OldTimer’s Dugout - Off Topic Thread

#172,436
#172,436
CAVPUT said:
I've been consistent about Levitt. Too high an asking price and way too big a risk due to the injury. On top of that, if the rumors about his negative influence I'm the locker room have any legs at all, I want no part of him. Did we learn nothing from what a cancer can do to a locker room after Boo Carter?

Just not worth the risk in my opinion. Nope...don't want him. If Heupel goes down that road, he's placing his neck squarely on the chopping block.
Click to expand...
Much like Keyin Lee (Auburn CB), the criticism of Sam Leavitt is all fan conjecture. Similar to VolNation FB forum. It’s a bunch of window lickers in their mother’s basement.

Here’s a clear summary of negative or critical comments and perceptions about Sam Leavitt from Arizona State, based on both reporting and public reaction — focusing specifically on what people criticize or complain about, not positive takes:

On-field performance criticisms
  • In a notable early season game against Mississippi State, Leavitt struggled significantly — going 10-for-22 with just 82 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions — leading to fan and media commentary about poor accuracy and rhythm issues. His completion rate was a career-worst in that game.
  • Some analysts and critics pointed to inconsistency, especially in 2025 before his injury, where his production dipped compared with his breakout 2024 season.
  • A week 2 loss and disappointing performance contributed to narrative threads questioning his ability to carry the offense at a high level consistently.
Comments about attitude or perception
  • Early social-media chatter from before he even took the field at ASU included fans (mostly outside the program) calling him “soft” or questioning his toughness — though this was largely rooted in outsider sentiment, not ASU reporting.
Fan frustration around leadership and team engagement
  • There was a fan backlash on social media when Leavitt skipped a team banquet, with some calling his absence disrespectful or evidence of weak leadership, especially as he was viewed as a key figure in the program.
Transfer portal and commitment concerns
  • Some fans have criticized the perception that Leavitt might leave ASU via the transfer portal, portraying that as instability or lack of commitment to the program — even though decisions haven’t been finalized.
  • On Reddit and social platforms, discussions about him entering the portal include jokes and frustration about instability (e.g., “ASU needs a jersey buyback program for his merch”), though these are largely fan memes and not serious analyses.
Context to understand these comments
  • Much of the “negative” commentary is fan reactions on social platforms, not hard reporting of misconduct or serious character issues.
  • On-field critiques tend to revolve around inconsistency in specific games rather than a pattern of chronic failure.
  • Some critical takes come from rival fanbases, which can be biased.
Here’s a concise look at published, credible analysis and reporting that includes criticism or negative evaluation of Sam Leavitt’s play or season — not fan commentary, social media speculation, or rumor.

1) Notable performance struggles in 2025

Mississippi State game cited as poor play

In early 2025, analysts and team reporters noted that Leavitt had one of his worst statistical performances, completing just 10 of 22 passes for 82 yards with two interceptions and a career-low completion percentage. He openly acknowledged he “didn’t play very well” and needed to fix fundamentals such as footwork and calmness in the pocket.

Resulting offensive adjustment

Arizona State shifted toward a run-heavy attack after that outing. While the head coach framed it as leaning into strengths rather than abandoning the quarterback, the fact the game plan moved away from the passing game spoke to perceived struggles in Leavitt’s effectiveness to start that contest.

2) Coaching and decision-making concerns

Head coach publicly reflected on struggles

After an early loss, ASU coach Kenny Dillingham highlighted that the offense struggled to open the game efficiently and that Leavitt missed multiple open receivers and failed to get into a rhythm, leading to Arizona State falling behind big early. Dillingham implied both scheme and quarterback needed adjustment.

Analyst critique of mechanics and processing

Published analysis from Sportskeeda pointed out that while Leavitt has talent, he “needs fine-tuning” in his mechanics and timing. Specifically, critics said his throwing process was too slow (taking too long to release) and that he tended to backpedal instead of stepping into throws — areas considered correctable but real limitations.

3) Health and availability impacting performance

Season-ending foot injury

Associated Press and Reuters reported that a lingering right foot injury significantly hampered Leavitt’s 2025 season and ultimately required surgery, ending his season prematurely. That chronic injury was specifically tied to inconsistencies in his play and availability — a legitimate negative factor in evaluating his overall performance.

4) Draft/stock analysis noted concerns

NFL draft evaluators flagged issues

In draft-stock discussion published by draft-watch outlets, Leavitt was mentioned among quarterbacks whose stock wasn’t rising strongly due in part to inconsistency and decision-making under pressure — suggesting professional evaluators saw limitations alongside his athletic ability.

Summary of Key Critiques from Published Coverage

On-field execution
  • Career-worst completion rate and turnovers in a prominent game.
  • Offensive struggles often tied to his inability to get rhythm early.
Mechanics & processing
  • Analysts noted slow throwing process and technical flaws that need adjustment.
Health concerns
  • Persistent foot injury derailed the season and limited effectiveness.
Draft evaluation
  • Some draft-projection coverage referenced mixed stock due to inconsistency.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolPack22, chuckiepoo and knoxvol52
#172,437
#172,437
Here’s a summary of the positive, published, analytical commentary on Sam Leavitt from credible sources — focusing on actual performance, skills, and achievements rather than social media noise:

1. Breakout production and national recognition

Big statistical 2024 season and team success

Leavitt emerged as one of the top quarterbacks in college football in 2024. He threw for 2,885 yards, 24 touchdowns, and only six interceptions, and added significant rushing production as well. That performance helped Arizona State to an 11-3 record, a Big 12 Championship, and a College Football Playoff berth — outcomes not widely expected before the season.

National quarterback rankings

Rankings publications listed Leavitt among the top returning quarterbacks heading into 2025, noting his strong dual-threat output and leadership in a major conference.

2. Efficiency, ball security, and advanced metrics

Strong efficiency and PFF grading

Pro Football Focus graded Leavitt very highly as a freshman, rating his season among the best freshman QB seasons in the modern era and placing him ahead of several future NFL starters in per-play quality. Key highlights include being among the leaders in fewest broken or turnover-worthy passes among significant dropback quarterbacks.

3. Dual-threat capability

Running ability adds value

Leavitt wasn’t just a passer — he rushed effectively, finishing one of the top seasons in the FBS for quarterbacks in terms of rushing yardage and first-down/TD rate on scrambles.

Balanced offensive production

In games where he excelled, Leavitt generated significant total offense by combining high yardage through the air with strong rushing output, showing he could impact games in multiple phases.

4. Recognition and awards watch lists

Award watch lists

Leavitt earned spots on prestigious award watch lists such as the Manning and Davey O’Brien watches, signaling that the broader college football community saw him as a quarterback of national relevance.

5. Media and draft-analyst praise

Scouting praise from analysts

Published analysis from respected draft/scouting voices rated his mental makeup, arm strength, accuracy, and mobility positively — traits that translate well at the next level, according to credible evaluators.

Summary of Published Positives

Leadership and team impact
  • Guided ASU to a Big 12 title and CFP berth in 2024.
Statistical excellence
  • Strong touchdown-to-interception ratio and advanced efficiency metrics.
Advanced analytics
  • High PFF grades and low turnover-worthy throw rates among FBS quarterbacks.
Dual physical tools
  • Effective rushing threat adding another dimension to the offense.
Recognition
  • Weekly national honors and inclusion on award watch lists.
Professional projection
  • Positive evaluations from draft analysts highlighting key strengths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolPack22, chuckiepoo and knoxvol52
#172,438
#172,438
Halph66 said:
Much like Keyin Lee (Auburn CB), the criticism of Sam Leavitt is all fan conjecture. Similar to VolNation FB forum. It’s a bunch of window lickers in their mother’s basement.

Here’s a clear summary of negative or critical comments and perceptions about Sam Leavitt from Arizona State, based on both reporting and public reaction — focusing specifically on what people criticize or complain about, not positive takes:

On-field performance criticisms
  • In a notable early season game against Mississippi State, Leavitt struggled significantly — going 10-for-22 with just 82 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions — leading to fan and media commentary about poor accuracy and rhythm issues. His completion rate was a career-worst in that game.
  • Some analysts and critics pointed to inconsistency, especially in 2025 before his injury, where his production dipped compared with his breakout 2024 season.
  • A week 2 loss and disappointing performance contributed to narrative threads questioning his ability to carry the offense at a high level consistently.
Comments about attitude or perception
  • Early social-media chatter from before he even took the field at ASU included fans (mostly outside the program) calling him “soft” or questioning his toughness — though this was largely rooted in outsider sentiment, not ASU reporting.
Fan frustration around leadership and team engagement
  • There was a fan backlash on social media when Leavitt skipped a team banquet, with some calling his absence disrespectful or evidence of weak leadership, especially as he was viewed as a key figure in the program.
Transfer portal and commitment concerns
  • Some fans have criticized the perception that Leavitt might leave ASU via the transfer portal, portraying that as instability or lack of commitment to the program — even though decisions haven’t been finalized.
  • On Reddit and social platforms, discussions about him entering the portal include jokes and frustration about instability (e.g., “ASU needs a jersey buyback program for his merch”), though these are largely fan memes and not serious analyses.
Context to understand these comments
  • Much of the “negative” commentary is fan reactions on social platforms, not hard reporting of misconduct or serious character issues.
  • On-field critiques tend to revolve around inconsistency in specific games rather than a pattern of chronic failure.
  • Some critical takes come from rival fanbases, which can be biased.
Here’s a concise look at published, credible analysis and reporting that includes criticism or negative evaluation of Sam Leavitt’s play or season — not fan commentary, social media speculation, or rumor.

1) Notable performance struggles in 2025

Mississippi State game cited as poor play

In early 2025, analysts and team reporters noted that Leavitt had one of his worst statistical performances, completing just 10 of 22 passes for 82 yards with two interceptions and a career-low completion percentage. He openly acknowledged he “didn’t play very well” and needed to fix fundamentals such as footwork and calmness in the pocket.

Resulting offensive adjustment

Arizona State shifted toward a run-heavy attack after that outing. While the head coach framed it as leaning into strengths rather than abandoning the quarterback, the fact the game plan moved away from the passing game spoke to perceived struggles in Leavitt’s effectiveness to start that contest.

2) Coaching and decision-making concerns

Head coach publicly reflected on struggles

After an early loss, ASU coach Kenny Dillingham highlighted that the offense struggled to open the game efficiently and that Leavitt missed multiple open receivers and failed to get into a rhythm, leading to Arizona State falling behind big early. Dillingham implied both scheme and quarterback needed adjustment.

Analyst critique of mechanics and processing

Published analysis from Sportskeeda pointed out that while Leavitt has talent, he “needs fine-tuning” in his mechanics and timing. Specifically, critics said his throwing process was too slow (taking too long to release) and that he tended to backpedal instead of stepping into throws — areas considered correctable but real limitations.

3) Health and availability impacting performance

Season-ending foot injury

Associated Press and Reuters reported that a lingering right foot injury significantly hampered Leavitt’s 2025 season and ultimately required surgery, ending his season prematurely. That chronic injury was specifically tied to inconsistencies in his play and availability — a legitimate negative factor in evaluating his overall performance.

4) Draft/stock analysis noted concerns

NFL draft evaluators flagged issues

In draft-stock discussion published by draft-watch outlets, Leavitt was mentioned among quarterbacks whose stock wasn’t rising strongly due in part to inconsistency and decision-making under pressure — suggesting professional evaluators saw limitations alongside his athletic ability.

Summary of Key Critiques from Published Coverage

On-field execution
  • Career-worst completion rate and turnovers in a prominent game.
  • Offensive struggles often tied to his inability to get rhythm early.
Mechanics & processing
  • Analysts noted slow throwing process and technical flaws that need adjustment.
Health concerns
  • Persistent foot injury derailed the season and limited effectiveness.
Draft evaluation
  • Some draft-projection coverage referenced mixed stock due to inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Halph66 said:
Here’s a summary of the positive, published, analytical commentary on Sam Leavitt from credible sources — focusing on actual performance, skills, and achievements rather than social media noise:

1. Breakout production and national recognition

Big statistical 2024 season and team success

Leavitt emerged as one of the top quarterbacks in college football in 2024. He threw for 2,885 yards, 24 touchdowns, and only six interceptions, and added significant rushing production as well. That performance helped Arizona State to an 11-3 record, a Big 12 Championship, and a College Football Playoff berth — outcomes not widely expected before the season.

National quarterback rankings

Rankings publications listed Leavitt among the top returning quarterbacks heading into 2025, noting his strong dual-threat output and leadership in a major conference.

2. Efficiency, ball security, and advanced metrics

Strong efficiency and PFF grading

Pro Football Focus graded Leavitt very highly as a freshman, rating his season among the best freshman QB seasons in the modern era and placing him ahead of several future NFL starters in per-play quality. Key highlights include being among the leaders in fewest broken or turnover-worthy passes among significant dropback quarterbacks.

3. Dual-threat capability

Running ability adds value

Leavitt wasn’t just a passer — he rushed effectively, finishing one of the top seasons in the FBS for quarterbacks in terms of rushing yardage and first-down/TD rate on scrambles.

Balanced offensive production

In games where he excelled, Leavitt generated significant total offense by combining high yardage through the air with strong rushing output, showing he could impact games in multiple phases.

4. Recognition and awards watch lists

Award watch lists

Leavitt earned spots on prestigious award watch lists such as the Manning and Davey O’Brien watches, signaling that the broader college football community saw him as a quarterback of national relevance.

5. Media and draft-analyst praise

Scouting praise from analysts

Published analysis from respected draft/scouting voices rated his mental makeup, arm strength, accuracy, and mobility positively — traits that translate well at the next level, according to credible evaluators.

Summary of Published Positives

Leadership and team impact
  • Guided ASU to a Big 12 title and CFP berth in 2024.
Statistical excellence
  • Strong touchdown-to-interception ratio and advanced efficiency metrics.
Advanced analytics
  • High PFF grades and low turnover-worthy throw rates among FBS quarterbacks.
Dual physical tools
  • Effective rushing threat adding another dimension to the offense.
Recognition
  • Weekly national honors and inclusion on award watch lists.
Professional projection
  • Positive evaluations from draft analysts highlighting key strengths.
Click to expand...
You make a convincing and rather verbose argument. Since it's way too early and I've not had enough coffee yet, I concede the debate. You have word whipped me into submission. Well done counselor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolPack22, chuckiepoo and knoxvol52
#172,439
#172,439
Halph66 said:
Much like Keyin Lee (Auburn CB), the criticism of Sam Leavitt is all fan conjecture. Similar to VolNation FB forum. It’s a bunch of window lickers in their mother’s basement.

Here’s a clear summary of negative or critical comments and perceptions about Sam Leavitt from Arizona State, based on both reporting and public reaction — focusing specifically on what people criticize or complain about, not positive takes:

On-field performance criticisms
  • In a notable early season game against Mississippi State, Leavitt struggled significantly — going 10-for-22 with just 82 yards, one touchdown and two interceptions — leading to fan and media commentary about poor accuracy and rhythm issues. His completion rate was a career-worst in that game.
  • Some analysts and critics pointed to inconsistency, especially in 2025 before his injury, where his production dipped compared with his breakout 2024 season.
  • A week 2 loss and disappointing performance contributed to narrative threads questioning his ability to carry the offense at a high level consistently.
Comments about attitude or perception
  • Early social-media chatter from before he even took the field at ASU included fans (mostly outside the program) calling him “soft” or questioning his toughness — though this was largely rooted in outsider sentiment, not ASU reporting.
Fan frustration around leadership and team engagement
  • There was a fan backlash on social media when Leavitt skipped a team banquet, with some calling his absence disrespectful or evidence of weak leadership, especially as he was viewed as a key figure in the program.
Transfer portal and commitment concerns
  • Some fans have criticized the perception that Leavitt might leave ASU via the transfer portal, portraying that as instability or lack of commitment to the program — even though decisions haven’t been finalized.
  • On Reddit and social platforms, discussions about him entering the portal include jokes and frustration about instability (e.g., “ASU needs a jersey buyback program for his merch”), though these are largely fan memes and not serious analyses.
Context to understand these comments
  • Much of the “negative” commentary is fan reactions on social platforms, not hard reporting of misconduct or serious character issues.
  • On-field critiques tend to revolve around inconsistency in specific games rather than a pattern of chronic failure.
  • Some critical takes come from rival fanbases, which can be biased.
Here’s a concise look at published, credible analysis and reporting that includes criticism or negative evaluation of Sam Leavitt’s play or season — not fan commentary, social media speculation, or rumor.

1) Notable performance struggles in 2025

Mississippi State game cited as poor play

In early 2025, analysts and team reporters noted that Leavitt had one of his worst statistical performances, completing just 10 of 22 passes for 82 yards with two interceptions and a career-low completion percentage. He openly acknowledged he “didn’t play very well” and needed to fix fundamentals such as footwork and calmness in the pocket.

Resulting offensive adjustment

Arizona State shifted toward a run-heavy attack after that outing. While the head coach framed it as leaning into strengths rather than abandoning the quarterback, the fact the game plan moved away from the passing game spoke to perceived struggles in Leavitt’s effectiveness to start that contest.

2) Coaching and decision-making concerns

Head coach publicly reflected on struggles

After an early loss, ASU coach Kenny Dillingham highlighted that the offense struggled to open the game efficiently and that Leavitt missed multiple open receivers and failed to get into a rhythm, leading to Arizona State falling behind big early. Dillingham implied both scheme and quarterback needed adjustment.

Analyst critique of mechanics and processing

Published analysis from Sportskeeda pointed out that while Leavitt has talent, he “needs fine-tuning” in his mechanics and timing. Specifically, critics said his throwing process was too slow (taking too long to release) and that he tended to backpedal instead of stepping into throws — areas considered correctable but real limitations.

3) Health and availability impacting performance

Season-ending foot injury

Associated Press and Reuters reported that a lingering right foot injury significantly hampered Leavitt’s 2025 season and ultimately required surgery, ending his season prematurely. That chronic injury was specifically tied to inconsistencies in his play and availability — a legitimate negative factor in evaluating his overall performance.

4) Draft/stock analysis noted concerns

NFL draft evaluators flagged issues

In draft-stock discussion published by draft-watch outlets, Leavitt was mentioned among quarterbacks whose stock wasn’t rising strongly due in part to inconsistency and decision-making under pressure — suggesting professional evaluators saw limitations alongside his athletic ability.

Summary of Key Critiques from Published Coverage

On-field execution
  • Career-worst completion rate and turnovers in a prominent game.
  • Offensive struggles often tied to his inability to get rhythm early.
Mechanics & processing
  • Analysts noted slow throwing process and technical flaws that need adjustment.
Health concerns
  • Persistent foot injury derailed the season and limited effectiveness.
Draft evaluation
  • Some draft-projection coverage referenced mixed stock due to inconsistency.
Click to expand...
You can hate & not want all you want but there's others on social media who do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolPack22, chuckiepoo and knoxvol52
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top