wco81 wrote:Mcshay lists Rosen, Barkley and Darnold.
I missed Kipers order but they're talking about how Darnold should go back for one year.
If he's a top 3 pick, why the hell would he stay in school. Make USC more money while risking injury?
One of them even said they think Darnold will end up being the best QB out of this class. They pointed out how Sanchez left USC early and has been a bust. Well Leinart stayed and he was an even bigger bust.
USC record with QBs is not great. They get the top recruits but none of them have become hall of famers or even regular all pros. Many drafted high but never lived up to their pick, including Palmer.
So why is an additional year going to help them? USC hasn't shown they can coach up QBs or produce quality NFL QBs for all the recruits they get and the high draft picks they get selected at.
Darnold may have a better shot with an NFL coaching staff than USCs coaches.
I think they put up big numbers because USC gets great WRs and RBs (at least they produce in college). Leinart with his average arm was throwing up soft passes that his WRs would get, even in bowl games. Another year with that kind of situation won't necessarily prepare Darnold better for the NFL where he'll face much more sophisticated defenses with better athletes and be required to make more tight throws under more pressure. PAC 12 defenses are garbage too, with both teams regularly scoring 30-40 points in many conference games.
I'll get flak for this because it's not one of the main points of the discussion, and maybe/likely not even something you personally even mean, but that somewhat touches an argument that consistently bugs me around draft time. It's when people say they wouldn't take someone because school X has never produced good (insert position here). It's a bit of a lazy or inaccurate argument IMO.
Blame each individual coach and his structure for not being able to crank out (insert position here). In this case it should be said that Clay Helton, Steve Sarkisian, Ed Orgeron, Lane Kiffin, Pete Carroll, and Paul Hackett (longer if you want to go back that far) haven't churned out strong (insert position here).
It's not a school thing. It's a coaches thing. Overall, I get it. To use the school's name is a faster way of trying to get to a point. It's not like there's many college football fans that also have the knowledge of which coaches are good developers that prepare them for the NFL so that's probably why more people don't get into coaches names and just use the school.
Should this bother me? Probably not as much as it does. For some reason it does though because it's the type of thing that spreads.
And it goes both ways, too. People that trust a school over a decade, two decades, three decades because they consistently churn out solid (insert position here). I'd have no problem with it if there was one coach, predominately one staff, and one structure in place over a really long period of time and someone wanted to say, "Yeah, I always trust their linebackers." Well then that's different because it's one head man with one overall set of ways for development. But few colleges are able to hang onto their coaches long enough to get to that point.
So, in this situation if someone doesn't want to trust Darnold, cool. I get it. But to me it's foolish to make it about the school itself. It's about the coaches Darnold has had. Blame those guys. Blame Darnold if one can prove he isn't taking to the coaching he's getting.
-----
I see it with teams in the draft, too. Why did (insert team name here) take that wide receiver that high? Look at their judgement in taking other receivers that high...it's awful. But what's the one constant? The owner? Yeah, let's blame the owner.
------
But again I get the gist of it. I just think it's better to put it a different way to use people's names who actually were there. Compare the two coaching staffs you're using (previous one vs. current one). Point out the similarities that might scare you. Highlight the differences.
I know what I'm asking is unrealistic for most people because they don't have the ability to delve into it that deeply but it's just something I always see towards the end of each season that continues to bug me.
