Young went 30-2 as the starter at Texas, Jay Cutler went 11-34. Leinart 36wins-8 losses with two titles and 1 heisman Young had more talent around him but also competed weekly with the best talent in college football Cutler played against weaker teams and had less around him but should have dominated at the college level if he is as great as advertised I am begging you eric mangini and the jets dont waste our golden number 4 pick on a qb who has bust written all over him. This is not an arguement to pick young instead its a case against cutler. We as fans and scouts become to enamored with physical wonders and workout warriors. Most of the time they turn out to be nothing special and it ends up burning the team for the next 10 years. It seems like we want cutler over a guy like leinart who won 2 championships and a heisman only because cutler can bench 24 reps, run a 4.77 and throw the ball ten yards further. Think about it before we all jump on the band wagon. Why draft a perenial loser to instill a winning tradition for our franchise?
There are several problems with your arguement, but here's the most glaring: Vince Young played on the best team in the worst major conference in College Football (aside from the Big East, of course.) Who in the Big XII was a threat to Texas? Cutler played on one of the worst teams in the best conference in college football.
yeah, but Dorsey was never labeled top talent. No one thought much of Dorsey at Miami, everyone knew all he had to do was manage the game. Plus Dorsey had a ridiculous amount of talent around, the likes we have never seen before. Most of teammates went on to become Pro Bowlers in the NFL. It not like people were saying Dorsey was 1st rd talent. Everyone around him was. Leinart and Young on the other hand, have taken over games. They showed 1.They had the tools and 2. They could win.
So, in your opinion, arm strength, accuracy, mobility, intangibles, and leadership all are useless ways to evaluate Quarterbacks? You don't think any extraneous variables such as strength of schedule, a cast of supporting players, a strong system, or elite coaches should be considered in how that "stat" was attained? I'm sorry, but there are much better ways to evaluate QBs that the way you suggested. Wins/Losses should be considered, but suggesting that's the only thing to decide between players is pretty weak.
This is a bogus argument. It's obvious that Cutler's surrounding talent was nowhere on par with Leinart's or Young's, you can't even begin to predict what he'd have done if he were on a winning team either.
This makes no sense. College is not the NFL. In college, the playing fields and surrounding talents can vary significantly within the confines of Division I. You cannot compare Young to Cutler in this manner. Ken Dorsey should have been the best QB of his class using your very flawed method. Nate Hybl? Josh Heupel? Jason White?
Are you serious? Football is a major TEAM sport, 1 guy can't do it all, you think Reggie Bush would be undefeated at Vanderbilt? Cutler has the tools to be a great NFL QB and has a huge upside. You think scouts rate Leinhart and Young so high because they have great winning records?
Yeah.... Gary Beban won a ton of games too. He also won the Heisman. What, you never heard of him? According to you, he should have been a pro bowler. The first QB drafted. He won. A national title. The Heisman.
