PonyFans.com

sbsmith wrote:

Digetydog wrote:- Clemson's QB is never going to play QB in the NFL

Wrong

DigetySoWrong!

vielsiehorsepower wrote:The loss of 1 player at a single position on one side of fhe ball isn't going to make or break any team. To say his offense cannot run without a highly talented qb would be discrediting the fact that the offense scored 27ppg last year without one and if that one position were aonimportant, I don't think they'd waste so much time recruiting all of the silly little receiver and offensive line types.

Ha Ha, tell that to the Cowboys this year! At least that is what they are going to sell to the buying public next year. I agree, it should not make or break a team, but many times it does. Remains to be seen if it is an opportunity lost, but no use crying over someone who is gone. Move on and find someone else.

Digetydog wrote:

mavsrage311 wrote:

sbsmith wrote:[quote="Digetydog"]
- Clemson's QB is never going to play QB in the NFL

Wrong

Agreed. Watson is a stud.

Although Watson is a phenomenal CFB player, he isn't in a system that forces him to make the "pro" reads or the "pro" throws. Although I hope that I am wrong, I see him as more like Vince Young, Johnny Football, RGIII than Cam Newton.[/quote]
There is no way you have watched him play football and reached this conclusion...his only issue is durability.

He has a big arm and puts it on the money everytime...often in tight windows. To the extent any qb running a spread like system will be successful in the NFL, Watson has all the tools.

sbsmith wrote:

Digetydog wrote:- Clemson's QB is never going to play QB in the NFL

Wrong

How'd that work out for tahj boyd? Or for that matter any qb with any offense based around quarterback athleticism? They don't go through progressions, they have prepackaged plays that don't translate to NFL play books except in wrinkles and they tend to fail more often than not.

vielsiehorsepower wrote:

sbsmith wrote:

Digetydog wrote:- Clemson's QB is never going to play QB in the NFL

Wrong

How'd that work out for tahj boyd? Or for that matter any qb with any offense based around quarterback athleticism? They don't go through progressions, they have prepackaged plays that don't translate to NFL play books except in wrinkles and they tend to fail more often than not.

Have u watched Watson? He doesn't rely on his athleticism at all...it's certainly an added benefit, but he is a pocket passer.

vielsiehorsepower wrote:


How'd that work out for tahj boyd? Or for that matter any qb with any offense based around quarterback athleticism? They don't go through progressions, they have prepackaged plays that don't translate to NFL play books except in wrinkles and they tend to fail more often than not.

Boyd got drafted despite weight issues and less than ideal size, Watson is a superior prospect in every way (look at the film). Point is that anyone saying that Watson won't be playing QB in the NFL doesn't know what they're talking about.

sbsmith wrote:

vielsiehorsepower wrote:


How'd that work out for tahj boyd? Or for that matter any qb with any offense based around quarterback athleticism? They don't go through progressions, they have prepackaged plays that don't translate to NFL play books except in wrinkles and they tend to fail more often than not.

Boyd got drafted despite weight issues and less than ideal size, Watson is a superior prospect in every way (look at the film). Point is that anyone saying that Watson won't be playing QB in the NFL doesn't know what they're talking about.

I am a Jets season ticket holder and remember them using a pick on Boyd. Boyd was literally lost at QB in Jets camp. They didn't even bring him back to the practice squad b/c he had no idea how to play the position.

As all those great college QBs show that had mediocre NFL careers-what does the NFL Draft have to do with recruiting great college QBs. Not much

Sounds like some are saying that SMU (which is the offense that Clemson runs) does not run a system that will get QB's in the NFL. That is not good recruiting material.

Rebel10 wrote:Sounds like some are saying that SMU (which is the offense that Clemson runs) does not tun a system that will get QB's in the NFL. That is not good recruiting material.

First introduction to a spread offense?


I'm not a [deleted], I just sound like I have an attitude

On a positive note it is the same system that Auburn runs which put Cam Newton in the NFL.

vielsiehorsepower wrote:The loss of 1 player at a single position on one side of fhe ball isn't going to make or break any team. To say his offense cannot run without a highly talented qb would be discrediting the fact that the offense scored 27ppg last year without one and if that one position were aonimportant, I don't think they'd waste so much time recruiting all of the silly little receiver and offensive line types.

You better check Romo's injury. Your post couldn't be more incorrect. An injury or no QB is really bad in most cases.

Well with no QB the ball just bounces around after the center snaps it.

Actually with no one to call signals, an offense is likely to have several flags for delay of game

I think we're done here.

Rebel10 wrote:Sounds like some are saying that SMU (which is the offense that Clemson runs) does not run a system that will get QB's in the NFL. That is not good recruiting material.

The issue is not limited to SMU.

For a variety of reasons, most good teams in CFB have dumped the pro-style offense in favor of offenses using duel threat QBs - > Ohio State. Heck, Cardale Jones, who is a legit nfl prospect, lost his starting job despite winning the Nat'l Title and (I think) going undefeated as a starter. Why? Barrett's ability to run the ball makes that offense a beast to stop.

From the NFL perspective, it makes it very hard to project how a CFB QB will adapt to the Pro Style offenses used by the NFL. Until they get into camp and try to run the "new" offenses against NFL defenses, you just don't know if they will "get it."