For Zach Wilson fans...

[CRA]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

And yet the general consensus among actual professor scouts is that Wilson is the better quarterback.

Now with that said, if your perception is that I'm a big Wilson fan, you're wrong. I like his skill set a lot, but as mentioned I have major concerns about his durability.

To get either fields or Wilson likely requires a trade up, and I'm not in favor of that in either case.

Mac Jones is a better QB than Fields right now.  There were plenty of better QBs than Cam Newton in his draft too. 

Consensus among the scouts is Fields has more talent and the higher ceiling. 

 

 

[BrianS]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

As to Wilson, question marks about whether he'll be durable enough at the NFL level scare me...a lot.

You say this all the time . . . but where is it coming from?  Wilson has never missed a game.

Wilson is 6-3, 210, BMI of 26.2.  For comparitive purposes, Eli Manning was 6-5, 220, BMI of 26.1 and Alex Smith was 6-4, 217, BMI of 26.4.  Neither of those guys had "durability issues".

I don't get it man.  He's not yet a college senior, yes, he could stand to put on a few pounds.  What college prospect do you NOT say that about?  Wilson may or may not succeed in the NFL, but it won't be due to durability.

[BrianS]

3 minutes ago, CRA said:

Mac Jones is a better QB than Fields right now.  There were plenty of better QBs than Cam Newton in his draft too. 

Mac Jones couldn't beat out Jalen Hurts or Tua . . . but is somehow better than Fields?

The guy is .500 in games decided by less than two scores.  He lost one last year, badly, to Auburn.  He should have lost this year to Florida, but got bailed out by the Florida receivers.

The guy just hasn't shown anything but good touch.  That's it.

[CRA]

9 minutes ago, BrianS said:

You say this all the time . . . but where is it coming from?  Wilson has never missed a game.

Wilson is 6-3, 210, BMI of 26.2.  For comparitive purposes, Eli Manning was 6-5, 220, BMI of 26.1 and Alex Smith was 6-4, 217, BMI of 26.4.  Neither of those guys had "durability issues".

I don't get it man.  He's not yet a college senior, yes, he could stand to put on a few pounds.  What college prospect do you NOT say that about?  Wilson may or may not succeed in the NFL, but it won't be due to durability.

Wilson already has had surgery on this throwing shoulder.  

[CRA]

9 minutes ago, BrianS said:

Mac Jones couldn't beat out Jalen Hurts or Tua . . . but is somehow better than Fields?

The guy is .500 in games decided by less than two scores.  He lost one last year, badly, to Auburn.  He should have lost this year to Florida, but got bailed out by the Florida receivers.

The guy just hasn't shown anything but good touch.  That's it.

two different things.  Think you are missing my point or I stated it poorly.  

Hurts and Tua were both significantly more talented than Mac Jones.   Which made them better players.  Was Mac Jones technically a more sound QB than Hurts at Bama? Probably.  

I mean you could be the most fundamentally sound LB in college football.  But if you ain't got the talent to go with it.  You are selling insurance. 

I wasn't advocating Mac Jones as better than Fields.  I think he technically plays the position traditionally better at this stage.    It isn't actually praise of Mac.  Just like I wasn't praising the dudes drafted after Cam Newton that were better QBs at the time.  Cam was the best player and more talented.    

 

[Mr. Scot]

34 minutes ago, CRA said:

Mac Jones is a better QB than Fields right now.  There were plenty of better QBs than Cam Newton in his draft too. 

Consensus among the scouts is Fields has more talent and the higher ceiling. 

The most physically talented quarterback at the college level isn't always the best quarterback at the pro level.

Look at Vince Young.

[Moo Daeng]

1 hour ago, Mr. Scot said:

And yet the general consensus among actual professor scouts is that Wilson is the better quarterback.

Now with that said, if your perception is that I'm a big Wilson fan, you're wrong. I like his skill set a lot, but as mentioned I have major concerns about his durability.

To get either fields or Wilson likely requires a trade up, and I'm not in favor of that in either case.

You don't know what the consensus is among professional scouts. You know what media analysts are saying.

[Mr. Scot]

2 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

You don't know what the consensus is among professional scouts. You know what media analysts are saying.

Actually I'm going off Verge.

[CRA]

23 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The most physically talented quarterback at the college level isn't always the best quarterback at the pro level.

Look at Vince Young.

No, but if I am a NFL team and I got to set it as my rule?....I'd rather gamble on the freak talent standing out at a major college program over the more technically sound player at some small time school.     

 

 

[AU-panther]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

The most physically talented quarterback at the college level isn't always the best quarterback at the pro level.

Look at Vince Young.

and there are also a lot of really "smart" productive QBs at the college level that don't make it in the pros either.

Absolute statements either way are dumb.

 

[Mr. Scot]

17 minutes ago, CRA said:

No, but if I am a NFL team and I got to set it as my rule?....I'd rather gamble on the freak talent standing out at a major college program over the more technically sound player at some small time school.     

And that's how you wind up choosing a guy like Jeff George over someone like Kurt Warner.

[CRA]

18 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

And that's how you wind up choosing a guy like Jeff George over someone like Kurt Warner.

Well, you can find an example that runs counter to literally everything. 

as a I general rule, as a NFL team, I still gamble on the standout talent that thrives vs elite college programs over more technically sound players at small schools.   Overall, that works out better for you in the long run.