IDK if I'd go that far. Because if that were true you would not see UK in basketball be as dominant as they are now or Alabama (and hopefully OSU now) be dominant in football. I suppose I see your point specifically for QB since most other positions you can get action for 2-3 years and at QB it could be closer to 1-2 years, but I still don't see a place like Alabama or UK struggling to stockpile talent and tell them "wait your turn, win a couple championships, then win some more as a starter."
For all the talk of UK's "dominance", they've won only one title, that's not dominance, that's just a bunch of make believe recruiting titles. The leading MVP candidates for the NBA this year are alums from Davidson, Arizona St and UCLA, only one of those is a known basketball commodity. And as as JG goes, since only 1 QB can play at time, that makes the situation unique, since we can't and shouldn't rotate QBs. I don't see the staff being able to convince JG to come and step into a QB situation where he could MAYBE start 1yr in 5yrs, as opposed to going to Rutgers, possibly start from day 1 and actually play. Regardless if the line is there like @billlucas said, he will still be playing and not sitting, and the NFL will find the talented prospects and be able to tell that they had little around them. A QB from Delaware played a QB from Nevada a few years ago in the super bowl, I doubt either of them had half the talent OSU has. A former NC state(and Wisky) QB led a team to 2 straight super bowls and won 1. Going to a major school is what fans think means is an easier way to get to the NFL, but sitting on the bench doesn't help your prospects, playing does. We should've seen this happening though, our depth at QB was going to work against us, it's a good problem. But IMO, just because there is a ton of shiny toys at OSU isn't going to lure him to us to ride the bench for a few years, as opposed to being to play in front of friends and family, and actually play and be the face of the program
Upvote
0