Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla
Wentz was absolutely a winner. However, his talent was MUCH more important.
|
That's not why he was drafted or why he was talked about going so high, though. Teams liked his size, accuracy, and football intelligence. They drafted him 100% for his skills. His resume had very little to do with it, even if it was about as good as it could possibly be considering where he played (minus the injury issues).
With Jameis Winston, you had draft dudes constantly saying that dumbass cliche, "He's got it! He knows how to win games!" just like they did with Watson.
Rico brings up a great point, though. I completely forgot about Manziel. He's another guy drafted at least in part because some idiot GM watched Texas A&M win a bunch of close games through Manziel heroics and thought, "That's the kind of QB we need!"
Yeah, you need balance. And it's complicated-- it's always very complicated. You can't just draft raw dudes like Josh Allen with absolutely no consideration for whether or not the guy will be able to learn and develop. I think nearly everybody has agreed with that point for a long time now.
But I don't think enough people think the other way, and they really should. There are loads of Jeff Georges and Jamarcus Russells, but there are also occasionally some Patrick Mahomes and Jared Goffs to offset the failures.
When it comes to "winner" college QBs, I'd honestly say the success rate of those guys is far worse than the raw dudes. I think the data is pretty clear about it. And it still amazes me that there are still morons out there who think Watson knows some deep Illuminati secret to winning games that other QBs don't ever come across, all because he won big games in college.