NEB picks starting QB - Tanner Lee

Donate To GopherHole
Pompous Elitist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

GopherWeatherGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...
 

Wcfan56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Wcfan56 said:
GopherWeatherGuy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 


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

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."
 

PMWinSTP said:
Wcfan56 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 

Wcfan56 said:
Why do people concede that Nebraska has significantly more talent than Minnesota?
Click to expand...

I love my team but wat?

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

John Galt said:
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."
Click to expand...

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



Urbandale said:
No, no. The only criterion that matters is seniors on the roster who will be drafted. I thought we established that.
Click to expand...

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


John Galt said:
Can you think of a more objective measure of talent on a roster?
Click to expand...

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.
 




dpodoll68 said:
Wins and losses?
Click to expand...

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.
 

John Galt said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Urbandale said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 


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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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

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


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

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...
 

John Galt said:
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...
Click to expand...

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
 


GFBfan said:
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
Click to expand...

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...
 

John Galt said:
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...
Click to expand...

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.
 


John Galt said:
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...
Click to expand...

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

dpodoll68 said:
Penn State won the Big Ten with 11 wins and had one guy drafted.
Click to expand...

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





You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom