Jackson, Rudolph or Pass

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

1st, 3rd, and future 1st

 

Thanks, I was already counting that first that year, and where did they come up from, 27?

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:

Thanks, I was already counting that first that year, and where did they come up from, 27?

Yeah. I edited after you quoted.

[Bray Wyatt]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Yeah. I edited after you quoted.

 

 

I appreciate that haha, so i dont see why #21, one of our seconds and perhaps a later rd pick if needed wouldnt be enough to get to #10

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, TheTruthHurts said:

Give me the guy with the most upside, Lamar Jackson. 

 

He also has the lowest downside.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

22 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

 

I appreciate that haha, so i dont see why #21, one of our seconds and perhaps a later rd pick if needed wouldnt be enough to get to #10

 

Here's the chart, add em up! (It's from last year but the point values havent changed in almost a decade)

 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

#21 - 800pts

#22 - 780pts

 

Closest pick to 1580pts is #7 at 1500pts

Or you could package a 1st, 2nd, 3rd to get to #10. But thats a lot of picks.

[GunnerBill]

It is Rudolph for me and it isn't even that close. They are a full round apart by my grades. 

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

It is Rudolph for me and it isn't even that close. They are a full round apart by my grades. 

 

This makes me feel better about my Rudolph love.

[Spiderweb]

8 hours ago, ProcessTheTrust said:

I'm just curious, does everyone who knows for sure that Jackson won't be good  - were you the same people who knew Watson wouldn't be good - or better yet, STILL think he's not that good? I get that the mechanics of a protypical QB are important, but sometimes, when an athlete is a freak and has "IT", the seemingly big issues aren't as big. Us reaching for EJ has scarred us for life because our GM/scouts didn't recognize he didn't have the "IT" factor to cover his flaws. I'm not saying Jackson will be good for sure. I'm just not convinced the reasons he will suck are going to hold up. It's not that simple.

Jackson is no Watson...

[Chuck Wagon]

12 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Here's the chart, add em up! (It's from last year but the point values havent changed in almost a decade)

 

https://www.drafttek.com/NFL-Trade-Value-Chart.asp

 

#21 - 800pts

#22 - 780pts

 

Closest pick to 1580pts is #7 at 1500pts

Or you could package a 1st, 2nd, 3rd to get to #10. But thats a lot of picks.

 

 

Just think how different things would be if we traded with the Texans instead of Chiefs.  We could be looking at just a 2nd or even 3rd to go up from #4 and make sure we get Darnold or Rosen.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

 

Just think how different things would be if we traded with the Texans instead of Chiefs.  We could be looking at just a 2nd or even 3rd to go up from #4 and make sure we get Darnold or Rosen.

 

Just think how different things would be if we traded with the Texans... in 2004 and landed Rothlisberger.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

It is Rudolph for me and it isn't even that close. They are a full round apart by my grades. 

 

 

....not sure if missing the Senior Bowl due to injury may affect his stock or not....Brylcream Mel (COUGH) doesn't even have him going in the 1st (who cares?)........so how are you going to play your draft cards if he is in fact your choice?.......BTW I happen to agree based on Beane personally scouting him twice, WVU game and bowl game, his probable availability in the 20's which preserves draft capital to move up, as well as seeing him as the safe (probably unsexy) pick selection............

[DCOrange]

18 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

He also has the lowest downside.

 

I actually don't think his downside is very low. In the very least, he's a guy that if you just get the ball in his hands, he can be electric as a runner. The downside of guys like, for example, Mason Rudolph, is that if he doesn't improve as a passer, he's nothing. If Lamar doesn't improve as a passer, he can still be a playmaker. I actually think Lamar is one of the safest options considering how many holes all of the other QB prospects have this year.

[Luka]

8 hours ago, Gordio said:

 

 

The kid threw for nearly 14,000 yards, had a career 63% CP, 92 TDS & only 26 Ints & had 9.4 yards per attempt & 157 QBR.  He has also started every game for OSU since his sophomore year.  What more do you want him to do? 

 

If Rudolph is on the board by the time the Bills pick comes I hope they run to the podium with his name on the card. 

 

It's program bias. He came from Oklahoma State so he's automatically going to suck in most people's eyes because of Weeden. If he's a system QB then great, because it sounds like we're installing what has been on of the best offensive systems in the game for the past two decades. All he has to do is distribute the football as well as he did at Oklahoma State and we're golden.

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I actually don't think his downside is very low. In the very least, he's a guy that if you just get the ball in his hands, he can be electric as a runner. The downside of guys like, for example, Mason Rudolph, is that if he doesn't improve as a passer, he's nothing. If Lamar doesn't improve as a passer, he can still be a playmaker. I actually think Lamar is one of the safest options considering how many holes all of the other QB prospects have this year.

 

Yeah, but picking a player based on worst-case potential is basically "playing not to lose".

 

Take your shot at the "true" QB, and if it doesnt work out, take another shot at another one in a couple years.

 

The one thing I wont fault this new FO for is taking too many QBs. It would be nice to see this franchise get serious about finding a QB for once.

[GunnerBill]

17 minutes ago, Spiderweb said:

Jackson is no Watson...

 

Correct. I was arguably the biggest Watson advocate on this board. Jackson is not even close to him as a passer. 

9 minutes ago, DCOrange said:

I actually don't think his downside is very low. In the very least, he's a guy that if you just get the ball in his hands, he can be electric as a runner. The downside of guys like, for example, Mason Rudolph, is that if he doesn't improve as a passer, he's nothing. If Lamar doesn't improve as a passer, he can still be a playmaker. I actually think Lamar is one of the safest options considering how many holes all of the other QB prospects have this year.

 

If Lamar Jackson never improves as a passer on what he is today then he cannot play Quarterback in the NFL. However well the runs he is not a good enough passer as of this moment on his 2017 tape to be an NFL starter. 

[DCOrange]

7 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Yeah, but picking a player based on worst-case potential is basically "playing not to lose".

 

Take your shot at the "true" QB, and if it doesnt work out, take another shot at another one in a couple years.

 

The one thing I wont fault this new FO for is taking too many QBs. It would be nice to see this franchise get serious about finding a QB for once.

 

I'm not picking Lamar for his downside at all. Outside of maybe Josh Allen, I think Lamar has the most upside of all the options.

8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Correct. I was arguably the biggest Watson advocate on this board. Jackson is not even close to him as a passer. 

 

If Lamar Jackson never improves as a passer on what he is today then he cannot play Quarterback in the NFL. However well the runs he is not a good enough passer as of this moment on his 2017 tape to be an NFL starter. 

I'm not sure I agree, but even if so, you can find a role for him in the NFL even if it isn't at QB. But I don't think he's very far behind the other QBs in this class as a passer anyways; they all have a lot of room for improvement.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, DCOrange said:

 

I'm not sure I agree, but even if so, you can find a role for him in the NFL even if it isn't at QB. But I don't think he's very far behind the other QBs in this class as a passer anyways; they all have a lot of room for improvement.

 

You are entitled to disagree but I think he is. The positive on Jackson is that he still appears to be be on an upward curve as a passer so there is reason to believe that the Lamar Jackson you get today is not the Lamar Jackson you get forever. But as of today he is the least refined passer among the top 7 Quarterbacks that I have worked on in this class in my opinion. 

[LABILLBACKER]

25 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Yeah, but picking a player based on worst-case potential is basically "playing not to lose".

 

Take your shot at the "true" QB, and if it doesnt work out, take another shot at another one in a couple years.

 

The one thing I wont fault this new FO for is taking too many QBs. It would be nice to see this franchise get serious about finding a QB for once.

I couldn't agree more. Now is the time when we almost have to take a QB every year. I don't care what round, as good ones can be found. Keep taking chances and if the last guy in line doesn't work out (Peterman) than release him and keep looking. 

[KOKBILLS]

9 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

This has been my thinking as well. It holds especially true when you add in Mike Gundy’s system.

 

Jackson to me is a little boom or bust but has developed each year as a passer. He wouldn’t be my first choice for that reason but in the scenario above he’d be my choice. 

 

I voted for Jackson, but I actually don't mind either...

 

In fact I look at all the top 6 guys about the same way...In REAL general terms of course...They all have abilities that could make them top 5 QB's in the league...And they all have issues that...if not addressed properly...will result in them never reaching their potential...

 

I don't worry much about Rudolph's arm...He can make all the throws...He needs refinement...But I don't see anything in his make-up that leads me to believe he can't do it...I don't think you can overlook his career production in College...He ran a VERY potent Passing Offense and he ran it well...

 

Jackson is so dynamic...I look at him very similarly to the way I looked at Watson last year...Not that they are the same player...because they are not...But how do you bet against that kid? I do worry a bit about his down-the-field accuracy...He was all over the place at times...But he's got the arm...And I think he'll work really hard...

 

Give me either one at #21 and I'd be thrilled...Not saying either will work out...Just saying...

[starrymessenger]

People saying Jackson needs to find another position are delusional. He has excellent pocket awareness, knows how and when to step up, has a big arm, sees the field, can read a defence and can absolutely go through progressions. He threw for like 3,700 yards last year while running for 1600.. As has been mentioned, adjusted for drops his comp % is higher than Darnold's. He's the #1 prospect IMO and 100% a QB.

He has a mechanical issue pushing off his front rather than his back foot that causes his ball to sail at times. But that's it and it will be corrected. It's not the kind of flaw that's hard to iron out. Darnold's throwing motion definitely is hard to correct and is much more serious. They tried unsuccessfully to coach it out of him. It's a big problem. 

Kiper and Cowerd don't have Jackson in their first round mock. That's ludicrous. He is more likely to be the first player off the board than to he is to drop out of round #1.