Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Payton intereste
 

This statement right here shows how clueless you are. Leinart didn't have pressure? Did you see UsC's defense this year? Fresno freaking state scoed like 40 something points on them. AND they were REPEATEDLY down at the half in almost all of their games early in the season, and had to come back to win. No Pressure? LMAO!! As if being the number one team in the country and staying that way isn't pressure. I wonder if some of you guys have anything above a basic understanding of football. Seriously.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Payton interested in
 

Guys, just because he had talented players around him doesn't mean that he's not a good QB. Good teams are good because they have good players. USC didn't just build up a championship-caliber team at 21 positions and then say "Hey, well we have all these positions covered, but we just need a QB. But hell, ANYBODY can play QB on this team." No, that just doesn't happen. They built a championship-caliber team with championship-caliber players at EVERY position. Leinart earned a spot on the best team in the country, so that should tell you something. There's a reason he got a scholarship to a powerhouse like USC, so maybe there's a reason why Cutler had to go to Vandy. Another point, the balls don't throw themselves. Somebody with ridiculous accuracy and touch had to be making all of those throws in order to rack up 3800 yards. It doesn't matter how talented your receivers are, if you make good throws, you're still going to get completions. Leinart just took advantage of it. And if you still want to try and play the "awww poor Cutler played on a bad team so we should pity him" game, then look at the following passing stats:

Guys like Colt Brennan (68% completion percentage) and Brett Basanez (63.2%) didn't play on very good teams, yet they still outshined in comparison to Cutler. And what about Vince Young? He has one of the most talented teams in the country, yet he wasn't able to crack the top ten in yards. Why? Because even though you play on a talented team, you still have to be a damn good QB to make throws in college football. Leinart made all the throws. Against ND, against Fresno State, against Texas, against UCLA. So basically the whole point is, it doesn't matter how good your wide receivers are, it's still up to the QUARTERBACK to throw the balls to them.
If you want to further go with the "he had so much talent but he'll suck in the NFL" argument, look at guys like Carson Palmer and Peyton Manning who had tons of talent in college but are now Pro-Bowl QBs. And what about guys like Eli Manning? He had no good WRs, yet he still put up better numbers than Cutler. And he was in the SEC....

NAME CMP ATT YDS CMP% YDS/A TD INT SACKS RAT
Jay Cutler, Vanderbilt 273 462 3073 59.1 6.7 21 9 23 126.07
Eli Manning, Ole Miss 275 441 3600 62.4 8.2 29 10 19 148.09

Eli played on a bad team. Nobody on that offense (except a guy named Stacy Andrews, OT, who went to Cincy in the fourth round) went to the draft. Yet Eli still found a way to complete 62.4% of his passes... Hmmmmm. how do you think that happened? If his team is so bad, how did he do it? Because he was good. It shouldn't matter about how good your team is, a QB should still be able to make it so much better, and CUtler didn't. Eli threw less passes for more yards, touchdowns, a better average, and a better QB rating. Not to mention that he had less sacks.

So what have we learned today? It's not about how good or bad your team is. As you can see from guys like Eli Manning and Brett Basanez who quarterbacked for teams with talent nowhere near the level of Leinart's USC team, you can still put up good numbers because it's not about your team, it's about you. Cutler had a pretty good year, but Leinart's was amazing. You can't blame Cutler's team for his shortcomings because guys like Eli Manning and Brett Basanez played on bad teams in really good conferences and were still able to produce.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Payton interested in
 

From Mel Kiper:

Overhyped indeed. I'll trust the guy who's been doing this job and has seen guys like this get overhyped since before I was born.

Damn Deuce. DAMN!!!! Knockout blow delivered. How can ANYONE argue with that? BUT, when you still have love love Aaron Brooks............................................

You call the reporting from a guy who gets paid to talk a lot about draft prospects and give HIS 2 cents on the matter a knockout blow? LOl..you guys are desperate.

One more thing....the only person still talkin about Brooks....is you. ;0)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Payton intereste
 

I'll take your opinion with a grain of salt considering you list yourself as the president of the Jason Craft fan club (a guy who couldn't cover dog sh** with a Sunday edition of the Time Picayune). But I'll humor you. Let's just look at the 2 offenses in 2001:

New England: New Orleans: Advantage:
RB-Antowain Smith RB-Ricky Williams New Orleans
#1 WR-Troy Brown #1 WR-Joe Horn New Orleans
O-Line O-Line New Orleans

The only advantage that New England had on offense in 2001 was at the QB position. They had Drew Bledsoe & Tom Brady. We had Smiley "the human turnover" Aaron Brooks. Brooks did have more talent around him on offense in 2001.

LMAO. It's sad you tried to ignore Deuce's post prior to the Kiper one, which WAS the knockout blow I was referring to. No comeback for that one hey? Priceless. You slayed 'em Deuce.

Titles are not user manipulated. I give titles out, as I deem fit. Most are meant as a joke.....

All jokes have an element of truth to them, and Euph WAS pimping Craft pretty hard as our best corner, so..................................................................................................................

I would say maybe you should change it to pres of the Aaron Brooks fan club, but I wouldn't want a riot to start for all the others who want the title. :wink:

In that case, I retract my comments...except for the point that New Orleans had more talent on offense than New England in 2001. :lol: :lol:

My bad...my bad... :?

Ok Whodi...I see absolutely no mention of the O-Lines that protected these guys. (And I don't think I would ask Duece to sit down and google himself to death looking for the linemen for all these teams.) It is well documented that Cutler had ZERO Protection. It was so bad that the combine people have clearly documented that Cutler has a habit of throwing off of his back foot because of it. There is your small but effective counter-punch. Even the reference to Eli states that he at least had an effective lineman. Now since that bit of research is a monumental task we'll keep it as is... it is documented that Leinart had great talent and excellent pass coverage to make perfect passess all day. It is also well documented that Cutler had crap and was lookin like Archie Manning and David Carr most of the time and yet he still found a way to persevere in a crappy school.

If that was the best you got, you must still be punch drunk. The O-Lines? LMAO!!! Terrible.

I don't see you replying though. ;0)

Why would I reply to a stock answer? It's the same answer you give for Brooks. Here's that school of arguing: If a quarterback you like isn't as impressive as another, it's cause the other had a great line, and the QB you like didn't. If a QB whom the QB you support SHOULD play better than outperforms him, as MOST of those QBs Deuce listed did, make your QBs line seem even worse. If all else fails, say your QB had no line at all, but say he would be the greatest thing since sliced bread if he played where someone else played. Stock answer. No reply necessary.

LOl...nice try. Avoiding the obvious is your specialty. A good QB is never as good if he has no protection. Truth is we do not know how well those other guys were protected. But WE DO KNOW THIS....Leinart had plenty...Cutler had none. Leinart performed up to expectations. He had the superb team in which he performed up to par with. Cutler not only met expectations...you could say he surpassed them. He had no running game.....average recievers and a crappy line and still made winners out of the hapless Commodores.

There is a reason why the city of New Orleans loves Archie Manning. Outside of being a Gulf Coast product, year in and year out he made the pathetic Saints the best they could be with the CRAP he had. If we were to use your logic then it is safe to say that you think guys like A. Manning are terrible because they could not produce right? Lets face it whodi...with your reasoning A. Manning should have won the Super Bowl every year with his squads and multitude of coaches. He should have produced right? He should have been above .500 every year right? Right whodi? ;0)

With your reasoning, we should pick Cutler over Lienart, not based on talent, but the lack thereof, from his teammates?

Ridiculous. You know you're really starting to sound like a guy whose posts I used to read......

Did you even read my post before? You're just being childish and annoying. You haven't addressed any of the points I made except the fact that now Cutler is God because he was decent with "no line." How do you know he had no line? For all you know, they could be one of the best lines in the SEC. You haven't given any facts, just random and irritating blurbs. You're arguments don't make sense. I talked about Cutler's poor completion percentage. You said it was because of his line. I talked about the rest of Cutler's stats, which were not very impressive. You said it was because he had a bad team with no wide receivers (even though he did have a NFL-caliber player in Erik Davis and Earl Bennet who was top 20 in the country in receiving yards) and played in a tough conference. I gave you a quote from perhaps the most respected NFL draft analyst in the country and you wrote it off because you don't think he knows what he's doing. Hell, you've even admitted that you're point is dumb and that all you could offer was a "small counter punch." Give it up, Cutler's overhyped. He's not that good. Good QBs make bad teams into good ones like Eli did, and even like Archie did. Vandy wasn't. What bowl game did they go to?

Guess BNB and Deuce got me covered. Again, no reply necessary. 8)

And about Archie, he won a league MVP on a crappy team. What did Cutler win? Shows Archie was recognized for his greatness on a crappy team. Give it up. You have no argument, and like Deuce said, are just trying to be annoying now.

Deuce...are you telling me that taking a school that usually wins like 1 or 2 games a year to an above .500 record, in the SEC might I add, not an improvement? Not a good thing? Are you also telling me that Archie was able to make winners out of the Saints? I'm definitely not knockin Archie but...they never broke .500 with him did they? Does that make him a bad QB? No becuz we all know that Archie had garbage and tons of it and yet...he made the Saints respectable on certain years. Cutler took a crappy football program and put them over .500 for the first time in lord knows how long.

You know what Deuce....you are absolutely right. Good QB's do make bad teams into good ones. Cutler just did that for Vandy. ;0) I'm glad we see eye to eye on this one.

If, and only if, the Jets move up in the #1 spot & draft Leinart, I would not mind drafting Cutler. But not with the #2 pick. Saying he's as good as or better than Leinart is simply insane. However, he is a decent QB with a good arm. Saying his line sucks is going a little far with it. I watched the LSU game. LSU had one of the best defensive lines in the country & that Vanderbilt O-line gave him sufficient time in the pocket to make plays. That said, I would definately accept him as our QB over Vince Young or the moron we've had at the helm for the past 6 years, but no way over Leinart.

who is petty, and why would i sweat him?

B&B, are you calling me out again? :o

That's it. I'm calling Johnny Cochrane!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :P :lol:

see...see....see.....

this is what's wrong with America, everyone is soooooooooo quick to secure legal council. :D

BnB... its not an issue of talent at hand vs. no talent at hand Its an issue of maximizing the talent you don't have. THAT....takes talent. Cutler has proven he has it.

Shouldn't it also be about a player that makes everyone else around him seem better? A great QB can make mediocre players seem great, so the evaluation of those other players is exagerated.

FJ, I don't believe anyone on here would go as far as to say Jay Cutler is not talented. He is or he would not be a projected 1st rounder. The point we have been trying to make is that Matt Leinart, over the past 3 years, has proven to everyone in the counrty why he should be the 1st QB drafted.

I hate to get involved in this ridiculous argument, but I feel like I have to set a few things straight. First of all, let me state that I have no preference for either quarterback. So let me get down to business.

About Vanderbilt's offensive line:

http://vucommodores.com/sports/footb...elease_id=2051

Now according to that article, Vanderbilt only gave up seven sacks going into that LSU game. They then gave up five sacks to LSU, four while Cutler was still in the game. Just follow this link: http://www.sportsline.com/collegefoo.../1A/2005/week6
and scroll to the game. Then click on live game log. I still have to check how many sacks they gave up in the rest of their games, but my Internet is acting screwy so that will take a while.

And jeebs, Vanderbilt finished five and six last year. They lost six in a row after winning their first four games.

But thats what I am saying BJ. I'm not saying that Leinart did not make his team look good. He did and we all know it. But it was also expected. Cutler on the other hand did exactly what you described BJ. He made Vandy's football program look a lot more respectable this year. I feel that a QB that can take garbage and mae it noteworthy has got to have some serious potential. At least, I value that more than a QB who did awesome, on an awesome squad, and was expected to. You see BJ I live in Miami. The hurricanes for YEARS AND YEARS have produced winning team after winning team. The QB's while they were here looked awesome and poised for the NFL. But lets get serious....the Canes also had kick ass squads so it was expected for them to do well. As for those QB's? Like I said....outside of Kelly, Kosar, and Tesaverde......all those Hiesman trohpy winning, undefeated anchoring QB's have not done squat. Since I have been witnessing these things for so long I am not convinced that Leinart is exceptional just because he did awesome in college. Toretta, Walsh, Dorsey all did awesome with the Canes. Where are they now?

My mistake wheelman. I honeslty thought they were 6-5. Hey worst comes to worst....we draft Cutler because we already know he would look good in a Saints uniform. ;0)

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Payton intereste
 

..that's not an analogy... that's a comparison. which still makes no sense... but hey...

Fatius, please try to compare like talented players in this arguement. I'll give you that Cutler will be a first rounder and possibly even a top three. BUT don't use names like Toretta, Walsh, and Dorsey to compare QBs from good teams doing poorly in the NFL. None of those QBs was even picked prior to the 7th round!

Toretta and Dorsey were both picked in the 7th, and Walsh wasn't even picked in the standard draft. He was the first player picked in 1989's Supplimental Draft (to back up Troy Aikman in Dallas). Now I know they came from good college squads, but even NFL scouts recognised that it wasn't them.

I hear you loud and clear BJ. My point is that there are peple here who feel that Leinart will do well in the NFL because of his collegiate success. I am saying that I don't buy it. Ok....lol how about Shuler? ;0)

Ghandi...I understand you completely. But..my opinion is that I simply feel that even though Leinart has proven that he can...there is something special about a guy who can take a lousy program and make it respectable.

Just to update my last post, Vandy gave up four sacks against Georgia the very next game after LSU. I'm going to keep going. I have no idea why, but I am.

I like the avatar wheelman...very memorable...;0)

Fatius, you can make an arguement either way... good players coming in and doing poorly (Shuler, Akili Smith, etc), or good players excelling (Manning(s), McNabb, etc). But no matter what you pick the best player on the board. And by almost all scouts thats Matt Lienart.

If he's gone I'm not oppossed to taking Cutler, but no way if Leinart's still on the board do I take Cutler.

You say tomato...I say tomato (its hard to sing that song when you type it eh?)

Im out for now....I'll try to check in tonite but for the most part....I'll see you guys tomorrow. Another great day of bickering and arguing for one common cause...the good of the Saints. You guys have a good night.

Thanks jeeebs.

Stupid Sportsline and ESPN, neither show the defensive stats for the South Carolina game.

That's great. If you want to base your opinions off this, that is your perogative. I prefer to judge the individual performances by what I see on the field, and come to a conclusion from there.

Been doing this for 5 years now, and my picks are pretty dead on- ask any of the regulars here.

I give up. I swear looking up some statistics on the Internet is a pain in the ***. Anyway, it's safe to say that Vanderbilt's line was not very good over the past two years. That being said, I did notice something a little disturbing about Cutler's statistics. He doesn't turn the ball over much, but opposing teams seemed to be able to score points off of them. However, after I saw Vanderbilt's defensive stats, I realized why. However, again, those turnovers did seem to happen at inopportune times.