December 27, 200718 yr As a pro prospect, I agree. At the NCAA level, I disagree... No way that Mauk is better in College or NFL. :fight:
December 27, 200718 yr Author No way that Mauk is better in College or NFL. :fight: Based on you being a homer, or actual facts? Mauk 12 games 60.9 % 3121 yards on 386 attempts 31 TD 9 INT 150.6 passer rating 377 net rushing yards Woodson 12 games 63.0% 3351 yards on 468 attempts 36 TD 10 INT 144.29 rating -167 net rushing yards Numbers are very close, and I think it's safe to say UK has a better supporting cast on offense. Woodson's lack of mobility was a killer as he took sack after sack down the stretch. Give me Mauk at the helm of my NCAA team every time...
December 27, 200718 yr Supporting cast on offense probably favors Woodson, but we can't disregard other variables that can affect offensive performance. UC's defense is better than UK's although statistically the differences are not that great aside from turnover differential. How much of an advantage did Mauk get from his team having a +16 on the turnover side? Competition. UK clearly played a more challenging schedule than UC this year, so that tends make Woodson's numbers a little more impressive. UK played against better defenses as well, statistically speaking. In the one common game, Woodson delivered bigtime versus UL, and this set in motion UL's meltdown. UL certainly had warning signs in their first to games, but the losing was jump started in the loss in Lexington. Woodson went for 30-44, 275 and 4 TD's, while Mauk countered with 26-45, 3TD's and 1 pick while amassing 324 yards. Once again, the style of offense will dictate which type QB you would want.
December 27, 200718 yr Lets go with Woodson, stats are a big factor but lets face it, they arent the only thing to base a QB on. Woodson hands down IMO
December 27, 200718 yr Author Lets go with Woodson, stats are a big factor but lets face it, they arent the only thing to base a QB on. Woodson hands down IMO So what did you base that on???
December 27, 200718 yr Supporting cast on offense probably favors Woodson, but we can't disregard other variables that can affect offensive performance. UC's defense is better than UK's although statistically the differences are not that great aside from turnover differential. How much of an advantage did Mauk get from his team having a +16 on the turnover side? Competition. UK clearly played a more challenging schedule than UC this year, so that tends make Woodson's numbers a little more impressive. UK played against better defenses as well, statistically speaking. In the one common game, Woodson delivered bigtime versus UL, and this set in motion UL's meltdown. UL certainly had warning signs in their first to games, but the losing was jump started in the loss in Lexington. Woodson went for 30-44, 275 and 4 TD's, while Mauk countered with 26-45, 3TD's and 1 pick while amassing 324 yards. Once again, the style of offense will dictate which type QB you would want. Good points. Slight edge to Woodson in college. Competition is a big difference. As a pro prospect, it's not even close...Woodson.
December 27, 200718 yr So what did you base that on??? If you look at the stats, Mauk and Woodson's are very similar, but IMO the better QB is Woodson, with his size and ability to throw the ball, I feel like he has the most up side. Thats why I feel you cant base stats on everything.
December 27, 200718 yr Author Slight edge to Woodson in college. Competition is a big difference. Let's hear what teams on each schedule were legit competition and compare those numbers. For UC I would say Oregon St, Rutgers, USF, UConn and WVU. For UK it would be Arkansas, LSU, Florida, Miss St., UGA and UT...
December 27, 200718 yr Author If you look at the stats, Mauk and Woodson's are very similar, but IMO the better QB is Woodson, with his size and ability to throw the ball, I feel like he has the most up side. Thats why I feel you cant base stats on everything. Since we are only talking the NCAA level, I'm not sure what upside has to do with this debate...
December 27, 200718 yr Since we are only talking the NCAA level, I'm not sure what upside has to do with this debate... Well you do have a point, I was obviously talking about in the Pros, Woodson only has one college game left, so there is not much upside there.
December 27, 200718 yr Let's hear what teams on each schedule were legit competition and compare those numbers. For UC I would say Oregon St, Rutgers, USF, UConn and WVU. For UK it would be Arkansas, LSU, Florida, Miss St., UGA and UT... I'd like to see those numbers. You're making my point. Drop Miss St. and play the others in an "SEC/Big East Challege" type set up and it would likely be 5-0 for the SEC.
December 27, 200718 yr Author I'd like to see those numbers. You're making my point. Drop Miss St. and play the others in an "SEC/Big East Challege" type set up and it would likely be 5-0 for the SEC. Do we not get to include Miss St because we already know what WVU did to them???
December 27, 200718 yr Do we not get to include Miss St because we already know what WVU did to them??? Exactly. Why WOULD I include them? Okay, YOU chose the match-ups and they'd go 4-1. BTW, Kentucky's strength of schedule was 26th, Cincinnati's 66th.
December 27, 200718 yr Author In those 6 games Woodson was 164-272 (60.3%) for 1858 yds, 19 TD and 8 picks. -98 yards on the ground. In the 5 biggest UC games Mauk was 88-157 (56%) for 1217, 13 TD and 2 INT. 141 yards on the ground...
December 27, 200718 yr In those 6 games Woodson was 164-272 (60.3%) for 1858 yds, 19 TD and 8 picks. -98 yards on the ground. In the 5 biggest UC games Mauk was 88-157 (56%) for 1217, 13 TD and 2 INT. 141 yards on the ground... Slight edge to Woodson. Maybe even more than slight. Almost 70 yards more per game, a higher completion percentage, and more TDs. More picks but that's against better, quicker defenses. We already knew Mauk was a better runner but even there he only got 28 yards per game.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.