Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
It's not really a fair comparison since Prukop was here for 4 years and Mellott is a true sophomore who is still a work in progress as a passer.
That said, Mellott is a work in progress as a passer, and Prukop was far more capable. So FOR NOW I would say Prukop.
Who knows what Mellott will look like in his 4th year with the team?
Great point! Prukop was a 3rd year guy before he started a game (redshirt and frosh years). He wasn't a great passer at first - mostly just a great runner - but he really did work on it and improved big-time from his soph to junior year. I believe he did some QB school with some famous QB trainer but I can't remember the details.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
With that logic, couldn’t the same be said about a HC win/loss record?
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
With that logic, couldn’t the same be said about a HC win/loss record?
A QB is responsible for one facet of the game. Now a QB can be a primary factor in why a team wins or loses, but never (rarely) the sole reason. A QB can play fantastic and have his team still lose if the defense plays poorly. A QB can play poorly and have his team still win if the defense, or running game, is fantastic. There is so much context to it, that paring it down to wins/losses is simplistic and foolish.
A coach on the other hand is responsible for the whole. Now, good players make coaches look better. Bad players make coaches look worse. Coaches also bring in the players, so it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. In my mind because the coaches have more of a total responsibility than the QB does, makes a win/loss record more reasonable to use, but it still needs context. At the NFL level for example, Kyle Shanahan has a very average win/loss record, but is known as an exceptional coach. Matt LaFleur has one of the best win percentages ever, and while a very good coach, probably isn't one of the greatest ever. Context matters.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
With that logic, couldn’t the same be said about a HC win/loss record?
A QB is responsible for one facet of the game. Now a QB can be a primary factor in why a team wins or loses, but never (rarely) the sole reason. A QB can play fantastic and have his team still lose if the defense plays poorly. A QB can play poorly and have his team still win if the defense, or running game, is fantastic. There is so much context to it, that paring it down to wins/losses is simplistic and foolish.
A coach on the other hand is responsible for the whole. Now, good players make coaches look better. Bad players make coaches look worse. Coaches also bring in the players, so it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. In my mind because the coaches have more of a total responsibility than the QB does, makes a win/loss record more reasonable to use, but it still needs context. At the NFL level for example, Kyle Shanahan has a very average win/loss record, but is known as an exceptional coach. Matt LaFleur has one of the best win percentages ever, and while a very good coach, probably isn't one of the greatest ever. Context matters.
Fair enough, appreciate your thoughtful insight/response!
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
With that logic, couldn’t the same be said about a HC win/loss record?
A QB is responsible for one facet of the game. Now a QB can be a primary factor in why a team wins or loses, but never (rarely) the sole reason. A QB can play fantastic and have his team still lose if the defense plays poorly. A QB can play poorly and have his team still win if the defense, or running game, is fantastic. There is so much context to it, that paring it down to wins/losses is simplistic and foolish.
A coach on the other hand is responsible for the whole. Now, good players make coaches look better. Bad players make coaches look worse. Coaches also bring in the players, so it's kind of a chicken/egg thing. In my mind because the coaches have more of a total responsibility than the QB does, makes a win/loss record more reasonable to use, but it still needs context. At the NFL level for example, Kyle Shanahan has a very average win/loss record, but is known as an exceptional coach. Matt LaFleur has one of the best win percentages ever, and while a very good coach, probably isn't one of the greatest ever. Context matters.
Fair enough, appreciate your thoughtful insight/response!
One way to think about it is comparing a QB (or coach) to an imaginary "replacement level" QB.
Imagine if the 2014-2015 Cats had replaced Prukop with an average BSC QB named Blake Jeskin. Would the Win-Loss have changed? I personally don't think it would have...Replace Prukop with Vernon Adams...would the Cats have won any more games? Maybe a couple.
Eric Barrierre was clearly a FAR better QB than Matt McKay last year. But the Cats finished with a better record.
In regards to coaching...Courtney Messingham's offense at MSU was worse than Jamie Marshalls defense (if thats possible). But he was super successful as an OC at NDSU. Did he suddenly become a better coach by moving to Fargo? Did he become a terrible coach again when he moved to Manhattan?
Obviously not.
So the fair question is to ask "How well did a person perform in relation to what could be expected of them in the circumstances."
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
He's not wrong. Of course QB ability is important. But the win column is a team stat.
His example is a pretty good one. Georgia is probably not winning that national title without that defense.
Don't let this distract you from the fact that the griz blew a 22-0 lead.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
He's not wrong. Of course QB ability is important. But the win column is a team stat.
His example is a pretty good one. Georgia is probably not winning that national title without that defense.
I defer. Y'all win this highly relevant discussion. I concur. The quarterback is not the most important position. I therefore completely agree with all of you Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterbacks. Totally. It is much better to have 13-11 record and get your ass totally stomped in the early rounds of the playoffs than have a kid take your team to the National Championship. Those garbage time stats are much more important than the ****** scoreboard. Ball control and clock management on the part of a quarterback has absolutely zero... ahhh, sh*t...why bother...
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
He's not wrong. Of course QB ability is important. But the win column is a team stat.
His example is a pretty good one. Georgia is probably not winning that national title without that defense.
I defer. Y'all win this highly relevant discussion. I concur. The quarterback is not the most important position. I therefore completely agree with all of you Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterbacks. Totally. It is much better to have 13-11 record and get your ass totally stomped in the early rounds of the playoffs than have a kid take your team to the National Championship. Those garbage time stats are much more important than the ****** scoreboard. Ball control and clock management on the part of a quarterback has absolutely zero... ahhh, sh*t...why bother...
And give Prukop the 2021 Bobcat defense and I think they have a pretty darn good season. Give Tommy that 2015 defense and I'm not sure we win more than 3 games.
The reality is there are a lot of ways to win football games, but none of them will work if one facet of the team is near the bottom in the country. Plus the whole team needs to be complementary of each other, which they were not during 2014-2015. Another important factor is chemistry and there was none in 2015.
The team with the best QB in the Big Sky doesn't always win the conference. Weber State won with Stefan Cantwell, Jake Constantine. SUU won with Patrick Tyler (I don't even recognize that name), and Ammon Olsen. UND won with Keaton Studsrud. The keys to those teams? Defense.
Personally I think Prukop would be a great fit in the QB power thing MSU has been doing for about 6 years now.
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
He's not wrong. Of course QB ability is important. But the win column is a team stat.
His example is a pretty good one. Georgia is probably not winning that national title without that defense.
I defer. Y'all win this highly relevant discussion. I concur. The quarterback is not the most important position. I therefore completely agree with all of you Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterbacks. Totally. It is much better to have 13-11 record and get your ass totally stomped in the early rounds of the playoffs than have a kid take your team to the National Championship. Those garbage time stats are much more important than the ****** scoreboard. Ball control and clock management on the part of a quarterback has absolutely zero... ahhh, sh*t...why bother...
I just so happen to be fluent in senile, discombobulated rants, allow me to translate........
Dearest kind sirs,
I respectfully disagree with your insight and the overall discussion regarding this hypothetical comparison of a past vs the present Montana State University Quarterback. In my personal evaluation, I strongly believe that the quarterback is of the utmost importance to a collegiate football team and any stat related to overall team success is 100% tied to quarterback performance. With the use of sarcasm, I will attempt to convey the fact that the quarterback is solely responsible for whether a team wins the national championship or not. If you do not agree with or acknowledge my well-thought-out argument I will become rather agitated and annoyed, thus insulting you by calling you a "Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterback," implying that you have never played competitive football and have no basis for an opinion. Any statistics accumulated after the win probability of one team becomes exceedingly high is not near as important as the final tally of the sporting event. If the offense cedes possession of the football to the other team or exhibits poor clock management the blame is solely on the quarterback and the quarterback alone. Conversely, if possession is kept by the offense or the team shows efficient use of the game clock the quarterback and the quarterback alone should be showered with compliments. I would like to further solidify my argument but I am starting to get rather tired and there could be kids playing on my lawn or a cloud that needs to be yelled at.
Warmest Regards,
Cat Grad
On a related note, if there is any NIL money leftover I would happily negotiate my price to be the official Cat Grad translator for Bobcat Nation
I just so happen to be fluent in senile, discombobulated rants, allow me to translate........
Dearest kind sirs,
I respectfully disagree with your insight and the overall discussion regarding this hypothetical comparison of a past vs the present Montana State University Quarterback. In my personal evaluation, I strongly believe that the quarterback is of the utmost importance to a collegiate football team and any stat related to overall team success is 100% tied to quarterback performance. With the use of sarcasm, I will attempt to convey the fact that the quarterback is solely responsible for whether a team wins the national championship or not. If you do not agree with or acknowledge my well-thought-out argument I will become rather agitated and annoyed, thus insulting you by calling you a "Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterback," implying that you have never played competitive football and have no basis for an opinion. Any statistics accumulated after the win probability of one team becomes exceedingly high is not near as important as the final tally of the sporting event. If the offense cedes possession of the football to the other team or exhibits poor clock management the blame is solely on the quarterback and the quarterback alone. Conversely, if possession is kept by the offense or the team shows efficient use of the game clock the quarterback and the quarterback alone should be showered with compliments. I would like to further solidify my argument but I am starting to get rather tired and there could be kids playing on my lawn or a cloud that needs to be yelled at.
Warmest Regards,
Cat Grad
On a related note, if there is any NIL money leftover I would happily negotiate my price to be the official Cat Grad translator for Bobcat Nation
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
If you want to talk about meaningless stats, QB wins is a good place to start. A few examples: Matt Stafford did not just become a fantastic QB. Trent Dilfer, despite winning many games as a starter, was never a very good QB. It takes all facets to win football games at the highest level. That's why QB wins is a statistic for the foolish.
Do you ever think about what you post? "A quarterback wins is a statistic for the foolish?" You've got to be sh**ting me! I think Georgia is going to keep the kid who led them to the title last year in spite of all the stats and data. I'd even bet on it and I don't bet.
He's not wrong. Of course QB ability is important. But the win column is a team stat.
His example is a pretty good one. Georgia is probably not winning that national title without that defense.
I defer. Y'all win this highly relevant discussion. I concur. The quarterback is not the most important position. I therefore completely agree with all of you Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterbacks. Totally. It is much better to have 13-11 record and get your ass totally stomped in the early rounds of the playoffs than have a kid take your team to the National Championship. Those garbage time stats are much more important than the ****** scoreboard. Ball control and clock management on the part of a quarterback has absolutely zero... ahhh, sh*t...why bother...
I just so happen to be fluent in senile, discombobulated rants, allow me to translate........
Dearest kind sirs,
I respectfully disagree with your insight and the overall discussion regarding this hypothetical comparison of a past vs the present Montana State University Quarterback. In my personal evaluation, I strongly believe that the quarterback is of the utmost importance to a collegiate football team and any stat related to overall team success is 100% tied to quarterback performance. With the use of sarcasm, I will attempt to convey the fact that the quarterback is solely responsible for whether a team wins the national championship or not. If you do not agree with or acknowledge my well-thought-out argument I will become rather agitated and annoyed, thus insulting you by calling you a "Sunday Morning Armchair Quarterback," implying that you have never played competitive football and have no basis for an opinion. Any statistics accumulated after the win probability of one team becomes exceedingly high is not near as important as the final tally of the sporting event. If the offense cedes possession of the football to the other team or exhibits poor clock management the blame is solely on the quarterback and the quarterback alone. Conversely, if possession is kept by the offense or the team shows efficient use of the game clock the quarterback and the quarterback alone should be showered with compliments. I would like to further solidify my argument but I am starting to get rather tired and there could be kids playing on my lawn or a cloud that needs to be yelled at.
Warmest Regards,
Cat Grad
On a related note, if there is any NIL money leftover I would happily negotiate my price to be the official Cat Grad translator for Bobcat Nation
I never got the impression that DP was the team player that TM is. Maybe I’m wrong but I was glad we had him but was never really thrilled about him. TM gives me way more positive energy. TM is a sophomore that was pick to be ‘all league’. He’ll get better and we’ll get better around him.
Tommy is from Butte. Dakota was out-of-state. In-state guys are much more likely to be able to rally the troops early on. It’s just the way it is. Lulay, out-of-state dude, really mastered the leadership thing because of his early performances in clutch spots. Tommy has done the same.
Dennis Erickson (from where I was born)
Kelly Bradley
Travis Lully
DeNarius McGhee
Sucks that none of these out-of-state QBs could “rally the troops” early in their playing careers!
Seattle to Billings to Missoula to Bozeman to Portland to Billings
Kidding, right? Did Prukop win over half the games he started? Meaningless stats piled up in garbage time is the only metric his fans look at and if memory serves correctly, he transferred to the Big Zero. Phil Knight University.
Tommy has only lost two games he's started and one of those losses was in the National Championship game. Plus, he sustained an injury on the first series.
Ridiculous comparison.
Actually he did. We went 13-11 the two years Dakota started. Not sure there was as much garbage time as you suggest. We were in a lot more shoot outs than we are now.
These are the games that were within 10 points while he was our starter.
2014 2015
Central Arkansas W43-33 EWU L50-55
EWU L52-51 NAU L49-41
Sac St W59-56 UND 44-38
Weber St W23-13
Cal Poly L35-27
Portland St W29-22
Idaho St W44-39
SDSU L47-40
Pretty much what I thought. 13-11 as a starter? I think a more favorable comparison would be:
Mellot or Bradley
Mellot or Dennehy
Mellot or Erickson
I chose Bradley and Dennehy as they were both National Championship quarterbacks and Erickson because he was Erickson. Prokup? The record alone speaks for itself.
Basically, one has three more years in which to judge Tommy Mellot. I firmly believe Mellot is going to continue to perform in an outstanding manner, especially in the playoffs. Prokup didn't do anything in the playoffs and as far as I'm concerned, that ought to say it all. But, just for arguments sake, let's compare the two after Mellot has started 24 games.
And these type of arguments boil down to what my old coaches used to say; "And if the queen had balls, she'd be king."
Your posts always deliver in how ridiculous they are, good or bad.
The passing game needs to improve unless the idea is to run Mellott and Chambers into the ground until they both get injured.
I also completely owned how wrong I was on this board. Bad take, it happens at times. The passing game is still too simplistic but the absolutely elite o-line and Tommy/Sean/Isaiah/Lane/Elijah should be able to dominate all but 2 defenses the rest of the season in the running game.
Need to get the two starting safeties back to go 9-2.
Meanwhile, you’re basically Grandpa Simpson meandering on about having an onion on your belt, as was the style at the time.
Seattle to Billings to Missoula to Bozeman to Portland to Billings
The QB means much more to a team than just playing his position. Proof of this would be the team we became after Cat griz last year. McKay wasn’t chucking INTs every game but he wasn’t the worker or leader that Tommy is and that became obvious in the playoffs.
I’d take Tommy every day of the week. No offense to Prukop but I watched him fold when the game was on the line too many times. Granted too much was being asked of him but the same can be said for Tommy. Difference is Tommy is just a winner.
