Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 170
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In your Mind
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by JetNation View Post
    He was a generational PROSPECT and he didn’t disappoint at all once he was in the league. What made him so great was his ability to lift those around him and take a 2-14 team to the playoffs his rookie year despite having a terrible defense, offensive line & absolutely no running game. Not only that but his teams always had a winning record with him at QB. HE was the reason for the turnaround. You wanna say he stunk in the playoffs? Sure, but so did Peyton & Marino. Luck retired at 29 had he played another 10 years as so many QBs do now there’s almost no doubt he’d make the HoF. You wanna compare him to Stafford (who’s underrated as a QB) but Stafford has a career losing record where Luck never even had a losing SEASON. and what happened to the Colts the year he missed? 4-12. That is the impact a premier QB can have even when he’s not correctly built around. If Lawrence can give us that guy we cannot pass that up because we think Darnold “can” be that guy IF he’s surrounded correctly.
    Read your argument for Luck and can't concur.
    As was, he was only good, not better then that.

    Peyton and Manning both reached the SB, its best for your argument if the QB at least made it there.
    Luck didn't because once he got past his easy division, he didn't deliver in the playoffs ever.

    Looks like the true GENERATIONAL based on your criteria from Andrew Luck's draft was Russell Wilson.

    Another interesting note, if we're talking prospect as generational, RG3 was the #2 pick that year.
    He was touted as a more accurate Michael Vick, and I believe people on here touted Vick as generational.

    Point being, Luck was good but far from generational as a prospect or a NFL player.
    Also, Cam Newton has played behind a much worse OL than Luck and received no help from the referee's whistle, yet he made it to the SB.
    I'd say he was more generational as a talent than Luck as well.

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Posts
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by MrX27 View Post
    Read your argument for Luck and can't concur.
    As was, he was only good, not better then that.

    Peyton and Manning both reached the SB, its best for your argument if the QB at least made it there.
    Luck didn't because once he got past his easy division, he didn't deliver in the playoffs ever.

    Looks like the true GENERATIONAL based on your criteria from Andrew Luck's draft was Russell Wilson.

    Another interesting note, if we're talking prospect as generational, RG3 was the #2 pick that year.
    He was touted as a more accurate Michael Vick, and I believe people on here touted Vick as generational.

    Point being, Luck was good but far from generational as a prospect or a NFL player.
    Also, Cam Newton has played behind a much worse OL than Luck and received no help from the referee's whistle, yet he made it to the SB.
    I'd say he was more generational as a talent than Luck as well.


    Peyton won the SB because that defense completely stepped up in the playoffs and they played the Rex Grossman bears.

    Cam made the super bowl behind I believe the #1 or 2 ranked defense

    Luck had neither of those.

    RGIII is a “what if” story because sure we can look at him now and say he’s a bust but what if he doesn’t blow out his knee.

    Can, Vick & RGIII are all transcendent players because they each made a step for the game to be what it’s became but I wouldn’t call any generational. And whether or not Vick was considered generational at the time I have no idea and can’t comment since I was too young to understand any form of scouting. As for Russell Wilson I remember every report I read of him coming out of NC State was basically saying if he was 6’5 he’d be right there with Luck.

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In your Mind
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by JetNation View Post
    Peyton won the SB because that defense completely stepped up in the playoffs and they played the Rex Grossman bears.

    Cam made the super bowl behind I believe the #1 or 2 ranked defense

    Luck had neither of those.

    RGIII is a “what if” story because sure we can look at him now and say he’s a bust but what if he doesn’t blow out his knee.

    Can, Vick & RGIII are all transcendent players because they each made a step for the game to be what it’s became but I wouldn’t call any generational. And whether or not Vick was considered generational at the time I have no idea and can’t comment since I was too young to understand any form of scouting. As for Russell Wilson I remember every report I read of him coming out of NC State was basically saying if he was 6’5 he’d be right there with Luck.
    So you're saying that Cam and Peyton had no bearing on their teams going to the SB?
    Really.
    I suggest you go take a look at just how good Carolina's offense was.
    And you say Peyton beat the bears but he went through Brady to get there in a great game.

    If you didn't see Vick in college then you could never really understand what people saw in RG3 as a prospect.
    I understand you may have been too young to see Vick then but he changed the NFL QB position forever, with a type of talent that was never seen before.

    Again, not saying Luck wasn't good, he was, but the only thing that's generational about Luck was his expectations.
    He had some good seasons for sure, but his playoff performances were pretty bad in totality.

    Numbers-wise there is little difference between Luck and Rivers for most of their careers, they have numbers but they are different when being great counts, and that's in the playoffs.

    And the fact that Russell Wilson isn't 6'5", goes to show his "greatness" compared to someone like Luck.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by MrX27 View Post
    So you're saying that Cam and Peyton had no bearing on their teams going to the SB?
    Really.
    I suggest you go take a look at just how good Carolina's offense was.
    And you say Peyton beat the bears but he went through Brady to get there in a great game.

    If you didn't see Vick in college then you could never really understand what people saw in RG3 as a prospect.
    I understand you may have been too young to see Vick then but he changed the NFL QB position forever, with a type of talent that was never seen before.

    Again, not saying Luck wasn't good, he was, but the only thing that's generational about Luck was his expectations.
    He had some good seasons for sure, but his playoff performances were pretty bad in totality.

    Numbers-wise there is little difference between Luck and Rivers for most of their careers, they have numbers but they are different when being great counts, and that's in the playoffs.

    And the fact that Russell Wilson isn't 6'5", goes to show his "greatness" compared to someone like Luck.
    You're lack of reading comprehension absolutely baffles me. Once again, when a prospect comes out of college, all you can do is judge him based on his potential. That is where the 'generational talent' comment comes from. As of today, Lawrence is considered to be a very highly rated prospect. Many are talking about him in the same light as when Elway, Manning and Luck came out. That is very high praise. Stop being a Know Nothing Know it All. Lawrence may be great, or he may disappoint. All we can do, as of today, is judge him on potential. And those in the know (and that is not you Mr. X) have him rated very high. So high, that many scouts and talent evaluators have him rated as a 'generational' talent. Personally, I don't really care about the "generational talent' classification. Like many of us, I have watched him since the moment he took over for Clemson, and he has done nothing but wow me with his natural ability and all he does is win. That's the type of kid I would take a chance on going into next season!
    Your Worst Nightmare

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In your Mind
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by lamonster View Post
    You're lack of reading comprehension absolutely baffles me. Once again, when a prospect comes out of college, all you can do is judge him based on his potential. That is where the 'generational talent' comment comes from. As of today, Lawrence is considered to be a very highly rated prospect. Many are talking about him in the same light as when Elway, Manning and Luck came out. That is very high praise. Stop being a Know Nothing Know it All. Lawrence may be great, or he may disappoint. All we can do, as of today, is judge him on potential. And those in the know (and that is not you Mr. X) have him rated very high. So high, that many scouts and talent evaluators have him rated as a 'generational' talent. Personally, I don't really care about the "generational talent' classification. Like many of us, I have watched him since the moment he took over for Clemson, and he has done nothing but wow me with his natural ability and all he does is win. That's the type of kid I would take a chance on going into next season!
    Stopped reading once you mentioned Lawrence.
    As you said previously you're not able to speak on it.

    Guess you can't comprehend yourself.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    38,237
    The problem is Sam is not showing enough individual progress to justify keeping him if they get the top pick. Drafting QBs is a crap shoot but I don't see how the Jets pass on Lawrence, especially when a new coach is going to be lobbying for him. This is their chance to hit the reset button and almost all franchises do when they get a top 2 or 3 pick (still think they'll be #1) and a new coach. Can't see this scenario being any different.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earfffff
    Posts
    35,428
    Sam hs absolutely gotten a raw deal here, but the things he can control to some degree (footwork, making progressions, throwing receivers open, etc.), he has not made nearly the kind of improvement you’d hope for in the #3 overall pick. That coupled with the rookie QB salary clock ticking towards zero = time to move on if the opportunity to draft a better, youger, cheaper prospect comes along.

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    38,237
    Quote Originally Posted by BroadwayJoe View Post
    Sam hs absolutely gotten a raw deal here, but the things he can control to some degree (footwork, making progressions, throwing receivers open, etc.), he has not made nearly the kind of improvement you’d hope for in the #3 overall pick. That coupled with the rookie QB salary clock ticking towards zero = time to move on if the opportunity to draft a better, youger, cheaper prospect comes along.
    Its going to be weird when Sam is a good QB somewhere else. We're going to root for that as Jet fans because we feel bad for the kid and we think he got a raw deal. He's employed by an inept organization that has a guy who couldn't coach high school football being his "guru". That said, we might also have to accept the idea that he might not be a starting QB in this league though irrespective of where he goes next.

    He still makes a lot of questionable plays that a 3rd year QB (with his draft status) shouldn't do.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    501
    Quote Originally Posted by metswon69 View Post
    Its going to be weird when Sam is a good QB somewhere else. We're going to root for that as Jet fans because we feel bad for the kid and we think he got a raw deal. He's employed by an inept organization that has a guy who couldn't coach high school football being his "guru". That said, we might also have to accept the idea that he might not be a starting QB in this league though irrespective of where he goes next.

    He still makes a lot of questionable plays that a 3rd year QB (with his draft status) shouldn't do.
    Spot on. If we draft Lawrence, and move on from Sam, I will definitely be rooting for him!
    Your Worst Nightmare

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In your Mind
    Posts
    9,912
    Quote Originally Posted by BroadwayJoe View Post
    Sam hs absolutely gotten a raw deal here, but the things he can control to some degree (footwork, making progressions, throwing receivers open, etc.), he has not made nearly the kind of improvement you’d hope for in the #3 overall pick. That coupled with the rookie QB salary clock ticking towards zero = time to move on if the opportunity to draft a better, youger, cheaper prospect comes along.
    Why do you think Trask hasn't been looked at as a day 1 draftee?

  11. #161
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earfffff
    Posts
    35,428
    Quote Originally Posted by MrX27 View Post
    Why do you think Trask hasn't been looked at as a day 1 draftee?
    I think he might work his way into late day 1 if he keeps up his current play. Gonna be interesting this weekend after a loooong *** hiatus due to covid. At worst, I think he goes 2nd round. Kid’s got arm talent and all the physical tools. Needs to work on progressions/reads, but the talent and desire are both there. And pitts. Kyle pitts is there lol.

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    69,191

    WEEK 7: Bills @ Jets

    Quote Originally Posted by MrX27 View Post
    No way Luck is better than Jackson, Murray or Brees.
    And add Roethlisberger to that list too.
    Still not quite sold on Lamar’s passing ability. I’ve been watching a ton of his games this season. His struggles in the playoffs last year have translated to this season a bit so the jury is still out with him IMO.

    Murray is a great runner, but Luck was a better QB easily. Big Ben and Brees are past their primes.

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere within the transmutation of Yin and Yang
    Posts
    36,209
    I think the term generational talent/prospect is an overhyped and over used description.
    NFL benches, scout teams and Walmart, are littered with "generational talents".
    We hear "generational talent/prospect" every draft for at least a couple guys and always one late round guy who got into trouble, who "has the potential to be a generational talent if he can get right"

    A generational talent should be rare. Very rare.

    If a combine guy, 6'4" 270 lbs, did 37 reps, ran a 4.6, 35" vertical, 10.5 foot broad jump and had great shuttle and 3 cone numbers showed up this year, he would be a generational talent and that guy was Vernon Gholston
    And let's be real, he would be called a generational talent.

    A generation is defined as 25-30 years. That is in sports terms, once in a lifetime. Even if we give it 5 years, 2-3 players should ever be mentioned with that phrase in that time period.


    I think, "franchise changing potential " is a better term and more realistic. You can have a bunch of those guys in every draft.



    Ignorance is bliss

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Somewhere within the transmutation of Yin and Yang
    Posts
    36,209
    Quote Originally Posted by BroadwayJoe View Post
    Sam hs absolutely gotten a raw deal here, but the things he can control to some degree (footwork, making progressions, throwing receivers open, etc.), he has not made nearly the kind of improvement you’d hope for in the #3 overall pick. That coupled with the rookie QB salary clock ticking towards zero = time to move on if the opportunity to draft a better, youger, cheaper prospect comes along.

    The bolded has been my issue all year and leading up to this year. Sam does not have the talent we'd like to see surrounding him. That does not mean, he can't grow. He can still make better, smarter choices and reads. He can still improve accuracy. He can still elevate the games of the guys around him.

    He has yet to even hint he can do that.

    In a good system with good players around him, he can absolutely succeed. My opinion is that I would rather a QB who can succeed regardless of those around him. That likely won't translate to Ws but they will always keep you in the game.



    Ignorance is bliss

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    5,574
    Quote Originally Posted by Kinkotheclown View Post
    I think the term generational talent/prospect is an overhyped and over used description.
    NFL benches, scout teams and Walmart, are littered with "generational talents".
    We hear "generational talent/prospect" every draft for at least a couple guys and always one late round guy who got into trouble, who "has the potential to be a generational talent if he can get right"

    A generational talent should be rare. Very rare.

    If a combine guy, 6'4" 270 lbs, did 37 reps, ran a 4.6, 35" vertical, 10.5 foot broad jump and had great shuttle and 3 cone numbers showed up this year, he would be a generational talent and that guy was Vernon Gholston
    And let's be real, he would be called a generational talent.

    A generation is defined as 25-30 years. That is in sports terms, once in a lifetime. Even if we give it 5 years, 2-3 players should ever be mentioned with that phrase in that time period.


    I think, "franchise changing potential " is a better term and more realistic. You can have a bunch of those guys in every draft.
    This

Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •