Only one starter below Kyler Murray in new QB rankings

[Weenus O'Baggins]

This conversation is confusing me to no end.

From what I understand here, the fair comparison is to only compare Russell Wilson to Kyler Murray as prospects on paper but to evaluate the team around him...now we need to look at NFL success not prospects on paper.

I think the entire thing is an exercise in futility.

 

[kerouac9]

This conversation is confusing me to no end.

From what I understand here, the fair comparison is to only compare Russell Wilson to Kyler Murray as prospects on paper but to evaluate the team around him...now we need to look at NFL success not prospects on paper.

I think the entire thing is an exercise in futility.

The games cannot start soon enough.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

This conversation is confusing me to no end.

From what I understand here, the fair comparison is to only compare Russell Wilson to Kyler Murray as prospects on paper but to evaluate the team around him...now we need to look at NFL success not prospects on paper.

I think the entire thing is an exercise in futility.

All we can possibly do right now is compare Murray to players in a theoretical sense because he hasn't played games yet. When we have actually seen Murray play a decent amount of games there won't be any need for theoretical comparisons. The best player to try and compare him to right now is RW though as their measurables and skill sets are pretty similar.

 

[Solar7]

Murray is a great prospect that has the skill set that could achieve great things. Why wouldn't we be extremely positive about that?

Because there are significant downsides to the player too? If this were Andrew Luck I wouldn't fault you for extreme positivity.

This conversation is confusing me to no end.

From what I understand here, the fair comparison is to only compare Russell Wilson to Kyler Murray as prospects on paper but to evaluate the team around him...now we need to look at NFL success not prospects on paper.

I think the entire thing is an exercise in futility.

Yeah, I think it's silly too. At the end of the day, there's too many "yeah but" kind of arguments to be had.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Because there are significant downsides to the player too? If this were Andrew Luck I wouldn't fault you for extreme positivity.


Yeah, I think it's silly too. At the end of the day, there's too many "yeah but" kind of arguments to be had.

There is far more upsides to Murray than there are downsides and thus I am optimistic about him. You seem to be hung up on the few question marks and can't allow yourself to buy into the obvious talent. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but don't expect the people that aren't being blinded by negativity to side with you.

 

[Solar7]

There is far more upsides to Murray than there are downsides and thus I am optimistic about him. You seem to be hung up on the few question marks and can't allow yourself to buy into the obvious talent. Feel free to believe what you want to believe, but don't expect the people that aren't being blinded by negativity to side with you.

I don't expect anyone to side with me, that's totally fine, but it is hard when I try to have an honest conversation about how I think the team is going to perform as a whole and someone says something like the O-Line isn't a problem because Kyler's going to make them better by scrambling.

I'm working on trying to talk about him and the team in a different way so we can cut down on the obnoxious back and forths, but a lot of this reminds me of the Mitch drama, where points are presented as objective fact and and indeed are not objective facts.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

I am/was on Team Murray but his chance of busting is enormous. It's easy to get excited about the top end of the spectrum of outcomes though.

 

[Yuma]

I feel bad for the last place guy if he's not a rookie!

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

I don't expect anyone to side with me, that's totally fine, but it is hard when I try to have an honest conversation about how I think the team is going to perform as a whole and someone says something like the O-Line isn't a problem because Kyler's going to make them better by scrambling.

I'm working on trying to talk about him and the team in a different way so we can cut down on the obnoxious back and forths, but a lot of this reminds me of the Mitch drama, where points are presented as objective fact and and indeed are not objective facts.

You have to understand that those opinions are no where near a norm on this site. Sure there may be 1 or 2 posters that believe that his scrambling will mean that the OLine won't matter, but that is not the norm. You also need to understand that someone for instance saying that Murray's scrambling can help the OLine is not the same as saying that it makes the OLine not matter at all or fixes any difficiencies whatsoever.

It seems to me that while there are some posts that are completely unrealistic on this site there are also points that you seem to be completely misunderstanding the context of. It just seems like sometimes you just don't seem to allow for any grey area and everything has to be very black and white. But hey, that's just what I see from my point of view and I am certainly not always right. Either way I am having fun discussing it whether it seems to be going anywhere or not.

 

[PACardsFan]

Except I am the one that has been saying he is a better prospect and the word prospect should make that distinction by itself. In other words I think he is more physically talented than Wilson and if everything works out well he could be even better than Wilson. What we won't know until he plays is whether he will be able to process information as well as Wilson does. If he gets it mentally at least as well and can stay healthy like Wilson has than he will likely end up an even better player.

Time will tell how it all plays out, but I agree with you. Murray's potential is scary & Murray was a better, maybe much better college QB than Wilson. But, Wilson is a gamer, and almost always better in crunch time. If not for a horrible play call, he would be wearing 2 SB rings & a lock for the HOF, which he may already be anyways.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Time will tell how it all plays out, but I agree with you. Murray's potential is scary & Murray was a better, maybe much better college QB than Wilson. But, Wilson is a gamer, and almost always better in crunch time. If not for a horrible play call, he would be wearing 2 SB rings & a lock for the HOF, which he may already be anyways.

For sure. For me the only real question marks for Murray are how he deals with the speed of the game and the step up in competition and whether or not he stays healthy. Those things are ultimately what will make him successful or not at this level, but those are the questions you have to ask of any rookie QB to at least some extent. I can understand why people have doubt because of his measurables, but there are similar sized players that have been successful and they have been because they meet the mental requirements to do it. If Murray ends up failing I highly doubt it has much of anything to do with his size.

 

[PACardsFan]

I am/was on Team Murray but his chance of busting is enormous. It's easy to get excited about the top end of the spectrum of outcomes though.

There’s always a bust risk, bit far fetched to refer to K1’s as enormous. By all accounts he is excellent in the following areas:
Accuracy
Arm strength
Intelligence
Speed
Agility
Hit avoidance
Throwing from angles
Throwing on the run
Reading defenses
Escapability
Tight spiral
Catchable ball

When you factor in his ability to throw from all angles & throw on the run, his 5’10” height means nothing. All it means is that he’ll have a chip on his shoulder that is bigger than him.

 

[Solar7]

When you factor in his ability to throw from all angles & throw on the run, his 5’10” height means nothing. All it means is that he’ll have a chip on his shoulder that is bigger than him.

See, this is the kind of stuff that gets me going. "His 5'10 height means 'nothing.'"

No man, it does, and history has proven that short QBs don't play very well. Yes, he might be the exception to the rule, but until we see him in real action, it very much does "matter."

 

[Jetstream Green]

See, this is the kind of stuff that gets me going. "His 5'10 height means 'nothing.'"

No man, it does, and history has proven that short QBs don't play very well. Yes, he might be the exception to the rule, but until we see him in real action, it very much does "matter."

History also shows that really tall QBs have not fair well either, even more so than short QBs because the NFL has not given many short QBs a chance to even have a fair assessment. Yes, I know this is a contact sport and being small is why they have not been given a chance (or that fable that they cannot see over the OL when even a 6'4 QB cannot see over the OL and has to throw through windows) but this is not about being hurt but playing well and this is also about a current NFL which is a lot different than the past. The question should not be about height, but since Murray can run, will he abandon his pocket tendencies in the Pros as a easy way out when the complexity is upped a notch because the percentages of mobile QBs who run have not won many championships because any opposing defense which gets to the big dance does not make it possible

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

See, this is the kind of stuff that gets me going. "His 5'10 height means 'nothing.'"

No man, it does, and history has proven that short QBs don't play very well. Yes, he might be the exception to the rule, but until we see him in real action, it very much does "matter."

History has shown that most QB's fail regardless of height. The only thing history has truly shown in regard to short QBs is that they don't get nearly as many opportunities to be NFL starters (or even college starters) as taller QBs do. Shorter QBs don't bust at any higher of a rate than taller QBs. What matters the most when determining whether a QB has success or not is if they can read the defense, get the ball out on time, have the arm talent to get the ball into tight windows and stay healthy. Almost every QB bust in NFL history failed because they couldn't do one or more of those things and you never can know for sure if a QB will succeed at all of those things until you see it on the field in real games.

 

[Cardsfan77]

See, this is the kind of stuff that gets me going. "His 5'10 height means 'nothing.'"

No man, it does, and history has proven that short QBs don't play very well. Yes, he might be the exception to the rule, but until we see him in real action, it very much does "matter."

I agree in a general sense that height counts for something, but what about “short” and accurate (in a major college conference) QBs, what does history tell us there? I myself don’t know, so honest question. I don’t think it’s fair to lump Kyler in with all other “short” QBs throughout history, he’s way too unique of an athlete...

 

[Solar7]

History has shown that most QB's fail regardless of height. The only thing history has truly shown in regard to short QBs is that they don't get nearly as many opportunities to be NFL starters (or even college starters) as taller QBs do. Shorter QBs don't bust at any higher of a rate than taller QBs. What matters the most when determining whether a QB has success or not is if they can read the defense, get the ball out on time, have the arm talent to get the ball into tight windows and stay healthy. Almost every QB bust in NFL history failed because they couldn't do one or more of those things and you never can know for sure if a QB will succeed at all of those things until you see it on the field in real games.

Sure, but if you break it into segments of success, it's a bell curve. Shorter guys struggle to show NFL success, really tall guys struggle to show NFL success. There's readily available information on this.

The huge issue I have with your argument about how short guys "don't get a chance" in the NFL is that I've provided lists of short guys who have failed, but no one seems to have a list of college players who weren't given enough of a chance in the NFL, or high school guys who weren't given a shot.

With the desperation for even adequate QB play, I don't think this is an issue of poor short guys just not being given a chance... if you have the arm strength, mind, etc., you're going to get a chance. And if you're amazing, you're going to beat out the guys around you.

I mean, feel free to share evidence of short guys that aren't getting enough of a chance, but this seems like it's just something that some of you feel is happening, not anything concrete with examples of where some kid was clearly amazing but just wasn't picked/offered a scholarship.

 

[kerouac9]

Time will tell how it all plays out, but I agree with you. Murray's potential is scary & Murray was a better, maybe much better college QB than Wilson. But, Wilson is a gamer, and almost always better in crunch time. If not for a horrible play call, he would be wearing 2 SB rings & a lock for the HOF, which he may already be anyways.

Murray was great for one year. Russell Wilson had 50 college starts. Just like comparisons to Mahomes are inappropriate, the comparisons to Wilson are. Wilson had NOTHING to prove to the NFL except the height thing.

The Cards are taking a chance on greatness, but the thing that's annoying to me is that the Murray stans are acting as if there is no risk. If there were no risk, Murray wouldn't have been viewed as a fringe Day 2 prospect until the Combine.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

There’s always a bust risk, bit far fetched to refer to K1’s as enormous. By all accounts he is excellent in the following areas:
Accuracy
Arm strength
Intelligence
Speed
Agility
Hit avoidance
Throwing from angles
Throwing on the run
Reading defenses
Escapability
Tight spiral
Catchable ball

When you factor in his ability to throw from all angles & throw on the run, his 5’10” height means nothing. All it means is that he’ll have a chip on his shoulder that is bigger than him.

What makes the bust chance high is not the size of the player but the limited sample size on his college stats. The smaller the sample size, the larger the chance that the data is wrong.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

I think pre draft I had it like this:

30% top 12
25% 12-24
5% 25-32
10% Long Term Journeyman
30% Out of the league in 4 years

His unique skills make it more likely he will spectacular either as a hit or a miss. I just don't see Mike Glennon here

 

[kerouac9]

I think pre draft I had it like this:

30% top 12
25% 12-24
5% 25-32
10% Long Term Journeyman
30% Out of the league in 4 years

His unique skills make it more likely he will spectacular either as a hit or a miss. I just don't see Mike Glennon here

I think the difference is that he's a #1 overall pick. Sam Bradford was still getting calls last offseason. Blaine Gabbert still has a job. Michael Vick played for 7 seasons after his dogfighting conviction. Top picks can play (almost) as long as they want to because someone will think they can be resurrected somehow.

OT: OMG -- Did anyone know that E.J. Manuel weighted 237 pounds with the Raiders? That's WILD.

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

And I had Rosen like

5% top 12
30% 12-24
35% 25-32
25% Long term Journeyman
5% Out of the League in 4 years

 

[Weenus O'Baggins]

I think the difference is that he's a #1 overall pick. Sam Bradford was still getting calls last offseason. Blaine Gabbert still has a job. Michael Vick played for 7 seasons after his dogfighting conviction. Top picks can play (almost) as long as they want to because someone will think they can be resurrected somehow.

OT: OMG -- Did anyone know that E.J. Manuel weighted 237 pounds with the Raiders? That's WILD.

Yeah the out of the league is really only driven by the fair concerns that if he isn't a big hit as a QB he can always go back to baseball.

So like if he runs through his 4 year deal and we don't pick up his option, he is just going to go play baseball

 

[kerouac9]

Yeah the out of the league is really only driven by the fair concerns that if he isn't a big hit as a QB he can always go back to baseball.

So like if he runs through his 4 year deal and we don't pick up his option, he is just going to go play baseball

Yeah. That's a good point.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Murray was great for one year. Russell Wilson had 50 college starts. Just like comparisons to Mahomes are inappropriate, the comparisons to Wilson are. Wilson had NOTHING to prove to the NFL except the height thing.

The Cards are taking a chance on greatness, but the thing that's annoying to me is that the Murray stans are acting as if there is no risk. If there were no risk, Murray wouldn't have been viewed as a fringe Day 2 prospect until the Combine.

I would not compare Murray to Wilson till he shows it as a pro. As far as college QBs coming out, sure the comparison can work with Wilson and Mahomes. Honestly, if Murray played another year at Oklahoma it would have been more of the same with gaudy numbers playing the college game... him playing professional ball is the only way we are going to find out