Which Conference has Better QB's?

BuddyCHRIST · 08-28-2010, 01:26 PM

I'm thinking more along the lines as college players.

Michigan · 08-28-2010, 01:33 PM

Currently or in recent history?

phlysac · 08-28-2010, 02:06 PM

ACC

Boston College - Dave Shinskie
Clemson - Kyle Parker
Duke - Sean Renfree
Florida State - Christian Ponder
Georgia Tech - Joshua Nesbitt
Maryland - Jamarr Robinson
Miami -Jacory Harris
North Carolina - T.J. Yates
North Carolina State - Russell Wilson
Virginia - Marc Verica
Virginia Tech - Tyrod Taylor
Wake Forest - Ted Stachitas

Pac 10

Arizona - Nick Foles
Arizona State - Steven Threet/Brock Osweiler
California - Kevin Riley
Oregon - Darren Thomas
Oregon State - Ryan Katz
Stanford - Andrew Luck
UCLA - Kevin Prince
USC - Matt Barkley
Washington - Jake Locker
Washington State -Jeff Tuel

Hurricanes25 · 08-28-2010, 02:14 PM

It's the Pac 10. Locker, Luck and I guess Barkley will all be 1st round picks. I could only say that for Ponder out of all the ACC QB's.

phlysac · 08-28-2010, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hurricanes25

It's the Pac 10. Locker, Luck and I guess Barkley will all be 1st round picks. I could only say that for Ponder out of all the ACC QB's.

I tend to agree... BUT...

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuddyCHRIST

I'm thinking more along the lines as college players.

Hurricanes25 · 08-28-2010, 02:43 PM

I didn't see the first post but I'm still going with the Pac 10.

descendency · 08-28-2010, 06:30 PM

Right now, it's the pac-10 and it isn't even close.

everyone except Ponder is trash in the ACC.

edit: This is coming from an NC State undergrad and fan.

P-L · 08-28-2010, 07:18 PM

Pac-10, easily. Andrew Luck and Jake Locker are two of the better quarterbacks in the country. Matt Barkley and Nick Foles are also much better than most of the ACC quarterbacks.

Smooth Criminal · 08-28-2010, 08:23 PM

Easily the Pac 10. I really only think Ponder and Harris are anything special for the ACC.

BuddyCHRIST · 08-29-2010, 12:07 AM

While I respect people picking the Pac-10, your are underrating alot of ACC QB's. Russell Wilson is a stud whose put up great numbers the past two years with little talent on that offense, Kyle Parker played well last year, and Tyrod Taylor and Josh Nesbitt are very good at what they do. And thats not mentioning Ponder and Jacory.

No question the Pac-10 has elite pro prospects in its top 3, but the ACC is as deep and experienced at the position as its ever been.

descendency · 08-29-2010, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BuddyCHRIST

While I respect people picking the Pac-10, your are underrating alot of ACC QB's. Russell Wilson is a stud whose put up great numbers the past two years with little talent on that offense, Kyle Parker played well last year, and Tyrod Taylor and Josh Nesbitt are very good at what they do. And thats not mentioning Ponder and Jacory.

No question the Pac-10 has elite pro prospects in its top 3, but the ACC is as deep and experienced at the position as its ever been.

Russell Wilson is a zero out of 1000 on the Pro-prospect scale at QB. You don't draft 5'11" 190lb QBs with a history of injuries and a baseball throwing motion. He's a huge project with very little upside if any at all.

As a college QB, he's very mobile and can get away with his horrid decision making (throwing into zone coverages is a huge one). As a pro, he'd be lucky to make it to week 2 of the off-season workouts.

edit: Coach O'Brien let him work on his baseball training this off-season because his baseball game was falling farther behind and because coach knows Russell has no hope of ever sniffing an NFL locker room.

tjsunstein · 08-29-2010, 01:03 AM

Pac 10 as far as producing NFL prospects but in terms of productive college QBs, I like the ACC.

draftguru151 · 08-29-2010, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by descendency

Russell Wilson is a zero out of 1000 on the Pro-prospect scale at QB. You don't draft 5'11" 190lb QBs with a history of injuries and a baseball throwing motion. He's a huge project with very little upside if any at all.

As a college QB, he's very mobile and can get away with his horrid decision making (throwing into zone coverages is a huge one). As a pro, he'd be lucky to make it to week 2 of the off-season workouts.

edit: Coach O'Brien let him work on his baseball training this off-season because his baseball game was falling farther behind and because coach knows Russell has no hope of ever sniffing an NFL locker room.

This is about better college QBs so most of that is irrelevant.

I'd probably lean towards the ACC a bit over the Pac10. I like 6 out of 12 from the ACC (Ponder, Jacory, Nesbitt, Parker, Tyrod, Wilson) vs 4 of 10 from the Pac10 (Locker, Luck, Barkley, Foles). I'd also take Ponder over everyone from the Pac10 (just barely though).

SchizophrenicBatman · 08-29-2010, 02:59 PM

Wilson is a 1st round pick level college QB. The fact that he's a non-prospect as a NFL QB is irrelevant to this discussion (and non-prospect is probably a little unfair, watch some of the garbage 3rd to 4th stringers this preseason. He's at least able to go through progressions and get the ball down field, which is more than you can say for some guys playing right now. Beyond that, yea...he has issues beyond just his height that'll lead to him going right back to the minors after this year)

Still, the Pac10 is miles ahead of the ACC. Luck and Locker lap the field, and I'll take real QBs over guys like Tyrod and Nesbitt who just play the position any day. Maybe the ACC has a little more depth, as I think Renfree and Parker have good upside, but still...nah

BuddyCHRIST · 08-29-2010, 03:27 PM

I agree Russell Wilson is more of a baseball prospect, but that doesn't really mean anything as far as a college player is concerned. He doesn't really have the tools to translate to the next level but its tough to argue with his numbers.

FR: 17 TD/1 INT
SO: 31 TD/11 INT

Including two separate 4 TD/0 Int games in close wins against Pitt and UNC. I don't really care to argue about Russell Wilson anymore, but he's a heck of a college QB, its not like NC St is loaded on offense right now either. He's still only about to be a Junior.

Also Nesbitt may not fit the QB mold, which is understandable as he is more of a RB. But he's a gamer and if the option wasn't such a novelty right now, people would respect more of what he's doing. He is the straw that stirs GT's offense.

jrdrylie · 08-29-2010, 04:31 PM

Locker is one of the most overrated players in college football. He is getting a ton of Heisman hype based solely on the fact that he is a good NFL prospect. But that is not what the Heisman is about and it is not what this thread is about.

Based on college careers, Locker is behind Russell Wilson, Josh Nesbitt, and Tyrod Taylor. Luck is probably just slightly above Kyle Parker, while Matt Barkley is slightly behind.

Sniper · 08-29-2010, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Locker is one of the most overrated players in college football.

Yes, yes, and more yes.

Babylon · 08-29-2010, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Locker is one of the most overrated players in college football. He is getting a ton of Heisman hype based solely on the fact that he is a good NFL prospect. But that is not what the Heisman is about and it is not what this thread is about.

Based on college careers, Locker is behind Russell Wilson, Josh Nesbitt, and Tyrod Taylor. Luck is probably just slightly above Kyle Parker, while Matt Barkley is slightly behind.

How did a discussion about the best passing conferance somehow morph into saying Jake locker is not a good heisman candidate?

Sniper · 08-29-2010, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Babylon

How did a discussion about the best passing conferance somehow morph into saying Jake locker is not a good heisman candidate?

He's not a good Heisman candidate. Jake Locker will not win the Heisman, though not all of it will be because of his play. I just don't buy Washington as a good enough team right now to make enough noise on the field and in the polls to propel him to Heisman stature. As a general rule, you have to be on a top team to win the Heisman. Washington will not be a top team. They will be a good or maybe even very good team, but not a great team.

Babylon · 08-29-2010, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sniper

He's not a good Heisman candidate. Jake Locker will not win the Heisman, though not all of it will be because of his play. I just don't buy Washington as a good enough team right now to make enough noise on the field and in the polls to propel him to Heisman stature. As a general rule, you have to be on a top team to win the Heisman. Washington will not be a top team. They will be a good or maybe even very good team, but not a great team.

I couldnt agree more, he could probably get an invite to New York if they can win 7 or 8 games and get to a bowl game just because he's potentially a high draft pick but that supporting cast is not going to get him a heisman.

It looks like from what they have there going into the season that the O-line should be better but the receivers are so-so and will probably be good for 4 or 5 drops a game and a number of bad routes but you make do.

jrdrylie · 08-29-2010, 07:25 PM

I'd be shocked if he was even close to being invited to New York for the finals. Quarterbacks like Case Keenum, Ryan Mallett, and Kellen Moore will put up much better stats than Locker. Others, like Garrett Gilbert, Landri Jones, Terrelle Pryor, and even John Brantley will put up at least similar, if not better stats on much better teams.

Then you have to add in Dion Lewis, Mark Ingram, Jacquizz Rodgers, LaMichael James, and possibly even a defensive player or two. If Washington wins the PAC-10, he'll get an invite. But since I doubt they win more than 7 or 8 games, Locker will be lucky to be top-10 in Heisman voting (think Jimmy Clausen last year).