USC's skill position players better then any NFL group?

[Zaxor]

http://www.tommcmahon.net/2003/09/the_college_all.html

The College All-Star Game 1934-1976

"Arch Ward, the sports editor of the Chicago Tribune, in 1934 came up with the idea of a pre-season game between the NFL champions and a team of college all-stars to benefit the newspaper's charity fund. All of the games were played at Soldier Field in Chicago. In the early years, the college players did pretty well against the pros. The NFL champions dominated in later years, however, losing only once after 1955. In 1976, the game was suspended and finally called off because of a heavy rainstorm late in the third quarter, with the Pittsburgh Steelers holding a 24-0 lead. That was the last game of the series. " And remember how they could only broadcast the game in black and white because of the poor lighting at Soldier Field?

 

[KDWilliams85]

If anybody thinks that a collegiate team can't hang with an NFL team, you're flat out wrong.

There is no practical difference between NCAA and NFL style football. When it comes right down to it, the players are all the same. Your opinion is based solely on the experience level of the professional and not of the collegiate player. While it is a reasonable assumption, it isn't always well-founded or an even solid base to stand on.

Any kind of sport has one distinct principle: Exploit the mismatch. For example:

College WR: 6'5" 220 lbs. 4.35 and a 38" vertical
Pro DB: 6'1" 195 lbs. 4.50 and a 37" vertical

Who wins?

The collegiate receiver has the physicality to dominate the professional cornerback. However, the experience of the professional does give him an advantage. By the same turn, his cover skills as a professional defender may or may not be enough to counter the sheer physicality of the receiver.

If experience was always the case, Randy Moss wouldn't have dominated his first two years in the NFL.

It doesn't always go down to experience. It always comes down to who has the better matchup. The team that can exploit the mismatches better will always win.

 

[HardHittin'Witten]

might give the 49ers a run for their money, tho...:

that's true WG.

 

[Chuck 54]

Yeah, that was it...I just couldn't remember how it went down...

Well, that might explain how some of the AllStars were able to win against the NFL, because if it was a pre-season game, then most likely only the NFL players trying to make the team were the ones playing....

YOU ARE JUST A BUNDLE OF KNOWLEDGE!

Actually, it was the Hall of Fame game and usually kicked off the preseason. The all stars were all guys who were starting their first years with the NFL...the Super Bowl champs played the college graduates, and the all stars wore the helmits of their new NFL teams...it was pretty interesting.

LIke most preseason games, the starters only played a quarter, some the first half, then they played their backups...of course, that was also before the salary cap.

I actually think the best 22 college position players could probably hold their own against some of the worst NFL teams since most teams like the 49ers now or the 1-15 Cowboys would have traded more than half of their starters for the top college guys at the same positions...unfortunately, with the salary cap and free agency, there are quite a few players starting in the NFL who would have been backups back when this game was being played.

 

[Ashwynn]

Wonder how those 18-21 yo linemen would protect Lienert from the kearses, Roy Williams, Ray lewis's of the NFL world. Would your college D even be able to get to Manning, he'd tear you apart with 10 second pocket times.

Just like a great O line will make an average QB look good to great, your college team is gunna need a HUGE, EXPERIENCED line to protect and rush. Wanna see what no pass rush gets you in the NFL, look at the boys the last 5 years.

Based on this, any nfl team SHOULD destroy any college team.

 

[THUMPER]

If anybody thinks that a collegiate team can't hang with an NFL team, you're flat out wrong.

There is no practical difference between NCAA and NFL style football. When it comes right down to it, the players are all the same. Your opinion is based solely on the experience level of the professional and not of the collegiate player. While it is a reasonable assumption, it isn't always well-founded or an even solid base to stand on.

Any kind of sport has one distinct principle: Exploit the mismatch. For example:

College WR: 6'5" 220 lbs. 4.35 and a 38" vertical
Pro DB: 6'1" 195 lbs. 4.50 and a 37" vertical

Who wins?

The collegiate receiver has the physicality to dominate the professional cornerback. However, the experience of the professional does give him an advantage. By the same turn, his cover skills as a professional defender may or may not be enough to counter the sheer physicality of the receiver.

If experience was always the case, Randy Moss wouldn't have dominated his first two years in the NFL.

It doesn't always go down to experience. It always comes down to who has the better matchup. The team that can exploit the mismatches better will always win.

Dude I am sorry but that has got to be one of the least informed posts I have ever read. You might want to go back and actually watch some NFL games before posting again.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between college football and NFL ball. The fact that you don't recognize that is astonishing to say the least. The fact that you are so adamant about it is somewhat scary in that you have posted here for a while now.

Football is NOT about size, strength, and speed. It is about technique, skill, ability, and teamwork. Physical abilities only enhance those attributes.

Very few rookies can come into the NFL and dominate no matter how good they were in college. In fact, many players who totally dominated in college never even make it in the NFL. Didn't you ever wonder why that is?

All I can say is...

 

[KDWilliams85]

Dude I am sorry but that has got to be one of the least informed posts I have ever read. You might want to go back and actually watch some NFL games before posting again.

There is an ENORMOUS difference between college football and NFL ball. The fact that you don't recognize that is astonishing to say the least. The fact that you are so adamant about it is somewhat scary in that you have posted here for a while now.

Football is NOT about size, strength, and speed. It is about technique, skill, ability, and teamwork. Physical abilities only enhance those attributes.

Very few rookies can come into the NFL and dominate no matter how good they were in college. In fact, many players who totally dominated in college never even make it in the NFL. Didn't you ever wonder why that is?

All I can say is...

Name me one thing that differs between the college and the professional level other than experience and the rules. You can't, can you? It would surprise you to know that NCAA football is more competitive than the NFL is. The NFL is a professional level so there is more to play for but the will and drive for success doesn't dwindle inbetween the two. Yet, by the nature of your post, you claim it does. Wow... the players in the NFL have made the big time, so what? Players in NCAA football play for their own version of the Super Bowl and they don't get paid. But the fire and tenacity in them are just as explosive, if not moreso, than any NFL player. So, your comment about the difference between the two is null and void. You base that comment strictly on the premise of experience. That isn't a solid base to stand on because players can and do make the transition from college to pro rather easily. Ben Roethlisberger, Clinton Portis, Andre Johnson, Julius Jones, Roy Williams, Ed Reed, and others have invariably made that jump. They are still lacking in experience to other players at their positions but that doesn't mean anything. That's you being ignorant of the aphorism "Age doesn't always determine maturity."

No sport is completely about the physical nature of the player. Technique and skill are generally relative to the size of the player. There are some exceptions, but you generally won't see a David vs. Goliath relapse. You generally won't see a Julius Jones or other small runningback completely run over a guy the size of Larry Allen. It happens... but not on a regular basis.

As for rookies not being able to contribute, that's where you're flat out wrong. While some players do tend to flake out from college, that doesn't mean that their flake out is a result of a lack of talent or potential. The NFL is stacked with players that hold experience but flat out suck. That's like saying an eighteen year old can't lead an army. You're so oblivious... no... ignorant... to think that. It happens. Players can step in and dominate their respective sport. If you really think age is a reflection of maturity, then you need a reality check.

The NBA is littered with greats who came into the league at the age of 18. LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, T-Mac, Kevin Garnett, and Amare Stoudemire to name a few. Their age, at the time, wasn't a reflection of skill or maturity. As they played, they got better because they adjusted to the competition. That doesn't mean that they didn't offer their fair share of competition when they entered. That's exactly what you say makes a college team inferior to an NFL team. Get real.

The reason an NFL team may dominate a college team isn't because of their size. It may not even be because of the factor of experience. It's because the NFL offers something a college team cannot. A career...

 

[blindzebra]

Name me one thing that differs between the college and the professional level other than experience and the rules. You can't, can you? It would surprise you to know that NCAA football is more competitive than the NFL is. The NFL is a professional level so there is more to play for but the will and drive for success doesn't dwindle inbetween the two. Yet, by the nature of your post, you claim it does. Wow... the players in the NFL have made the big time, so what? Players in NCAA football play for their own version of the Super Bowl and they don't get paid. But the fire and tenacity in them are just as explosive, if not moreso, than any NFL player. So, your comment about the difference between the two is null and void. You base that comment strictly on the premise of experience. That isn't a solid base to stand on because players can and do make the transition from college to pro rather easily. Ben Roethlisberger, Clinton Portis, Andre Johnson, Julius Jones, Roy Williams, Ed Reed, and others have invariably made that jump. They are still lacking in experience to other players at their positions but that doesn't mean anything. That's you being ignorant of the aphorism "Age doesn't always determine maturity."

No sport is completely about the physical nature of the player. Technique and skill are generally relative to the size of the player. There are some exceptions, but you generally won't see a David vs. Goliath relapse. You generally won't see a Julius Jones or other small runningback completely run over a guy the size of Larry Allen. It happens... but not on a regular basis.

As for rookies not being able to contribute, that's where you're flat out wrong. While some players do tend to flake out from college, that doesn't mean that their flake out is a result of a lack of talent or potential. The NFL is stacked with players that hold experience but flat out suck. That's like saying an eighteen year old can't lead an army. You're so oblivious... no... ignorant... to think that. It happens. Players can step in and dominate their respective sport. If you really think age is a reflection of maturity, then you need a reality check.

The NBA is littered with greats who came into the league at the age of 18. LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, T-Mac, Kevin Garnett, and Amare Stoudemire to name a few. Their age, at the time, wasn't a reflection of skill or maturity. As they played, they got better because they adjusted to the competition. That doesn't mean that they didn't offer their fair share of competition when they entered. That's exactly what you say makes a college team inferior to an NFL team. Get real.

The reason an NFL team may dominate a college team isn't because of their size. It may not even be because of the factor of experience. It's because the NFL offers something a college team cannot. A career...

There are around 20 thousand NCAA football players.

About 10 thousand would be eligible for the draft.

255 were drafted, and half won't make an NFL roster.

These 255 have to fight for one of the 1700 roster spots in the NFL.

If the NFL and NCAA are about the same why aren't the rosters completely turned over every season?

The same goes for the NBA, too. There are over 50 thousand high school players. Less than 10% of those get a college scholarship and a hand full get drafted into the NBA. Kobe, T-Mac, Garnett and O'Neil played a couple of years before they became real superstar players.

 

[Hostile]

Name me one thing that differs between the college and the professional level other than experience and the rules. You can't, can you? It would surprise you to know that NCAA football is more competitive than the NFL is. The NFL is a professional level so there is more to play for but the will and drive for success doesn't dwindle inbetween the two. Yet, by the nature of your post, you claim it does. Wow... the players in the NFL have made the big time, so what? Players in NCAA football play for their own version of the Super Bowl and they don't get paid. But the fire and tenacity in them are just as explosive, if not moreso, than any NFL player. So, your comment about the difference between the two is null and void. You base that comment strictly on the premise of experience. That isn't a solid base to stand on because players can and do make the transition from college to pro rather easily. Ben Roethlisberger, Clinton Portis, Andre Johnson, Julius Jones, Roy Williams, Ed Reed, and others have invariably made that jump. They are still lacking in experience to other players at their positions but that doesn't mean anything. That's you being ignorant of the aphorism "Age doesn't always determine maturity."

No sport is completely about the physical nature of the player. Technique and skill are generally relative to the size of the player. There are some exceptions, but you generally won't see a David vs. Goliath relapse. You generally won't see a Julius Jones or other small runningback completely run over a guy the size of Larry Allen. It happens... but not on a regular basis.

As for rookies not being able to contribute, that's where you're flat out wrong. While some players do tend to flake out from college, that doesn't mean that their flake out is a result of a lack of talent or potential. The NFL is stacked with players that hold experience but flat out suck. That's like saying an eighteen year old can't lead an army. You're so oblivious... no... ignorant... to think that. It happens. Players can step in and dominate their respective sport. If you really think age is a reflection of maturity, then you need a reality check.

The NBA is littered with greats who came into the league at the age of 18. LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, T-Mac, Kevin Garnett, and Amare Stoudemire to name a few. Their age, at the time, wasn't a reflection of skill or maturity. As they played, they got better because they adjusted to the competition. That doesn't mean that they didn't offer their fair share of competition when they entered. That's exactly what you say makes a college team inferior to an NFL team. Get real.

The reason an NFL team may dominate a college team isn't because of their size. It may not even be because of the factor of experience. It's because the NFL offers something a college team cannot. A career...

The speed of the game. Every rookie I have ever seen remarks at how fast and precise the NFL game is in cmparison. In college a WR is open for a QB to throw to if he has 4 or 5 yards of space. In the NFL it is 1 or 2 yards of space.

There is a huge difference in the level of play or more guys would make it in the NFL. Some simply cannot handle the upgrade.

 

[KDWilliams85]

The speed of the game. Every rookie I have ever seen remarks at how fast and precise the NFL game is in cmparison. In college a WR is open for a QB to throw to if he has 4 or 5 yards of space. In the NFL it is 1 or 2 yards of space.

There is a huge difference in the level of play or more guys would make it in the NFL. Some simply cannot handle the upgrade.

That's a faulty premise. Speed rushers exist in the NCAA as well. A play is executed the same exact way in the NCAA as it is in the NFL. Some players give their offense more time than others. It happens in the NFL too. Plays in the NFL collapse just like plays in the NCAA.

It's rather comforting to see you struggle with something that you can't justify. You attribute a professional environment better just because of experience. Just remember this: All of the players in the NFL came from a college organization. Just like all the players before them and all the players before them and so on.

The NFL and NCAA aren't different other than the rules. The speed of play varies from team to team and not from the NCAA to NFL. If that were the case, half of the collegiate players that thrived in a certain kind of offense wouldn't find success with a professional team that didn't run that very same offense.

The NFL and NCAA are virtually the same other than the rules. Experience transcends the level of organization. I've seen high school kids play with the poise and patience of a professional. That doesn't mean that they won't find success in a more competitive environment. Furthermore, I've seen 15 year veterans in the NFL play like total newcomers. By your reasoning, they weren't able to make the jump from college to the NFL. See the flaw in your reasoning now? You're still basing everything on a professional level of experience instead of just experience in general. You don't see the kind of skill that he or she may bring to the table despite them being a new person to a new environment.

The New England Patriots have as good a shot at winning as the USC Trojans do at winning a championship game.

As for you, blindzebra:

Numbers are irrelevant. Whether it be 200 or 200,000... competition is competition. As for their roster, the NCAA and NFL have different rules. That's not a subversion to the guideline I set out. The NCAA is an institute of a learning environment. They run a school. A school as a same limitation as the NFL does. Except the school doesn't pay their players or cut them for reasons other than a lack of skill. They may be suspended for transgressions outside of school, but they won't get cut unless they have lawful repurcussions. An NFL team can cut whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.

Numbers mean nothing. That's you just trying to quantify your argument by giving a meaningless statistic. It means nothing once you're in. Whether you be a college player or a pro player... once you're in... you're in. You don't have to worry about the odds of you not getting there.

 

[THUMPER]

That's a faulty premise. Speed rushers exist in the NCAA as well. A play is executed the same exact way in the NCAA as it is in the NFL. Some players give their offense more time than others. It happens in the NFL too. Plays in the NFL collapse just like plays in the NCAA.

It's rather comforting to see you struggle with something that you can't justify. You attribute a professional environment better just because of experience. Just remember this: All of the players in the NFL came from a college organization. Just like all the players before them and all the players before them and so on.

The NFL and NCAA aren't different other than the rules. The speed of play varies from team to team and not from the NCAA to NFL. If that were the case, half of the collegiate players that thrived in a certain kind of offense wouldn't find success with a professional team that didn't run that very same offense.

The NFL and NCAA are virtually the same other than the rules. Experience transcends the level of organization. I've seen high school kids play with the poise and patience of a professional. That doesn't mean that they won't find success in a more competitive environment. Furthermore, I've seen 15 year veterans in the NFL play like total newcomers. By your reasoning, they weren't able to make the jump from college to the NFL. See the flaw in your reasoning now? You're still basing everything on a professional level of experience instead of just experience in general. You don't see the kind of skill that he or she may bring to the table despite them being a new person to a new environment.

The New England Patriots have as good a shot at winning as the USC Trojans do at winning a championship game.

As for you, blindzebra:

Numbers are irrelevant. Whether it be 200 or 200,000... competition is competition. As for their roster, the NCAA and NFL have different rules. That's not a subversion to the guideline I set out. The NCAA is an institute of a learning environment. They run a school. A school as a same limitation as the NFL does. Except the school doesn't pay their players or cut them for reasons other than a lack of skill. They may be suspended for transgressions outside of school, but they won't get cut unless they have lawful repurcussions. An NFL team can cut whomever they choose for whatever reason they choose.

Numbers mean nothing. That's you just trying to quantify your argument by giving a meaningless statistic. It means nothing once you're in. Whether you be a college player or a pro player... once you're in... you're in. You don't have to worry about the odds of you not getting there.

Dude, you haven't got a clue.

Thanks for reminding me to ignore your posts from now on.

 

[gbrittain]

If anybody thinks that a collegiate team can't hang with an NFL team, you're flat out wrong.

There is no practical difference between NCAA and NFL style football. When it comes right down to it, the players are all the same. Your opinion is based solely on the experience level of the professional and not of the collegiate player. While it is a reasonable assumption, it isn't always well-founded or an even solid base to stand on.

Any kind of sport has one distinct principle: Exploit the mismatch. For example:

College WR: 6'5" 220 lbs. 4.35 and a 38" vertical
Pro DB: 6'1" 195 lbs. 4.50 and a 37" vertical

Who wins?

The collegiate receiver has the physicality to dominate the professional cornerback. However, the experience of the professional does give him an advantage. By the same turn, his cover skills as a professional defender may or may not be enough to counter the sheer physicality of the receiver.

If experience was always the case, Randy Moss wouldn't have dominated his first two years in the NFL.

It doesn't always go down to experience. It always comes down to who has the better matchup. The team that can exploit the mismatches better will always win.

This is a forum where opinions are welcome. I wont jump on you for yours, but I gotta tell you, you are probably the only person that follows football who actually believes that.

I dont see a 5A High School beating a Division 1A College team either. I know that is not what we are talking about, but you could make the same argument using your logic.

 

[KDWilliams85]

This is a forum where opinions are welcome. I wont jump on you for yours, but I gotta tell you, you are probably the only person that follows football who actually believes that.

I dont see a 5A High School beating a Division 1A College team either. I know that is not what we are talking about, but you could make the same argument using your logic.

Quite right. You can make that same argument using that logic. But you know why you won't see it? For the very same reason you won't see a college vs. NFL game anymore. The NFL has the advantage of environment. Just like a college has the environment advantage over a HS team. That environment doesn't negate the talent level of the HS team. On a level playing field... when the "experience" isn't a factor, a college team has as good a chance as the NFL team does. That's final.

The logic surrounding the argument is already flawed. You buy too much into experience at a certain level instead of just experience period. Two people can do something for 20 years and one of them can do it on a higher level. That doesn't mean that the person who didn't doesn't have what it takes. However, that's exactly what you're trying to prove.

Experience is experience no matter how you look at it. The experience you speak of isn't in terms of the talent they have. It's the mental aspect of it all. It's adjustment to the hustle and bustle it brings. It's the adjustment to the responsibility you have put on you. College doesn't have that hustle and bustle. It's just an advanced form of high school. Think of it like moving from a small town to a big city. The move doesn't affect your life itself. It affects how you live it. It adds dynamics that the small town didn't have. You still live in a house. You still have to go to work everyday. You still have to provide for a family. Your life skills haven't changed any. The only thing that's different is the environment in which you do those things.

So, the final point is:

The talent level of a college level player and the NFL level player isn't that much different. The NFL has the benefit of knowledge of the environment but the raw material and talent between the two are the same thing. When you don't factor in a change in environment, anyone can battle anyone else. Two people, assuming they are comparable in skill, will make for a good match.

That's what I'm tryin' to say. You take away a professional environment and those college guys can hang with anybody. The raw talent and potential is the same between the two. Then... it becomes all about who has the better matchup. Whoever can exploit the matchup best is who will constantly win.

That's just something for you to think about.

 

[Chuck 54]

Wonder how those 18-21 yo linemen would protect Lienert from the kearses, Roy Williams, Ray lewis's of the NFL world. Would your college D even be able to get to Manning, he'd tear you apart with 10 second pocket times.

Just like a great O line will make an average QB look good to great, your college team is gunna need a HUGE, EXPERIENCED line to protect and rush. Wanna see what no pass rush gets you in the NFL, look at the boys the last 5 years.

Based on this, any nfl team SHOULD destroy any college team.

First of all, the all star game was played with first year pro players long before players were coming out early...they'd all be 22-23 years old.
Second, we're talking about pitting these all stars against the worst the NFL has to offer, not the best...Do you think Cleveland's DL, all of whom now play for someone else, could do that much damage against the 5 best OL this year's draft had to offer? I don't.

Plus, the original all star game was played under similar restrictions as the Pro Bowl...a controlled environment and rules so the pros didn't have quite the huge advantage of having played together for a few years that they normally would.

I'm one that thinks the NFL is so much weaker overall than it used to be, and especially so at the bottom of the heap, like SF this year, that if you took the best defensive linemen, linebackers, and secondary college has to offer, I still don't think Tim Rattay and whoever ran the ball for them this past year would light it up. Two years ago, I think Chad Hutchinson and Hambrick would have struggled to light them up too. ON the other hand, take the best QB in the Nation, the best RB's, WR's, TE's, and the best 5 OL in the county, and I think they'll score a few points on the worst defense in the league...there are defenses out there without a single recognizable name.

No one is claiming that the college players are as good as the NFL players...that's stupid...but put together a college all star team of the best 22 starters in the Nation and let them line up against the worst teams in the NFL over the past 3 years, control the game like the original all star game...no blitzing or outscheming them, and I think they'd have a chance to win from time to time...that's just my opinion.

 

[Hostile]

That's a faulty premise. Speed rushers exist in the NCAA as well. A play is executed the same exact way in the NCAA as it is in the NFL. Some players give their offense more time than others. It happens in the NFL too. Plays in the NFL collapse just like plays in the NCAA.

I can't believe anyone is so naive as to actually believe that. Either you never played the game of football past Pop Warner or you are purposely trying to sound foolish.

Fact, it is a huge jump from High School level talent to NCAA level talent

Fact, it is an equally huge jump from NCAA level talent to NFL talent.

You can ask anyone on here who played college football, and there are a few of us, and every one of us will tell you it is a huge jump.

It's rather comforting to see you struggle with something that you can't justify. You attribute a professional environment better just because of experience. Just remember this: All of the players in the NFL came from a college organization. Just like all the players before them and all the players before them and so on.

Trust me Scooter, there's no struggle here. I speak from experience not out of an orifice hidden by my blue jeans.

The NFL and NCAA aren't different other than the rules. The speed of play varies from team to team and not from the NCAA to NFL. If that were the case, half of the collegiate players that thrived in a certain kind of offense wouldn't find success with a professional team that didn't run that very same offense.

If you think I am going to buy that you are seriously deluded. I've been a fan of football for 35 years. I played at a level beyond high school. I coached at the same level. I am simply not that gullible.

Why do you suppose every player ever interviewed disagrees with you? Wake up and smell the coffee.

In fact, there is a huge jump from the USFL to the NFL, the CFL to the NFL, the Arena League to the NFL, and NFLE to the NFL. Those are all professional leagues. There is a reason why few guys make that jump. Guess what it isn't due to strange factors related to rules. It is because the talent level is superior in the NFL.

The NFL and NCAA are virtually the same other than the rules. Experience transcends the level of organization. I've seen high school kids play with the poise and patience of a professional. That doesn't mean that they won't find success in a more competitive environment. Furthermore, I've seen 15 year veterans in the NFL play like total newcomers. By your reasoning, they weren't able to make the jump from college to the NFL. See the flaw in your reasoning now? You're still basing everything on a professional level of experience instead of just experience in general. You don't see the kind of skill that he or she may bring to the table despite them being a new person to a new environment.

You must assume that parroting yourself to start new paragraphs will make it fly. Scooter, a canon to launch it wouldn't make your hypothesis fly because it has a 900 ton anchor attached to it called the real world.

 

[like a dog]

But the big difference is on the OL. USC doesn't have one guy that could start on the Dallas OL. Their best OL 2 years ago couldn't even get on the field for us last year. That is where USC would get slaughtered by pro teams; in the trenches. Those quick Wrs would need to put on about 15 pounds to get off the line of scrimmage as well.

This is simply untrue. Winston Justice is waay better then anything Dallas has at right tackle. Blesto and National have him as a top 5 prospect.

And there definetly are teams whose GMs would trade their skill players for USC's in a heartbeat:

Miami
Leinart over Feely
Bush over Brown
White over Minor
Chambers over Jarret
Booker over Smith
McMichael over Byrd

3 to 3, but the QB gulf tips the scales in SC's favor.

Cleveland
Leinart over Dilfer
Bush over Suggs
Droughns over White
Edwards over Jarret
Smith over Andre Davis
Byrd over Heiden

4 to 2, with another deep QB gap.

And so on.

 

[KDWilliams85]

Hos, I'd figure that you'd realize the critical flaw in your argument. You're basing it solely on professional experience. Not experience in general, as it should be.

Skill is refined through experience. Not experience in a certain environment. The "anchor" you speak of is dragging you instead of me.

If you honestly believe that experience can only come from the highest levels of competition, then you're sorely mistaken.

Your skills as a coach don't change as much as you think they do. They seemingly change because of the environment in which you coach. Higher levels of competition distort how you see yourself. While the only thing a new environment offers is competition. All of your techniques and skills are still there. Coaching somewhere else doesn't take those away from you.

Hos, you make it sound like football isn't football the higher up you go. You're still playing the same game. The rules and orientation of the game may be different, but you're still playing the same old game. Skills carry over from level to level. They don't disappear and get replaced with new ones the higher up you go. They get built on original experience. There's nothing you can say to me or demonstrate that negates that.

As for game speed, that does change from team to team. There are teams that will run the clock on you and there are teams that will run the field on you. That doesn't change from any level.

As for you speaking from experience, Hos... that makes you a hypocrite. If you truely were speaking from experience, you'd know that you never stop learning. Furthermore, if you had a clear perception of what you've done, you'd recognize that experience is experience any way you look at it. You still have to deal with the same old **** from people under your supervision. It doesn't change. The only thing that did change is the level of maturity that you'd come to expect from those around you. That's an effect of the environment in which you play or coach, not the lack of experience he or she might or might not have.

As for your facts, Hos, they are based on the same thing everything else has been: Experience on a certain level.

Fact: HS to NCAA is just a change of environment. The NCAA expects certain things from you. None of which are an incline in talent level.

Fact: NCAA to the NFL is just a change of environment. The NFL expects you to follow the rules just like the NCAA did. The NFL does not expect your talent level to raise because you've made it into the big time. The NFL does not expect the experience you've gained to carry over. A team owner does because they're the one paying you to play. That does not reflect the view of the NFL itself but rather potential employers. Experience itself always perseveres in the end. Not just experience at the highest level of competition.

Fact: Anyone has played all of their lives will tell you that the jumps you make are dependent not on your physical nature, but your mental nature. You can change the physical side of yourself. If you can't handle the responsibility that it brings, you will most likely fail. That's true in any profession, not just sports.

So, Hos... when you stop being so narrow and look at the big picture, you'll see that experience, or lack thereof, will gauge the level of success you have. Instead of having experience in a certain area and basing a bogus argument strictly on the fact that a professional should beat out an organization that isn't on the same level.

Get a grip, Hos. Being a professional doesn't mean ****. It just says you wanted a career out of playing a game.

 

[Alexander]

Hos, I'd figure that you'd realize the critical flaw in your argument. You're basing it solely on professional experience. Not experience in general, as it should be.

LOL!!!

I will remember that when distributing my resume next time.

Well, I am an amateur and I have alot of non-professional experience. Does that count?

Being a professional doesn't mean ****.

Do I have your permission to use this in my cover letter?

 

[KDWilliams85]

LOL!!!

I will remember that when distributing my resume next time.

Well, I am an amateur and I have alot of non-professional experience. Does that count?



Do I have your permission to use this in my cover letter?

So what... a friend of mine is Microsoft certified but that doesn't mean he has 20 years of professional experience fixing computers and setting up networks. I have no such certification but I can do it. A professional environment doesn't all of a sudden make you a veteran. It doesn't endow you newfound abilities that only a professional can offer. It just offers you a career path. It has nothing to do with how well you gussy yourself up in the eyes of a potential employer.

But in an effort to make things easier for you, I'll paraphrase something I heard from an NFL or an NBA draft show:

"Getting drafted isn't about if you can play because you obviously can to be considered for selection. It's about who is willing to take that chance on you."

I hope that does something for ya.

Oh... and yes, you can use my line. I rather enjoy being quoted. It gives me a center of attention that I like basking in.:laugh1:

 

[Hostile]

Hos, I'd figure that you'd realize the critical flaw in your argument. You're basing it solely on professional experience. Not experience in general, as it should be.

If you don't get into politics it is a total waste of ability to say nothing and sound like you are an authority.

Let me bring ya back to the real world for a visit. You can put your head back up in the clouds later. There is not one person involved in the game of football on any level who would swallow the load of hogwash you are trying to sell. Zero, zip, none, nada. The reason is real simple...your entire hypothesis is a critical flaw.

You started with an error, wrapped it in falsehoods, and layered on some nonsense and called it chocolate cake. Under that icing is a green, smelly substance from the corral.

Skill is refined through experience. Not experience in a certain environment. The "anchor" you speak of is dragging you instead of me.

If you honestly believe that experience can only come from the highest levels of competition, then you're sorely mistaken.

In case you missed the analogies, your entire theory is 100% wrong and has no resemblence to good sense. Telling someone that the experience they have acquired is further proof your theory is right is just this side of hilarious in it's ridiculousness. You're telling me I'm wrong because I have more experience.

Why don't you take this philosophy to Microsoft and share it with Bill Gates? You might be the wealthiest man in the world.

Double talk doesn't work with me KD.

Your skills as a coach don't change as much as you think they do. They seemingly change because of the environment in which you coach. Higher levels of competition distort how you see yourself. While the only thing a new environment offers is competition. All of your techniques and skills are still there. Coaching somewhere else doesn't take those away from you.

That right there has to be the dumbest thing you have said in this litany of errors, and that my friend is saying a LOT.

How many coaches have come to the NFL from the NCAA? How many of them were failures in the NCAA? The first one is hard, but the 2nd one is easy. All of them were successful in the NCAA to even try to make the jump to the NFL. For example, Bud Wilkinson was the HC at Oklahoma, and still owns the longest winning streak in NCAA football history at 57 games. A remarkable accomplishment.

Your philosophy would have him easily transitioning to the NFL since he was at the very pinnacle of the game. Since he didn't succeed it proves one irrefutable thing, your whole hypothesis did it's air out of the balloon impersonation and flew out the window.

Sorry KD, but it doesn't work that way. Do you know how many Head Coaches won NCAA Championships and Super Bowls? Two of them, and one piggy backed the other. Our very own Jimmy Johnson and Barry Switzer.

Out of the hundreds of coaches who have taken over an NFL franchise from the NCAA ranks as some of the most successful Coaches in NCAA History only 2 had real success.

Your theory has more holes than Swiss Cheese.

Hos, you make it sound like football isn't football the higher up you go. You're still playing the same game. The rules and orientation of the game may be different, but you're still playing the same old game. Skills carry over from level to level. They don't disappear and get replaced with new ones the higher up you go. They get built on original experience. There's nothing you can say to me or demonstrate that negates that.

Actually if you were paying attention you'd realize that what I am telling you is that the higher you go in the game, the more PURE your football becomes. You're trying to tell me the game remains watered down and that anyone can succeed if they get the experience. I am telling you that it refines itself into a purer form and that talent proves it. The difference between what we're saying is that I'm right and anyone in the game of football would agree with me, while you're wrong and no one in the game of football would agree with you.

Figured it would help to boil it down to the obvious.

As for game speed, that does change from team to team. There are teams that will run the clock on you and there are teams that will run the field on you. That doesn't change from any level.

You wanna take a stab at telling me why the Wishbone, one of the most successful offesnes in NCAA History, won't work in the NFL?

If you can put 2 and 2 together with that question alone you'll realize that the bucket you are using to bail the water out of your sinking canoe has no bottom in it and you're just stirring the water in the hull.

As for you speaking from experience, Hos... that makes you a hypocrite. If you truely were speaking from experience, you'd know that you never stop learning. Furthermore, if you had a clear perception of what you've done, you'd recognize that experience is experience any way you look at it. You still have to deal with the same old **** from people under your supervision. It doesn't change. The only thing that did change is the level of maturity that you'd come to expect from those around you. That's an effect of the environment in which you play or coach, not the lack of experience he or she might or might not have.

That's quite a leap there Swiss Cheese. I never said learning the game stops. In fact, I never even intimated it. The only way you could have drawn that conclusion is to continue using faulty logic.

It's a habit with ya huh? Damn, that's not too encouraging is it?

As for your facts, Hos, they are based on the same thing everything else has been: Experience on a certain level.

Fact: HS to NCAA is just a change of environment. The NCAA expects certain things from you. None of which are an incline in talent level.

Fact: NCAA to the NFL is just a change of environment. The NFL expects you to follow the rules just like the NCAA did. The NFL does not expect your talent level to raise because you've made it into the big time. The NFL does not expect the experience you've gained to carry over. A team owner does because they're the one paying you to play. That does not reflect the view of the NFL itself but rather potential employers. Experience itself always perseveres in the end. Not just experience at the highest level of competition.

Fact: Anyone has played all of their lives will tell you that the jumps you make are dependent not on your physical nature, but your mental nature. You can change the physical side of yourself. If you can't handle the responsibility that it brings, you will most likely fail. That's true in any profession, not just sports.

Nice spin control.

Auntie Em, Auntie Em, it's a twister! It's a twister!

None of that even said anything worth thinking about. All it tuned out to be was wordy evidence to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about and are grasping at straws.

So, Hos... when you stop being so narrow and look at the big picture, you'll see that experience, or lack thereof, will gauge the level of success you have. Instead of having experience in a certain area and basing a bogus argument strictly on the fact that a professional should beat out an organization that isn't on the same level.

Just when I think it can't get any sillier.

Look at the sentence in bold and let's break that down. You are saying...

"Experience will gauge the level of success you have."

While at the same time...

"The lack thereof (of experience) will gauge the level of success you have."

You sure as hell got your bases covered there Swiss Cheese. That's your idea of broad thinking is it? Excuse me if I am not impressed.

Get a grip, Hos. Being a professional doesn't mean ****. It just says you wanted a career out of playing a game.

I get it now, you're bitter because you didn't have the huevos to stick it out, so you have to justify your failure. The obvious reason would be so you can tell yourself that if circumstances had been different you could have made it too.

Remember this old adage Swiss Cheese. "The older I get, the better I was."

I have a feeling it will be your mantra. :wink2: