Anyone else not surprised EJ Manual was the only QB taken in the 1st round.
- Thread starter patdog
- Start date
I actually think he was a reach for the first round. Talent wise, he is off the charts, but he isn't a great decision maker and lack consistent accuracy.
I bet Barkley is so happy he returned for his senior year. I wonder how much money he lost because of that?
Yeah. I was surprised he was taken as high as he was. But, of all the mediocre QBs in the draft, he's the one I like the best. Real good combination of size, arm strength, accuracy (not sure where the lack of consistent accuracy comment is coming from), and running ability.
That's today's NFL. RB's are a dime a dozen and are so injury prone. Not worth it investing 1st round money in that position.
Also
I thought Manuel was a terrible pick. Being a smart QB
with a great work ethic seems to be more important than pure talent in the NFL. See Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Joe Montana. Compare to Cam Newton, Michael Vick, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Matthew Stafford(although he has put up good numbers) etc.
with a great work ethic seems to be more important than pure talent in the NFL. See Tom Brady, Russell Wilson, Joe Montana. Compare to Cam Newton, Michael Vick, Jamarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf, Matthew Stafford(although he has put up good numbers) etc.
I was thinking the same thing. He gave up a ton of money for a sun bowl (I think) appearance.
That he didn't even play in.
How crazy is it that if you play QB at USC no one wants to touch you because of that school? Would you have ever thought that would be the case?
It has nothing to do with USC.. if Barkley had looked this year like he looked last year, he would've been picked last night... That's why you go when your stock is the highest.. all they can do is get more stuff on tape that they don't like about you
Exactly.
I didn't mean that was the reason he lost out on the first round between last year and this year.
Certainly Mark Sanchez's and Matt Cassal's terrible seasons had a lot to do with Barkely's fall though.
USC is where QB's NFL dreams go to die.
and yet carson palmer was a damn good QB for a few years before his knee was ripped to shreds in the playoffs.
anyone who is biased against a kid because a completely unrelated player played for the same school a few years prior and was an NFL bust doesn't deserve to work in an NFL front office. correlation is not causation.
also, i think cassel can't be held against usc. the dude didn't even start at usc.
anyone who is biased against a kid because a completely unrelated player played for the same school a few years prior and was an NFL bust doesn't deserve to work in an NFL front office. correlation is not causation.
also, i think cassel can't be held against usc. the dude didn't even start at usc.
Why should we care--The Chicago Trib says the NFL is dead.
http://www.score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=78723 And some of us like to ***** about Fox because it's too "far right." Enjoy the Left, and start appreciating slow pitch softball.
http://www.score670.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=78723 And some of us like to ***** about Fox because it's too "far right." Enjoy the Left, and start appreciating slow pitch softball.
Sometimes correlation is causation. But it doesn't really matter if a QB is bad because he went to USC or if USC turns QBs into bad QBs. The fact is still the same. USC produces bad QBs and if you draft one you're probably going to be disappointed. And that's really true for QBs in the Southern California region. Not just USC. But high schools and other universities as well. That area of the country just doesn't produce good QBs for whatever reason.
30 years ago, nobody would've envisioned the decline of boxing and baseball. However, with the rise of the NBA and ultimate fighting, you're seeing those two sports dropping down to U.S. Soccer-level status in this country.
I think football CAN be saved. However, like in 1905 when Teddy Roosevelt got colleges together to save football back then, there needs to be some major rules and equipment changes:
-Soft-shell helmets. The hard shell helmets that have been in football for 60 years have caused the bulk of head and neck injuries because they become a weapon.
-eliminating facemasks. Look at old football films. Most of the tackling is done either by the shoulders or by throwing the runner down. Facemasks make people crazy-brave. You run into people and attack folks that, out of uniform and on the streets, you'd be terrified of walking with down the same street. You eliminate the facemask, people risk broken noses and busted teeth, instead of spinal-cord injuries and brain damage.
I think football CAN be saved. However, like in 1905 when Teddy Roosevelt got colleges together to save football back then, there needs to be some major rules and equipment changes:
-Soft-shell helmets. The hard shell helmets that have been in football for 60 years have caused the bulk of head and neck injuries because they become a weapon.
-eliminating facemasks. Look at old football films. Most of the tackling is done either by the shoulders or by throwing the runner down. Facemasks make people crazy-brave. You run into people and attack folks that, out of uniform and on the streets, you'd be terrified of walking with down the same street. You eliminate the facemask, people risk broken noses and busted teeth, instead of spinal-cord injuries and brain damage.
That's bull.. Barkley was #1 on everybody's board going into this year and the Heisman favorite.. the only difference is he threw twice as many INTs this year in 1 fewer game than last year.. If he goes 3500/39/7 like he did in 2011, he goes top 10 guaranteed
It sounds crazy, but you're right. That's exactly what football needs. Go back to the 40s with leather helmets and no facemasks. Obviously, you'd have to go with a much improved padding & shock absorption system in the helmet, but the basic leather helmet with no facemask would be the same. You'd instantly eliminate spearing and spinal injuries. And you'd cut concussions significantly.
How many of those same boards saw EJ Manuel as the only QB picked in the 1st round of this year's draft. The boards you see are a lot like the recruiting rankings you see. Not worth much and not much better than you could come up with on your own if you wanted to.
Not with me. I couldn't care less about either the NBA or the "ultimate fighting". I'll stick with football and baseball, especially on the pro level.
You could well be right about the helmet issue though. They are indeed used as weapons.
You could well be right about the helmet issue though. They are indeed used as weapons.
I really don't think he gave a up a lot of money, if any. I think the scouts and real experts (ie. those not associated with the ESPN USC hype machine) knew he wasn't that great last year, otherwise he would have gone.