slide22;615388 wrote:Scout is the only one that uses a combined list.

Not accurate.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/recruiting/prospects/_/class/2011/position/qb

SportsAndLady;614009 wrote:Like I said, I realize Pryor isn't great, and you can even argue he isn't even good. But like you said, he does enough to win. And when Miller is starting next year and they get beat multiple times in the Big Ten, we will all wish Pryor was back...because I'll take a winner over a stat filler any day of the week.

SportsAndLady;614994 wrote:So Big Ten titles, wins over michigan, and BCS bowl wins don't mean anything of significance to you? Gotcha.

I'm watching Keith Jackson announce the 2003 Fiesta Bowl right now (on the BTN), and they were talking about Krenzel's chances to play on Sundays, and his response was "I think he can. He's a winner."

Congratulations, you and Keith Jackson are now equal dumbasses in regards to believing some players are "winners" and other players are not. It just isn't an athletic or mental trait to be a winner. Coaches are "winners" because they are better, not because of genes. You cannot call Terrelle Pryor "a winner" because he is one of 85 guys on the team. If he's a winner, and with each win he gets a a boost in that category, every starter on the team gets it too, no?

It's not to say some guys aren't "winners," but that is typically a correlation of their work ethic, their athleticism, and their cognitive ability. It is in that order too, in my opinion.

There is no genetic trait to be a winner. It's a term some dumbass sports journalist conjured up because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Terrelle Pryor is the example of an incredible athlete, yet mediocre quarterback, being on a team made up of many of the best amateur football players in the world. It's that simple. He doesn't need to be good when he runs that system with so many good players.

Tobias Fünke;615405 wrote:I'm watching Keith Jackson announce the 2003 Fiesta Bowl right now (on the BTN), and they were talking about Krenzel's chances to play on Sundays, and his response was "I think he can. He's a winner."

Congratulations, you and Keith Jackson are now equal dumbasses in regards to believing some players are "winners" and other players are not. It just isn't an athletic or mental trait to be a winner. Coaches are "winners" because they are better, not because of genes. You cannot call Terrelle Pryor "a winner" because he is one of 85 guys on the team. If he's a winner, and with each win he gets a a boost in that category, every starter on the team gets it too, no?

It's not to say some guys aren't "winners," but that is typically a correlation of their work ethic, their athleticism, and their cognitive ability. It is in that order too, in my opinion.

There is no genetic trait to be a winner. It's a term some dumbass sports journalist conjured up because he doesn't know what he's talking about. Terrelle Pryor is the example of an incredible athlete, yet mediocre quarterback, being on a team made up of many of the best amateur football players in the world. It's that simple. He doesn't need to be good when he runs that system with so many good players.

Key difference: Keith Jackson was talking about NFL potential, I was talking about college ability. In college, Terrelle Pryor is a winner (based on nothing but his record as a starting QB). I would never answer "yes, he's a winner" to someone asking about TP's NFL potential, that's just dumb.

Toby there was a season where Krenzel had the best record of any QB on the Chicago Bears roster

I can't believe some of the stupidity I'm reading, particularly from Ty Webb (shocker)...

Braxton Miller is a QB. He's WAY further along as a QB at this point in his career than TP was and may even be now. Obviously Braxton will need the time to adjust to the college game, which is why I'd rather see him sit his freshman year, but we'll see how that plays out.

SportsAndLady;613748 wrote:It's a lot easier to throw good balls and you obviously look a lot better in high school than you do playing against Wisconsin, Miami (FL), Nebraska, etc.

Agreed, but I was speaking on behalf of his State Championship game performance where the conditions were miserable and he was playing against a team with significant college talent all around it.

Yea, the whole "TP is a winner" argument is just dumb. What big game has he played well in, other than Oregon? Look at his record against top 25 teams and tell me he's a winner.

Winners elevate their play in big games, something Pryor really hasn't done. People fail to realize that OSU just has more talent from top to bottom than most everyone they play. They could start just about anyone at QB at OSU and win at least 8 games every single year. He is given way too much credit for his career record, when in reality he was asked to "not lose" most of those games, rather than to go out and win them.

thedynasty1998;615507 wrote:Yea, the whole "TP is a winner" argument is just dumb. What big game has he played well in, other than Oregon? Look at his record against top 25 teams and tell me he's a winner.

Winners elevate their play in big games, something Pryor really hasn't done. People fail to realize that OSU just has more talent from top to bottom than most everyone they play. They could start just about anyone at QB at OSU and win at least 8 games every single year. He is given way too much credit for his career record, when in reality he was asked to "not lose" most of those games, rather than to go out and win them.

So with that logic I guess Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson and Dan Marino all sucked because they never won the big game?

Bigdogg;615650 wrote:So with that logic I guess Barry Sanders, O.J. Simpson and Dan Marino all sucked because they never won the big game?

Huh? No, because those guys put up great statistics, at the professional level.

And never did I say Pryor "sucked", I said he gets too much credit for being a "winner".

When I say winner, I don't really mean he is actually a "winner" lol I know that kinda doesn't make a lot of sense...what I mean is, with TP, we've always been in a BCS game. So with him in there, you can say the team is winning. Now, throw Bauserman or Graham or whoever in there this year, and they'll probably not be in a BCS game. All I'm saying is, I'll take a QB who wins the game for you rather than someone who puts up Heisman stats and finishes 8-4.

Why would anyone think next year's defense is going to be any worse than this year?

OSU loses a number of good people (Heyward, Hines, Homan, Chekwa) but brings back enough (I believe) people in those key areas that they won't hardly miss a beat. Then factor in the defensive backs who got hurt that return, including Barnett, and the defensive backfield might end up being a strength of this team, especially if one or two of the freshmen (redshirt or true) step up.

Linebacker will be solid, again, with those returning (Sweat, Sabino, Klein, Whiting, Bell, Moeller, Durham and McVey) and at least one stud freshman (possibly 2) coming in.

The DL is where you have to wonder, but OSU really only loses two guys in Heyward and Larrimore. Everyone else is back, including Williams at end, and Hankins and Simon in the middle. Then you have arguably the best DL class in the country coming in, and I have to believe one or two of these guys are going to step right in.

Honestly, I don't see this unit being a weakness, although it may take a few games before they start clicking as well as this year's group did.

There will be more questions with the offense, especially at WR and QB (if Pryor leaves).

Writerbuckeye;615728 wrote:Why would anyone think next year's defense is going to be any worse than this year?

OSU loses a number of good people (Heyward, Hines, Homan, Chekwa) but brings back enough (I believe) people in those key areas that they won't hardly miss a beat. Then factor in the defensive backs who got hurt that return, including Barnett, and the defensive backfield might end up being a strength of this team, especially if one or two of the freshmen (redshirt or true) step up.

Linebacker will be solid, again, with those returning (Sweat, Sabino, Klein, Whiting, Bell, Moeller, Durham and McVey) and at least one stud freshman (possibly 2) coming in.

The DL is where you have to wonder, but OSU really only loses two guys in Heyward and Larrimore. Everyone else is back, including Williams at end, and Hankins and Simon in the middle. Then you have arguably the best DL class in the country coming in, and I have to believe one or two of these guys are going to step right in.

Honestly, I don't see this unit being a weakness, although it may take a few games before they start clicking as well as this year's group did.

There will be more questions with the offense, especially at WR and QB (if Pryor leaves).

Holy crap, I agree with Writer!

OSU will not win the B10 next year, that's about all i can really be sure of. I think they'll come out and play well enough to win 4 of the 5 games without the tattoogate brigade. I think they'll lose to MSU and Nebraska before they come into their own and win out. I think Wisky will make the championship game even if OSU beats them (i.e. I don't expect Wisconsin to lose but 1 B10 game, to OSU). and the badgers should win the B10 title. I think OSU finishes 10-2 and gets an at large BCS bowl again, probably the fiesta bowl.

j_crazy;615802 wrote:I think OSU finishes 10-2 and gets an at large BCS bowl again, probably the fiesta bowl.

It will be interesting to me to see how the new format changes the dynamic of who gets the BCS invites. I would think if only two teams get to go, and one of them is an automatic bid, wouldn't you want the at large bid to go to the other team from the championship game most years? (I haven't followed the other conferences that have championship games at all, so maybe that's completely wrong.)

FatHobbit;615829 wrote:It will be interesting to me to see how the new format changes the dynamic of who gets the BCS invites. I would think if only two teams get to go, and one of them is an automatic bid, wouldn't you want the at large bid to go to the other team from the championship game most years? (I haven't followed the other conferences that have championship games at all, so maybe that's completely wrong.)

Look at the SEC this year...Auburn's opponent in the CG, South Carolina, is playing in the Chick Fil A Bowl. Arkansas is the second SEC team in the BCS year. The divisions won't always be split evenly every year. SEC West was much stronger than the SEC East this year. Same with the Big XII South when Texas and Oklahoma were far and away the best teams in the conference and the North would have a shitty team in the CG.

karen lotz;615924 wrote:Look at the SEC this year...Auburn's opponent in the CG, South Carolina, is playing in the Chick Fil A Bowl. Arkansas is the second SEC team in the BCS year. The divisions won't always be split evenly every year. SEC West was much stronger than the SEC East this year. Same with the Big XII South when Texas and Oklahoma were far and away the best teams in the conference and the North would have a shitty team in the CG.

this.

only way i see both teams from a conference champ making the BCS is if a team is undefeated and loses in the championship game. not sure if this has happened in the BCS age or not, maybe it has.

j_crazy;615942 wrote:this.

only way i see both teams from a conference champ making the BCS is if a team is undefeated and loses in the championship game. not sure if this has happened in the BCS age or not, maybe it has.

Did you miss the SEC championship last year with Florida and Alabama? How about Big 12 Oklahoma-KSU in 2003? Or Nebraska-Colorado in 2001?