Quote:I mostly respect your evaluations thus far Kodiak, but I gotta say you seem to be letting your emotions get in the way with Manziel. I read your Manziel breakdown and to me it read like this: well this isn't so great and he doesn't do this well and he doesn't have good size and he gets extremely lucky way too often....BUT PLAYMAKING! You have even admitted that not much of what he does translates to the NFL and he will need to change his playstyle to make it work. Well we saw a preview of how that is going to go...

 

Please go watch the LSU and Missouri cut ups. They both made Johnny look like a JV QB, and showed that if you just play contain and force him to rely on his "NFL traits" (or lack thereof) he will come up severely lacking. I rewatched each cutup in addition to watching both live and it was extremely ugly.

Thank you for posting this, jaggy, it will allow me say a few things.

 

First off, I put a whole lot of effort into each report that I do - probably two to three hours, all told. I watch plays, series, and sometimes whole games multiple times to ensure that my evaluations are pretty accurate. I'd like to consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the subject, at least as far as a seventeen year-old on youtube can be.

 

That being said. I am, first and foremost, a football fan. There are times when I allow my emotions over a particular game or player to cloud my analysis. I try to limit it as much as I can, but sometimes it happens. You've pointed out, and very accurately, that my fascination with Manziel is illogical at best and can damage the reliability of my work at worst. Very true.

 

I did see the LSU game, and I'm going to break it down if Manziel declares, because that was his worst game. That game, his Alabama game, and his bowl game will comprise my work on him, in an effort to see him in his best and worst lights, and in all manner of pressure situations.

 

Here's what it comes down to, however... His arm is upper echelon. His accuracy is good. His athleticism is stellar. As for the lucky/playmaking thing, I look at it this way: How many times does a guy have to do something that is by any definition highly improbable for him to be credited with it as a strength? He's been running around in pockets for two years now against the best competition. He has chucked it downfield with abandon time and time again. Sure, his form is horrible, and sure, sometimes he makes some (frankly disgusting) mental errors. But what he does, he does better than anyone else. At some point, it stops being luck.

---