Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

I wouldn't call Stafford in college "mediocre".  He was not elite, but he was better than mediocre.  He was thrown in as a freshman with a porous line and did OK considering.  I thought he never improved as much as he might have over the next two years, but it was enough for scouts to draft him #1 and he has started in the NFL for a number of years.  Mediocre QBs usually get sat down.

At any rate, he was just a QB I see as the extreme version of one type of QB.

It will be interesting going forward to see if that style of QB has a shot at the Heisman.

The issue was, he didn’t put up Heisman quality numbers and was on a team that disappointed in a big way his last year, 
The only thing that had him so high was being that next-level type arm. 

Oh, OK.  I didn't think anyone here thought he had Heisman type numbers, at all.  I don't even think he was first team SEC.

I was referring to his style of play, not how good he was.  I still think he was better than mediocre.

That’s fair. 
I think the more interesting question is this, can a “traditional drop-back passer” produce top-flight numbers in a traditional offense? That I don’t know. And can they do it without the run game taking most of the hype. 
So we look at UGA now, Fromm fits the mold. I think they do a lot of gun and RPO stuff to the point there’s some blur, but is there a scenario where he throws up a 185 rating, leads the country, has 3,800 yards and the run game doesn’t get most of the credit? 

I know we're just rehashing the same old with this, but there's also a big difference between college and pro success. There are players--Reggie Bush and Vince Young are good examples--who are spectacular in the college game in a way that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers couldn't be. In the college game, coordinators look to exploit athletic imbalance. In the pro game, there isn't much athletic imbalance, so the focus is more on precision (against a very high level of athleticism). So in the college game, a quarterback who can run all over the place evading people who aren't as athletic as him is spectacular. In the pro game, a quarterback who can consistently put the ball in precisely the right place, while shifting in the pocket to gain 3/10s of a second of time to get that pass off is much more important. 

One of my favorite examples will turn your stomachs, but I'll use it anyway. As much as no one here will like it, Jimmy Clausen was a phenomenal college quarterback. And thank goodness for Notre Dame because as bad as it was with him, without him those Weis years would have been much, much worse. He  was a smart quarterback who could really take advantage of athletic imbalance (his receivers', not his) when picking apart secondaries (with Weis's help). But in the pros he just wasn't big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to keep up with the elite athletes that are on every team. His smarts couldn't make up for that.

And that's (at least one reason) why the pros draft on size and strength. While there are exceptions, few players are able to make it in the NFL without the base level of athletic prowess that permeates the league.

Now, to the Oklahoma QBs who are winning the Heisman these days? They are system quarterbacks. The system, though, is--in part--to recruit better athletes than the teams they play, and put the ball in their hands as much as possible.

It's about one of the best players on one of the best teams.... who plays an skill position on offense.  Usually the one Sports Media latches onto as a result of a big moment in a game and/or stats that outpace their competition.  It has nothing to do with best at position... best on team... let alone best individual player period.  

I know we're just rehashing the same old with this, but there's also a big difference between college and pro success. There are players--Reggie Bush and Vince Young are good examples--who are spectacular in the college game in a way that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers couldn't be. In the college game, coordinators look to exploit athletic imbalance. In the pro game, there isn't much athletic imbalance, so the focus is more on precision (against a very high level of athleticism). So in the college game, a quarterback who can run all over the place evading people who aren't as athletic as him is spectacular. In the pro game, a quarterback who can consistently put the ball in precisely the right place, while shifting in the pocket to gain 3/10s of a second of time to get that pass off is much more important.

One of my favorite examples will turn your stomachs, but I'll use it anyway. As much as no one here will like it, Jimmy Clausen was a phenomenal college quarterback. And thank goodness for Notre Dame because as bad as it was with him, without him those Weis years would have been much, much worse. He  was a smart quarterback who could really take advantage of athletic imbalance (his receivers', not his) when picking apart secondaries (with Weis's help). But in the pros he just wasn't big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to keep up with the elite athletes that are on every team. His smarts couldn't make up for that.

And that's (at least one reason) why the pros draft on size and strength. While there are exceptions, few players are able to make it in the NFL without the base level of athletic prowess that permeates the league.

Now, to the Oklahoma QBs who are winning the Heisman these days? They are system quarterbacks. The system, though, is--in part--to recruit better athletes than the teams they play, and put the ball in their hands as much as possible.

Oklahoma QBs??  Have you watch Mayfield with the Browns? Maybe his gaudy numbers in college were a product of the system they were running but he is not a product of a system. He is the real deal as a pro QB. I know it is still early to be absolutely sure, but it obvious to even the most casual of viewers, his greatness is not a product of the Oklahoma System, but his abilities as a QB.

Oklahoma QBs??  Have you watch Mayfield with the Browns? Maybe his gaudy numbers in college were a product of the system they were running but he is not a product of a system. He is the real deal as a pro QB. I know it is still early to be absolutely sure, but it obvious to even the most casual of viewers, his greatness is not a product of the Oklahoma System, but his abilities as a QB.

I think the question is more about how to determine the individual contribution vs the system contribution.
One of the knocks on Drew Brees in the Heisman campaign was that he was a "system" QB. The knocks on him as an NFL draft pick is that he was too short and didn't have elite arm strength*. He's become one of the best to play the game.
A similar thing exists with Wisconsin running backs. Wisconsin running backs look good every year. Probably because I could rush for 1000 a season behind that line. That's not to say that Wisconsin running backs are a "product of the system". There have been some REALLY phenomenally talented backs in that system. It just means that it's sometimes difficult to determine whether it's them OR the system until you see them outside the system in the NFL. 
* BTW can I just complain about the term "arm talent"? It irks me every time I hear it, just as much as when commentators state an offense wants to "be multiple". Grr.