I think one injury to Sprague occurred when he was down field as a receiver on a trick play and attempted the reception on a very highly thrown pass.

Common sense also tells you why they are hurt more often throwing than running. When running the ball, they can see the impact coming, and prepare for it, or they can go out of bounds, or slide. When throwing it, they are unprepared for the hit, and often blindsided. Sometimes the hit when throwing comes after the play and may be excessive.

As far as QBs running the ball, I was always scared for Vick. He seemed to have a more vertical running style which would have tended to lead to taking some bad hits, I would have thought. Nevertheless, that never seemed to happen. Instead, his primary injury came when someone rolled under his leg after he had thrown a pass.

Thank you for not allowing an imperfect comparison to go thru.

The amount of obviously wrong comparisons that people make on these threads is sad.

Making a point by comparing things that contain markedly, obviously different features is weak. Knowingly doing it is an insult. It happens too often here, a place in which we should be honest about the facts, at least.

You mean like comparing college football to a corporation?

Re your citing Kareem Wilson not getting hurt. As a 4-yr starter running the option, he likely took more than a thousand hits. I tend to think his running style and strength helped him avoid serious injury. I just finished watching Keenan Reynolds finish shredding Pitt. Reynolds finished the season with something like 1,200 yards passing and 1,400 yards rushing. No serious injury. In his case, too, I tend to think running style and strength helped avoid serious injury. By comparison Derrius Vick ran more upright and appeared fragile.

Well since I brought his name up, of course Sprague and Mayfield aren't perfect comparisons. I didn't bring him up to compare the two; I brought him up because the point was made that a walk-on should never be the starting QB, which the Mayfield example obviously refutes.

I'd be fine with a starting QB who was a former walk-on if he was the best player. Sprague isn't, though, and I don't get why the coaches are so enamored with him. Again, I think it's time to see if our QB coach is worth the money he's being paid. Maxwell is his guy. Let's see what he can do.

(I am not an Isphording fan. He was the architect of the dumpster fire recruiting class, and I have not been impressed with the QBs' development the past couple of years. If he can't recruit and he can't develop, why does he have a job? Time to put up or shut up.)

I didn't interpret CMoney's post as Sprague=Mayfield.

I interpreted his post as Mayfield = typical walkon. And as a typical walkon he could be placed in the same group as Sprague (not as equals but as individual data points from the group). Mayfield is not a typical walkon. He's an outlier.

He's a redshirt Sophomore (in total years, not eligibility) with a PAC 12 offer to a Mike Leech coached offense (the one with a QB that threw for 4,500 yards this season). Leech knows offense (see Texas Tech resume). And the Oklahoma "walkon" Mayfield has one season experience at a Big 12 program that he transferred from (Texas Tech, the Texas Tech whos QB threw for 4,200 yards this season).

If CMoneys "point" was to simply establish that walkons start at QB all anyone had to say was Oregon, Syracuse, Boston College, OHIO, Oklahoma, and others have started walk on QBs at some point this season. I don't think anyone need to see proof that it was technically possible for a walkon QB to start in the FBS. Certainly 71 Bobcat (the chain originator) would agree that, yes, walkons like Sprague at OHIO can start at QB.

But I believe 71's intent was to address potential results. As a general rule of thumb, a typical walkon QB doesn't produce the results most desire.

For CMoney to mention Mayfields place in the Heisman voting is to draw attention to potential results. And this either (1) confuses CMoneys allege "point" by stating something literally irrelevant to the allege "point" or (2) attempts to establish a comparison to potential results (which is not the allege "point").

So LC, I rushed to attack because I dont like Sprague as OHIOs QB. I don't like (what I percieve as) allusions to his potential. And I don't like what I saw as a particularly disingenuous use of an outlier to establish a point (a point that without any confusion all posters would agree to).

One of my pet peeves is people who don't qualify statements that should be. If that statement had simply been, it's very difficult for a walkon to succeed at the QB position, the most skilled position in football, or something similar, I think this whole discussion would not have happened, as TS would have been making a completely true statement that most everyone, except perhaps Monroe, would agree with.

I usually agree with TS, and am in awe of this ranking system which seems to have a great deal of external and internal credibility. But, in this case, I think he overstated his proposition.

Go OHIO!

I didn't take is at that at all. For what it's worth, I don't think Sprague is a typical walkon, either. A typical walkon comes in in fall, tries to make the team, realizes he'll never play, and leaves in the Spring. Ohio has 5-6 of those every year. A better than average walkon is a player like Terpin, or Cunningham, who plays every game, perhaps mostly on special teams, but he contributes. A much better than average walkon actually earns a scholarship, and may start some games. A truly exceptional walkon is a player with NFL potential, or at least all-conference potential. An Ohio example would be Dak Notestine. I would put Sprague in the "much better than average" group.

Going back to the original post, it said that a walkon should never start at QB. All it takes to refute that is one example of a walkon who should start at QB, which C. Money provided. From there the conversation degenerated into whether Sprague was the same as Mayfield.


I don't think his point was that walkons DO start in the FBS. Everyone knows that. His point was that there are some walkons who are good enough that they SHOULD start.

Myself, I'm a believer that the walkon program SHOULD routinely produce a player every couple years who is good enough that he SHOULD be starting, and who should have gotten a scholarship from the start. There is very little difference between the best walkons and the worst scholarship athletes, and if the best walkons work harder than some of the scholarship athletes, some of them will blossom into good players, and that can be true at QB as well as any other position.

There are lots of examples of Ohio players who did exactly that - worked hard, and played well enough that they proved they SHOULD be on the field. Some would pop into mind include Shelby, Chad Moore, Corey Hastings, Dak Notestine, Ryan McGrath, Devin Jones, and AJ OUellette, and I'm sure there are others. I'm not ready to add Sprague to this list yet, but I'm not ready to exclude him from it, either. He has improved a lot from his Freshman year, and if he continues to improve, and most importantly, if the OL improves next year, he may look better than most expect.

Unlike some, QB is not a position that I worry about for next year. For me DB is scarier mostly because so many will be gone, and some new people will be playing, and I have no clue at all who those might be.

Hey man. I was calm . I like a lot of your posts. I completely understand why my post may appear to be overblown. But I don't mean to come off as overbearing.

My honest to God intent was to use this as practice.

People often dispute issues that, at a high level, they don't disagree that much over.

Mining down to the source of the disagreement and getting the parties to agree on that precise source is an science. And lessons I take away from a sports message board can often be applied to all types of arguments.

So thank you for your patience CMoney.

Fair enough. How about this: first round at Cat's Eye (it will be Labatt) is on me, and you can practice all you want in the window booth?

And Ohio got smoked 31-13 AT HOME

Yeah...that defense was great in crunch time vs. App State. Really stood tall when it mattered most letting up 24 fourth quarter points. That's MACC caliber.