CritMark
-
Posts
70 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CritMark
-
-
On 2/24/2018 at 10:43 AM, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Do you really think differences in gaudy completion percentages in college have that much meaning?
As far as I can tell, both Mahomes and Mayfield are QB from a simplified "air raid" offense that favors gaudy passing numbers. I would think one would have to look very carefully under the hood at the quality of competition they faced and the quality of their WR and OL, as well as the details of the play calling and to what degree they were throwing into tight windows, making progressions, and so forth. And Mahomes has what, 2-3" on Mayfield?
I'm not in any way arguing that Mayfield isn't worth a chance as a QB. I'm just saying the QB acquisition draft math is different when a team has a high end QB and is able to contend for a championship. Sure, they should take a shot at QB, but why not draft a later-round guy who might become good with a bit of seasoning - their Garappolo type? Why trade up for a QB, when they could stay pat (or trade up) for the missing piece that might get them back to the Superbowl?
As far as Chase Daniel, he's started 2 games in KC; he played reasonably well in a tight loss in one, and "meh" in a win in the other. At his best, he can do this or this. There's about as much (and as little) evidence that Daniels can play QB in the NFL as there is for AJ McCarron, but AJ has 3' on Chase (and at this point, Chase may not have the "want to", some guys get comfortable playing the backup role)
Help me understand something. If you have two QBs that play in a similar system and both benefit from one "that favors gaudy passing numbers", to use your words, and one of those two QBs has much better numbers statistically than the other, why is that not meaningful? Even if both are inflated, one QB did more with the system they both played in.
I touched on this in another post to address looking at the quality of competition. I looked at the six top rated defenses faced in 2017 by Darnold, Rosen and Mayfield. I won't go through all the stats again now, but happy to if you would like. Bottom line was the average ranking of the top six defenses played was Darnold (31), Rosen (56) and Mayfield (19). So Mayfield faced MUCH better defenses than either of the other two top prospects and the stats were not even close. As I said, happy to post all the stats for you.
My point isn't that the Bills need to trade up for Mayfield. My point is however, if the Bills, or any other team, wants to take a QB at the top of the draft, Mayfield should be in the conversation as the first QB off the board. Not absolutely the first QB, but seriously in the conversation.
-
Move on everybody. Nothing to see here.
-
3 hours ago, Doc said:
We'll see.
Tell me they know with 100% certainty that Wentz will be ready to go when the season starts and I would up the odds to 10% he will be traded this off season. Tell me they have a plan for a backup should Wentz go down again that they feel as comfortable with as Foles and I would up the odds to 10%. Tell me they have both and I would be willing to concede the odds are 20%. But I don't see it happening. He is cheap insurance and if Wentz is good to go, Foles will not have the opportunity to play poorly and diminish his value.
I would expect him to be traded somewhere around week 10 if Wentz is going strong.
-
22 hours ago, Doc said:
Trade for Foles with pick #22 and get a later-round pick back from the Eagles. That is all.
Foles isn't going anywhere this offseason. He is under contract and between his & Wentz, the cost to the Eagles is only $15MM. However, there is a clause in Foles contract that he will become an UFA if he is still on the roster in Feb 2019. Best case scenario for the Eagles is Wentz is back and Foles doesn't play a down in 2018. That way the perceived value of Foles is still high and they trade him late season to a QB needy team and that team get the last three years of his contact at just $6.1MM/year. A team will overpay for the chance to get Foles for three years at that cost. The Eagles will make out like bandits.
-
On 2/8/2018 at 5:30 PM, Seanbillsfan2206 said:
I’m going to wait til the combine to form an opinion on him. I was sold on mayfield until I watched the Rose Bowl this year. He didn’t exactly wow me but I partly blame that on the play calling in the second half
What were you expecting to see in the Rose Bowl? Georgia's D was 4th in the county in points/game, 4th in yards/game, 2nd in passing yards/game. He put up 45 points in regulation. The next largest number of points allowed in the season was 28.
He was not the reason OU lost that game. Yes the play calling in the second half was questionable. The OU run defense was beyond pitiful.
He held up very well in that game and certainly nothing in my eyes that would detract from his draft stock.
On 2/9/2018 at 3:39 PM, ColdFront_USAF said:I think there's a chance he falls out of the top 6 (past the Jets) depending on who gets Cousins. I don't know if he falls much further than that, but if he's there around pick 10 I would be more than comfortable sending both of our firsts to jump up and grab him. Shouldn't need to add too much more than picks 21 and 22 to get up there.
I think you are right on not needing much else. Trading up into the top two - five gets very expensive. That said, if he does fall to 10 or so, don't be surprised if you see some other teams jump in to the mix. There are some teams that could use a QB due to their current starters age, or skill level, that would never trade to the top of the draft, but into the top 10 - 15 may make them a player.
-
10 minutes ago, BillsFan2313 said:
So, the one year they didn't have a great QB in that time frame, they were awful? I think you just proved his point.
Quite the contrary. Having a good team with a good QB, being bad with AWFUL QB play, and returning to a good team does not mean the whole team was inherently bad. What it means is the team has the capacity to be at least a respectable team with a good QB.
I have read on here more times than I can count how if we had QB XXX we would win x # games more. That doesn't mean the whole team was bad.
Let's look at past year. The Bills win 9 games. If a QB of the equivalent talent of Painter is at the helm we may win maybe 3 or 4 and I'm not sure I would bet on that. Does that mean all the rest of the players on the team went to ****?
The point I was making was Luck did not take over a terrible team. He inherited a better than average team that went through a year with awful QB play.
-
43 minutes ago, Nihilarian said:
Jeez, Dude, the guy has only been in the NFL for 5 years now and he took that hapless Colts team to an 11-5 record in his first three seasons.
I happen to agree that Luck is a top tier talent but I am afraid the 'hapless Colts' description may be a bit of revisionist history. In 2010 Manning led them to a 10-6 record. Without any Qb anyone would remember in 2011 with Manning out, they were indeed awful. Luck comes in in 2012 and restores order.
The whole team did not fall apart the year before luck arrived, just the QB play. For those who forget:
Kerry Collins - 3 games, 49.0% completions, 2 TD/1 Int and a rating of 65.9
Curtis Painter - 9 games, 54.3% completions, 5 TD/9 INT and a rating of 66.6 (that was the highest rating of his career, the other two years with very limited games 9.8 & 19.0 rating respectively)
Dan Orlovsky - 8 games, 63.2% completions, 6 TD/4 INT and a rating of 82.4 (Also the highest rating of his career)
Obviously some games w/multiple QBs but the point is, they were BAD. This was not a perpetually bad team, just a one year bump due to QB issues.
-
Wow, tough crown. No love for incumbents or Luck. So somebody new it is.
Jump up once to get Mayfield if he falls past 10 (I don't think he will) and sign Bradford as a mentor with small guarantee but incentives on being available to play to a reasonable starting QB salary.
.
-
6 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:
well i'd guess since i'm not as good at copying and pasting stuff, i will just say that i believe his 27-2 season holds or is tied with some kind of record. i also believe his playoff success shares some kind of record. i believe he has a single game performance that shares a long standing record( the 7td one) and i also believe he holds at least one eagles team record.
i also see a qb who can deliver several 300 yd. games per season...something we have not seen for a few years(in reg.),
and lastly i see someone who could come here and get us to the playoffs and division contention for the next few years...
and he won't break our cap. 45 yrs. of watching this team...my pov
i'm wondering how you can call a qb who is leading his team into the sb...an inconsistent mediocre back up?
do you think for what he's getting paid...and let's say he wins the sb....that he does not deserve to be able to possibly double his salary and have a chance to start for another team? would the eagles pay 2 guys starting money?
Not to sound harsh but what does fair have to do with it? He is under contract and just because he may deserve a chance does not obligate the team to trade him. As for paying two guys starting money, they aren't. Wentz cap for 2018 = $7,275,365 and Foles = $7,600,000. Tell me what team would not jump at the chance to pay these two guys a combined $15MM?
The Eagles problem is if Foles is still on the team in Feb 2019, he becomes a free agent by contract. They will be forced to deal him at some time, just not for most or all of 2018.
-
Just now, Buffalo716 said:
Definitely. I believe i said can be as well...
None of these guys are cant miss... the NFL has always been about the situation you are I
You did say it and I was quoting you. I laugh when I hear people say the last 'can't miss' guy was Luck. People forget that Indy got that pick because the very good team with Manning at the helm had to go thru a year without him. Had Manning played, they don't get that pick. Once they got a quality QB back, they were the same very good team they were with Manning.
BTW - here is a little piece of trivia for you. Had Cleveland not missed a 36 yard field goal against the Rams, it would have been the Rams and not the Colts with that pick. Late in a game against the Rams, Cleveland missed a 36 yard field goal that cost them the game and subsequent cost the Rams Andrew Luck.
-
6 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:
tyrod and a 3rd that's who.
The problem is the team knows what they have with Foles, in their system, in their locker room and on their field. ANY other option doesn't give them that kind of certainty, or as much as you can ever get in the NFL. I don't see them dealing him until late in the season, if at all. Certainly not in this off season.
-
1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:
And Rosen has good Football IQ coupled with his mechanics...
hence why he can be special
If anyone has been a football fan for any length of time you know there are no sure things. No one measure is always 'the best way' to evaluate a kid coming out of collage and projecting their success in the NFL.
Rosen is bright, has superior mechanics and has some questions.
Darnold has a big arm, has played some great games and has some questions.
Mayfield's stats are off the charts, intensely passionate, throws receivers open and has questions.
Allen has all the measurable but can't hit a net from 10 yards away (sorry I couldn't resist) and has questions.
Every evaluator has to decide which combination of attributes and flaws will yield them the best result. If I could hand place each of these guys on a team with a specific scenario I think they would all be successful. But they go where they get drafted and the best players go to the worst teams by design. Sometime that works out and sometimes it fails miserably.
I think Rosen would do very poorly in Cleveland and very well with the Giants. Bottom line "can be" is accurate, will be is quite another story. Let's see where he ends up first.
-
While you are playing GM and manipulating cap space, don't forget you have to leave room for your 2018 draft picks. Based on numbers from overthecap.com the Bills need $8.45MM.
Just thought I would complicate things a bit as people are trying to free up money to sign _____ (insert favorite player/UFA here).
-
5 minutes ago, TheTruthHurts said:
Josh Allen = Jake Locker.
He reminds me more of Kaepernick, although I don't think Allen is as good a runner. Big arm, can throw a rocket, zero touch and NOT a very catchable ball.
-
23 minutes ago, aristocrat said:
Why would philly trade him? Wentz might not be ready
Exactly. While the market for Foles may never be higher, until I get some assurances from doctors that Wentz will be ready and 100%, I will keep Foles and his $7.6MM cap hit for 2018. Who else are they going to get as a back-up that they think would be better sitting behind Wentz, even if they lose him in 2019, which they very likely will?
-
1
-
-
In the event anyone has not seen this yet, check out this video of Allen missing the net completely from 10 yards away during a senior bowl drill.
I know it could have been nerves but it is very funny.
That said, I would take him at 21 and let him sit for two years. Top 5 or 10, not so much.
-
3 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
....still bet this gang plays it close to the vest, covets draft capital, does NOT move up and takes the safe but perhaps unsexy pick Rudolph at 21/22......merely an unsubstantiated wild hunch....
I think that is a fair bet.
Rudolph was a very popular pick early in the college season as a top 10 pick but has dropped for some reason. He certainly did not have a bad year. I honestly don't think he will be on the board at 21 but wouldn't bet on that. If he is, that would make for an interesting decision for the brass.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, OJABBA said:
Foles isn't very good.
That is a subjective statement. The question is will a QB needy team make a run at him.
3 minutes ago, Tatonka68 said:Foles, Keenum or Bradford as Starter and draft Mike White or Mason Rudolph in 2nd Round and have them compete with "Nathan Petermen." Save two 1st rounders for defense.
I think there is little chance Rudolph gets out of the first round and certainly not available where the Bills draft in round 2. White is possible.
-
Both fill in QBs, Foles & Keenum, will want a starting gig and there will be a team that will want them. I don't expect either to be on their current team at the end of next season, likely at the beginning.
-
37 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:
Except cousins has 3.5 seasons starting with very good numbers, so I'm not sure where you think that's an "untested veteran"
I was responding to people comparing Brock Osweiler to the Smith deal or a potential Cousins deal. I was in no way comparing Cousins to an untested vet.
The point was that if you gamble on a rookie you get them under a strict salary limitation. No more $80MM deals for a QB that has never seen an NFL field. When you take a chance on an untested vet like Osweiler or Jimmy G., often the gamble is the same but at a much higher price. With those two examples, Osweiler didn't work out and Jimmy G seems to be.
Hope that makes sense.
7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:Poor Browns... they just keep getting screwed if that's true!
They can have Tyrod if they're willing to part with that #1 or maybe #4 pick
hate to say it but the Browns have earned the reputation they have. It's no surprise that top FAs don't want to play there.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, dneveu said:
With some Pink Himalayan salt. Or maybe some of whatever they put into bartolo colons shoulder.
I tend to agree - I don't see Beane and McDermott trying to make a huge move up to the top 3 though.Would they have to move up to #3 though? Moving to #5 for 21, 22 & 53 is a good deal for the Broncos if they sign Cousins. If Barkley is there at #4 Cleveland will not trade out of that spot. Indy is not drafting a QB. Baring an Indy trade, a top QB is available at #5.
Likewise, if Indy takes Barkley, trading those same three picks for #4 based on the value chart is a good deal for Cleveland.
I think that is where you are likely going to need to get to #4 or #5 unless something odd happens at 1 through 3.
The nightmare scenario for a QB needy team is if Cleveland takes Barkley at #1 assuming they determine they will be happy with any one of three QBs, no matter how they rank them. If they do that I would expect the Giants to take Rosen and someone move up to #3 to take a QB. That means 2-3-4 are all QBs. That is the scenario where you would have to trade up to #3 as your only option.
-
The problem with gambling on any QB that doesn't have a lot of starts under their belt is you don't really know what you have. The cost just gets exacerbated when it is an untested veteran. Are you getting Brock or Jimmy G.? People forget that Jimmy G. only had a couple of actual starts. That could have gone the other way like Brock.
-
5 minutes ago, dneveu said:
I'd have my trainers take a long look at bradfords knee's before I'd even consider him. I don't even know what happened and he ended up on IR.
He did shred the saints on MNF to open the season though
He also had pretty good stats in 2016 where he played all but the opening game. Completed 71.6% of his passes, 20 TDs/5 INTs. A lot of his passes were short because the O-Line for them last year was exceptionally bad. He got hammered. So much so that one of his O-Lineman asked him after a particularity big hit if he was dead.
If he checks out physically, he will serve some team as a very good rental.
-
3 minutes ago, dneveu said:
Unless you're trading into the top 3, you get no guarantee that one of your guys is there... You have to have packages ready in case a player you want falls though. There's always shocks in the top 10, and there will be trades.
Where do keenum, bridgewater, bradford fall? What if the Giants really are planning on playing for 3-5 years with Eli? Ton of variables beyond cousins.
The Vikings will not keep both Keenum and Bridgewater. Keenum wants to start and not have to compete with another starting quality QB for a job. If the Vikes want to sign Bridgewater I think the likelihood of Keenum signing as well is maybe 5% and I think that may be high. I'm thinking AZ is a likely landing spot for him but just a guess.
Bradford is another story. He has shown when he is on a decent team he can play pretty well. His obvious knock is his ability to stay on the field. He would be a very good option for a short term contract to mentor a rookie with every intention of the rookie being the long term option. The contract would likely have incentives for being available to play as opposed to a big guarantee. That seems like a reasonable option for both the player and the team.
QB Film Room: Josh Allen
in College Football
Posted
Ok, here is my frustration. Any objective measure used to support Mayfield is met with subjective, impossible to measure responses. Please note, I am not at all calling you out specifically, I appreciate your reasoned replies. This is more of a general frustration. Here is an example.
Fact: Mayfield led the nation in completion percentage.
Response 1: But he played in the Big 12 where they don't play defense.
Rebuttal 1: The Pac 12 in 2017 was ranked worse than the Big 12 in defense but neither Rosen nor Darnold get any such criticism.
Response 2: But Mayfield had better talent around him.
Rebuttal 2: Looking at recruiting class rankings USC had the far better recruiting classes consistently with UCLA and OU roughly even.
Response 3: But everyone knows OU does a better job of developing talent.
Rebuttal 3: If everyone knows that, why does USC continue to draw better talent? wouldn't it be in the players interest to chose OU over USC?
Response 4: Well it's all just a guessing game trying to evaluate talent coming out of high school.
So if everything comes down to dismissing everything to a guessing game, then throw out all the stats and just look at how a players feels to you. Oh wait, that's what they seem to be doing with Josh Allen. My bad.
I could go on but you get my drift. It doesn't matter what objective measure you want to apply, there is always an excuse to dismiss it and most of the time is it grossly subjective and not supported by facts
You are absolutely correct, there are a lot of stats out there that compute adjusted percentage to account for spikes etc. Mayfield still leads the country. You yourself question if short throws pad the stats. There are stats out there as well and Mayfields production holds up at any distance. Mayfield's completion and rating are far better than the other QB prospects at any distance, short, medium or long. Here's one more for you, Mayfield's passer rating under pressure was better that Rosen & Darnold when they had no pressure. Here are two quotes from ProFootballFocus:
Every number you choose to focus on puts Mayfield head and shoulders above the rest of the class. His NFL passer rating when kept clean in the pocket was 143.8 in 2017, more than 20.0 points higher than any of the other potential top quarterbacks.
Mayfield was more productive and efficient when pressured than the other top prospects were when kept clean in 2017.
Are there other factors that need to be looked at, absolutely. How about, maybe the reason the offensive talent at OU looked better or developed better was do in some part to the QB elevating the talent around him! Just an idea.
OK, stepping off my soap box now. As I said, I appreciate your thoughtful and respectful dialog.