Why will Murray fail?

[GatorAZ]

Steve Young won 3. Best true dual threat QB i've ever seen. These days the term dual threat usually means a QB who can scramble and make wow plays everywhere except for in the pocket.

Young was exceptional all over the field with his arm, legs and diagnosis.

Forget best dual threat. He was the best period (at his peak).

Even after his prime when he was breaking down he was still leading the league in QB rating and putting up the kind of numbers we see today.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Who are these people? His current coach and teammates? I wonder how the people he bailed on at TAMU feel about him?

Physical preparation is one thing; mental preparation is another. What makes the difference in the best quarterbacks isn't physical ability, it's the way they can diagnose a defense instantaneously and carve it up.

Paradoxically, this is why physical phenoms historically have struggled over the long-term in the NFL. Their ability to read and react to defenses doesn't develop quickly because they're running themselves out of trouble.

The heartsick bleating of Murray stans is baffling to me. Murray is a nice prospect, but he's a quantum leap below Andrew Luck a few years ago. It's not impossible to understand why people could have concerns. You can think that Murray is a tremendous risk (or a moderate one — if he fails he's not going to set the franchise back a decade) and also think that the reward is remarkable. Not everyone needs to love your boy.

Wow.

First bolded - on what exactly sir, do you base that conclusion? Because in comparing their Junior collegiate seasons, Murray easily, and convincingly, out-performed Luck from a statistical standpoint, and a production standpoint, while both played against power-five competition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps you'd like to dial that statement back just a little?

2nd bolded - That's true. May I ask, however, that you please don't take the super-boring, super-predictable, position of "College quarterback "X" will not experience above average success in the NFL"? Playing the odds like this is a great when it becomes time to say "I told you so", but it lacks imagination Kerouac9. We all already understand that it's hard to play QB in the NFL, and we all already understand that even the most special of college QBs have pretty a high risk of failure.

I do agree with you about the correlation between success in the NFL, and how a QB is wired upstairs. That's what separates the Aaron Rodgers(es) from the Jay Cutlers.

 

[SECTION 11]

True story, for years we had a custom made foam finger with “Boomer Sooner This” printed on it. It has to be around here somewhere...

 

[Solar7]

Wow.

First bolded - on what exactly sir, do you base that conclusion? Because in comparing their Junior collegiate seasons, Murray easily, and convincingly, out-performed Luck from a statistical standpoint, and a production standpoint, while both played against power-five competition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps you'd like to dial that statement back just a little?

2nd bolded - That's true. May I ask, however, that you please don't take the super-boring, super-predictable, position of "College quarterback "X" will not experience above average success in the NFL"? Playing the odds like this is a great when it becomes time to say "I told you so", but it lacks imagination Kerouac9. We all already understand that it's hard to play QB in the NFL, and we all already understand that even the most special of college QBs have pretty a high risk of failure.

I do agree with you about the correlation between success in the NFL, and how a QB is wired upstairs. That's what separates the Aaron Rodgers(es) from the Jay Cutlers.

Andrew Luck was without a doubt considered a can't miss prospect, and he played more than one flash in the pan season. His entire body of work speaks for itself as a college player, and teams were clamoring for him. He was so good, that his team didn't just move on from a struggling rookie, they released a guy who was in contention for being the greatest quarterback in NFL history. If you think Luck and Murray are comparable, you're way too deep into the homerism. It's not even close. Every team would have taken Luck #1, we're the only one, more or less, who was going to take Kyler.

If your boy has a high risk of failure, stop being part of the crowd who can't admit he might struggle. I get that's what you're doing here, so I respect that, but there's nothing more annoying than hearing he won't get injured, size doesn't matter, his public response isn't possibly questionable... just stop screaming that he's perfect. It's delusional.

Also, Jay Cutler did everything he could for that Vanderbilt team. He's kind of an cornholio, but so is Rodgers.

 

[Krangodnzr]

Andrew Luck was without a doubt considered a can't miss prospect, and he played more than one flash in the pan season. His entire body of work speaks for itself as a college player, and teams were clamoring for him. He was so good, that his team didn't just move on from a struggling rookie, they released a guy who was in contention for being the greatest quarterback in NFL history. If you think Luck and Murray are comparable, you're way too deep into the homerism. It's not even close. Every team would have taken Luck #1, we're the only one, more or less, who was going to take Kyler.

If your boy has a high risk of failure, stop being part of the crowd who can't admit he might struggle. I get that's what you're doing here, so I respect that, but there's nothing more annoying than hearing he won't get injured, size doesn't matter, his public response isn't possibly questionable... just stop screaming that he's perfect. It's delusional.

Also, Jay Cutler did everything he could for that Vanderbilt team. He's kind of an *******, but so is Rodgers.

Flash in the pan. What a ******** statement.

You dont put up numbers like Murray did and be a flash in the pan.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Wow.

First bolded - on what exactly sir, do you base that conclusion? Because in comparing their Junior collegiate seasons, Murray easily, and convincingly, out-performed Luck from a statistical standpoint, and a production standpoint, while both played against power-five competition. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but perhaps you'd like to dial that statement back just a little?

2nd bolded - That's true. May I ask, however, that you please don't take the super-boring, super-predictable, position of "College quarterback "X" will not experience above average success in the NFL"? Playing the odds like this is a great when it becomes time to say "I told you so", but it lacks imagination Kerouac9. We all already understand that it's hard to play QB in the NFL, and we all already understand that even the most special of college QBs have pretty a high risk of failure.

I do agree with you about the correlation between success in the NFL, and how a QB is wired upstairs. That's what separates the Aaron Rodgers(es) from the Jay Cutlers.

look... I get it. You love Murray. I'm excited to see what he can do. But to even QUESTION the FACT that Luck was considered a once in a generation QB prospect by EVERYONE and lower him in any way to the same category or even close to Murray, who had one amazing season, won zero titles and does have questions about his size/durability is flat out ridiculous.

I mean... preposterously stupid... like when you thought Jason White was going to be a great pro QB and when I dared questioned that beyond homerific take, you got all pissy and accused me of hating the guy... for literally no reason whatsoever.

 

[Solar7]

Flash in the pan. What a ******** statement.

You dont put up numbers like Murray did and be a flash in the pan.

You put up one year of numbers, you're a flash in the pan, compared to any other surefire QB like Luck.

I mean, we're literally only a few years behind having had Lamar Jackson with a better season statistically, with arguably less talent. Pump your breaks, man.

 

[GatorAZ]

look... I get it. You love Murray. I'm excited to see what he can do. But to even QUESTION the FACT that Luck was considered a once in a generation QB prospect by EVERYONE and lower him in any way to the same category or even close to Murray, who had one amazing season, won zero titles and does have questions about his size/durability is flat out ridiculous.

I mean... preposterously stupid... like when you thought Jason White was going to be a great pro QB and when I dared questioned that beyond homerific take, you got all pissy and accused me of hating the guy... for literally no reason whatsoever.

Are we talking the same Jason White who stole Fitz’ Heisman and crapped the bed in b2b national championship games?

 

[dscher]

Forget the college crap.. But look at what Lucks prototypical size did for him injury wise in the Nfl? Guy had almost 3 years of recovery from injuries over the years.. 3 years!

https://www.thescore.com/nfl/news/1581497

 

[Crimson Warrior]

Andrew Luck was without a doubt considered a can't miss prospect, and he played more than one flash in the pan season. His entire body of work speaks for itself as a college player, and teams were clamoring for him. He was so good, that his team didn't just move on from a struggling rookie, they released a guy who was in contention for being the greatest quarterback in NFL history. If you think Luck and Murray are comparable, you're way too deep into the homerism. It's not even close. Every team would have taken Luck #1, we're the only one, more or less, who was going to take Kyler.

If your boy has a high risk of failure, stop being part of the crowd who can't admit he might struggle. I get that's what you're doing here, so I respect that, but there's nothing more annoying than hearing he won't get injured, size doesn't matter, his public response isn't possibly questionable... just stop screaming that he's perfect. It's delusional.

Also, Jay Cutler did everything he could for that Vanderbilt team. He's kind of an *******, but so is Rodgers.

Solar7 why are you putting words in my mouth?

I did not say that Murray and Luck are perfectly comparable prospects.

But I do disagree that Luck is/was a "quantum leap" over Murray as a prospect. "Quantum leap" implies that Murray is not even in the same solar system as Luck. Don't you think that's a bit much?

And you know what? If everyone was slobbering all over Luck coming out of college, that's great. But don't you think that part of the Luck frenzy was media driven? That is, the media was partly responsible for Luck being a "once in a generation" talent?

Has Luck's NFL performance really proved him out to be a once-in-a-generation QB talent?

And maybe I'm the stupidest person in the world for asking this question, but what exactly about Luck made him, as a prospect, so vastly superior to Murray? Ball velocity? Accuracy? Mobility?

Or Solar7, was it that Mel Kiper told you Luck was a once-in-a-generation talent, and therefore it had to be true?

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Andrew Luck was without a doubt considered a can't miss prospect, and he played more than one flash in the pan season. His entire body of work speaks for itself as a college player, and teams were clamoring for him. He was so good, that his team didn't just move on from a struggling rookie, they released a guy who was in contention for being the greatest quarterback in NFL history. If you think Luck and Murray are comparable, you're way too deep into the homerism. It's not even close. Every team would have taken Luck #1, we're the only one, more or less, who was going to take Kyler.

If your boy has a high risk of failure, stop being part of the crowd who can't admit he might struggle. I get that's what you're doing here, so I respect that, but there's nothing more annoying than hearing he won't get injured, size doesn't matter, his public response isn't possibly questionable... just stop screaming that he's perfect. It's delusional.

Also, Jay Cutler did everything he could for that Vanderbilt team. He's kind of an *******, but so is Rodgers.

There are only 2 reasons that people don't see Murray as a "can't miss prospect". His height and his sample size. If he was a few inches taller everyone would be in love with him or if he had another season or 2 at his 2018 production more people would be in love with him, but plenty would still harp on his height. The bottom line is that there is very little to complain about when you watch him on film and that is both from his play in and out of the pocket.

 

[Cheesebeef]

There are only 2 reasons that people don't see Murray as a "can't miss prospect". His height and his sample size. If he was a few inches taller everyone would be in love with him or if he had another season or 2 at his 2018 production more people would be in love with him, but plenty would still harp on his height. The bottom line is that there is very little to complain about when you watch him on film and that is both from his play in and out of the pocket.

you say that as if those sample size and size in general aren't two of the most important factors that make a prospect "can't miss".

The reason guys like Luck and Peyton Manning were deemed generational guys were because they had huge sample sizes and were nails on every measurable imaginable.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

you say that as if those sample size and size in general aren't two of the most important factors that make a prospect "can't miss".

The reason guys like Luck and Peyton Manning were deemed generational guys were because they had huge sample sizes and were nails on every measurable imaginable.

I completely understand that. What I am saying is it's not specifically about anything that he does poorly on the field that people don't view him in that light. I could understand if he showed very limited ability to throw from the pocket or showed underwhelming accuracy/arm mechanics or struggles to go through his progression or read the defense, but those aren't the types of things that people complain about with him. The only things that people seem to be able to come up with is "he's too short" or "he only started one year". What I am saying is that those two things don't seem like enough to be down on the pick, but maybe a little cautious about it at most.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

I completely understand that. What I am saying is it's not specifically about anything that he does poorly on the field that people don't view him in that light. I could understand if he showed very limited ability to throw from the pocket or showed underwhelming accuracy/arm mechanics or struggles go through his progression or read the defense, but those aren't the types of things that people complain about with him. The only things that people seem to be able to come up with is "he's too short" or "he only started one year". What I am saying is that those two things don't seem like enough to be down on the pick, but maybe a little cautious about it at most.

Excellent.

But don't expect the fringe anti-murray guys to concede how reasonable is the above. A couple of those guys have really gone off the tracks.

 

[Krangodnzr]

You put up one year of numbers, you're a flash in the pan, compared to any other surefire QB like Luck.

I mean, we're literally only a few years behind having had Lamar Jackson with a better season statistically, with arguably less talent. Pump your breaks, man.

Lamar Jackson better statistical season? That never happened.

Flash in the pan means sudden success that will not be repeated. How do you know that? He only started one year so you dont know whether he would have replicated that. Pretty good chance he would have.

 

[GuernseyCard]

Solar7 why are you putting words in my mouth?

I did not say that Murray and Luck are perfectly comparable prospects.

But I do disagree that Luck is/was a "quantum leap" over Murray as a prospect. "Quantum leap" implies that Murray is not even in the same solar system as Luck. Don't you think that's a bit much?

And you know what? If everyone was slobbering all over Luck coming out of college, that's great. But don't you think that part of the Luck frenzy was media driven? That is, the media was partly responsible for Luck being a "once in a generation" talent?

Has Luck's NFL performance really proved him out to be a once-in-a-generation QB talent?

And maybe I'm the stupidest person in the world for asking this question, but what exactly about Luck made him, as a prospect, so vastly superior to Murray? Ball velocity? Accuracy? Mobility?

Or Solar7, was it that Mel Kiper told you Luck was a once-in-a-generation talent, and therefore it had to be true?

Before the media, came the scouts, coaches and other professional evaluators in Luck's case; the media merely amplified the consensus.

 

[kerouac9]

Lamar Jackson better statistical season? That never happened.

Flash in the pan means sudden success that will not be repeated. How do you know that? He only started one year so you dont know whether he would have replicated that. Pretty good chance he would have.

It’s impossible and unlikely to say that Murray would have repeated what many are saying is the best season of a college quarterback ever.

If he had, he’d unquestionably be the top prospect in the 2020 draft. But the reasonable expectation is that he’d still be good but there would be some regression.

 

[BW52]

Oklahoma did lose 7-8 guys to the NFL draft so there likely would be some regression.4 of the 5 starting OLINE got drafted so probably a definite regression there.Of in that lousy defensive conference it might not matter.

 

[Krangodnzr]

It’s impossible and unlikely to say that Murray would have repeated what many are saying is the best season of a college quarterback ever.

If he had, he’d unquestionably be the top prospect in the 2020 draft. But the reasonable expectation is that he’d still be good but there would be some regression.

But a flash in the pan?

 

[Krangodnzr]

Murray is not in Lucks class because of pedigree and size. He outperformed Luck though.

 

[Solar7]

Solar7 why are you putting words in my mouth?

I did not say that Murray and Luck are perfectly comparable prospects.

But I do disagree that Luck is/was a "quantum leap" over Murray as a prospect. "Quantum leap" implies that Murray is not even in the same solar system as Luck. Don't you think that's a bit much?

And you know what? If everyone was slobbering all over Luck coming out of college, that's great. But don't you think that part of the Luck frenzy was media driven? That is, the media was partly responsible for Luck being a "once in a generation" talent?

Has Luck's NFL performance really proved him out to be a once-in-a-generation QB talent?

And maybe I'm the stupidest person in the world for asking this question, but what exactly about Luck made him, as a prospect, so vastly superior to Murray? Ball velocity? Accuracy? Mobility?

Or Solar7, was it that Mel Kiper told you Luck was a once-in-a-generation talent, and therefore it had to be true?

No, Mel Kiper didn't have to say anything. It was years upon years of easily watchable football games that showed the kid was the best in the nation, and had heart, leadership, and intelligence. And zero question he wanted to play the game. I didn't only become aware of Luck in the offseason after he left Stanford. Not only that, but his size, arm strength, relative mobility... yes, all of it was world-class.

There are only 2 reasons that people don't see Murray as a "can't miss prospect". His height and his sample size. If he was a few inches taller everyone would be in love with him or if he had another season or 2 at his 2018 production more people would be in love with him, but plenty would still harp on his height. The bottom line is that there is very little to complain about when you watch him on film and that is both from his play in and out of the pocket.

Height and sample size matter. And you're ignoring some of the other things about Luck that Murray hasn't exhibited. Comfortable leadership in the face of adversity and less talented teams, 100% commitment to the game, football intelligence, etc.

I completely understand that. What I am saying is it's not specifically about anything that he does poorly on the field that people don't view him in that light. I could understand if he showed very limited ability to throw from the pocket or showed underwhelming accuracy/arm mechanics or struggles to go through his progression or read the defense, but those aren't the types of things that people complain about with him. The only things that people seem to be able to come up with is "he's too short" or "he only started one year". What I am saying is that those two things don't seem like enough to be down on the pick, but maybe a little cautious about it at most.

I've mentioned his on the field play plenty of times. His receivers were absolute studs who were 5 yards off the defender on every throw. His offensive line was chock full of NFL talent, so he rarely got touched, and mostly had a clean pocket. I question his ability to throw into tight windows. Not to mention football character concerns.

Lamar Jackson better statistical season? That never happened.

Flash in the pan means sudden success that will not be repeated. How do you know that? He only started one year so you dont know whether he would have replicated that. Pretty good chance he would have.

Heisman.com lists Lamar as having the second best season for a Heisman winner in terms of yards from scrimmage, only to Koy Detmer, and if I recall correctly from looking last night, scored more overall touchdowns. To me, that's statistically better.

 

[BW52]

Murray is not in Lucks class because of pedigree and size. He outperformed Luck though.

That is your opinion.Luck had 2 very good seasons and a okay freshman season.3 seasons of starting and 82 career TD passes against 22 interceptions and a 67% career completion percentage.713-1064 passes 9430 yds 162.8 rating.

 

[Solar7]

But a flash in the pan?

Flash in the pan because he only did it one year. He had the opportunity at TAMU to seize that job, and simply didn't. I'm sorry, but if he was a can't miss prospect, he wouldn't have ridden the pine.

Maybe I'm slightly off on my usage of "flash in the pan," but for now, that's all he is until he proves to be a superstar in the NFL.

 

[Crimson Warrior]

No, Mel Kiper didn't have to say anything. It was years upon years of easily watchable football games that showed the kid was the best in the nation, and had heart, leadership, and intelligence. And zero question he wanted to play the game. I didn't only become aware of Luck in the offseason after he left Stanford. Not only that, but his size, arm strength, relative mobility... yes, all of it was world-class.


Height and sample size matter. And you're ignoring some of the other things about Luck that Murray hasn't exhibited. Comfortable leadership in the face of adversity and less talented teams, 100% commitment to the game, football intelligence, etc.


I've mentioned his on the field play plenty of times. His receivers were absolute studs who were 5 yards off the defender on every throw. His offensive line was chock full of NFL talent, so he rarely got touched, and mostly had a clean pocket. I question his ability to throw into tight windows. Not to mention football character concerns.


Heisman.com lists Lamar as having the second best season for a Heisman winner in terms of yards from scrimmage, only to Koy Detmer, and if I recall correctly from looking last night, scored more overall touchdowns. To me, that's statistically better.

1st bolded - yet he didn't win the award for the best college player in the nation in his final year. Another QB, RGIII, did. Can you explain that?

2nd bolded - you say he hasn't exhibited these Solar7. Based on what, that Murray is a poor interview? The fact is you know zero about Murray's leadership ability. And "Intangibles" are overrated. Mental approach is important, very important. But the recycle bin of QBs is full of guys who were "100% committed to the game" and had great "football intelligence".

3rd bolded - ignorance at best, or disingenuous at worst. The former if you've haven't educated yourself by watching Murray's tape. But I think it's the later, and that's a shame.

4th bolded - a complete fabrication. Jackson yards from scrimmage in heisman year = 5100 Jackson total TDs in heisman year = 51. Murray yards from scrimmage in heisman year = 5400 Murray total TDs = 54. Plus Murray was way, way more efficient than Jackson, against a little better competition.

You really disappoint me man. I thought you were cool, but you became so emotionally invested in the draft, that now you would burn the Cardinals down to prove that you were "right". You're spewing venom like a viper, and turned yourself into an embarrassing spectacle.

You hate Murray more than you love the Cardinals.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Height and sample size matter. And you're ignoring some of the other things about Luck that Murray hasn't exhibited. Comfortable leadership in the face of adversity and less talented teams, 100% commitment to the game, football intelligence, etc.

I have never argued otherwise, but is it enough to hate the pick and believe it is an extreme long shot that he succeeds? He put up one of the best statistical season for a QB in college history and showed that he can do pretty much anything that could be asked of a QB in the process. I can totally see being skeptical based on what he lacks, but to just write him off as a failure before he has played a single down because of those things seems overly drastic to me.