2025 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Pet peeve... I just hate the viral overuse of the word "generational." You know, like people calling multiple college players about to be drafted "generational."
Click to expand...

It tends to be overused but even with that I’d agree with you if we were discussing this 15-20 years ago.

I just think it’s easier for the type of player you’d consider generational to stand out and be anointed as such these days among their peers and previous counterparts with all the social media and media hype the players get. There’s just so much information, stats, talking heads, retired players and scouts on podcasts/shows analyzing everything. And honestly, the athletes are just better trained and prepared. I mean Jesus, you scroll TT or YT and someone somewhere has a clip of a 12-13 year old who looks like he could suit up for Alabama tomorrow and he’s dropping 40-50 yard passes into a well known college or WRs hands like it’s nothing.

Aikman, Montana, Brady, etc had archaic coverage in comparison for John Q Public and everyone else to analyze and break down compared to the guys we have coming out of high school and college the last 10 years.

Even couch potatoes can make an educated guess to how great some of these QBs or athletes will be in the NFL compared to their predecessors when it was really just the GMs or scouts that could do it because they were the only ones who had the tape to analyze them.
 
Last edited:
UncleMilti said:
It tends to be overused but even with that I’d agree with you if we were discussing this 15-20 years ago.

I just think it’s easier for the type of player you’d consider generational to stand out these days among their peers and previous counterparts with all the social media and media hype the players get. There’s just so much information, stats, talking heads, retired players and scouts on podcasts/shows analyzing everything. And honestly, the athletes are just better trained and prepared. I mean Jesus, you scroll TT or YT and someone somewhere has a clip of a 12-13 year old who looks like he could suit up for Alabama tomorrow and he’s dropping 40-50 yard passes into a well known college or WRs hands like it’s nothing.

Aikman, Montana, Brady, etc had archaic coverage in comparison for John Q Public and everyone else to analyze and break down compared to the guys we have coming out of high school and college the last 10 years.

Even couch potatoes can make an educated guess to how great some of these QBs or athletes will be in the NFL compared to their predecessors when it was really just the GMs or scouts that could do it because they were the only ones who had the tape to analyze them.
Click to expand...

I don't think there are any "generational" QB's coming out in the next year or two, maybe Manning but probably not. The last QB I thought was truly generational was Luck, Burrow and Lawrence were close but not quite there for me.

But there are going to be some legitimate generational position players in 2027, namely Jeremiah Smith, which is why I'd be perfectly fine trading Parsons for 2-3 firsts.
 
Simpleton said:
I don't think there are any "generational" QB's coming out in the next year or two, maybe Manning but probably not. The last QB I thought was truly generational was Luck, Burrow and Lawrence were close but not quite there for me.

But there are going to be some legitimate generational position players in 2027, namely Jeremiah Smith, which is why I'd be perfectly fine trading Parsons for 2-3 firsts.
Click to expand...
I’d consider Mannng to have a shot at being generational but obviously we need to see how he plays in college. But I think the tools are there for him to be pretty damn good.
 
UncleMilti said:
I’d consider Mannng to have a shot at being generational but obviously we need to see how he plays in college. But I think the tools are there for him to be pretty damn good.
Click to expand...

He'd have to have a Burrow-like season back in 2020 or whatever for me to consider him at that level. Burrow put up 60 fucking TD's to 6 INT's at 76% completion.

He had Jefferson and Chase of course, but those are ungodly numbers.
 
Is Manning really that great? I know he'll be good, and there's always a shortage of top QBs, but I have to think his last name has a ton to do with it. And in reality, his last name doesn't matter at all once he starts playing.

If he were that incredible, how does he not play more over sparish Ewers?
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Is Manning really that great? I know he'll be good, and there's always a shortage of top QBs, but I have to think his last name has a ton to do with it. And in reality, his last name doesn't matter at all once he starts playing.

If he were that incredible, how does he not play more over sparish Ewers?
Click to expand...

His name is the majority of it but I also think he's quite talented, although the perception would be way different if his last name was Jackson.

I also think most Texas fans felt Manning was better (@Texas Ace) but I think they were just banking on experience and the fact that they were top 5ish all year to begin with, went to the semifinal the year before, so on and so forth.
 
Simpleton said:
His name is the majority of it but I also think he's quite talented, although the perception would be way different if his last name was Jackson.

I also think most Texas fans felt Manning was better (@Texas Ace) but I think they were just banking on experience and the fact that they were top 5ish all year to begin with, went to the semifinal the year before, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...
I almost tagged Ace when I posted that... :lol

But while I get the experience angle, if a player is that clearly and obviously superior, I think you have to play him. Even a coach who over-values experience wouldn't play the definitely inferior player for very long. (Again, waiting on Tex Ace...)
 
Simpleton said:
I also think most Texas fans felt Manning was better (@Texas Ace) but I think they were just banking on experience and the fact that they were top 5ish all year to begin with, went to the semifinal the year before, so on and so forth.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's right.

They went with Ewers because they felt his experience would pay off but it didn't.

It should have been obvious going into the playoffs that he just wasn't capable of playing to the level they needed to go all the way, which is why I wanted Manning to play because I was convinced we had nothing to lose at that point.

It's a shame too..... That Texas team was loaded last year and that was the best collegiate defense I've seen in a long time. But with Ewers, it wasn't able to reach their full potential.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
I almost tagged Ace when I posted that... :lol

But while I get the experience angle, if a player is that clearly and obviously superior, I think you have to play him. Even a coach who over-values experience wouldn't play the definitely inferior player for very long. (Again, waiting on Tex Ace...)
Click to expand...

Manning was still essentially a freshman and coaches are always gonna be leery of starting a freshman QB no matter what his pedigree is, especially in a year when they feel like they have a NC caliber team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom