How much does the previous QB weigh in to judging the current QB?

[HawkeyeJet]

I've been wanting to ask this for quite sometime.  I was going to post this on the main forum right now but I think lots of people are too upset to consider it honestly at the moment.

This is specifically as it relates to Lawrence and Fields. 

How much does Watson being who he is and Haskins being who he is impact what people think Lawrence and Fields are?

I personally think it's quite a bit, but don't think most people would admit to that. If they switched locations with each other the last 3 years, would the narrative be different?  Or if one played at Oregon State and one at Purdue, how different would it be?

I'm not saying Fields is better by any stretch, but I do legitimately think that the gap is widened by the success(or failure) in the NFL of their predecessor.  And not just on this board, in the media in general.  I think it's also a part of the Zach Wilson surge as the potential 2nd QB.  

Just something I find and interesting potential discussion.  I could be way off in my thinking.

[UntouchableCrew]

Personally I don't think it affects me at all.

I loved Watson coming out (wanted him at 6 in 2017) but view Lawrence as a different caliber of prospect.

I was very high on Fields coming into this year and have mainly soured on him due to underwhelming performances vs Indiana and Northwestern. I think it's clear he's a much different player than most previous Ohio State QBs but I agree there's obviously a contingent of fans caught up on that. It's only natural.

I honestly thought this was going to be about USC QBs and how we need to swear off them forever.

[derp]

I don’t think a whole lot, at least for me. Fields and Haskins aren’t particularly similar stylistically and Lawrence and Watson really aren’t either, though I’d argue they’re the middle two of the group.

I’d love to be more excited about Fields, and I was getting there earlier this season after seeing some more NFL style throws since I really thought he looked eh on throws outside the numbers last year...but he’s had two games featuring bad decisions and some ugly ducks that resulted in turnovers.

I also fall somewhere below generational on Lawrence, or at least in pump the brakes mode. Last quarterback prospect this caliber was Luck who had some success but obviously didn’t accomplish anything huge either. So maybe I’m just negative. But he’s a clean prospect and I’d love to have him in green and white.

Do genuinely hope Fields looks better in the playoff. If not it’d actually be cool to see him come back for another year and be an unquestioned top pick.

[Lith]

I think there is somehting to it, but only to the extent that you are evaluating prospects that played in college under the same coaching staff or the same offensive system.  Once the CS turns over, I don't think the history of QBs at a given school should matter at all when evaluating prospects.

Should the Chargers have avoided Justin Herbert because Marcus Mariota, Akili Smith and Joey Harrington busted.  Evaluate the prospect.  Coaching staff is part of that evaluation.  

I believe Ohio State has had just one first round QB drafted in the last 35 years, going back to Art Schlichter.  If Haskins is a bust, that is harldy a trend.

Evaluate the player, not the school.

 

[JustInFudge]

45 minutes ago, HawkeyeJet said:

I've been wanting to ask this for quite sometime.  I was going to post this on the main forum right now but I think lots of people are too upset to consider it honestly at the moment.

This is specifically as it relates to Lawrence and Fields. 

How much does Watson being who he is and Haskins being who he is impact what people think Lawrence and Fields are?

I personally think it's quite a bit, but don't think most people would admit to that. If they switched locations with each other the last 3 years, would the narrative be different?  Or if one played at Oregon State and one at Purdue, how different would it be?

I'm not saying Fields is better by any stretch, but I do legitimately think that the gap is widened by the success(or failure) in the NFL of their predecessor.  And not just on this board, in the media in general.  I think it's also a part of the Zach Wilson surge as the potential 2nd QB.  

Just something I find and interesting potential discussion.  I could be way off in my thinking.

Not in the slightest bit.

There are people on this board who think Watson sucks.  Fans are looney tunes, bro.  lol  You brought this question to right forum though.

Did Taj Boyd impact Watson's draft status?  idk, maybe but I hope not because they were night and day players/prospects.  Watson was/is a top 5 college QB of all time in my mind.  Watching him was incredible.  Like watching Charlie Ward, Mike Vick, Tim Tebow, etc. he was that dynamic.

Fields is the highest rated player in the history of OSU and was originally at UGA.  Is comparing him to Haskins even apples to apples?  idk that it is, doesnt feel like it. 

Look at the prospect, not the program.   Look at the skill set, not the system.  There is no QB factory, it's about what the player has and how you develop said player.

 

[HawkeyeJet]

24 minutes ago, JiF said:

 

Look at the prospect, not the program.   Look at the skill set, not the system.  There is no QB factory, it's about what the player has and how you develop said player.

 

I guess my viewpoint is how many of us truly know how to do that?  I like to pretend I do.  But in reality, outside of Iowa players, I rely on other media types to at least frame the groupings of prospects.  And even with Iowa guys, I'm simply using former Iowa players asked to do similar things and how they translated into the NFL.  I'm not projecting simply on the ayers traits alone, even for players I watch every week.

I know there are quite a few people here that do film reviews etc etc.  Even for those folks, I tend to think at least on some level they go through a similar process to me where at least a foundation of opinion is based on something that isn't their own evaluation.

I'm not saying any of this is bad.  Or anyone's process is wrong.  I just think it speaks to, in part, the wild swings in QB evaluation specifically.