Plus, the spread is becoming more integrated into the NFL so this is a debate with a still limited sample size. I hope that makes sense, if not I apologize.
Oh yeah, I never meant to imply that Tebow wouldn't get noticed. I just meant that scouts won't see him playing in a pro style offense (seven-step drops, five-step drops, play action out of the I-formation, etc.).
Maybe that's why he brought up Cassel. That was definitely a misinterpretation/miscommunication.
Teams that run the zone read recruit guys like Juice Williams or Pat White knowing that their lack of passing skill will be counter balanced by their mobility.
Teams that run a pro style recruit guys like Mallett and Leinart, knowing that their lack of mobility will be counter balanced by their passing skill.
Since NFL teams almost exclusively run a pro style, they obviously draft more pro style QBs. It's not because they can't evaluate zone read QBs. It's because they have and, for the most part, don't fit what they're trying to do.
In the rare instance you get a guy like Tebow or Smith or VY or Vick who can do both, on the college level, they typically get drafted highly. The fact that Smith or VY are "busts" (although I don't think VY should be lumped into that group yet) has, imo, little to with their system in college and more to do with scouts getting it wrong some times (Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith, etc.). When Tate Forcier and Shav Beaver finish 1-2 in the NFL MVP voting in 2014, I will be proven correct.
Right. Is Pat White not considered viable NFL QB because he runs the Read Option, or because he can't throw?
Was Woody Dantzler not considered a viable NFL QB because he ran the read option, or because he's only 5'10" by standing on a phone-book?
If I were Nick Sheridan I'd be pissed - the read option is clearly hampering his NFL prospects.
...I still want the last word. I win.
I'm confused. Michigan - and other pro style programs - recruited Tebow. He just chose to go to Florida over UM (and others). It's not like Michigan said, "Okay, other people are recruiting you at wideout, but we think you're good enough to play QB."
Michigan recruited him. If they got him, he probably would have replaced Chad Henne. And Mallett probably wouldn't have committed to Michigan.
I don't even understand what your point is anymore.
That's because you're choosing not to.
Coming out of high school, Tebow was recruited by EVERYONE.
Now that he's been in Meyer's read option offense for three years, he is not considered to be a well polished quarterback for an NFL, pro style offense.
I pointed to him as one of the few that was mobile and a good passer. So, yeah, it stands to reason that he was recruited by all manner of schools running all sorts of offenses. I certainly hope that you're not creating a hypothetical world where Tebow goes to U-M and is instantly a consensus top 5 pick, because there's no way to argue for or against that.
What position did Carr recruit Pryor at? DE. Antonio Bass? WR. Jermaine Gonzales? WR. Did Rich Rod go hard after Mallett? Stafford? Henne?
I'm not sure what your point is. So what if Carr recruited Pryor at DE, Bass at WR, etc.?
Tebow was recruited as a pro style QB. He would have been a pro style QB (until, obviously, Rodriguez would have showed up). I don't know of any schools that recruited him as anything else.
...I thought I was addressing your concerns, but apparently I missed your point, which, if you haven't noticed, has happened for just about everyone in this thread.
All I'm saying is that read option systems tend to look for a skill set that is different than what most NFL teams want. Most of the time, the reason these QBs aren't in the NFL isn't because they're held back by the system, it's because they never had the skill set to begin with. When they do have the skill set to run both a traditional pro-style offense and a spread read option system, they are often drafted highly.
The fact that Tim Tebow could have gone to U-M, Florida, Georgia or wherever doesn't affect this argument one way or the other. Unless, you're insinuating that he would have been a higher draft pick after going to a non-Rich Rod U-M, which neither of us knows.
You are correct. I have no idea if he would have been a higher draft pick if he were in a pro style offense. I do think his mechanics/footwork would be better by necessity and repetition, but that doesn't mean he would have been a better QB. He may not have received the Heisman because of fewer rushing TD's. Etc. Etc. It's difficult to say how different he would have been if he had gone somewhere besides UF.
No offense, but Juice Williams is not an apt example, especially compared to Pat White. Pat White was a 3-star "athlete" coming out of high school and was not even expected to step in at QB by most schools because of his lack of arm strength. Juice Williams was an Elite 11 QB coming out of high school, had (and still has) very impressive arm strength, and was barely considered a dual threat because he only ran something like a 4.78 coming out of high school. It just happens that his freshman year was awful as far as his passing efficiency, so he got stuck with the "option QB" tag -- that, and well, Zook's system is a spread option system.
It's not so much that scouts are going to look at someone like Juice Williams and actually say "Well, he played in a spread option system, so he's third or fourth round at best," but the system itself has probably in some ways affected the aspects of the game in which he has or has not developed.
But notice that this year, Juice Williams is not only the leading passer in the Big Ten (at least as far as passing efficiency, I think), but Zook has him throwing the ball more on top of that.
There are going to be exceptions and sleepers, just like ever NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB, fantasy, etc. draft. First round picks are more likely to be stars than second round picks. Second round picks are more likely to be stars than third round picks. And so on. The same goes for recruiting rankings.
Hart was a sleeper. Obviously, he outperformed his rankings. And yet his position in the NFL draft was closer to a 3-star position instead of the 5-star performer he was for Michigan. I read somewhere that Rivals' 5-star rankings are people they project to be first round NFL picks in 3 or 4 or 5 years. By that reasoning, Hart didn't deserve to be rated higher.
the offense meyer runs with tebow is vastly different from what he ran with smith or even with leak.
frankly, i'm not sure how you can evaluate the impact of florida's current offensive system on pro prospects or development because no one else really runs anything like it. (washington tried to, then locker got hurt)
"The offense at Florida doesn’t resemble an NFL offense; he hasn’t been under center much if at all. He is more of a power running quarterback, which doesn’t translate well into the NFL."
"Absolutely horrendous footwork ... Plays in a run-option offense and it will take him 2-3 years to learn an NFL offense ... Extremely long release ... Shown no improvement in his mechanics over his career ..."
I just did a quick Google search of Tim Tebow scouting reports. I think they're pretty scarce since Tebow is only a junior. Regardless, one of the reasons listed (by people other than me) is that he doesn't play in a pro style offense.
And by the way, the mechanics issues are relevant to the offense that he runs. You can bet that if Tebow went to a school with a pro style offense and coaches (USC, Michigan before Rodriguez, etc.), he would have many of his mechanics issues smoothed out by now.
They do also mention that he has questionable arm strength, which is obviously a negative.
It's kind of unbelievable to think (though physique and its relationship to arm strength has been discussed here before) that Tebow would have poor arm strength given the way he's built.
regardless of what you think of tebow, i dont think linking to amateur scouting reports on fantasy football websites proves anything about what actual nfl scouts think
Well, we rarely hear reports straight from the mouths of NFL teams' scouts. So I'll gladly wait to hear Ron Jaworski, Todd McShay, Mel Kiper, etc. say that one of Tebow's downfalls is the fact that he hasn't played in a pro style offense.
i'm not even arguing with you necessarily, but that's not what you linked to.
Somebody in an earlier post said something like, "You're the only one who thinks that." As I couldn't quickly find any respected talent evaluators' opinions, I linked some random scouting reports, to at least show that it isn't just me.
Tim Tebow is generally not considered to be a high NFL draft pick.
I have offered a reason: he runs a read option offense in college.
Several of you are saying the offense he runs doesn't hinder him from being a high draft pick.
So if he's not going to be a high draft pick and my reason is incorrect, what is the reason?
ShockFX: Here's the difference between you and me. When people offer up their opinions, I don't say things like "hahahahahahahaha do you know anything about football?" Yet you're the one who calls me an assclown, pompous, etc. when it's completely unprovoked.
...makes this extremely difficult, because we have no idea where he'll end up. Base solely on what you've provided from really early scouting reports, I'll play along:
1a.) Mechanics - I'm not an expert by any means. However, I think a really good QB coach could help with this, regardless of the system. I'm not qualified to grade UF's QB coach.
1b.) Accuracy - Probably tied to 1a. Struggles to make semi-difficult throws, often over throwing. Would a more pro-style offense help with increased repetitions on this type of throw? Maybe. Does he just suck at these period and would no matter what? Maybe. Much like the number of licks to the center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
2.) Mobility - He doesn't have above average speed/escapability to help mask some of his other short comings. Being a big dude gets him by in CFB, but won't work in NFL.
3.) Footwork - Certainly hindered by his system. Can't argue with that. However, if this is the only reason a scout drops him out of the 1st round, I'd be surprised.
4.) Really Christian - Kitna and Warner are beyond annoying and scouts hate Bible thumpers.
Yeah, Bible thumpers do generally get marked down.
Just imagine if Tebow were a Scientologist. The NFL would probably hire a hitman to make him sleep with the fishes before the draft.
I am by no means close to being an expert, but here is my take on how a CFB system impacts a player's draft prospects, whether or not legitimately.
System can certainly be a factor as anything else can, but I do think you're overplaying the degree to which it will affect a player's standing with NFL scouts. I think scouts more often try to place players based on how close they fit the prototype at their position (especially at QB) for a myriad of reasons (most of which aren't really integral to the legitimacy or lack thereof with respect to the point I'm trying to make).
Obviously, scouts look at stats and tape first and foremost, but they also look at physique and mechanics (obviously, the system itself and a player's mechanics have symbiotic relationship in that a pro-style system necessitates a QB with good footwork, throwing, etcetera, but at the same time, a coach is going adapt to the skill of his QB quite often).
In all, yeah, the system itself can affect a player's draft prospects, but I think it's rare that an NFL draft scout looks at a player, and his evaluation of a player is based strictly on the system itself -- he may mention it in passing, but it's never going to make or break a player. Frankly, it can work against players who played in pro-style offenses as well -- we all remember when scouts pointed out that Henne was throwing to all-world receivers his whole career.
To argue that a spread option system = DEEEEEAATH as far as NFL scouts are concerned, I think that's a bit overblown. The connection is there, but it's not as direct, I don't think.
I can agree with most of that. And I appreciate your ability to not be a dick while explaining your point. Thanks.
I'm not sure if I agree with your point about Henne throwing to good receivers in his career. Braylon definitely made him look good as a freshman, but I think Henne made Arrington and Manningham look good and vice versa. They made a lot of amazing catches, but he was able to put the ball in places where he knew only they could catch it. I don't remember scouts knocking him for that; I only remember nay-sayers on message boards knocking him for it.
ok people like ShockFX are the reason these message boards get so out of hand. and when i say people like ShockFX, i mean people who love to prove others wrong (evidenced by, 'you lose, now please shut the fuck up') and people who are unwilling to attempt to understand what others could be trying to say.
here's an example that makes me think magnus might not be so wrong: terrelle pryor chose osu over michigan in large part because he wants to reach the nfl, and because of that, wants to throw more than he runs while in college. what's the main reason throwing more in college would help him reach the nfl?
it gives him practice emulating a pro-style quarterback.
vs. an option qb with the same talents and barely ever throws 10+yd passes.
why should that not make scouts more confident in pryor's abilities?
See also: Newsome, Kevin.
Terrelle Pryor also chose OSU because he wouldn't have to start immediately.
My comments were more about HOW he argues, not WHAT he was arguing. But whatever, we're BFFs now!