If Andrew Luck had a clone and one played in the WAC and the other one played in the SEC. They made the same exact types of defensive reads (one vs more complicated defenses) were able to maneuver around pass rushers (one vs more athletic pass rushers) and made the same throws (one vs more athletic defensive backs), which one would you feel more comfortable taking?

 

If they literally grade out equally as clones? The SEC one.

 

Impossible hypotheticals are fun. It's telling when you have to resort to them, though.

---

Why the SEC one?

---

Why the SEC one?

 

If literally all things are equal (which is never the case in a real world scenario when deciding between two quarterbacks), I'll go with the guy who has probably faced more fearsome pass rushes that will simulate what he will experience while playing for my cellar-dwellar franchise.

 

Again, an impossible (and inapplicable) hypothetical. Teddy has faced several top defenses and his offensive line is pretty bad. Hell, Kentucky got plenty of pressure against him.

---

If literally all things are equal (which is never the case in a real world scenario when deciding between two quarterbacks), I'll go with the guy who has probably faced more fearsome pass rushes that will simulate what he will experience while playing for my cellar-dwellar franchise.

 

Again, an impossible (and inapplicable) hypothetical. Teddy has faced several top defenses and his offensive line is pretty bad. Hell, Kentucky got plenty of pressure against him.

 

So you agree that strength opponents is relevant, then? That was my point. Thanks for agreeing.

---

So you agree that strength opponents is relevant, then? That was my point. Thanks for agreeing.

 

In your unfeasible scenario where I'm forced to use something minuscule that I normally never would to break a virtual tie? Then yes, I'll admit it plays a role there. I might also go by which QB is more handsome to account for marketing purposes!

 

It doesn't matter for Teddy vs. his peers, though, which is what's relevant here.

---

What happened to all things positive about Teddy?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YRoYe46I24

 

#33

---

<p style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0px;">

In your unfeasible scenario where I'm forced to use something minuscule that I normally never would to break a virtual tie? Then yes, I'll admit it plays a role there. I might also go by which QB is more handsome to account for marketing purposes!

 

It doesn't matter for Teddy vs. his peers, though, which is what's relevant here.

 

Since you love scouts so much, why don't you agree with Bucky Brooks who says that it is important to see QBs step up in big games vs big opponents?

---

Since you love scouts so much, why don't you agree with Bucky Brooks who says that it is important to see QBs step up in big games vs big opponents?

 

Because I don't disagree with that. When given the opportunity for a national audience and added pressure, I want to see my franchise guy step up to that occasion.

 

Teddy's game versus Rutgers was as "big" for him, his team, and his program as any regular season showdown in the SEC last year. It just wasn't a sexy matchup for the masses.

---

Because I don't disagree with that. When given the opportunity for a national audience and added pressure, I want to see my franchise guy step up to that occasion.

 

Teddy's game versus Rutgers was as "big" for him, his team, and his program as any regular season showdown in the SEC last year. It just wasn't a sexy matchup for the masses.

 

That's all I've been saying the entire time. What the heck?

---

That's all I've been saying the entire time. What the heck?

 

You're still holding it against Teddy as a prospect because he's playing an easy schedule as a junior despite having proved him a thousand times over as a sophomore. You seem to think it hurts him that he's not being challenged by the likes of Eastern Kentucky or Florida International, but scouts are going to be watching to see if he's continued to improve his reads at the line of scrimmage, his presence in the pocket, his eyes moving from receiver to receiver, and other things that are more important to a player's development than the strength of his schedule.

 

Too many quarterbacks have excelled in the NFL with lacking college schedules on their resumes and too many SEC quarterbacks have sucked in the pros for me to place much stock at all in the strength of competition. The mental aspect of the game is developed as much off the field as it is on.

---

You're still holding it against Teddy as a prospect because he's playing an easy schedule as a junior despite having proved him a thousand times over as a sophomore. You seem to think it hurts him that he's not being challenged by the likes of Eastern Kentucky or Florida International, but scouts are going to be watching to see if he's continued to improve his reads at the line of scrimmage, his presence in the pocket, his eyes moving from receiver to receiver, and other things that are more important to a player's development than the strength of his schedule.

 

Too many quarterbacks have excelled in the NFL with lacking college schedules on their resumes and too many SEC quarterbacks have sucked in the pros for me to place much stock at all in the strength of competition. The mental aspect of the game is developed as much off the field as it is on.

 

Like? The only two "franchise QB"s that have played less ranked opponents than Bridgewater are Flacco and Romo.

---

But regardless, my point wasn't about Bridgewater. You keep making it about Bridgewater because of your weird obsession. My point was to get others to retract their statements that "scouts don't care about level of competition", because it is a factor in the evaluation process.

---

Like? The only two "franchise QB"s that have played less ranked opponents than Bridgewater are Flacco and Romo.

 

Oh my god, this is going in circles. I and others already elaborated on this when your first brought it up. Poll rankings are not nearly as telling as defensive rankings, i.e. Rutgers having a very good defense last season but being unranked. It would be better if you compiled those teams' defensive ratings instead.

 

I'm done arguing the same points over and over again from the past thread. I'll wait until another conversation is starting and do my usual sniping.

---

But regardless, my point wasn't about Bridgewater. You keep making it about Bridgewater because of your weird obsession. My point was to get others to retract their statements that "scouts don't care about level of competition", because it is a factor in the evaluation process.

 

Look what thread you're in...

---

Look what thread you're in...

 

So side discussions can't take place? Right.

---

The only people who don't want Teddy, have a second agenda. They want some other piece of trash QB that they like.

 

Remember the people here who wanted Glennon or Tyler Bray. Lol awful. We need to expand this fan base so we can get more knowledgable Football fans.

---

TEST

The only people who don't want Teddy, have a second agenda. They want some other piece of trash QB that they like.

 

Remember the people here who wanted Glennon or Tyler Bray. Lol awful. We need to expand this fan base so we can get more knowledgable Football fans.

 

I think it's more that they love Clowney a bit too much, they're willing to give up on Bridgewater and settle for.... Murray, McCarron or Carr.  Not a fan of any of those myself.  

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

The only people who don't want Teddy, have a second agenda. They want some other piece of trash QB that they like.

 

Remember the people here who wanted Glennon or Tyler Bray. Lol awful. We need to expand this fan base so we can get more knowledgable Football fans.

 

You're taking shots at people who were wrong about QBs last year when you begged and pleaded for Geno Smith at #2 overall?

 

Pot, meet kettle.

---

I will be happy with Clowney, Teddy, or Hundley.

---

.

---