Brock Jensen Brings Championship Pedigree To Dolphins

IMO, it really isn't about Devlin vs. Jensen. It is simply whether the coaching staff feels comfortable with Devlin as the No. 2. If not, cut him, because if you aren't comfortable with him as a backup after 3 years he doesn't deserve a roster spot. If yes, then release Moore. I have liked Moore but there is no point in paying him if Devlin is ready to be No. 2. Then, if Jensen shows potential, keep him as No. 3.

 

This. And the fact that a UDFA QB will never have a real chance to win a starting job unless the pedigreed guys in front of him go down with injury or are so ineffective that the team feels it has nothing to lose. Brady never would have gotten a chance is Bledsoe hadn't been injured. Warner never would have had a chance if Green wasn't injured. Moon and Garcia had to go to Canada and win Grey Cups and MVPs in order to be able to make it to the NFL as a starter. It took a few years of an ineffective Bledsoe before Romo ever got on the field in Dallas. I think there have probably been a lot of guys who could have been very good to great NFL QBs who simply never got a chance to play because the pedigreed starter ahead of them simply never got hurt or sucked quite enough to get benched. NFL coaches often either fail to recognize QB talent in practice or lack the stones necessary to make a late round guy or UDFA their starting QB.

 

I think you misunderstood what I was saying, Alex, because I didn't suggest what your first sentence says. I never said winning turns everyone into my Example A player. That's unfair to the players. I'm saying many Example A players already inherently possessed those characteristics for the most part, which in turn helps their teams win more often than Example B players. Do you disagree?

Furthermore, let's not pretend winning in and of itself isn't contagious and doesn't affect players. It flat out feels better than losing, and there's added pressure placed on players of winning teams to conform to their winning ways by altering their approach, mentality, habits, and behavior to the extent it can change his makeup if he conforms long enough for it to become routine. It's not an accident that winning teams win; typically they hold themselves to a higher standard, are more professional, practice harder, train harder, prepare harder, want it more, are better focused, are comprised of leaders who know how to win and whom others learn from, are more team-orriented, and are more confident in their ability to win and do so in big games b/c they've been there done that. On a winning team, you either conform to the pack or you're done.

Winning teams do more to get the most from their players. If a player is drafted by Seattle, the expectations of him and the standards he's measured to are significantly higher than that of being on Miami's 2009, 2010, and 2011 squads, especially the underachieving 2011 team where players showed up to camp ill-prepared and out of shape and showed up to practice drunk, leading to an 0-7 start and a bunch of blown 4th quarter games when it should've been a playoff team. On a losing team or one with a losing mentality & approach, bad habits can ensue; you can be Karlos Dansby and feel minimal pressure to NOT show up to camp a fat slob. On a winning team or one with a winning mentality & approach, you can be an underachieving Vontae Davis who suddenly feels more compelled to get his head on straight, get with the party, and become a winner himself like he did in Indy who, not surprisingly, has won a Super Bowl the past decade, has players still remaining from that SB team, and features new players like Andrew Luck who is a born winner and sets the bar high for everyone. If Vontae remains with Indy long enough and Indy continues doing what they're doing, he could change from the uninspiring Example B player he was in Miami to a reliable, productive Example A player with a completely altered makeup and approach to the game. If Brock Jensen develops into a solid NFL player and especially a leader, his history of 3 straight championships most certainly will be influential on him, which in turn could carry over to being influential on others.

 

So winners are winners and winning is contagious. Got it. But losers can become winners by being around other winners. Then there are born winners (guessing this is when two winners have a baby).

What happens when a winner is drafted by a loser, is he then a loser after a certain amount of time? How many wins define a winner or it only championships? Also, what level of competition defines a winner?


What happens when a winner stops winning, is he still a winner bc he won? After a certain amount of time, even if he maintains his winner habits, he still loses...does the title of winner get taken away?


What happens when a loser wins, are they then a winner? For how long? Do they need multiple wins to make sure it wasn't a fluke? At what point did they transition from being a loser to a winner, after the win?


You see how this can seem like you are just playing the result?

 

I meant to reply to this yesterday, but I seem to have deleted it before I sent it. If we had taken Murray in the 5th, then most of us would be saying Devlin or Moore was on thin ice as for making the 53 this year, IMO. What is the difference between Murray and Jensen? The difference is SEC compared to FCS. I like Murray, but from a physical skillset standpoint, I'd not put him ahead of Jensen. Had Jensen matriculated at a major college program, I doubt he'd have been a UDFA.

 

Being a winner and a leader aren't the same thing. Yes, for all intents and purposes the description of a leader can be applied to winners, but not all winners must to be leaders. That's false to think they're reflexive. Teams typically only have a handful of leaders, so by your definition it would either mean the rest of the team is a bunch of careless unprofessional schleps or that a roster has to be flooded with leaders to be a winner, both of which are false.

It's a large team sport so obviously one winner won't be altering his team's success unless he's a Brady or Manning. You don't throw in the towel simply b/c one winner can't do it all by himself; you bring in more winners who can collectively build a winning team. Players who are "winners" are that way for a reason. What would Oakland and Jamarcus Russell be like if he were my Example A player, a winner? Instead, he's an Example B player and Oakland's struggles have continued since drafting him.

I get what you're saying but I respectfully don't agree with it. Basically you're suggesting Brock Jensen being a winner doesn't matter b/c you've already deemed his NFL career will go nowhere. What if Brock develops into a quality NFL QB? Would he still be a scrub to you? Would you still deem his winner label and thrice championship past as irrelevant? Were 6th round Brady and undrafted Kurt Warner's winning ways and traits irrelevant even though they combined for 8 trips to the Super Bowl?

 

lol...

 

No that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying, for one, there isn't even a coherent definition for a winner. You basically just listed a bunch of attributes with some about leadership, some about work ethic, not being a quitter etc. Those are definable things that you can describe someone with. Being a "winner" is not, or at least it's just some amorphous concept that is a non-word imo, except in the specific and literal sense of winning at the level the person is currently at.

The word is just thrown around by analysts as if it's a tangible thing that projects into the future. Conveniently, when the player doesn't amount to anything, they forget about those players (I guess they stopped being a winners?).

Is Jensen a winner at D1-AA and HS? Yes. Does it matter any more than it did for the countless other winners that failed at the next level? No.

As far as I can tell, both Brady and Warner didn't win (as far as being a champion) at anything until the NFL. Brady's predecessor, Brian Griese, did though.

 

You think Jensen would have had the same level of success at a higher collegiate level of competition?

I realize that the Pats took FCS QB, Jimmy Garoppolo, from Eastern Illinois in the second round, but a lot of his draft stock came due to McCarron turning down the Senior Bowl in a really dumb (arrogant??) move, that opened up a spot for Garoppolo, who took advantage of that opportunity and really shined in Mobile. Jimmy G has a really strong arm, quick trigger, and a fantastic delivery. Not sure where Jensen is in comparison, but I'd have to see him shine in camp to put him on par or above Garoppolo or Murray first. So far I don't think he is pushing Devlin as much as I'd like.

 

Unless we can attend these mini camps or want to trust the opinions of Blomar Kelly, it is really hard for us displaced fans to see how they are comparing in their competition. I think we'll need to see how they do in the preseason before we can have a better idea.

 

"Ugh", "roll eyes", "facepalm", all that stuff. It's one thing to act smugly. It's another to act smugly when you have no idea what you're saying.

about time.

Vontae Davis being among the long list who turned things around by joining a winning team that set the bar and expectations higher and created greater pressure to conform to its winning ways.

I'm sure this sounded cute in your head, but guys like Russell Wilson, Brady, Montana, Young, Michael Irvin, etc ad nauseam make it sound more stupid than cute.

There's a such thing as the human condition, so obviously some players are more steadfast, determined, and resilient than others. Regardless, if you don't think being on a losing team can demotivate players or makes them complacent then I don't know what to tell you. Go talk to Karlos Dansby about 2011 when he showed up to camp at like 275 pounds. Might as well call it football depression that mimics real life depression where it seems like things are going nowhere so your effort and enthusiasm diminish.

now you're just being foolish and embarrassing yourself. Furthermore, why do you limit winners to level of competition? That's pretty obnoxious.

This is circular logic at its finest. It's a team sport, dude, so there's no "bc he won". If a winner becomes a complacent unreliable player, then he's a liability regardless of what his team does.... and if his team wins, it's certainly not "bc he won it for them". News flash: teams still win games without winners at every position, but that doesn't mean they're content with those non-winning caliber players. More than likely they'll be looking to replace them with winners, with guys who can consistently and more reliably perform the job.

His label is self dependent, not team dependent. If he's consistently winning his individual battles or is doing the kind of job that would lead to team success if others were doing their jobs, then no, his title of winner doesn't unjustly get taken away. Why should it? So what, you think a player can only be a winning caliber player if he's on a winning team? I guess you think he becomes a loser if he's traded to a losing team even though his new presence happens to gradually help lead to a team turnaround and an eventual contender? It's like your mind operates off an Intel computer chip that leaves you unable to utilize logic and reason. Jacksonville grabbed winning caliber players from Seattle; are those players now suddenly losers until Jax starts winning, or are they winners meant to help turn a losing team around? Conversely, a winning team can look a player on a losing team and say to themselves, "Man, that kid is a winner; I want him!". According to you, Seattle must be pretty stupid for grabbing Michael Bennett who has to be a loser since he came from Tampa.... but wait, he did his job well and helped Seattle win so is he still a loser, or is he a loser then a winner?..... or has he been a winner all along like Seattle thought he was?

Again, circular logic. The loser doesn't win; the team wins, so if the team wins in spite of him then he's still a liability, not a winner. He's just a loser on a winning team... and probably won't be on that team for much longer.

yeah no

 

I was pointing out the ridiculousness of that logic. Of course someone doesn't become a loser if they go to a losing team, and indeed even if they haven't won, that isn't a necessarily a negative, that is the whole point of what I'm saying. You wouldn't hear ESPN say someone was a winner if they hadn't actually won something though, they just call someone a loser or choker right up until the point they win, like Manning, Dirk, Lebron, etc.

Again, I just don't think winner is a definable thing and hate the way it's used. Maybe you define it differently then they do, but it sounds like you are just describing leadership qualities, drive, work ethic, perseverance. Why not just use those words? Does someone have those or not? If I read about a player being described with those things, that makes sense. Instead you sound like Skip Bayless with the "clutch gene".

 

LOL that you're already labeling Jensen a failure at the next level.

It's a TEAM sport, not golf, so why do you keep reverting to the win-loss column as the determining factor for what makes an individual player a winner or loser? Christ I feel like I'm talking to a wall here. For all intents and purposes a player is either a winner or a loser. He either gets his job done or he doesn't. It's just that simple provided he isn't misplaced in an improper scheme fit or doesn't have others around him preventing him from doing his job. But since it is a team sport, he can get his job done but have the team still lose. Seriously, what are you gonna say, "Zach Thomas and Jason Taylor weren't winners b/c they failed to improve the play at QB and couldn't get the offensive line up to snuff."? Gimme a break. You're the one trying to add all the qualifiers to what makes a winner or loser, not me. Thomas & JT were winners, period. When the team was winning, they were a big reason why. They didn't coincidentally and suddenly become winning caliber players the very moment Miami was winning and then coincidently slip into loserville the moment Miami started losing again.

Of course I listed a bunch of attributes. It's those very attributes that go into winning, duh. You act like winners are winners by sheer happenstance. How many winning teams or winning caliber players ["winners"] have you seen that lacked effort, work ethic, drive, passion, and heart; didn't work hard, prepare hard, or play hard; were non team players and couldn't hold up to pressure? Look at winning teams and highly successful players and you see a repeat of the same common traits, which just so happen to be among the ones I mentioned.

Good god so now a player can only be of winning-caliber if he's on a championship team? Wait, so does he become a genuine loser of a player the moment his team fails to repeat? I guess the NFL is currently comprised of 1643 unreliable losers and just 53 winning caliber players.... well, that is until this year's Super Bowl concludes. So by default you're essentially suggesting Seattle should never lose a championship again since they're all winners and the rest of the league are losers.

 

It's like you are arguing against the opposite of what I'm saying. I implied in my first post I thought Marino and Zach were "winners" (for lack of a better word) even though they never won the big one. I then went on to say how the actual attributes that make up what you call a winner is what's important, not some simple title like winner. Do you not understand that?
It sounds like we are agreeing except for I disagree with how pundits throw around the term winner just bc someone WAS on a winning team, in other words, NOT players like JT and Zach.

 

Yes, you have to take the opinions of Omar-ndo and temper them with those of Chris Perkins and James Walker to get a more accurate depiction. Omar and Armando are too agenda and ego driven to be trusted on their own.

 

I'm not describing just leadership qualities. The traits I described are specific to winning. They might share some overlap with leadership qualities but that doesn't mean "winner" and "leader" are reflexive and especially not to where there's redundancy involved. A leader can be anyone. He can be an aged veteran who is no longer capable of performing his job consistently. Hitler had leadership qualities. Didn't prevent him from getting his *** handed to him in cricket by British prisoners. I don't think Gandhi ever played a sport in his life. Jason Taylor was a leader at the end of his career even though he was no longer a winning caliber starter, and he was a winning caliber starter early in his career even though he wasn't yet a leader. There are TONS of players in the league who don't assume leadership roles but are damn good at their jobs.

You want an easy definition of a "winner"? He's a player who can consistently win at his job and do it well enough to contribute to a winning team. Boom, done. Now, since the NFL is so highly competitive and represents the country's creme de la creme, players can't be winners on talent alone [with few exception], hence my descriptive list of attributes. Again, it's not happenstance that some players are winners and some aren't.

Of all the traits I mentioned and stuff I said, you wanna reduce it down to making it seem like my entire revolved around how clutch a guy is? Regardless, I mentioned clutch play [as opposed to faltering in big moments and big games] because it applies to winning, especially in the NFL where TONS of games are decided either in the 4th quarter or by a score or less. 29% of Seattle's wins the past 2 years were from Russell Wilson 4th Quarter Comebacks. Without them, Seattle fails to make the playoffs in 2012 and fails to make the Super Bowl last year.

 

then why didn't you just say this from the start rather than arguing with me?

 

Here's a fun post for ya.
Brock is from Waupaca, Wisconsin. Class of 2009.
It's west of Green Bay where no one really wants to be and has a population of about 6,000.
The county of Waupaca is half the size of Broward County but has roughly the same population [52,000] as Broward has male high school students [45,000].

The state of Wisconsin has a population of 5.7 million across 65,000 square miles.
Chicago Metro [only 2.5 hours from U of Wisconsin] has 9.5 million across 11,000 square miles.
The city of Chicago itself has 2.7 million across 234 square miles.
A scout has to cover 54,000 more miles in Wisconsin than Chicago Metro to see half the amount of recruits.
You tell me where the scouts wanna be and where the big programs wanna allocate their scouting dollars and resources.


In 2009, U of Wisconsin had already grabbed the country's 16th rated QB, Jon Budmayr [from Illinois], and already had eyes set on signing their 2010 QB, #35 ranked Joseph Brennen [New Jersey] who committed shortly thereafter in July 2009. Those were the only 2 QBs Wisconsin signed during that time, so it's not like they blew Brock off. They offered him a preferred walk-on spot but he declined b/c he wanted a full ride. So outside of U Wisconsin, what other big school is gonna venture that far into an unpopulated area to give the kid a proper look or multiple looks? Hell, even Wisconsin was too busy looking elsewhere.

 

That sounds like the setting for the sitcom That 70s Show. A wide spot in the road within reasonable driving distance of Green Bay.

 

This year, the state of Wisconsin saw a total of 32 high school players signed.... spanning 65,000 square miles.
The city of Fort Lauderdale [non surrounding areas] saw 37 alone..... in 38 square miles.

If Wisconsin were to spend the time to take a "no stone unturned" approach in their own back b/c it is their own back yard, they'd be a weaker program for it. Better for them to let a few get away in their home state than to skimp on resources in higher density populations or areas with a stronger footprint in supplying recruits.

 

I wonder if NDSU really scouted and recruited Jensen more than he contacted them and put himself onto their radar. If Wisconsin couldn't afford to turn over all the small rocks in their own state, how could NDSU do it?

 

That's a good question Pappy.
I guess it's possible NDSU's proximity to Minnesota & Wisconsin and their reputation as a winning program could've led Brock to contact them. I think NDSU has it made where they're at b/c they really are in prime location to sift through areas that the few nearby big programs don't have as much time for. They can spend the time rounding up 2 & 3 start recruits that would otherwise land at FBS schools had they played in greater density areas, and NDSU can be successful for doing so since a team full of 2 and 3 star kids can win FCS championships, no?

If Brock played in Orlando, some FBS team who wasn't already full at QB would've offered him. There was probably what, one FBS school to look at Brock in Waupaca- The University of Wisconsin. Maybe Minnesota if he's lucky. How many FBS teams could've seen him at a big 8A Orlando school, especially if there were other prospects to look at? 30+?

 

Your definition of "wins at his job" then needs further defining though as does "a winning team". It's completely arbitrary, unless you say they only become a winner when they win a championship (which you say you don't), that's my point. How much winning? How much success? At what level?

It's like calling someone clutch and saying someone has "it". Its an abitrary opinion that's used bc someone can't describe something properly.

I didn't do that at all. I was just saying the use of the word/phrase is similar.

 

Ok... did some research...

Apparently Wisconsin was interested in Jensen - and he declined their offer as it wasn't the full ride package he wanted.

http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?15301-Brock-Jensen-Commits/page2

Other info:

Some funny stuff here if you read the entire thread from when he was signed to when he came out. All 16 pages of fan arguments to the eventual "I told you so"... type comments. lol...
http://www.bisonville.com/forum/showthread.php?15301-Brock-Jensen-Commits/page16

Other than an alcohol incident in 2011, no issues reported with him:
http://forum.siouxsports.com/topic/15071-ndsu-qb-in-trouble-or-is-he/

Some early stats:
http://www.valley-football.org/news/default/2011-12/5505/valley-football---weekly-release-oct-3/

NDSU Resume:
http://www.gobison.com/roster.aspx?rp_id=4592

Predraft write-up:
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2013/11/13/in-fcs-huddle-ndsu-jensen-measured-by-wins/

Packers and Bengals were also interested in him:
http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...brock-jensen-scouting-report-ndsu-quarterback
http://www.cincyjungle.com/2014/3/1...e-scouts-brock-jensen-at-north-dakota-pro-day

 

NDSU contacted him from what I read and offered him a full ride. Wisconsin previously had recruited Jensen, but only with the opportunity to be a "preferred walk-on", which he declined.

Reading about the preferred walk-on program, I don't blame him. Seems rather shifty: http://footballscoop.com/news/12456-what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-preferred-walk-on

 

I think I read something like 30% of the players drafted this year weren't even rated coming out of high school, and more than half were 3 stars or less.

I don't know why the argument has seemed to set up to where one side is implying that his high school recruiting status is a determinant of his NFL success but as far as I know there have been studies that specifically refute that theory.

 

Interesting. I didn't see that one but I noticed half or just more than half of this year's 1st rounders were less than 4 stars.

I saw where a 9 year look at 5 star recruits discovered that 44% of the 262 players were drafted, and 16% went in the 1st round. Granted, these players were given their ratings based on college potential rather than NFL, so there's a slight grain of salt to take here. For instance, Noel Devine went undrafted for obvious potential NFL limitations, but at WVU he impressively finished with 5000 yards from scrimmage and 31 TDs. A chunk of these kids make an impact at the college level despite little future in the NFL.

I look at the recruiting kinda like I do the NFL draft, where 5 star recruits are like 1st rounders, 4 star recruits are like 2nd and 3rd rounders, 3 star are like 4th and 5th rounders, 2 star are like 6th & 7th rounders, and no star are like UDFAs. The mid to late round players aren't necessarily drafted there b/c they lack the talent to be a top 50 pick. It could be as simple as they still have growing [physically] and developing to do, or sometimes both, and they're just not net as ready to make an immediate impact as the 1st and 2nd rounders. The 5 star recruits are guys who seem like they can make an impact from day 1, like DaQuan Bowers who looked like a grown man entering Clemson, whereas the 3 star and less might simply only need time to develop. This year, Clemson just signed a 3 star DE who is 3 star b/c he's 6'5 but only 218 pounds. He likely won't play early on like a 5 star will, but by the time he hits the field as a 245 pound sophomore or 255 pound junior he could be a wrecking machine b/c his upside is outstanding.

 

Rating of HS prospects is notoriously bad.

The publications rating them are usually going to let which teams are recruiting them dictate their ratings. I.E. if a player is recruited by Alabama, thats going to affect their rating.

 

This is notoriously true and is a verified practice.

I've seen it happen many times with USF. They're recruiting a guy that had been considered 4 stars and when he commits to USF he's downgraded to 3 stars. Or the other way around when a guy receives the attention of LSU or Alabama or some such.

 

To Stringer's point (which is absolutely valid), if your high school ratings are to be compared with the draft then it would be as if New England taking Tavon Wilson in the 2nd round suddenly made his consensus media grade go from 6th or 7th round (or undrafted) to 2nd round. That's what happens all the time with the publications. They don't even make an attempt to hide it.