Who is the better QB prospect - Vince Young or Matt Leinart?

So, do you think the winning TD pass to Sweed in Columbus was a bad throw on which the receiver made a good catch?

 

It was a perfect play. The ball was put in a spot where the only person that was going to catch it was Sweed. It was a great throw and a great catch.

 

that was a great throw, he had no other place to put the ball. yes it was a great catch, but there was no other place to put the ball to make it an easy catch. the thing about that throw is that sweed was double covered, he could only throw it to the corner, and since seed is tall, he put it just high enough where the defensive back couldn't knock it down.

 

Take it out of context? You applauded Leinart for his ability to find the open receiver and bashed Young for the same thing in your next post.

You're right, wide receivers won't be as open and he won't have as much time in the pockets, but that can be said for every college QB ever to come out.

Look at the offensive players that Leinart has, great wide receivers all around + Mike Williams for 2 years, the best OL in the nation, and some guy named Reggie Bush. He won't have this much luxury in the NFL either. Just don't try to take something away from one player and not take it off the other.

If Young is a bust, then he's a bust. But there have been A LOT of QBs with the perfect form and perfect game that never amounted to that much in the NFL, I'm not saying Leinart will be one of them, but a player like Vince Young doesn't come all that often.

 

They don't deserve the choice if they're that stupid. LSU had an identical record - played a much tougher schedule - and won the game that all teams agreed before the season would be played for the national championship. Yet, because of the history of USC, the tradition, the fact that they're based in the second largest media market in the country, and that they have a large national following, media members and coaches wanted to rank them first.

Humans picked the BCS formula. But they didn't know what teams it would be affecting when they did so. That's what makes human polls biased and computer rankings relatively unbiased. It's the blatant disregard for strength of schedule by humans who rank teams based on hypotheticals (well, if USC had gotten to play team X, they would've won... they just had bad luck with their schedule), etc.

Yes, they changed the formula after the season. But you can't apply it retroactively. Teams played the 2003 season under a commonly accepted agreement that the champion of the Bowl Championship Series would be that season's champion. LSU played by the rules and won. End of story. I don't care that coaches didn't want to vote LSU #1. I don't care that the media isn't. A large part of them are incredibly biased. I don't take any champion of human polls seriously unless they are mixed with some unbiased factors, and many other college football fans I've talked to feel the same. The talk all of 2003 was what two teams would make it to the Sugar Bowl and play for the national championship. The two most deserving teams did make it to that game, and the best team won. As far as I'm concerned, there's the champion.

 

Except this isn't true. They played the season under the commonly accepted agreement that the #1 and #2 BCS teams will play each other the end of the season. Despite what fans like to believe, that is <B>all the BCS does</B>. Nothing has ever changed the fact that the polls decide the champions.

You can choose to believe otherwise, and that LSU was the better team or whatnot - nothing wrong with that. However, it doesn't change the way the system works or the reality of how titles are determined.

 

By the way, I hope you guys are watching the USC-UCLA game. Leinart doesn't look like a lock for best college QB right now.

 

But wait, Texas has players who are just as good as Reggie Bush so the Heisman he won and the championships are all because of Leinart.

 

And Leinart has performed so much better?

Vince : 4 TD's.

Matt Leinart: Reggie Bush's waterboy

 

Wow. You must be smoking crack. The guy had near 200 yards passing in ONE HALF. Honestly...even someone as biased as you has to admit he had a good game today.

 

Yeah, throwing 14-17 w/ 3 Touchdowns and rushing 8 times for 57 yards and 1 rushing touchdown is unimpressive for 1 game, but this was done in one half of football.

 

This is sooo not true. Richmond McGee looked average.

 

How much more could Vince have done to warrant a good game from you? Not like it matters though.

 

He didn't cure cancer during the second drive