If your counterargument is "he throws for a lot of yards" (which stands to reason when you lead the league in attempts), then no, I don't really feel a need to offer anything more. Murray may turn out to be a pleasant surprise given what his draft stock appears to be, but if you're drafting for the next Matthew Stafford (knowing what we know about him now), you're not drafting to win. My problem isn't with Murray himself, he may turn out to be a great QB. My problem is using Stafford as the example to shoot for. That's all. I think the book is still out on Kaepernick as a pure passer.
Stop posting ****ing college stats. Stats don't mean a damn thing. Completely meaningless in college.
Stash Boyd on the bench a couple of years and use him as a backup. At one point, he was considered 1st round potential. He has good athleticism and adequate arm strength. Put up huge numbers at Clemson.
Yep, I think it was after his sophomore season. He was a 4-year starter at Clemson, so it gave scouts too much time to dissect his game.
I like Boyd but I think his success had more to do with Sammy Watkins... That dude is a quarterback maker. Just like Calvin Johnson (because Stafford suxks) and AJ Green.
Don't forget Hopkins too. Boyd played in the Guz "the QB whisperer" Malzahn offense - so might be a system guy.
In that case, it's good we have his main receiver here already in Hopkins. Actually the Texans can put them all(Boyd, Watkins and Hopkins) back together again.
Not trying to sound like a smart***, but how else can you discuss a player that you might be interested in drafting? I know those stats don't necessarily translate to the pro's , but regardless that's the only thing you have to go by. ....... ....... .......
I think it's one of many datapoints you need to look at. Remember those ridiculous numbers Texas Tech QBs used to put up under Mike Leach?
I know you just don't look at any players personal college stats, and think that those will be his stats in the pro's. You take into account the system they play in, the strength of the competition, his attitude etc. , but after taking it all into account, we are still talking about things he did or didn't do in college! So to say don't look at stats, to me, means the same as don't look at anything that happened to him or by him in college. ....... ....... .......
The only two proven useful stats are number of starts and completion percentage. The best college-to-NFL QBs are guys who start 4 years and complete a high percentage of passes. Of the big 3 QB prospects, Bridgewater has these two statistical categories in his favor. Manziel has a high % but low number of starts. Bortles has a high number of starts but a low completion %.
Are those 2 stats even that useful? Well yeah, they help... but plenty of high % guys in college were **** in the pros. Many never even have a chance, like Lefors. And guys like Cassel never even play, much less start, and wind up a top 25QB. Cam Newton played what, 12 games? I'm sticking with my guns. The only thing that matters is if the player is good (lulz). If he's good, he's good, if he sucks, he sucks. Stats don't really get you anywhere.
