Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'NFL Draft' started by Nash, Feb 26, 2006.
Leinart's Wonderlic score being so much more than Culter's doesn't mean anything?
So what Leinhart did on the field is nothing? Cutler going to the combine and doing stuff doesn't mean a hill of beans in the long run. He had to go. He played on a horrible team, that rarely was on TV and had to show what he could do. The homerism with Cutler is amazing. He is a good QB. But I haven't seen anything ON THE FIELD that would make me rank him ahead of Leinhart and Young. He is, imo, the obvious and deserved #3 QB and will be a high draft pick, but yet for homers, that isn't good enough.
I can tell you one thing for sure, if Young played at Vandy for 4 years, he would have had more than the 10 or so wins total that Cutler had.
I can tell you one thing for sure. If Cutler had Reggie Bush he would have won a whole lot more games as well.
What is important isn't where Cutler gets drafted because in all honestly I don't care. What is important is that we don't drool over a guy like Leinart who may have had all that success because of the talent around him or Young, who may not translate his talent to the NFL and over look a guy like Cutler who may be the better prospect. That is homerism, it is comon sense.
At the same time, one can't get caught up in the hype that is surrounding Cutler right now as the "player" of the moment and look at the players past successes AND failures...
Agreed. But I think the hype can you blind you to the good as well as the bad. I have to admit that now that Lienart's hype is down a bit, I like him a bit more.
And I liked cutler as a top 3 qb before the hype. (but I tend to lean anti-establishment )
For me I just dont like arguments that focus on wins and loses. To me that loses the team concept; it loses that these guys won and lost as a team and were only as good as their weakest link.
To be honest I dont know which one of those three guys is a better pick. They all seem solid. But give me arguments that focus on talent and ability- not team accomplishments. :winker:
Cutler wasn't even close to a top 10 pick when the season was first over. He is a very good QB, no doubt, but if anyone doesn't think he hasn't benefited from a huge amount of hype, is fooling themselves.
He has definitly benefited. No doubt. But dont you think his lack of being a top ten pick at the end of the season had something to do with hype surrouding VY and ML at that time?
It seems your wanting to remove the effects of the hype on Cutler and not remove those same effects on ML and VY.
So here is a question, if all three of those players played on Vandy... who would we still like? (assuming there were three vanderbilt teams in the SEC playing at same time)
Me personally, I would like Vince Young because I think, based on his full set of skills, would have took Vandy to atleast 1 or 2 bowl games. I like all three, but my point is the hype is being removed from Young and Leinhart, which I am fine with. Like I said, the ones that know more will make the decision.
He wasn't close to a top 10 pick in the eyes of draftniks. That's not the same as saying scouts felt the same way.
All this talk of hype is funny to me. Vandy fans knew just how good Cutler was all year long. It's simply that the majority of NFL fans, who don't follow Vandy, just got the memo...
What would possibly make you think Vince Young would have been any better than Cutler at Vandy? He'd still have had the same crappy OLine, RBs, and WRs (plus no defenive help). Young's stats are due, in large part, to being surrounded by a number of good/great players. Take away his surrounding players and he's going to feel the effect.
The same is true with Leinart under center for Vandy.