Articles from around the Web
PDF VERSION NOW DISCOUNTED OVER 30%
Click here to buy PDF version.
Click here to buy PDF version
Official Account: @fboutsiders
Scott Kacsmar: @FO_ScottKacsmar
Ben Muth: @FO_WordofMuth
Aaron Schatz: @FO_ASchatz
Vince Verhei: @FO_VVerhei
-- plus --
Bill Connelly: @SBN_BillC
J.J. Cooper: @jjcoop36
Cian Fahey: @Cianaf
Brian Fremeau: @bcfremeau
Tom Gower: @ThomasGower
Andrew Healy: @AndHealy
Rivers McCown: @RiversMcCown
Chad Peltier: @CGPeltier
Matt Waldman: @MattWaldman
Rob Weintraub: @robwein
25 Mar 2013
Mandatory Monday is back on Mondays and previews the Matt Barkley Pro Day with the help of some familiar faces from the world of draftnickery. Oh, and GO LA SALLE!
Posted by: Mike Tanier on 25 Mar 2013
9 comments, Last at
27 Mar 2013, 5:31pm by
Good article, but I don't understand the Schaub dissing. He's been pretty good since he got to Houston, and when he got there he was surrounded by Andre Johnson and a bunch of guys. Steve Slaton was his RB. Until the last couple years, the Texans defense was mediocre at best. (Schaub's first four years as starter, the defense was ranked 24-22-13-30.) He deserves a little more credit than being a QB who needs a great RB and D to succeed. That's a description for Trent Dilfer.
I didn't see any disrespect for Schaub from Tanier. Sure, he said that Schaub was not in the same class as Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees, but who would argue with that? I think he went out of his way to point out that Schaub has succeeded beyond the expectations of a third-round pick.
Isn't the implication then that for Barkley to succeed in the face of similar failures he needs to either land in a place that help him continue to develop to an NFL competitive level (The Jets clearly did Sanchez no favors) or seemingly bring it with him (like my own Robo-QB)? Also, that was an elite article.
The Barkley/USC thing is coming out as classic sports fanboy/writer magical thinking. "Because past players from School X have done Y, player A will do Y." As if the past somehow reaches out to the present and controls outcomes.
This is the same phenomenon as we Patriots fans used to hear about playing in Miami: "the Patriots have lost 8 of 10 games in Miami since xxx." Of course that included different coaching staffs for both teams and an almost total turnover of players over the relevant period, but somehow the results of a game played in the same uniforms ten years earlier was supposed to predict tomorrow's outcome.
Unless USC has some special proclivity for playing quarterbacks who will be both successful in NCAA football and failures in the NFL, each guy is an independent event. We're not talking about option quarterbacks here, where NFL failure could be predicted. Could USC (including different head coaches) really be choosing to play QBs who succeed in college, impress NFL scouts, and then naturally/inevitably fail in the NFL? It's magical thinking. Sometimes shit just happens - small sample size.
Could USC...really be choosing to play QBs who succeed in college, impress NFL scouts, and then naturally/inevitably fail in the NFL?
Perhaps not the latter two, since that isn't their goal, but most certainly the first one, at least at USC. Maybe the problem is that the type of QB who succeeds at USC is not necessarily equipped to succeed in the NFL.
Agreed, it's different from "the Patriots have lost 8 of 10 games in Miami since xxxx". For one thing, remember USC is typically one of the most talented college teams, and therefore it's exactly where a low-upside but safe QB would tend to show more promise than he holds. Which is exactly what Farrar was implying with his comment about Barkley, and not what Tanier thought he was saying.
FO posters are a peacock. You got to let us fly!
"Unless USC has some special proclivity for playing quarterbacks who will be both successful in NCAA football and failures in the NFL..."
I think for the right college team that's completely possible. Offensive systems and level of competition (versus your own team) could lead to a string of players - at any position really - who do much better in college than in the NFL.
It's not so much that they find players who are special in being good in the NCAA and bad in the NFL. It's that they find players who aren't as good as they appear because of their system, overall talent, schedule and opponents, or all three.
Today I learned Peter King watches tape. Seriously?
World Bartender and Barista Championships. Its on one of those ESPN digital channels.
The Vikings need offensive line help, while the Bears, Lions, and Packers have significant defensive concerns.
See All XP | NFL XP | College XP
© Football Outsiders, Inc. // Site powered by Stein-Wein // Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties