More Analytics That Suggests This QB Class Is Average At Best...

[Adam]

4 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

No, but you linked it, and are acting like it's gospel.

Moron.

What language is this?

[PBLESS]

After looking at the various articles showing the history of QBs chosen in the early rounds  [such as this https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2017/nfl-draft-round-round-qb-study-1994-2016] I'm more convinced than ever that it's a crap shoot, and trading a bunch of high picks to get an unknown is a risky idea. I think that Lauletta or even Rudolph make as good a gamble as any of the other more highly ranked QBs, and we don't have to give up any picks to get either one. To me, the only way of being relatively certain that you're getting a sure fire, star QB is to keep your cap spending down by having a lot of rookie contracts on your roster and than signing a proven NFL QB when he becomes a free agent. next year the Bills will have 100 million in cap space. By then they will also know if they already have a talented QB, after assessing whichever rookie they select plus AJ or Nathan.  I'm not a GM or HC, just an original Bills season ticket holder whose job took him to Florida in 1972. But I know enough to realize they have too many holes to fill to give away valuable picks for an unknown college kid  because a bunch of guys who earn a living doing mock drafts, think he's God's gift to the NFL.

[BuckeyeBill]

5 hours ago, Boca BIlls said:

Your posts are average at best. Trade up get the QB the team wants and start making the playoffs.

I think you mean... continue making the playoffs .

[BigDingus]

4 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

...And that Josh Allen is a monster bust.  (Yes, he is likely going to be a bust)

For instance, we definitively know a prospect’s ceiling: His college stats." 

 

Since when is a QB's college stats their ceiling? Is the way they are in college the BEST they'll ever be in their lifetime? Have they learned EVERYTHING there is to learn in their 2-4 years in college? Have they been coached by the best of the BEST while at that school? Is the talent around them the BEST they'll ever have? Have they grown physically, and  mentally to their peak at that age? Are they as mature & emotionally stable as they'll ever get with age? Have they had the BEST leadership present at all levels, with no room for improvement? 

Jim Kelly's college stats:

1979 -  Yards: 721 / Comp %: 46.2 / TD's: 5 / Int: 6 
1980 -  Yards: 1519 / Comp %: 52.9 / TD's: 11 / Int: 7  (126 yards per game)

1981 -  Yards: 2403 / Comp %: 58.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 14 (218 yards per game)
1982 -  Yards: 585 / Comp % 63.0 / TD's: 3 / Int: 1

Hmmm....I wonder if he got better? 

 

Tom Brady's college stats:

1996 -  Yards: 26 / Comp %: 60 / TD's: 0 / Int: 1

1997 -  Yards: 103 / Comp %: 80 / TD's: 0 / Int: 0

1998 -  Yards: 2427 / Comp %: 61.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 10

1999 -  Yards: 2217 / Comp %: 61.0 / TD's: 16 / Int: 6

 

I think he got better too...

Aaron Rodgers college stats:

 

2003 -  Yards: 2903 / Comp %: 61.6 / TD's: 19 / Int: 5

2004 -  Yards: 2566 / Comp %: 66.1 / TD's: 24 / Int: 8

And he definitely had a higher ceiling than his college stats showed...

Then there's the flip-side where those who look like their ceiling is out of this world, only for it to be a mirage once they hit the pros. Many top-tier prospects that look like they're "can't-miss" draft picks end up bombing out, playing like they had been selected from off the couch having never thrown a ball.

Anyway...college stats are indicative of how good they can BECOME. They can grow into an all-time great, or they can sink to the Pit of Despair a la Ryan Leaf & JaMarcus Russell.
 

[Mat68]

2 hours ago, Domdab99 said:

 

But that's assuming Beane thinks there are 3 QBs of equal value and trading up to 3 is fine, because you can take whichever of the 3 falls to us. And this is probably not the case. The Jets paid a premium to select what will most likely be the 3rd QB picked in the draft. LOL Jets, like always.

 

I do not think Beane feels that way about 3 of the QBs. He likes ONE QB. That's why he's waited. He's going to see who the Browns pick. If they pick anyone other than Rosen, I will bet that the Bills move up to #2 to take Rosen. And  I will be willing to bet anyone on this site $100 that if the Browns select Rosen #1, the Bills do not trade up to #2. 

 

But this is all dependent on the Giants wanting to trade down. They might want Rosen. Or Darnold, or whoever. And if that's the case, Beane can not be held responsible. You need a willing trade partner in order to move up. 

I think Rosen is the best to start off the bat.  By bringing in  Mccarron for backup money I would like to believe they are confident they get a Qb thats competing to start week 1.  If that is Rosen, that remains to be seen.

[Domdab99]

1 hour ago, BigDingus said:

 

Since when is a QB's college stats their ceiling? Is the way they are in college the BEST they'll ever be in their lifetime? Have they learned EVERYTHING there is to learn in their 2-4 years in college? Have they been coached by the best of the BEST while at that school? Is the talent around them the BEST they'll ever have? Have they grown physically, and  mentally to their peak at that age? Are they as mature & emotionally stable as they'll ever get with age? Have they had the BEST leadership present at all levels, with no room for improvement? 

Jim Kelly's college stats:

1979 -  Yards: 721 / Comp %: 46.2 / TD's: 5 / Int: 6 
1980 -  Yards: 1519 / Comp %: 52.9 / TD's: 11 / Int: 7  (126 yards per game)

1981 -  Yards: 2403 / Comp %: 58.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 14 (218 yards per game)
1982 -  Yards: 585 / Comp % 63.0 / TD's: 3 / Int: 1

Hmmm....I wonder if he got better? 

 

Tom Brady's college stats:

1996 -  Yards: 26 / Comp %: 60 / TD's: 0 / Int: 1

1997 -  Yards: 103 / Comp %: 80 / TD's: 0 / Int: 0

1998 -  Yards: 2427 / Comp %: 61.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 10

1999 -  Yards: 2217 / Comp %: 61.0 / TD's: 16 / Int: 6

 

I think he got better too...

Aaron Rodgers college stats:

 

2003 -  Yards: 2903 / Comp %: 61.6 / TD's: 19 / Int: 5

2004 -  Yards: 2566 / Comp %: 66.1 / TD's: 24 / Int: 8

And he definitely had a higher ceiling than his college stats showed...

Then there's the flip-side where those who look like their ceiling is out of this world, only for it to be a mirage once they hit the pros. Many top-tier prospects that look like they're "can't-miss" draft picks end up bombing out, playing like they had been selected from off the couch having never thrown a ball.

Anyway...college stats are indicative of how good they can BECOME. They can grow into an all-time great, or they can sink to the Pit of Despair a la Ryan Leaf & JaMarcus Russell.
 

 

Someone didn't read the article

[Andy1]

Interesting article. Its all a complete crap shoot. No one knows anything about how these guys will translate into the NFL. The only thing I feel certain about is not to pick Allen. Other than that, I think Mayfield, Rosen, Rudolph and White/Lauletta could have all the same chance of success. 

[BillsFan17]

Is this satire?

[Nihilarian]

2 hours ago, BigDingus said:

 

Since when is a QB's college stats their ceiling? Is the way they are in college the BEST they'll ever be in their lifetime? Have they learned EVERYTHING there is to learn in their 2-4 years in college? Have they been coached by the best of the BEST while at that school? Is the talent around them the BEST they'll ever have? Have they grown physically, and  mentally to their peak at that age? Are they as mature & emotionally stable as they'll ever get with age? Have they had the BEST leadership present at all levels, with no room for improvement? 

Jim Kelly's college stats:

1979 -  Yards: 721 / Comp %: 46.2 / TD's: 5 / Int: 6 
1980 -  Yards: 1519 / Comp %: 52.9 / TD's: 11 / Int: 7  (126 yards per game)

1981 -  Yards: 2403 / Comp %: 58.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 14 (218 yards per game)
1982 -  Yards: 585 / Comp % 63.0 / TD's: 3 / Int: 1

Hmmm....I wonder if he got better? 

 

Tom Brady's college stats:

1996 -  Yards: 26 / Comp %: 60 / TD's: 0 / Int: 1

1997 -  Yards: 103 / Comp %: 80 / TD's: 0 / Int: 0

1998 -  Yards: 2427 / Comp %: 61.9 / TD's: 14 / Int: 10

1999 -  Yards: 2217 / Comp %: 61.0 / TD's: 16 / Int: 6

 

I think he got better too...

Aaron Rodgers college stats:

 

2003 -  Yards: 2903 / Comp %: 61.6 / TD's: 19 / Int: 5

2004 -  Yards: 2566 / Comp %: 66.1 / TD's: 24 / Int: 8

And he definitely had a higher ceiling than his college stats showed...

Then there's the flip-side where those who look like their ceiling is out of this world, only for it to be a mirage once they hit the pros. Many top-tier prospects that look like they're "can't-miss" draft picks end up bombing out, playing like they had been selected from off the couch having never thrown a ball.

Anyway...college stats are indicative of how good they can BECOME. They can grow into an all-time great, or they can sink to the Pit of Despair a la Ryan Leaf & JaMarcus Russell.
 

I agree with this! 

 

What Bill Connelly at SB Nation and the OP don't realize is that Allen only played two full years of College ball and we are dealing with young men who are growing, developing into full grown adults. Allen started college as a scrawny 198 lb kid and grew into his 237lb frame. Plus, he has already started working with coaches on his footwork and mechanics. This showed in the senior bowl, combine and pro day as his accuracy, touch on the ball has improved.

 

There is no exact science to determine if a player will become the next Ryan Leaf or the next Aaron Rodgers...regardless of stats. Each college QB will develop differently depending on the team they go to and how that team develops them.

 

I can tell you right now that Josh Allen carried his team to an 8-5 record and won a bowl game as he was about the only player who returned for the 2017 season at Wyoming. 

 

The article in comparing Josh Allen to Tim Tebow is downright moronic as Tebow always had serious issues with his mechanics and it never did get better. Allen played in a deep passing pro-style offense at Wyoming which is more difficult for a QB than say a WCO scheme in which Josh Rosen played in. Allen doesn't have injury issues like Rosen or a loopy delivery like Darnold. The only other QB I like for Buffalo in this years draft class is Baker Mayfield. 

 

Want to compare him to an NFL player? Try Cam Newton, Matthew Stafford, Aaron Rodgers. 

 

"When he’s on his game, Allen will deliver the ball into minuscule throwing windows, 50+ yards downfield.

 

Allen has a good foundation for his mechanics, having played in a system that taught him how to take 3- 5- and 7-step drops from under center. He has a compact overhand throwing motion. Allen’s offense used plenty of bootlegs and moving pockets, so he’s comfortable rolling out to pass (arguably, his strongest suit is when he rolls out to the right and throws downfield). 

 

On a micro level, Allen has the tools to fit a camel through the eye of a needle. When his feet are lined up, and he’s not pressured, Allen will deliver incredible throws to the perfect point."

 

From another article SB Nation, https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2018/4/5/17201220/josh-allen-scouting-report-2018-nfl-draft-film-analysis-quarterback

 

How Josh Allen develops as an NFL QB will be determined by which team drafts him and if that team allows him to properly develop.

 

 

 

 

[Adam]

7 hours ago, Boca BIlls said:

Exactly yet we won't make  playoffs if we trade up...

I'm not against trading up or staying put. Depends on where they have the players rated based on what the offensive/defensive game plan is. I think we make the playoffs again with McCarron starting as long as we add guys who contribute. And IMHO if we trtade up, it has to be for Darnold or Rosen. Allen and Mayfield aren't worthy of the pick we have now

[BigDingus]

19 minutes ago, Adam said:

I'm not against trading up or staying put. Depends on where they have the players rated based on what the offensive/defensive game plan is. I think we make the playoffs again with McCarron starting as long as we add guys who contribute. And IMHO if we trtade up, it has to be for Darnold or Rosen. Allen and Mayfield aren't worthy of the pick we have now

 

Mayfield definitely is worthy of being taken in the top 5. Allen, I agree. He has bust written all over him unless he's put in the perfect system with great talent & coaching around him.

I think Mayfield has Drew Brees written all over him. Slightly bigger coming out of college, fantastic stats, skillset, and leadership, and also has that "it" talent lurking beneath. 

They both played 4 years of college football, both carried their teams, and they put up similar yearly numbers (with Mayfield beating him out).

And Mayfield did all of this against better competition.

What I like about Mayfield is he got better EVERY year and in virtually every category.

2013 - Yards: 2315 / Comp %: 64.1 / TD's: 12 / Int: 9

2014 - Yards: 3700 / Comp %: 68.1 / TD's: 36 / Int: 7

2015 - Yards: 3965 / Comp %: 70.9 / TD's: 40 / Int: 8

2016 - Yards: 4627 / Comp %: 70.5 / TD's: 43 / Int: 6

The more he was relied on, the better he was. He put up 119 TD's compared to only 21 Int's in his 3 years at OU. That's far & away the best ratio of the group, as well as carrying a 70% completion percentage in those years. That's insanely good. He'd be the consensus #1 overall pick if he was a few inches taller, that's for damn sure.

[Augie]

I skipped to the end. Allen scares me to death! 

[PIZ]

 

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

I think that's a well articulated analysis full of very interesting info.

 

But that's the point of analytics, imo: to be very interesting....data.

 

But data don't win games.

 

So embrace it fully with a grain of salt, I say.  Because there's something there, for sure.  It would be stupid to ignore it.  But I wouldn't want us not to take the QB we want because of analytics.

Edited April 6, 2018 by {::'KayCeeS::}

[DrDawkinstein]

18 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Why are you actively competing for the title of "Most **** Threads"?

 

@Domdab99 I apologize for this post yesterday. knee jerk reaction and unfair.

[SoTier]

21 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

That's a passive, play-not-to-lose approach that's setting you up for a reach.

 

I just want to be clear here.  Staying at #12 and picking QB is automatically a "reach" but recklessly trading away high draft picks to move up to the top five in order to grab one of the media mavens' darlings who isn't even a good pick in the top ten isn't?  Is that what you're saying?

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

 

I just want to be clear here.  Staying at #12 and picking QB is automatically a "reach" but recklessly trading away high draft picks to move up to the top five in order to grab one of the media mavens' darlings who isn't even a good pick in the top ten isn't?  Is that what you're saying?

 

Sure, I'll clarify since you obviously dont understand.

 

No, I'm saying identifying the top Franchise QB prospects and doing what it takes to get one is the best path. Those prospects (assuming there is more than 1, but probably not more than 3) are all going to go early. If that means trading a handful of picks to get to #2 and securing a top tier prospect, then so be it. Not "recklessly" trading to get a media darling. Trading the assets we spent the last year acquiring just so we could secure a top prospect.

 

Where as staying at #12 and taking a 2nd tier guy that early is definitely a reach.

 

[SoTier]

21 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Last year's draft has nothing to do with McD's ability to pick QBs. There was no logical reason for him to go after a QB last year, knowing "Whaley and Co." were about to be fired. Why would McD trust Whaley's QB scouting? Why would McD saddle his incoming GM with someone else's QB pick?

 

Made much more sense to trust Whaley on things like DB and LB and even OL and wait on QB until this year.

 

I dont agree with trading up just to get A guy either. They need to identify THE guy(s) and go get him.

 

You don't pass on a future franchise QB when you have a chance to get one.  That the Bills didn't pick a QB in the first round with 2 available says that they didn't think either Mahomes or Watson was likely to be one rather than that McDermott passed on a first round QB because of FO politics.  Plain and simple, Mahomes and Watson were flawed prospects ... as are some of this year's highly touted media favorites.

 

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

You don't pass on a future franchise QB when you have a chance to get one.  That the Bills didn't pick a QB in the first round with 2 available says that they didn't think either Mahomes or Watson was likely to be one rather than that McDermott passed on a first round QB because of FO politics.  Plain and simple, Mahomes and Watson were flawed prospects ... as are some of this year's highly touted media favorites.

 

 

Them being flawed certainly played into it, but jsut further proves my point. McD wasnt going to trust Whaley to pick the best of the flawed QBs, nor was he going to tie his HC career to Whaley's pick, nor was he going to saddle the incoming GM with Whaley's pick. If there was a franchise-QB prospect he would have gone long before we picked at #10 anyways. Point is, McD wasnt taking a QB in the 1st last year, for a number of reasons so we dont know anything about his true ability to pick QBs.

 

The bolded being the ultimate point I was making there to someone who said they dont trust his ability to pick QBs.

[Bing Bong]

Just from my limited knowledge I think the class is a bit overrated.. Just because there's a lot of quarterbacks at the top for QB needy teams all very close in speculative talent doesn't make this a good class necessarily great. It'd be like if 6 jamarcus Russells were in the draft, people would be preemptively calling it the best ever. Or It could be like the 83 draft but I don't see it.

[4merper4mer]

34 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Sure, I'll clarify since you obviously dont understand.

 

No, I'm saying identifying the top Franchise QB prospects and doing what it takes to get one is the best path. Those prospects (assuming there is more than 1, but probably not more than 3) are all going to go early. If that means trading a handful of picks to get to #2 and securing a top tier prospect, then so be it. Not "recklessly" trading to get a media darling. Trading the assets we spent the last year acquiring just so we could secure a top prospect.

 

Where as staying at #12 and taking a 2nd tier guy that early is definitely a reach.

 

That post implies a team must absolutely agree with the crowd.  What if the Bills believed in say Jackson AND Rudolph?  It doesn't have to be one of them, I'm just using them as an example.  What if they just as strongly believed that at least one of them will be there at 12?  Should they still trade up to 2, lose all of those picks and take Rudolph there?

[SoTier]

22 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

But we dont have what those teams had. And it still takes a lot of luck to make those work.

 

Oh, you mean a dedication to winning?  A smart HC?  A good FO that makes personnel decisions based on drafting/signing/re-signing talented players to help the team win rather than just put butts in the seats?   Why can't the Bills have those things?

 

20 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Whaley's biggest issue with the trade up was that it was for a WR, and additionally in a WR-heavy draft.

 

We're talking QB here. In just the last few drafts look at the moves the Eagles, Rams, Bears, Texans, and Chiefs have made to land a QB. And when teams arent trading up, QBs are still going immediately, like Winston, Mariota, Luck, and Newton.

 

That's what we need to go get. Otherwise, it's just more of the same. 2nd tier guy who we hope manages the game while we rely on the running game and defense. That's how we get 17 more years of drought.

 

You are buying into the media's hype that all four of the top QBs are going in the top five.  My guess is that the pros don't see it that way.  If they did, NONE of the teams in the top five except Cleveland which has 2 top five picks, would be interested in trading back.  Instead, it's like they're all at least sort of interested in trading back.  That says that the pros aren't nearly as enamored of these QBs as the media talking heads and fans are.

 

26 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

Sure, I'll clarify since you obviously dont understand.

 

No, I'm saying identifying the top Franchise QB prospects and doing what it takes to get one is the best path. Those prospects (assuming there is more than 1, but probably not more than 3) are all going to go early. If that means trading a handful of picks to get to #2 and securing a top tier prospect, then so be it. Not "recklessly" trading to get a media darling. Trading the assets we spent the last year acquiring just so we could secure a top prospect.

 

Where as staying at #12 and taking a 2nd tier guy that early is definitely a reach.

 

 

That's NOT what you've been saying in this thread.  You've been constantly saying "do anything to get into the top five and draft a QB".  Whenever somebody calls you on it, you claim you're not doing that, but then you come right back and say the same thing in your next reply to a post.

 

11 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

Them being flawed certainly played into it, but jsut further proves my point. McD wasnt going to trust Whaley to pick the best of the flawed QBs, nor was he going to tie his HC career to Whaley's pick, nor was he going to saddle the incoming GM with Whaley's pick. If there was a franchise-QB prospect he would have gone long before we picked at #10 anyways. Point is, McD wasnt taking a QB in the 1st last year, for a number of reasons so we dont know anything about his true ability to pick QBs.

 

The bolded being the ultimate point I was making there to someone who said they dont trust his ability to pick QBs.

 

If McDermott is running the draft and the team, why would he CARE about "saddling" a GM-to-be-named-later with his choice of QB?  If he likes the QB, what the GM likes or dislikes would be immaterial.  That's why the idea that McDermott didn't draft a QB last year because they were planning on changing GMs is nonsensical.

[DrDawkinstein]

1 minute ago, SoTier said:

 

Oh, you mean a dedication to winning?  A smart HC?  A good FO that makes personnel decisions based on drafting/signing/re-signing talented players to help the team win rather than just put butts in the seats?   Why can't the Bills have those things?

 

 

You are buying into the media's hype that all four of the top QBs are going in the top five.  My guess is that the pros don't see it that way.  If they did, NONE of the teams in the top five except Cleveland which has 2 top five picks, would be interested in trading back.  Instead, it's like they're all at least sort of interested in trading back.  That says that the pros aren't nearly as enamored of these QBs as the media talking heads and fans are.

 

 

That's NOT what you've been saying in this thread.  You've been constantly saying "do anything to get into the top five and draft a QB".  Whenever somebody calls you on it, you claim you're not doing that, but then you come right back and say the same thing in your next reply to a post.

 

 

If McDermott is running the draft and the team, why would he CARE about "saddling" a GM-to-be-named-later with his choice of QB?  If he likes the QB, what the GM likes or dislikes would be immaterial.  That's why the idea that McDermott didn't draft a QB last year because they were planning on changing GMs is nonsensical.

 

 

Bro, you really love me.

[Doc Brown]

8 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Just from my limited knowledge I think the class is a bit overrated.. Just because there's a lot of quarterbacks at the top for QB needy teams all very close in speculative talent doesn't make this a good class necessarily great. It'd be like if 6 jamarcus Russells were in the draft, people would be preemptively calling it the best ever. Or It could be like the 83 draft but I don't see it.

I've said it before, but this reminds me of the '99 class where Couch (pick 1), McNabb (2), Akili Smith (3), Culpepper (11), and McNown (12) were picked with dissenting opinions about all of them and no clear consensus about how good the class was.  Half the teams in the top 12 went QB anyways and only two (McNabb and Culpepper) were worth the pick imo.

 

This class is better than most at least from a scouts perspective as Schefter noted yesterday.  Yet those players were Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, and Grossman who went in the first 22 picks.  In the end it comes down to do you like a guy enough to think he'll be your franchise quarterback and are you willing to give up a lot to get him.  

 

 

[DrDawkinstein]

12 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Oh, you mean a dedication to winning?  A smart HC?  A good FO that makes personnel decisions based on drafting/signing/re-signing talented players to help the team win rather than just put butts in the seats?   Why can't the Bills have those things?

 

 

You are buying into the media's hype that all four of the top QBs are going in the top five.  My guess is that the pros don't see it that way.  If they did, NONE of the teams in the top five except Cleveland which has 2 top five picks, would be interested in trading back.  Instead, it's like they're all at least sort of interested in trading back.  That says that the pros aren't nearly as enamored of these QBs as the media talking heads and fans are.

 

 

That's NOT what you've been saying in this thread.  You've been constantly saying "do anything to get into the top five and draft a QB".  Whenever somebody calls you on it, you claim you're not doing that, but then you come right back and say the same thing in your next reply to a post.

 

 

If McDermott is running the draft and the team, why would he CARE about "saddling" a GM-to-be-named-later with his choice of QB?  If he likes the QB, what the GM likes or dislikes would be immaterial.  That's why the idea that McDermott didn't draft a QB last year because they were planning on changing GMs is nonsensical.

 

To give you a real response. We obviously disagree on a lot of what is out there. And most of it is unknown opinion and predicting the future. So agree to disagree.

 

I believe there is a small handful of top tier QB prospects in this draft. 2-3 out of 6 names.

I want the Bills GM and scouts to identify who those top guys are, and go get one.

I assume that they will be the same players most of the other teams identify as top prospects as well. So yes, we need to move up to get one.

 

That does NOT mean "move up to take anyone". It means completing the plan that started a year ago.

 

You can accuse me of naively "buying into media hype", and I see you as being contrarian just to try to sound smarter. Doesnt get us anywhere.

 

edit: I just went back all the way through the post chain. The post I replied to was saying to sit at #12 and take the best QB available. Implying no matter who is left at #12, still take a qb just to take a QB. So you agree with that? Or was I right in saying that's setting us up to reach?

 

WRT McD and the 2017 draft. All he had was Whaley and Co's scouting reports. He didnt have his own scouting. Based on the previous 5 years of QBs, would you have trusted Whaley's QB reports?

 

 

Edited April 6, 2018 by DrDawkinstein

[SoTier]

11 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That post implies a team must absolutely agree with the crowd.  What if the Bills believed in say Jackson AND Rudolph?  It doesn't have to be one of them, I'm just using them as an example.  What if they just as strongly believed that at least one of them will be there at 12?  Should they still trade up to 2, lose all of those picks and take Rudolph there?

 

Exactly this.  In 2016, the Rams and Eagles were able to trade up ONLY because the top two teams were again the Bucs and Titans, both of which drafted QBs at #1 and #2 in 2015.  In 2012, Washington was able to trade up to #2 only because the Rams had drafted Sam Bradford in 2010.  Neither the Panthers nor the Colts even considered trading back in 2011 or 2012.

 

Fast forward to 2018 ... Cleveland, which has no QB, and the Giants, which has a 37 year old QB, have both hinted that they might trade out of the #1 or #2 spots.  Indy, which has a young franchise QB who might be healthy or might not, already traded out of #3.  That's an indication that maybe the pros don't think as much of the top QBs as the media.

[DrDawkinstein]

4 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

Exactly this.  In 2016, the Rams and Eagles were able to trade up ONLY because the top two teams were again the Bucs and Titans, both of which drafted QBs at #1 and #2 in 2015.  In 2012, Washington was able to trade up to #2 only because the Rams had drafted Sam Bradford in 2010.  Neither the Panthers nor the Colts even considered trading back in 2011 or 2012.

 

Fast forward to 2018 ... Cleveland, which has no QB, and the Giants, which has a 37 year old QB, have both hinted that they might trade out of the #1 or #2 spots.  Indy, which has a young franchise QB who might be healthy or might not, already traded out of #3.  That's an indication that maybe the pros don't think as much of the top QBs as the media.

 

That's the way you read it because it fits your existing belief.

 

I dont believe the Giants WANT to trade out of #2, and I think they might not. But one of the first things Gettleman said when he took the job was that Eli was his QB and he could see him there for a few more years.

 

Cleveland only listened to offers for #1 because, why not listen to offers just in case? Plus they have #4 to go along with it.

 

So to the contrary, Cleveland may believe there are FOUR good QBs and they can still get one even after trading out of #1.

 

Neither of us really know. It's just your opinion. You're welcome to it. And I disagree.

 

edit: You really dont like "the media", eh?

Edited April 6, 2018 by DrDawkinstein

[SouthNYfan]

18 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I've said it before, but this reminds me of the '99 class where Couch (pick 1), McNabb (2), Akili Smith (3), Culpepper (11), and McNown (12) were picked with dissenting opinions about all of them and no clear consensus about how good the class was.  Half the teams in the top 12 went QB anyways and only two (McNabb and Culpepper) were worth the pick imo.

 

This class is better than most at least from a scouts perspective as Schefter noted yesterday.  Yet those players were Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, and Grossman who went in the first 22 picks.  In the end it comes down to do you like a guy enough to think he'll be your franchise quarterback and are you willing to give up a lot to get him.  

 

 

 

Bortles 91
Bridgewater 89
Winston: 97
Mariota 93
Wentz 91
Goff 91
Lynch 88
Watson 89
Trubisky 87
Kizer 87
Mahomes 80

 

Fwiw.

[BigDingus]

If people look back to each year's "pre-draft" speculation and mocks, every QB class gets scrutinized up & down for being insanely risky based on the prospects.

Even the guys projected to go early in the 1st round are often only projected to go their based on QB-desperate teams, otherwise they're considered above-average projects with the "potential" to be the answer long-term.

Hell, just looking back at the Wentz & Goff draft, they were seen as #1 & #2 interchangeably just because they were the ONLY options, and because the Rams & Eagles were THAT needy to grab them back to back. Prior to the Rams trade from 15 to 1, most people didn't have their mocks with Goff & Wentz #1 & #2. 

And if you're looking at scouting/scoring reports on prospects pre-draft, we have (All Scores from NFL.com Draft Profile):
 

 

 

**2014**

 

-Blake Bortles: 6.22

-Johnny Manziel: 6.12

-Teddy Bridgewater: 6.15

-Derek Carr: 6.14 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

 

Average: 6.15

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2015**

 

-Jameis Winston: 6.70

-Marcus Mariota: 6.27

 

Average: 6.48

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2016**

-Carson Wentz : 6.53

-Jared Goff: 6.51

-Christian Hackenberg: 5.59 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

-Paxton Lynch: 6.17

 

Average: 6.20
_____________________________________________________________________________

**2017**
 

-Patrick Mahomes: 5.87

-DeShaun Watson:  5.98

-Mitch Trubisky: 6.31

-DeShone Kizer:  5.78 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

 

Average: 5.98

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2018**

-Josh Allen: 5.95

-Sam Darnold: 7.10

-Baker Mayfield: 6.09

-Josh Rosen: 6.19

 

Average: 6.33

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

So out of the past 5 draft classes, the 2018 is the 2nd highest rated on average, and also offers the highest scoring prospect overall in Sam Darnold. I don't think it's anymore overrated or underrated than previous classes, just that there's simply more QB-needy teams at the top, most of whom offer something unique skillsets that could fit well with more teams.
 

Yes, some people hyped it up a ton before last year's draft, saying "wait until next year to grab a QB!" or "2018's QB's are far superior!" but then again, you have people saying that EVERY year. At some point, you NEED to take your pick, as each season there's usually a couple of guys who end up proving they are viable starting QB's in the league. 

If you keep "waiting until next year!" like so many fans proclaim, you eventually face a point where you are out of options and are forced to take a QB in a class that is actually awful. We should know, it happened in the 2013 Draft with the Bills.... There were no highly touted prospects, just projects. Nobody wanted a QB that BAD except the Bills, and thus we grabbed EJ Manuel at #16 in the 1st round (waiting until the 16th pick for the first QB taken says all you need to know about that class), with the next QB going 39th overall in the 2nd round, Geno Smith.

Better to take a shot now when there are actual viable options as opposed to the other method.

 

[Doc Brown]

3 minutes ago, BigDingus said:

If people look back to each year's "pre-draft" speculation and mocks, every QB class gets scrutinized up & down for being insanely risky based on the prospects.

Even the guys projected to go early in the 1st round are often only projected to go their based on QB-desperate teams, otherwise they're considered above-average projects with the "potential" to be the answer long-term.

Hell, just looking back at the Wentz & Goff draft, they were seen as #1 & #2 interchangeably just because they were the ONLY options, and because the Rams & Eagles were THAT needy to grab them back to back. Prior to the Rams trade from 15 to 1, most people didn't have their mocks with Goff & Wentz #1 & #2. 

And if you're looking at scouting/scoring reports on prospects pre-draft, we have (All Scores from NFL.com Draft Profile):
 

 

 

**2014**

 

-Blake Bortles: 6.22

-Johnny Manziel: 6.12

-Teddy Bridgewater: 6.15

-Derek Carr: 6.14 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

 

Average: 6.15

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2015**

 

-Jameis Winston: 6.70

-Marcus Mariota: 6.27

 

Average: 6.48

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2016**

-Carson Wentz : 6.53

-Jared Goff: 6.51

-Christian Hackenberg: 5.59 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

-Paxton Lynch: 6.17

 

Average: 6.20
_____________________________________________________________________________

**2017**
 

-Patrick Mahomes: 5.87

-DeShaun Watson:  5.98

-Mitch Trubisky: 6.31

-DeShone Kizer:  5.78 (Yes, he was 2nd round)

 

Average: 5.98

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

**2018**

-Josh Allen: 5.95

-Sam Darnold: 7.10

-Baker Mayfield: 6.09

-Josh Rosen: 6.19

 

Average: 6.33

_____________________________________________________________________________

 

So out of the past 5 draft classes, the 2018 is the 2nd highest rated on average, and also offers the highest scoring prospect overall in Sam Darnold. I don't think it's anymore overrated or underrated than previous classes, just that there's simply more QB-needy teams at the top, most of whom offer something unique skillsets that could fit well with more teams.
 

Yes, some people hyped it up a ton before last year's draft, saying "wait until next year to grab a QB!" or "2018's QB's are far superior!" but then again, you have people saying that EVERY year. At some point, you NEED to take your pick, as each season there's usually a couple of guys who end up proving they are viable starting QB's in the league. 

If you keep "waiting until next year!" like so many fans proclaim, you eventually face a point where you are out of options and are forced to take a QB in a class that is actually awful. We should know, it happened in the 2013 Draft with the Bills.... There were no highly touted prospects, just projects. Nobody wanted a QB that BAD except the Bills, and thus we grabbed EJ Manuel at #16 in the 1st round (waiting until the 16th pick for the first QB taken says all you need to know about that class), with the next QB going 39th overall in the 2nd round, Geno Smith.

Better to take a shot now when there are actual viable options as opposed to the other method.

 

That's exactly my thinking.  It's early, but next years draft class doesn't look as good and it's unlikely we'll be in a position to take the top prospect.  To me if you do everything you can to move up for Darnold, Rosen, or Mayfield even if it means giving up more than the draft pick point value chart says like the Jets did.  You then ask fans to stomach a year where we'll be lucky to finish .500 and start AJ with the possibility of our 1st round pick getting some playing time (like the Bears last year with Trubisky). 

 

Then in 2019 when you have a lot of cap space you aggressively pursue free agents and use the draft to give your 1st round QB weapons.  The Bears are a good example of this with the signing of Allen Robinson, Trey Burton, and Taylor Gabriel so far this offseason with the draft still to come.  Just my two cents.

[Bing Bong]

1 hour ago, Doc Brown said:

I've said it before, but this reminds me of the '99 class where Couch (pick 1), McNabb (2), Akili Smith (3), Culpepper (11), and McNown (12) were picked with dissenting opinions about all of them and no clear consensus about how good the class was.  Half the teams in the top 12 went QB anyways and only two (McNabb and Culpepper) were worth the pick imo.

 

This class is better than most at least from a scouts perspective as Schefter noted yesterday.  Yet those players were Palmer, Leftwich, Boller, and Grossman who went in the first 22 picks.  In the end it comes down to do you like a guy enough to think he'll be your franchise quarterback and are you willing to give up a lot to get him.  

 

 

Yep. There's certainly quantity, we may be associating that with quality

[Luxy312]

On 4/5/2018 at 11:46 AM, Domdab99 said:

...And that Josh Allen is a monster bust.

 

There’s a new approach to NFL QB projections — and the 2018 draft class is in trouble

 

Great article. One of the things that stands out is that, based on this analysis, Josh Allen's ceiling is Ryan Mallett. 

 

***

"Heading into the NFL Draft at the end of April, so much analysis always focuses on the idea of projection, on what a guy might be able to do, not necessarily what he’s done.

This makes sense, of course, to a point — so much of success at any level is based on situation, scheme, and circumstance. The right coach, teammates, or system can make an immense difference, plus these guys haven’t faced NFL talent, with NFL coaching, before. Plenty of QBs with great college stats have bombed out in the pros, and plenty with merely good stats have thrived.

NFL GMs can be forgiven for thinking that, once we get a kid in our system, it’s all gonna work out just fine. We can fix his flaws and maximize his talent. Stats will only tell you so much. They are, dare we say, for losers.

If we look at the right stats, however, and do so from the right perspective, we can still get further down the road than we would get just relying on basic stats or the eye test.

For instance, we definitively know a prospect’s ceiling: His college stats."

 

Good article and good read.  The writer's correlations are pretty crappy, but it is still interesting.  It's the age old question for NFL teams in terms of identifying who's most likely to succeed and at what level.

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

That's the way you read it because it fits your existing belief.

 

I dont believe the Giants WANT to trade out of #2, and I think they might not. But one of the first things Gettleman said when he took the job was that Eli was his QB and he could see him there for a few more years.

 

Cleveland only listened to offers for #1 because, why not listen to offers just in case? Plus they have #4 to go along with it.

 

So to the contrary, Cleveland may believe there are FOUR good QBs and they can still get one even after trading out of #1.

 

Neither of us really know. It's just your opinion. You're welcome to it. And I disagree.

 

edit: You really dont like "the media", eh?

We all have biases.  Yours shows with interpreting Gettleman's quote to mean they aren't drafting a QB.  It doesn't.  It just means he expects Eli to start for 2018 and probably 2019.  

[Jamie Mueller]

On 4/5/2018 at 12:59 PM, Domdab99 said:

lol okay, I get it now....no one wants to actually discuss things, they just want to confirm what they already believe.

 

You see, for me, I'd love to move up and get a franchise QB. I just don't want it to be a huge boondoggle where we select a Blaine Gabbert or a Jake Locker. I don't know what the correct answer is - move up to #2 and sell the farm, move up to #6 and grab Mayfield if he's there, grab whoever falls to #12, or wait until the 2nd or 3rd round and draft a QB there, while filling out the roster with other picks.

 

I really don't know. 

 

But apparently, everyone here does. Good for you! Discussion be damned lol. 

 

I'm also very unsure about the best thing to do here... with the odds of success being roughly 50/50 no matter how high you go... I think it's really difficult to commit more that one draft choice to getting a quarterback.  I'm not overly concerned about which one it is... but just one is probably the smart thing to do.  If that guy doesn't pan out... do the same thing every year until you find your guy.

[Mat68]

With more college prospects entering the draft earlier to get to their second contracts earlier it is difficult to use any of the old qualifiers.  Parcel's 10 keys, Qbase and this correlates to more playing time and 3 or 4 year starters.  This class has more quality QB prospects than most drafts.  Drafts are graded in there year and previous ones are always looked upon more fondly in terms of players rating and perception is normally 20/20.  This year is also a fantastic and interesting contrast in scouting.  Traditional vs analytics.  The traditional guy Allen and the analytics guy being Mayfield.  The success of either doesn't discredit the other method but it will be an interesting draft and season.  

[Domdab99]

11 minutes ago, Jamie Mueller said:

 

I'm also very unsure about the best thing to do here... with the odds of success being roughly 50/50 no matter how high you go... I think it's really difficult to commit more that one draft choice to getting a quarterback.  I'm not overly concerned about which one it is... but just one is probably the smart thing to do.  If that guy doesn't pan out... do the same thing every year until you find your guy.

 

This is a good point. I don't mind picking whichever QB at 12....even Allen or Rudolph...because it's just one pick and either may surprise. But trading up to #2 is going to be incredibly costly. Like 12, 22, one second, one third, and next year's first! That's insane. Especially when who we're picking isn't a lock like an Andrew Luck. You're giving up 5 or 6 high picks for one guy - if he's not AT LEAST Kurt Cousins or Philip Rivers, he is a massive bust. 

 

If Mayfield gets by the top 5, I can see moving up for him. It'd be a lot less costly. 

 

Or, just sit at 12 and take Jackson or grab Rudolph in the 2nd or even 3rd.

[DrDawkinstein]

7 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

We all have biases.  Yours shows with interpreting Gettleman's quote to mean they aren't drafting a QB.  It doesn't.  It just means he expects Eli to start for 2018 and probably 2019.  

 

I fully expect the Giants to stay at #2 and take a QB. The Giants are a pillar of the NFL. They are historically a well run team, and I do not expect them to pass up a chance to grab a successor and start a transition.

 

That doesnt change the fact that I want us to make every effort to trade up.

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by DrDawkinstein

[major]