Many NFL teams have important players. However, only a few teams in the NFL would be devastated if they lost their most important player. The writers at The Sports Debates believe there are three teams – and three players – who, more than any other team, would be significantly less effective if the player went down to injury. Bleacher Fan will argue the player a team that least afford to lose is safety Ed Reed (Baltimore Ravens) while Loyal Homer will argue the player is quarterback Peyton Manning (Indianapolis Colts).
If there was ever an NFL quarterback who knew how to win without winning pretty, it is Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger. Big Ben debuted in the NFL in 2004, and won two offensive rookie of the year awards. Since then the awards have dried up, sans the one selection to the Pro Bowl in 2007. He just is not a big time stat producer like some of his fellow quarterbacks in the NFL – Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Instead, Big Ben is a winner. Now entering his sixth season of professional football, Roethlisberger has two Super Bowl rings. Roethlisberger is the league’s most important player.
Ben Roethlisberger has some skills at quarterback, for sure. But, what he has that most lack is guts and instinct. He has a knack for staying in the pocket and taking the big hits to deliver a pass. He will also stick his neck out in order to gain an extra yard or two on a play (or stop a car). He has an uncanny ability to use his feet to create extra time in the pocket while his receivers get open.
Then there is the ability to lead, measured in the NFL by wins and losses. Roethlisberger has an outstanding all-time regular season record as a starter of 51-20. Against the elite teams in the NFL (we’ll define them as follows: Baltimore Ravens, Carolina Panthers, Chicago Bears, Dallas Cowboys, Indianapolis Colts, New England Patriots, New York Giants, Philadelphia Eagles, San Diego Chargers) he has a respectable regular season record of 15-9. Against his division, the AFC North, he has an all-time record of a whopping 22-4. The supposed biggest rivalry on the Steelers yearly calendar, the Cleveland Browns, have never defeated the Steelers in a game Roethlisberger has played in. He has been so dominant in the battle of the steel cities that the Browns are not even considered a rival anymore (at least they are not considered a rival to the Steelers).
Since Roethlisberger entered the league in 2004 the Steelers compiled a record of 56-24. That means that when Roethlisberger starts at quarterback the Steelers have a winning percentage of 72 percent. Basically, they win three of every four games they play when Big Ben starts under center. Without him the Steelers winning percentage is 56 percent. It is the same defense, the same receivers, the same offensive line, the same running backs – but about a quarter fewer wins. Those stats say something about Roethlisberger’s value.
I cannot make a good argument for Roethlisberger being the most important player to a team in the NFL without talking about his playoff performance. He is lifetime 8-2 in the playoffs – having defeated both NFC teams he has ever faced in the playoffs. He has led three playoff comebacks for victories as well.
We must also talk clutch. Of the 59 career win Roethlisberger has piled up as a starter in the NFL, he has led his team from behind in 19 of them. Eight of those wins happened when he led a scoring drive that ended with less than 43 seconds on the clock (that does not include his two overtime wins). That includes the 2008 Super Bowl when he led a scoring drive that notched the go ahead touchdown against the Arizona Cardinals with just 35 ticks left on the clock.
Roethlisberger wins in the regular season, he wins in the playoffs, and he wins by leading when it matters most, as the seconds tick down. In those clutch, last second drives of the game here are the statistics that Roethlisberger has compiled: completes 74 percent of his passes for 737 yards and six touchdowns. That completion percentage is something to behold.
Roethlisberger’s ability to physically do things in the pocket (and out of the pocket), plus trust his unmatched instincts, separates him from the other quarterbacks in the league. He does not have the Brady’s style or Manning’s extreme smarts. He has his guts, his intuition – and his Super Bowl rings. The Pittsburgh Steelers would not be as dominant year in year out without Roethlisberger. If the Steelers lose him, they lose their identity – and their place in the standings.
Read Sports Geek’s and Loyal Homer’s arguments on which of the Heisman Candidates are the most likely ‘sleepers’ to break the ranks of Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, or Colt McCoy.
Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, and Sam Bradford are all favorites for the 2009 Heisman trophy for one reason only – they will be the featured players on teams that are expected to compete for the BCS National Championship. As the quarterbacks for Florida, Texas, and Oklahoma respectively, expectations are that at least one, if not all three, will be leading their teams towards a chance at the national crown. When you have that kind of supporting cast and spotlight around you, it is kind of hard NOT to be a favorite for the award.
That does not mean those quarterbacks are the best three college football players in the NCAA for the 2009 season. With all due respect to the three Heisman “favorites,” it can be easy to look like a superstar when you are on the best team in football. Just ask Tim Tebow, for example. His Florida Gators are the reigning National Champions. They lost very little of their talent to graduation and the NFL last year (wide receiver Percy Harvin is the only departure of note), and are the proud owners of one of the weakest non-conference schedules in college football. Anything short of absolute DOMINATION during those games is utter failure. By my count, Florida should AVERAGE a 24-point margin of victory against Charleston Southern, Troy, Florida International, and Florida State. On their way to collective domination, Tebow should rack up some impressive statistics of his own.
More impressive in my book is the ability to succeed DESPITE a lack of fanfare. The player who will do that in 2009 is California running back Jahvid Best.
Here is the difference. Oklahoma is still a great team this year WITHOUT Sam Bradford. Likewise, if Texas were without Colt McCoy, or Florida played sans Tebow, they would still make formidable opponents and would likely remain in the top 25 rankings all season long. The Golden Bears of California, however, NEED Jahvid Best if they are going to compete for the Pac-10 title and a shot at a BCS bid in 2009. Bradford, McCoy, and Tebow are very good players in high-profile positions on great teams. Best is a great player on an average team, and he elevates the talent of those players around him.
Best is an explosive runner with big-play potential. In 2008, he ran for touchdowns of greater than 80 yards THREE different times! He combines speed with power, all packed into a 5-foot 10-inch frame. He is difficult to tackle, and nearly impossible to catch once he gets into the open field. Expect him to be a dominant presence on the field all season long.
Last year, en route to a 9-4 record and a fourth-place finish in the Pac-10 for California, Jahvid Best managed to rush for over 1,500 yards on only 194 attempts. That is an average of more than eight yards per carry! While four other running backs gained more rushing yards than Best, (Donald Brown of Connecticut, Shonn Greene of Iowa, MiQuale Lewis of Ball State, and Javon Ringer of Michigan State), they each needed at least 100 more carries to reach their totals. When you add his receiving and return yardage to those numbers, Jahvid Best finished the 2008 season with the second most all-purpose yards in the nation, behind Missouri WR Jeremy Maclin. Simply put, when Best gets the ball, yards will follow!
Many believe 2009 is the year that Cal FINALLY has a chance to end the perennial domination of Pete Carroll and the USC Trojans in the Pac-10. With the much depleted USC starting lineup (having lost 11 players to the NFL draft last year, including sux on the first day), fans in Berkeley hope this is the year their Golden Bears have the opportunity to end the current seven year streak of USC championships. If Cal is truly going to make that push, it will have to come on the shoulders of Jahvid Best.
Best does not have an easy road ahead of him. But, if Cal finds themselves sitting atop the Pac-10 standings in December, then expect to find Best sitting atop the Heisman vote totals!
Read Sports Geek’s and Bleacher Fan’s arguments on which sleeper Heisman Candidate has the best chance to crack the top three.
It is pretty obvious that three guys are far away the favorites to make it the New York for the Heisman trophy ceremony, as The Sports Debates tackled in a prior debate. Quarterbacks Tim Tebow (Florida), Sam Bradford (Oklahoma), and Colt McCoy (Texas) have distanced themselves – at least in pre-season talk – from other possible contenders. However, there are several other candidates who might be under the radar, so to speak, but who could catapult themselves into the discussion with a strong season. After looking at the way some players finished up last season, and evaluating potential for the upcoming season, I have concluded that if anyone could break up the big three this year it is Georgia Tech running back Jonathan Dwyer.
Dwyer, a junior, is coming off an outstanding sophomore season for the Yellow Jackets. Last year he rushed for 1,395 yards on just 200 carries for an average of seven yards a carry. He also scored 12 rushing touchdowns and one receiving. He rushed for over 100 yards in nine games. He was the ACC conference player of the year, and was on several post-season All-American teams. In the pre-season this year, he has already accumulated some honors. Among others, he is the pre-season ACC conference player of the year and a candidate for the Doak Walker Award, given annually to the top running back in college football.
If he stays healthy, Dwyer is going to get the carries. As the B-back in Georgia Tech head coach Paul Johnson’s hugely successful spread option offense, he is bound to get plenty of carries. What made Dwyer so effective last year is that Johnson was able to keep him fresh. He had twenty or more carries in only four games. Johnson was able to mix and match Dwyer with guys like running back Roddy Jones, making Georgia Tech one of the surprise teams in the 2008 season.
This year, there is more of a bullseye on the Yellow Jackets. In most pre-season polls the Yellow Jackets are ranked in the top 15. Along with Virginia Tech, Georgia Tech is considered one of the favorites in the ACC. With that pressure comes more attention as well. The Yellow Jackets, and Dwyer, will not sneak up on anyone. If the Jackets and Dwyer get off to a fast start – which is entirely possible – then the national spotlight will increase. Dwyer will get more attention on national sports shows, and people in regions outside the Southeast will get to know the D-Train.
In order for Dwyer to make this run for the Heisman, the Yellow Jackets are going to have to succeed as a team. That is very important to Dwyer’s campaign. If they struggle as a team, then Dwyer’s candidacy will struggle. Back in 1999, Georgia Tech quarterback Joe Hamilton put up gaudy numbers, but he played on a team with a horrendous defense. That definitely hurt his chances to win the Heisman (he finished second to Ron Dayne).
It is going to be tough to break into the top three. There is no denying the talent those three have. But if anyone can crash the party in the Big Apple, it is Jonathan Dwyer.
Every year there are surprise Heisman Trophy candidates. We have already debated which of the “Big Three” of 2009 will win the Heisman Trophy this season. Now it is time to debate which sleeper could spoil the year end party at the Downtown Athletic Club. There is a huge list of potential sleepers. The list includes Tennessee defensive back Eric Berry, Ole Miss quarterback Jevan Snead, Ohio State quarterback Terylle Prior, Penn State running back Evan Royster, Penn State quarterback Daryl Clark, Oklahoma State wide receiver Dez Bryant, California running back Jahvid Best, Clemson running back C.J. Spiller, and Georgia Tech running back Jonathan Dwyer. They are all good possibilities – but one stands above the rest, patiently waiting at the intersection of patience and ability. The award is easier for a quarterback to win, and the sneakiest of this sleepy bunch is Ole Miss’ Jevan Snead.
For Jevan Snead to get on the radar of the 870 Heisman Trophy voters, all he has to do is do something he has already done – win. Snead delivered a masterful performance in last year’s Ole Miss-Florida game, outdueling Florida’s Tim Tebow (a athlete Percy Harvin, perhaps a primary reason why Tebow has been as successful as he has been) by throwing for two touchdown passes and running for one more. In the 2008 season, Snead threw for 26 touchdowns in a pro style offense, and ran for three others. He enters this season no longer as the new kid on the block (he transferred out of Texas after losing the quarterback duel to that Colt McCoy guy), having gained the respect of his peers as the undisputed leader of the team.
Ole Miss has a favorable schedule, too. They host Alabama and LSU and play their toughest road game at a rebuilding Auburn. Early in the season they face their toughest road tests of the season against South Carolina and Vanderbilt. Ole Miss could be a surprise undefeated team. We all know how college football poll voters love surprise undefeated teams. The opportunity to play the underdog role in a nationally televised SEC championship – perhaps against Florida, again – is ideal. Then Snead would only need to do something ELSE he has already done – beat Tebow.
Besides his great statistics, Snead also has earned the respect of coaches within his conference. South Carolina head ball coach Steve Spurrier voted Jevan Snead as his top quarterback in the conference over Tim Tebow (… don’t tell me you believe that hogwash that Spurrier made a “mistake” on his ballot?).
Plus, Snead comes from a school that is no stranger to Heisman candidate quarterbacks… though he will be the first one with Manning on the back of his jersey. And, it sounds dumb, but Jevan Snead is a memorable name. The sound of it… it is one of a kind. The kind of name that is hard to forget.
It is much easier for a quarterback to win the Heisman Trophy. While Snead is facing an uphill climb against three other established quarterbacks in college football, there is a path for him to win the trophy. If he can outplay Tebow heads up (like he did last year), match him in statistics (despite Tebow’s softball schedule), and sit back and watch Same Bradford and Colt McCoy split votes, Snead could win the 2009 Heisman Trophy. It is not a sure thing – but I would not count him out.
What, exactly, does it mean to “pre-heat” the oven? For me, this is one of life’s great questions. How could the oven be pre-heated – “pre” meaning before – if it is already getting hot? That would make the oven, simply, heated, right?
I find the debate about pre-season just as head scratching, especially after reading these two well-reasoned, well-represented arguments. It seems to me that “pre-season” should consist of everything that happens before the season. And everything that happens before the season should not include live GAMES. Therefore I am awarding this debate victory to Bleacher Fan.
Oddly, it was the steak metaphor that really drove home the point to Bleacher Fan’s arguments. How gypped would we all feel if we paid for Morton’s Steakhouse and got Steak-umms? That is exactly what the NFL is asking fans to do every time they pay to attend a pre-season game. No stars, no game day experience, no discounts – NO STEAK. Frankly, it is insulting that the NFL simply expects fans to fork over their hard earned cash for such an inferior product (though they have been doing that in Cleveland for 10 years… and counting).
Changing the four pre-season games to regular season games is simple. The entire infrastructure is already in place for teams and owners (and cities). If there is going to be more regular season, then teams will likely need more players. So, expand NFL rosters, and offset the effect by increasing the salary cap. Heck, the NFL and NFLPA might even avoid a work stoppage in 2011 if that happens. Individual player contracts can even be increased as they will be absorbing more risk by playing more full speed games. All of the necessary adjustments of salaries and caps and extra roster spots is more than handled by the ticket, apparel, and concession sales from the extra two homes games (two per team in the NFL) .
Loyal Homer makes a valid point about players risking more wear and tear on their bodies, but the recommended adjustments would add to their already handsome compensation for their risk. If they choose against the risk, then no one is forcing them to play football.
The point is that it is possible to completely do away with pre-season games, have only regular season games all while reigning down even greater media scrutiny on the training camps. The NFL should get rid of the last remaining obviously unnecessary part of their product and give fans more meat. I sure we will even buy more merchandise (like a Michael Vick Eagles jersey for a dog).
Answer: They are all better uses of your time than following the NFL pre-season!
The biggest joke in professional sports is the NFL pre-season! What other venue, event, or activity can boast the fact that it is simultaneously bad for the players, fans, AND the organization? For a league that is generally regarded as the best run business in American professional sports, this is one area where the NFL falls short.
For the players, the risk is most obvious. They are asked to play at full speed, with full contact, for an outcome that does not matter. I understand they are professional athletes who participate in a game where injury is a very real possibility, and they are compensated very well for that risk. The games should at least count for something if they are going to be put at risk.
Sure, there are usually a few legitimate position battles that take place during training camp, but those battles are RARELY decided during a pre-season game. Can you REALLY gauge how a defensive back is going to perform on Sundays if his level of opposition is a fourth string quarterback?! Can a quarterback REALLY prove his worth when he is being protected by third string linemen, and is throwing to third string receivers?! The answer is no. In reality, most of the positions are decided off the field, so the excuse of seeing players “in action” does not provide any REAL advantage.
In 2006, Clinton Portis, the established starter at running back for the Washington Redskins, dislocated his shoulder during a pre-season game, and missed the entire 2006 season. If the game had counted for ANYTHING, then the injury would be accepted as part of the risk that comes with playing in the NFL. But the game did not count! Two weeks later, the REAL football season began, and Portis had to spend it on the sidelines. Neither he, nor the Redskins, had anything to show for the injury.
As for the fans, pre-season football is a rip-off. As an NFL season-ticket holder, I absolutely DESPISE the fact that I am forced to pay regular-season prices for tickets to two games which are meaningless. I have to pay full price for parking, beer is still $6 a cup, sodas are still $4.50, but instead of watching NFL caliber football, I get to watch the Detroit Lions practice squad take on the water boys from the Cleveland Browns.
To put it another way, if I go to Morton’s Steakhouse, and I am forced to pay Morton’s prices, I had BETTER get a Morton’s steak on my plate! Imagine arriving at Morton’s and the maitre d’ informs you that the restaurant will be using ALL forms of steak products (not just the best ones). Tonight, that means you are getting Steak-umms, but still paying as if you were eating a prime cut of Filet Mignon. That is a rip-off! The product provided is not proportionate to the fee being charged!
Last, it is bad business for the organization. First is the absorbed risk of seeing your top-level athletes get injured, which could negatively impact the entire regular season (the Redskins finished at 5-11, in last place in the NFC East during the year that Portis was injured).
There are additional financial reasons which make the pre-season bad business for the teams. First, they still have to fund a full game-day production for the event. The stadium must be opened and operated, complete with a full staff of vendors, ushers, security, etc. The visiting teams also have to travel to their destinations, and pay for lodging and meals. All told, the cost to the business of presenting a pre-season game is exactly the same as the cost for presenting a regular season game.
The problem is that the substandard product of a pre-season game does not generate the same revenue as a regular season game. While season-ticket holders are forced to pay for a game day ticket, single-game ticket sales are drastically lower than their regular season counterparts. There is also less fan interest for a television broadcast of the game, so TV advertising does not generate the same amount it normally would.
The NBA and MLB also present “pre-season” or “off-season” games, such as the cactus/grapefruit leagues. The key difference with those activities is that they are organized at a much lower cost, and are staged in out-of-market areas. The leagues gain an opportunity to generate and attract new fans through regular exposure to those markets. For a couple months out of the year, residents of Ft. Myers get to call the Boston Red Sox THEIR home team.
Pre-season NFL comes with the exact same costs as regular season NFL, but cannot match ANY of the rewards.
Football is finally here! We have been through our first week of pre-season games, with another round of games on tap for this weekend. Fans have gotten their first looks at their favorite teams. Some teams have new coaches. Some have new star players. Some have some exciting new rookies. One team even has a quarterback who has been in camp all of TWO days and yet is starting tomorrow night!
While the popular opinion is to disregard the pre-season and add extra games to the regular season, I believe that the NFL needs pre-season games to make the regular season a stronger product.
First and foremost, I think rookies need the pre-season to get acclimated to the speed of the NFL. For example, rookie Lions quarterback Matthew Stafford showed enough poise and pocket awareness in Detroit’s first game that there is talk that if he continues to improve the next three games, he may win the Lions quarterback competition (which I highlighted in a previous debate). In addition, how are fantasy football players supposed to evaluate rookies if they do not see them in games?
Second, players are more likely to get injured if they play more games in the regular season. Extra games accumulate over time, and quite possibly shorten the careers of many players. It is easy to say that people get injured in pre-season games, but, they do. Look at the facts. The majority of starters played only a couple of possessions last week. They will play a little more this week, and even more the week after that. But in the fourth game, they will not play much, if at all. Add up all their playing time over the four games and they might play six quarters. That is significantly less than adding extra games to the schedule. The wear and tear will affect the players, maybe in the short term and maybe in the long run. If a team makes a Super Bowl run, the guys on that team are playing significantly more “intense” minutes. That is going to wear on a body. Playing extra games at an intense level definitely increases the injury possibility when compared to playing pre-season games that sometimes are not played at full speed with the best eleven from each side on the field at the same time.
Third, I think teams need the pre-season in order to get acclimated to the styles of the new coaches they are playing for. Yes, I know “football is football,” but there are different styles. Nine teams have new head coaches (eleven counting the Oakland Raiders with head coach and alleged jaw breaker Tom Cable having the interim label removed, and then also Mike Singletary with the San Francisco 49ers). Seven of those (Raheem Morris, Jim Caldwell, Steve Spagnuolo, Rex Ryan, Jim Schwartz, Todd Haley, and Josh McDaniels) are first time head coaches in the NFL. Players need to get used to the coaches, and conversely, the coaches need to get used to the players. This does not even include all the new members on each coaching staff. There is a transition period and the pre-season is a way to ease that transition.
I know that season ticket holders like Bleacher Fan are frustrated that they have to pay full price to see a pre-season game. Like it or not, the NFL pre-season is necessary!
It is NFL training camp, and veteran professional football players hate it. It is hot at the tail end of the summer, especially when they are forced to spent time away from their families and go through the motions for a team they already know they made. After camp pre-season hits, which consists of four full length games with rosters sometimes topping 80 players. It is a maze of players that coaches promise playing time. There is no way around it – for veteran NFL players, the pre-season sucks.
Football fans hate it, too. They are forced to pay full price for pre-season games that do not make any impact on the regular season. In some cases, when fans refuse the $100 ticket price to watch a game where their favorite players will only play for two series (at best), they are threatened with a local blackout of the game. That sure is endearing for the fans.
It is the NFL pre-season, and it seems everyone – except the owners – hates it.
So, why does the NFL pre-season exist? Coaches will argue that seeing the players compete in game situation that do not count toward the overall record is a positive thing. Some players – especially undrafted rookies (folks like San Diego Chargers tight end Antonio Gates and Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner) argue that they need the time to prove themselves worthy of a spot on an NFL roster. Some really geeky fans (even more than me…) will watch the NFL Network wire to wire since they are showing EVERY pre-season game on the channel in 2009. The real reason pre-season exists? These games make money for the owners. Big time. They do not have to pull out all the “game day” stops they usually do to impress fans and create the ultimate fan experience, but they DO get to charge full price for tickets. That is a lot of margin for very little investment… a.k.a. an owners dream.
Fortunately, enough fans and players seem to have expressed their disdain for the pre-season that owners and the NFL are considering the option of expanding the regular season to absorb the normal pre-season schedule. In other words, the crappy games that never counted could become the early start to the regular season, a regular season that would expand to 20 games, rather than the normal 16.
While that option would make fans and owners happy, now the players would be unhappy, as cited by NFLPA union chief DeMaurice Smith. Smith believes extra regular season games would take a real toll on players, and the already high number of injuries we see in the NFL would become even higher.
Given both sides of the discussion and the general impression of the pre-season by all relevant parties, the question for today’s debaters to argue is:
Does the NFL even need a pre-season? Rather than having a four game pre-season and 16 game regular season, the debaters will argue to retain the current system or replace it with 20 regular season games.
Bleacher Fan will argue that the NFL does not need a pre-season while Loyal Homer will argue that the NFL should retain the pre-season.
Argue your sides strongly – the future of the NFL may depend on it!
Read Sports Geek’s argument that performance at the collegiate level is the measure by which college athletes should be rated and evaluated, and Loyal Homer’s argument that the players potential to perform in the NFL is a better standard by which to gauge and evaluate them.
I am going to just cut to the chase. I am giving this debate to Sports Geek.
The key point that Sports Geek makes, which ultimately earned the victory, was the breakdown of the differences between college and professional football. Different strategies apply, and different qualities can be valued in each game. I agree completely with Sports Geek in that regard.
Imagine if Michael Jordan were measured by that standard. He could not make the transition into baseball, but his basketball career is still regarded as legendary. If the standard were to measure people solely based on where they were going, and not what they had accomplished, then Michael Jordan surely would have been considered a substandard player.
Loyal Homer’s argument includes the analogy of interviewing for a job straight out of college, stating that employers hire you for potential. I disagree with that statement, though, because the potential of that prospective employee is still ascertained based upon the grades received in college. Those grades are assigned based on in-class performance, not on future projections.
My grade in Business Statistics was given based on the work I did while in class. A combination of my homework and my test scores were put together to determine my success in that class. I was not graded on how likely I would be to successfully apply that information in the business world. I would have likely failed most of my classes if that were the case!
Loyal Homer’s point is well-taken and not without merit. For many athletes, the ultimate goal is to reach the NFL, and the media is absolutely right to evaluate which of those athletes are most likely to succeed there. There is nothing wrong with evaluating and rating players on their likelihood for success at the next level. High school athletes are scouted to evaluate their chances of success in college, just as college players are evaluated by professional scouts.
That type of predictive analysis should be kept separate from an evaluation of the athlete’s performance in college, though. “Success” is determined on the field.
Football fans often compare and contrast college and professional football. You can argue all day about the passion of each fan base for each school/team. You can argue about the style of football for each level. And, like we are today, you can argue what is the better criterion for evaluating a college player. Is it by the success he experiences while in college, or is it his pro potential?
Does college success guarantee pro success? It most certainly does not. There are many examples to back this up. Quarterback’s Charlie Ward, Danny Wuerffel, Colt Brennan, and any Texas Tech quarterback (sorry Mike Leach, don’t get mad at me) are examples that immediately come to mind. There have been guys who have been successful on a smaller level in college but have starred in the NFL. Brett Favre and Jerry Rice come to mind, as they starred at Southern Miss and Mississippi Valley State, respectively. There have even been guys like former Georgia running back Terrell Davis who did very little in college yet thrived in the NFL for a period of time. I am guessing very few non-UGA fans even remember him playing in Athens.
Bleacher Fan has asked what the best criteria are when evaluating college football players. It is easy to answer that question. You evaluate based on pro potential. The ultimate goal is to get to the next level in anything you do, and that is no different in football. When you are interviewing for a job straight out of college, you are not only presenting your resume but you are also presenting yourself. You are hired not only for your GPA but also by the way you conduct yourself in the interview. Chances are you are hired because the employer sees POTENTIAL in you. They are not going to hire you if they think you will not grow in the position.
It is hard to evaluate players like Brennan and former Red Raider QB Graham Harrell. Brennan passed for over 14,000 yards and 131 touchdowns in three years at Hawaii, but he fell to the sixth round in the 2008 draft mainly because scouts were concerned (and rightly so) that his stats were heavily inflated by a gimmicky pass happy offense that would not work in the NFL. Harrell had a similar problem. He threw for nearly 16,000 yards and 134 touchdowns in his career at Texas Tech. Yet, he also played in a gimmicky offense that lets the quarterback throw the ball 60 times a game. He was not drafted at all. He currently plays for Saskatchewan Roughriders in the CFL. Red Raider coach Mike Leach did not understand why Harrell was not drafted, and someone like Texas A&M quarterback Stephen McGee was, which set off a mini-controversy between Leach and Aggie coach Mike Sherman.
Florida quarterback Tim Tebow has taken a lot of criticism regarding his pro potential due to the fact that he plays in a very unique spread offense at Florida. Time will tell whether or not he can succeed in the NFL. The main difference between him and Brennan and Harrell is that Tebow possesses a physical nature to his game while the other two were somewhat finesse. Contrarily, you have someone like quarterback Mark Sanchez, who played in a pro-style offense at USC and who played under a coach with NFL experience in Pete Carroll.
If the ultimate goal is to see who can put up the best numbers on the field and on Playstation 3, then yes, you evaluate by the stats and what kind of numbers he has in college. If the ultimate goal is to make it to the NFL, then you look at the entire repertoire and decide if the guy is ready for the NFL. That determines true success.
And we're back... Should college coaches look into criminal and juvenile records when recruiting? The verdict says YES! http://bit.ly/dZ5LF310 months ago
Posted by Sports Geek 
