NEB picks starting QB - Tanner Lee

Your reading comprehension is terrible. How many posts above did I state he started 19 games and averaged around 30 passes a game. What is clear is he hasn't thrown a pass at the power 5 level. Every QB in college ball has thrown passes at a lower level of competition. It doesn't mean they're going to rock the Big Ten. In fact, his track record suggests just the opposite will occur in about 2 months.

My reading comprehension is fine, your writing ability is terrible. Lee has a higher career completion percentage: 53.6% as a Freshman and Sophomore on bad Tulane teams, than Tommy Armstrong did as a SR on a 9 win Nebraska team: 51.4%.

It's amazing logic to me that some the same people who have pretty much guaranteed that Croft will be better than Leidner, are already pretty much guaranteeing that Lee will be a failure when he has significantly more experience and talent to work with.
 

My reading comprehension is fine, your writing ability is terrible. Lee has a higher career completion percentage: 53.6% as a Freshman and Sophomore on bad Tulane teams, than Tommy Armstrong did as a SR on a 9 win Nebraska team: 51.4%.

It's amazing logic to me that some the same people who have pretty much guaranteed that Croft will be better than Leidner, are already pretty much guaranteeing that Lee will be a failure when he has significantly more experience and talent to work with.

There's actually far more data supporting he will fail than data supporting Croft will fail. You're looking at this all wrong. We don't have enough data to draw any conclusions on Croft.

BTW, I didn't realize Tanner Lee's spring game performance was with the red team (first team) vs the white team (2nd and third teamers).

This is going to be another fun subplot to the season.
 

My reading comprehension is fine, your writing ability is terrible. Lee has a higher career completion percentage: 53.6% as a Freshman and Sophomore on bad Tulane teams, than Tommy Armstrong did as a SR on a 9 win Nebraska team: 51.4%.

It's amazing logic to me that some the same people who have pretty much guaranteed that Croft will be better than Leidner, are already pretty much guaranteeing that Lee will be a failure when he has significantly more experience and talent to work with.[/QUOTE
Why do people concede that Nebraska has significantly more talent than Minnesota? Gophers have lots of people back and have played the Huskers even the past four years. Maybe you are just a troll.
 

Why do people concede that Nebraska has significantly more talent than Minnesota? Gophers have lots of people back and have played the Huskers even the past four years. Maybe you are just a troll.

Because they do. Whether you want to use recruiting rankings or players in the NFL, it's not even a close argument.
 

My reading comprehension is fine, your writing ability is terrible. Lee has a higher career completion percentage: 53.6% as a Freshman and Sophomore on bad Tulane teams, than Tommy Armstrong did as a SR on a 9 win Nebraska team: 51.4%.

It's amazing logic to me that some the same people who have pretty much guaranteed that Croft will be better than Leidner, are already pretty much guaranteeing that Lee will be a failure when he has significantly more experience and talent to work with.[/QUOTE
Why do people concede that Nebraska has significantly more talent than Minnesota? Gophers have lots of people back and have played the Huskers even the past four years. Maybe you are just a troll.

Past performance is pretty clear. There's a reason why he ended up at Tulane.

It's amazing logic how those who hammered on ML's performance, and see replacing him for Gophs as a huge concern, think Lee as starter is not a huge concern for NEB.
 


Because they do. Whether you want to use recruiting rankings or players in the NFL, it's not even a close argument.

You're being way too logical GWG. Posters on this board don't think putting guys in the NFL is an indicator of talent on a team. They prefer metrics like "we're hopeful" or "he looked good in the spring game."
 

Past performance is pretty clear. There's a reason why he ended up at Tulane.

It's amazing logic how those who hammered on ML's performance, and see replacing him for Gophs as a huge concern, think Lee as starter is not a huge concern for NEB.

He ended up at Nebraska.

Rhoda would have played at St Thomas if he didn't walk on at the U. Croft basically had MAC offers.
 

Why do people concede that Nebraska has significantly more talent than Minnesota?

I love my team but wat?

By most measuring sticks Neb has a talent advantage that I can tell... pretty obvious one.
 

You're being way too logical GWG. Posters on this board don't think putting guys in the NFL is an indicator of talent on a team. They prefer metrics like "we're hopeful" or "he looked good in the spring game."

No, no. The only criterion that matters is seniors on the roster who will be drafted. I thought we established that.
 



No, no. The only criterion that matters is seniors on the roster who will be drafted. I thought we established that.

Can you think of a more objective measure of talent on a roster?
 


Can you think of a more objective measure of talent on a roster?

I absolutely agree that number of players drafted is an excellent measurement. No argument there. But that means you're only including draft-eligible players (in Minnesota's case that pretty much means seniors) in your analysis of team talent, while completely ignoring the talent in the rest of the classes. A team does not need to have a bevy of draft-worthy seniors to be talented.
 




Wins and losses?

Some teams have lots of NFL talent and underachieve. Likewise, some teams overachieve given their talent level. Wins and losses are affected by coaching, longevity, schedule, injuries and a number of factors in addition to talent.
 

Some teams have lots of NFL talent and underachieve. Likewise, some teams overachieve given their talent level. Wins and losses are affected by coaching, longevity, schedule, injuries and a number of factors in addition to talent.

To sum that up, talent NFL OR not, doesn't necessarily mean the team will be better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

I absolutely agree that number of players drafted is an excellent measurement. No argument there. But that means you're only including draft-eligible players (in Minnesota's case that pretty much means seniors) in your analysis of team talent, while completely ignoring the talent in the rest of the classes. A team does not need to have a bevy of draft-worthy seniors to be talented.

Completely agree. I used seniors because it's easiest to predict whether they will get drafted. Plus every coach says you win with seniors, so I would expect a talented senior class to give a team the best chance to win. I think Coughlin and Winfield are pretty good, but no one has a clue whether they are NFL material yet.
 


To sum that up, talent NFL OR not, doesn't necessarily mean the team will be better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So are we "reloading" this year? Or not.
 

To sum that up, talent NFL OR not, doesn't necessarily mean the team will be better


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Talent usually has a pretty big correlation to winning. If we were to have 10 guys drafted next year but only won 6 games, something would be seriously off.

Likewise, it wouldn't make sense to predict 9 wins if you don't think anyone will get drafted...
 

Talent usually has a pretty big correlation to winning. If we were to have 10 guys drafted next year but only won 6 games, something would be seriously off.

Likewise, it wouldn't make sense to predict 9 wins if you don't think anyone will get drafted...

What if we win 10 games and nobody or only 1 guy gets drafted? Still going to go with this team has no talent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 


What if we win 10 games and nobody or only 1 guy gets drafted? Still going to go with this team has no talent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How often do you think a Power 5 team has won 10+ games and had 1 guy (or none) drafted? I'm guessing not very often...
 

How often do you think a Power 5 team has won 10+ games and had 1 guy (or none) drafted? I'm guessing not very often...

Haha, you beat me to it. Furthermore, the teams that do win 10 games and have zero draft picks... probably about to have another nice season.
 


How often do you think a Power 5 team has won 10+ games and had 1 guy (or none) drafted? I'm guessing not very often...

Penn State won the Big Ten with 11 wins and had one guy drafted.
 

Penn State won the Big Ten with 11 wins and had one guy drafted.

Conversely, Cal has won 11 fewer games than the Gophs since 2011 and have 40 players currently in the NFL.
 








Top Bottom