GTripp0012
04-24-2007, 02:12 AM
GTripp, I think you are making too big a deal out of these starts. Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good. Several of the top quarterbacks in the league came from situations where they were good enough to secure the starting position at an early age. Fine, you would expect that with their kind of talent. But if you think that those starts are the reason they are succesful you are underestimating the importance of talent.
Let me put it this way. If Peyton Manning had been behind a superior upper classman for his first couple years at Tennessee would he be less of a pro today? I can guess your answer, and I strongly disagree."Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good." Well, yeah, of course. But the experience from college made them better pro prospects than they would have been.
I'm not underestimating the importance of talent at all. If anything, I'm being elitest about what it takes to be a successful QB in the NFL.
#1 it takes a special breed of player (nature theory)
#2 it takes an adequate amount of preparation (nurture theory)
I think you need to be both a #1 and a #2 to have a successful NFL career at QB.
If you aren't a #1 physically and mentally by the time you get to college, you will probably never be a #1. Only a few guys fit the bill. Most of these guys get noticed as first rounders, but the guys like Bulger, Hasselbeck, Brunell, and Brady fall into this category also.
To be the best you can be, you need to get all the experience you can in college. And I do believe you will be less of an NFL player if you skimp on the college experience. But all the experience in the world isn't going to help if you aren't the special breed of player that puts you in group #1.
And I believe Russell is a #1. But he will never be a #2 and mediocre may be the best he can hope for.
There are only a handful of college guys who are No. 1's and because of the propensity for guys to leave early, there ends up being even less successful NFL QBs.
Let me put it this way. If Peyton Manning had been behind a superior upper classman for his first couple years at Tennessee would he be less of a pro today? I can guess your answer, and I strongly disagree."Player's like Peyton Manning and Donovan McNabb aren't good because they started a bunch of games, they started a bunch of games because they were good." Well, yeah, of course. But the experience from college made them better pro prospects than they would have been.
I'm not underestimating the importance of talent at all. If anything, I'm being elitest about what it takes to be a successful QB in the NFL.
#1 it takes a special breed of player (nature theory)
#2 it takes an adequate amount of preparation (nurture theory)
I think you need to be both a #1 and a #2 to have a successful NFL career at QB.
If you aren't a #1 physically and mentally by the time you get to college, you will probably never be a #1. Only a few guys fit the bill. Most of these guys get noticed as first rounders, but the guys like Bulger, Hasselbeck, Brunell, and Brady fall into this category also.
To be the best you can be, you need to get all the experience you can in college. And I do believe you will be less of an NFL player if you skimp on the college experience. But all the experience in the world isn't going to help if you aren't the special breed of player that puts you in group #1.
And I believe Russell is a #1. But he will never be a #2 and mediocre may be the best he can hope for.
There are only a handful of college guys who are No. 1's and because of the propensity for guys to leave early, there ends up being even less successful NFL QBs.