Discussion in 'Arizona Cardinals' started by Brian in Mesa, Jun 10, 2019.
IMO they shouldn't even try to rank rookie QBs. But who really cares as it is meaningless.
I hope not, again a rookie is rated so because they have not played... if he does, he has insecurity issues and is not very smart
I'm fine with this...... And cannot wait until week 1 is over.
Chris Sims had him rated at 24th. I think that is appropriate given that fact that there are some truly putrid starting QB’s in the league who will either have nothing left in the tank or are just complete busts.
Completely moronic. But hey, could be a positive omen - this penis wrinkle of a writer probably couldn't pick a winner with a time machine. Murray will probably be ROY now.
Confirmed he picks us to finish worse
Just take it for a grain of salt and also shame on ROB for giving credence to this opinion
that is all there is at this time of year.
No real news unless it's bad
Who's Brian Fitzpatrick? You mean Ryan?
Last year we were all hyped on the Bradford train and the ‘analyst’ we’re all dead on....dead on
Till the team does something being critical of any analysis of
This team is ignorant
Just as valid as putting him in the HOF already.
The same way everyone here thinks they are going to win 8 or 9 games. I have to do rankings to do my power rankings for gambling purposes. Everything is an educated guess before the season starts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Still looking for those pesky comments that have said he will be in the HoF. And don't try to point to people that have stated that they think he can be a HoF level player. Because that isn't even close to the same thing.
To Kyler's credit, this isn't really about him, it's about the overall state of the team, which has been a primary concern of mine. No matter how you slice it, rookie QBs struggle, and so do rookie head coaches - especially ones coming from the college game. That doesn't mean there's not room to improve over the course of the season and start to source some optimism from that, but they're gonna take some bumps unless history doesn't repeat itself.
You don't outright have to state something for it to be implied. Plenty of people have said things like he's better on paper than Russell Wilson, he's going to win us multiple Super Bowls, he's the best QB to come out in years, etc. I'm not going to go searching everyone's posts for quotes, but the implication of saying those things is that he's going to play at a Hall of Fame level.
I said he is better on paper than RW and that is absolutely a fair thing to say. Obviously he will have to go out and prove that to be true in actual games, but on paper as a prospect he is better. He is faster, has a stronger arm and put up all around better numbers in college than RW did. Saying KM is better on paper is not the same as saying that he is actually the better player as he still needs to prove it to be true on the field.
Given that he only played one year and Russ played 4, I don't see how it's a fair comparison at all.
In fact, I don't see how anything can be there "on paper" because Kyler never worked out for us to have any numbers on paper. But hey, you're saying he needs to show it on the field, so fine by me, I guess.
Most of the comments don't come with any caveat, just that he's the greatest thing ever and will transcend the game, and all historical evidence against him.
Edit: I guess I just can't get behind the "on paper" argument. On paper, coming out of college, you could argue that Matt Leinart was better than Tom Brady, but that's clearly not true. You can bend those stats however you want, so before I even slightly imply they might play on the same level, I'm parsing my words.
Separate names with a comma.