I’d say there are more than two - playing in the MAC or Mountain West is almost a different game than playing in the SEC. Ty Detmer wasn’t the best QB, but his numbers were absolutely sick because there wasn’t any defense in that conference.
And then where do you put Steve McNair?
Everyone’s performance is always contextual.
Yes, if he was playing in an another offense, it would be a suboptimal use of his skills. But unless the coach just absolutely insisted on running 40 dive plays per game and just didn’t give him a chance to shine, yes, he’d have been a success anywhere. When you get to the level of “best college QB of all time,” it’s almost certain to be some kind of perfect match of player/coach/time and place.
In some other context, Tebow likely would not have had the ridiculous amount of success he had at Florida, but he would probably been a very good QB in most any systems. He could have run a wishbone/flexbone; he could have run an Air Raid/Run and Shoot. Keep in mind it’s not like he was Scott Frost, throwing the ball five times a game. He threw the ball 25 times a game, and completed 66% of them.
The capacity, by definition, is always there. The question is about the manifestation of the skills. Sorry, I just find it a lot more plausible to apply the manifestly-true principle of “different people mature at different times in different ways” than to think the dozens of professionals who looked at him were all completely wrong.
As another case, at a different position, what do you make of Pat Fitzgerald? Two-time Defensive player of the year, two-time Nagurski award winner, two-time Bednarik award winner, two-time consensus All-American … at the NFL level, he couldn’t make the practice squad.
Again, what’s more likely: all of the hundreds of coaches, writers, players, etc. who voted him all of those awards were all wrong, and that in fact he was just some overrated “product of the system” who looked good because he was at Northwestern? … or that success at one level does not always equate to success at another?
No, you’re wrong, that isn’t what I’m saying.
What I’m saying, anyway, is that “best college quarterback” is a question that is separate from performance in the pros because the question is “Who was the best quarterback in NCAA play?” That is, what quarterback helped his team win the most in NCAA play? Either Vince Young played better QB in college than Tom Brady or he did not. It is in no way contradictory to say Young played better than Brady in college and Brady played better in the pros, just as it is in no way contradictory to say that Tom Brady was better in 2010 than Aaron Rodgers, but Rodgers was better in 2011 than Tom Brady.
The idea that this might not be an illusion of context, that somehow the guy who plays better in the NFL at age 28 MUST have been better than the guy who seemed to play better at age 20 in college, strikes me as being - well, it’s kind of weird, because it’s just not something one would say in any other sport. It is very obvious that some athletes shine at different ages than others; some peak at 19, some at 25, some at 30. Some athletes dominate due to sheer physical skill early in their careers but are surpassed by more insightful, intelligent players later. Some athletes are dominant in college but then are injured and are physically unable to dominate later. Some athletes just emerge later than others. Some athletes get lazy. Sometimes there are, in fact, differences in different levels of a sport that reward different skill sets. Players do not all have the same development path. Some players are Ryan Leaf.
Obviously, the question of who the best NCAA quarterback was is harder to determine than pro quarterback because there are more conflating factors, but it’s still a separate question.
[QUOTE=Stink Fish Pot]
The best college QB I ever saw in person was Dan Marino. The fact that he never won a National Championship at Pitt is amazing to me, especially considering the talent those Pitt teams had in the early 1980’s.
[/QUOTE]
National championships aren’t really meaningful, because they’re voted upon. What matters more is bowl game performance, and he won two bowls. The fact that Pitt was ranked #2 is precisely as meaningful as a Grade 8 class presidency election; it’s a popularity contest, not a measure of Marino’s performance in the field in clutch situations. I’m not saying it was wrong to rank Georgia #1, but Dan Marino didn’t get a vote and Georgia never played Pitt.
Or any other arena of human activity for that matter.
Early Mark Twain was brilliant; later Mark Twain was mediocre at best. Other authors developed their best voice late. You can probably think of examples from just about any human endeavor.
I agree that success at one level does not translate to success at another, certainly, and I think I mostly agree with you about why that is. I’m not sure about RickJay because I think he’s mischaracterizing where I’m coming from with this idea that performance in the pros determines who the best college quarterback is. As always it comes down to what we mean by best. Again, it seems to me that we’re not only talking about college performance in this thread, we’re also trying to evaluate talent and skill. If we’re just talking about performance, which is what awards are based on, Fitzgerald’s tackle numbers and his visibility in the defense and those things were what they were, and he deserved them, and I understand why people said “Fitzgerald was the best college linebacker this year,” because what they meant was the guy had the best season in the ways those things are traditionally measured. I’m not saying anyone was wrong, except to the extent they said “this guy Fitzgerald is actually the best football player playing the position.” I think best means the guy who’s going to end up winning you the most games, all other things being equal, and I think the guys who end up in the NFL are those guys.
If the question is whether I think Pat Fitzgerald was a better “college” linebacker than James Farrior but then, when they got to the pros, Farrior was better because he continued to develop or because they were now playing a different sport, no, I don’t think that. I think Farrior was better the whole time, not because of what he did in the NFL, but because of the better physical gifts he always had which became obvious in the more easily-observable environment. I don’t think that means the college awards and evaluations were wrong; I just think it means ability is hard to measure, and stats are imperfect, and awards aren’t given to the guy who’s the best, which is a sort of holistic abstract measure, not just a look at your resume. I don’t want to take awards away from Manti Teo, but I think it was also obvious from watching him play that he wasn’t the college linebacker I would most want on my team, and I think his NFL career will bear that out, not make it true. If you give me all the college athletes who are going to end up the best at “NFL” football, and I give you all the college athletes who are independently the best at “college” football, with whatever overlap that entails, and they play a game of college football against each other, it seems obvious to me that my guys are going to murder your guys.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
What I’m saying, anyway, is that “best college quarterback” is a question that is separate from performance in the pros because the question is “Who was the best quarterback in NCAA play?” That is, what quarterback helped his team win the most in NCAA play? Either Vince Young played better QB in college than Tom Brady or he did not. It is in no way contradictory to say Young played better than Brady in college and Brady played better in the pros, just as it is in no way contradictory to say that Tom Brady was better in 2010 than Aaron Rodgers, but Rodgers was better in 2011 than Tom Brady.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not contradictory because they’re being used in different senses. Like I said, in my very first post I said that I think Tebow was the quarterback who had the best NCAA career. I don’t know why you keep explaining that meaning to me. I don’t think the fact that he had the best NCAA career means he was the best college athlete ever at being a quarterback.
Personally, if the question is who was the best in college, I wouldn’t look at pro performance. Take Roger Staubach. Pretty good college and pro QB. He went to Navy when they were still relevant and then had to serve 5 years, including some time in Vietnam.
Hypothetically, what if he had been killed during his service? He never would have gone on to the win the Super Bowl MVP, the Pro Bowl, and the pro Hall of Fame. He still had the Heisman and the college HOF, but we never would have seen him as a pro. Would the argument be since he didn’t have a pro career, we can’t accurately judge how good he was as a college QB?
Now, Staubach may not be near the top of the list as the best ever as an athletic QB, but he’s probably pretty high up as a general (or admiral ;)) on the field.
This. Why not water down the question to find out who the best offensive guard is ever at any particular high school? Bad quarterbacks can be amazing in college. Look at Tim Tebow, Vince Young, Ken Dorsey, Eric Crouch, Tim Crouch, Troy Smith, Kraig Krenzel, or Jason White.
Edited to add: Mark Sanchez, Matt Leinart.
No, we are not. The OP can clarify what conversation he wanted to have, but this is not remotely what RickJay and I are discussing.
Talent does not win games, performance does. The two are correlated, but not the same.
I don’t see any logic in the distinction you are trying to make here. I comprehend what you’re getting at … I just don’t agree with it. If A outperforms B, over a statistically-significant number of trials (say, 12 games), A is better. Period.
B may be more talented, or have more growth potential, but that’s a different question. It’s not like this is Madden, where there is some rating somewhere that tells us what his “real” skill level is.
You’re missing the point that those two groups obviously overlap. If you take all the guys who are highest on the draft boards; and I take all the guys that I want, period … and we’re in some alternate universe that lets guys like Teddy Bridgewater and CJ Mosely be on both sides? I’d take my team.
Given that coaches and analysts and people like Kiper and McShay routinely say things like “great college player, but his skills won’t translate to the NFL,” I think they’d be inclined to agree.