04-02-2020, 12:35 PM
(04-02-2020, 11:08 AM)Nicomo Cosca Wrote: This is such a a tired and lazy comparison. The stats have been posted multiple times, so I’m not going to bother yet again, but what Burrow did in the best conference, against 7 top 10 teams, and then in the NCG against a dominant Clemson team is not even remotely comparable to Akili Smith throwing a bunch of TD’s in the PAC 10.
It's not a tired and lazy comparison at all. It's a near-identical situation because college stats and success, no matter how incredible, cannot guarantee a successful NFL career. Both Akili and Burrow were/are thought to be franchise QBs. Numerous pundits had Akili as the No. 1 QB in the '99 class, which was compared favorably to the '83 class, which gave us Elway, Marino, and Kelly. You can easily say today that Burrow is a far better prospect than Akili ever was, but that's with the benefit of hindsight. That simply was not the case in '99, when he and Couch were thought to be two of the best QB prospects EVER. Akili had a great senior season and one of the best pro days ever seen. Lack of prior success was explained away as late bloomer/getting used to the system (very similar to Burrow).
I lived through the '99 draft, and I remember watching it live on ESPN with my college roommates. Browns pick was a toss-up between Couch and Akili. Consensus was that the Eagles would go Williams, leaving the other marquee QB for the Bengals. I was pissed when the Browns took Couch (the guy I wanted), astonished when the Eagles took McNabb over Williams, and generally pleased when Akili fell to us. Commentary that day and throughout the following week/month fully supported the Bengals pick, and many experts -- Kiper specifically -- thought Akili was the best of the bunch. No one at that time said we should have taken Ditka's offer -- remember that it had been on the table since winter meetings and no one bit until the 'Skins, after the top 3 QBs were gone -- and the general consensus at that time was that a franchise QB was more important and valuable than an entire draft. The first time anyone suggested that maybe we should have taken the offer was months later when Akili held out of training camp. And recall that Mike Brown did give Ditka a counter -- something like your entire draft plus each first rounder for the next 5 years -- and the consensus was STILL that that haul wasn't enough for a franchise QB.
So the actual question at issue is identical -- how many draft picks is a potential franchise QB worth? That's all Akili was, and all Burrow currently is. It's easy to say today that you wouldn't give up the right to draft Burrow for anything, and that's fine -- many NFL experts said the same thing about Akili in '99. Mike Brown, being the practical genius that he is (sarcasm), recognized that there is some point where the additional picks (each of whom are also potential franchise players, albeit less potential) are worth more than the one potential franchise QB, when he countered with something like 6 firsts, 6 others, and whatever else he was asking for. I'm sure the same is true here -- if someone, be it Miami or Carolina or what have you, offers Mike enough draft capital for the No. 1, he probably will take it. If they don't, he wont.
If we end up standing pat and taking Burrow (as I think we will), and he turns out to be a true franchise QB (as we all hope he will), we'll be glad that we passed on all offers. We'll pat ourselves on the back, saying we knew all along he'd be awesome, yadda yadda. But if we take him and he can't play like Akili, or shreds an ACL in the first preseason game like Ki-Jana, or gets in trouble for off-the-field issues like Schlichter, or gets fat and addicted to the purple drank like JaMarcus, or all of the above like Leaf -- we'll all wish we took the picks, regardless of the offer. Because of hindsight. Because at this point, we simply have no idea how Burrow will fare in the NFL, just like we didn't with Akili. Is there a better chance that he'll be better than Akili, based on his college stats and success? Sure, but the fact is we don't and can't know for sure. So yeah, it's pretty much an identical situation.
