In all honesty, I don't understand this argument anymore cause if you look at the last 3-4 drafts and the first round qb's taken they are the complete opposite of Stanley. They are mobile, a little on the smaller side compared to the past, and run spread offenses. Have all of them worked out? No. But that's not the point. Not every first round draft pick works out regardless, let alone the hit rate on QB's in general is even smaller. The real point is Stanley and his attributes he has fits him exactly where he was drafted. The 7th round. He is a safe bet that he won't screw things up, but you sure as hell won't come close to winning a superbowl with him either. The NFL is moving to spread offenses, smaller and mobile QB's. The Stanley style QB is probably dying and will continue to get drafted extremely late as second and third stringers or practice squad members. In all honesty, Stanley's career could be short lived because of this. If it were the 80's and 90's, Stanley may have won the starting spot.
You don't think they instantly get a bump cause they play in the SEC? Do you honestly believe they were the 18th best team in the country? Take the black and gold glasses off for a second and realize four of their 8 wins came against Stephan F. Austin, Louisiana, Louisiana Tech, and Arkansas. Do you seriously think that playing those terrible teams had no effect to their defensive stats?
I completely agree that the tides are turning as far as the type of QB some teams are looking for, however guys like Stanley are still being taken all the time and some GM's are still in love with guys that look like he does.
Hey, at least he's consistent with one thing.
As I stated, guys like Stanley will still be taken, but it will continuously be in late rounds because they still need 3rd stringers
I didn't say it was fake news. One can disagree with the placement of a team in the AP poll, just like how I don't think Minnesota was deserved of the high ranking they had. The only one who is working hard to deny simple truths is you man, you don't want to admit that an SEC team got a bump because of their name and because 50% of their wins were against trash teams. Yes bama is a good one, but look at that Florida, Aurburn, and LSU, and A&M's offensive ranking that year. 32, 31, 42, and 56 that year in points/play. As someone already said, they were a pretty decent team. Above average for sure. But the 18th best? IMO, no. Regardless, I still gave Stanley the win there and his record in big games was still crap. A fact you haven't even tried to dispute even though your original claim was that he was clutch.
Stop it. I never said it didn't count. I just said I didn't think it was an accurate representation.
Stop it. I never said it didn't count. I just said I didn't think it was an accurate representation.
But good to know you think Iowa State is a big a game for your program while you will see i never had Iowa State on your list. Guess we know who's superbowl it is after all
