Some forget about how good Daunte was...I don't...only franchise QB I have ever known (please, Teddy, please).
And the whole basis of the lack of games argument is you have to look at it like an NFL scout or GM looks at it, not as a fan.
It stems back to the old rules of drafting QBs, aka the Parcells Principle or the 26-27-60 rule, when looking at perspective QB prospects. NFL teams like knowing what they are getting, especially in the 1st round and especially at QB, and a QB with less than 20 starts might scare some of them. So in my mind, the team that drafts him in the 1st (which I think he will go in), will "buy into the hype" of mostly his talent alone. Not a slight against Cardale, just a thought on how NFL people view prospects with smaller sample sizes relative to most other prospects. Based on how much he has played, he is a bit over-hyped in NFL spheres...but based on talent alone, the hype is warranted.
That's fair and a good point. I misread both your post and then, I suppose,
@AZ_ as well. I just hate when people say lack of starts in college = bad quarterback and vice versa. It's all a metric, not fool proof.
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.
Comparing Cardale to Johnny is silly, dude. Cardale is much more talented, pretty much all around, than Johnny was. I think Jamarcus is a
much, much better comparison, and more to the point of what you are getting at. Even then, Cardale happens to read defenses much better and is much more complete than Jamarcus Russell was.
I'm not saying he's overrated because of inexperience, but there is a clear correlation between collegiate starting experience and NFL success.
Right, but correlation does not equal causation and I don't think it's as "clear" as you're making it out to seem. Brady Quinn and Colt McCoy were just two examples but plenty of other's exist: Matt Leinart, Tim Tebow, Joey Harrington, and Sexy Rex Grossman just to name a few.
You can name a bunch of QBs who didn't start a lot of games that failed or a lot that started a lot that succeeded, but that's not the point. The point is there is not some clear metric that suggests college starts equals NFL success.
Also that Jones' weaknesses have yet to be exploited by other teams in part because of the sample size. I think VT adjusted well last night, but the dude is just a tank that cannot be brought down consistently.
Agreed.
Jones has a tendency to trust that arm too much and force plays that aren't there. He's got a long way to go before his golden arm and size translate into a viable NFL starter, IMO.
I suppose I agree. Do I think he could start in the NFL today? Hell no. Do I think, after another year at OSU, he could be a viable starter opening day next year? Not really, but I also don't believe in starting a rookie QB his first season no matter who it is. So, ultimately, I don't understand why somebody drafting him in the first round is just falling for hype.
