Paxton Lynch starting for the Broncos

[Mogglez]

18 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

Posts from the future:

 

 

 

[Sperm Edwards]

1 hour ago, Mogglez said:

#romance

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Yes, please help me, Jet Nut

You're beyond help.

 

[win4ever]

8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I'm not going to pretend I followed these guys in college because I didn't. Thing is if Lynch does take 2-3 years, despite all the jeers and claims of "bust" and what a stupid pick it was, in the end it's the right move. There are few positions (if there are any) that will so dramatically reverse a team's fortunes like a QB. And Darron Lee, at his position, is super-unlikely to be such a person himself.

Who was "guaranteed to be good in year one"? Off the top of my head: Goff, Winston, Luck, maybe RGIII, maybe Ryan, Leinart, maybe Alex Smith, Eli. Now, how many of these actually were good in year 1? Kinda Winston, kinda Luck, RGIII was awesome, Ryan was good, and...that's it. Goff, Leinart, Alex Smith, Eli -- these guys were guaranteed good year 1 and simply weren't.

There are no QBs "guaranteed" to be good in year one. They don't exist, except in hindsight, which isn't the same thing. So if you like someone, and think he'll be good pretty soon (even if not in year 1) then go get him. 

My issue with Hackenberg isn't that he doesn't have the tools -- I think everyone who hated the pick acknowledges he has elite potential physically. It's not that he isn't good in year one. It's that he isn't good enough to be 3rd string in year 1. But like I said with Lynch, if he takes 3 years and then looks really good, no one will care if we reached for him 3 drafts earlier.

Yes, hit on a QB at any draft position and you are set for a decade barring injury.

I don't know if all of them were supposed to be good year 1 though.  Luck, Peyton, Ryan, Bradford, maybe Winston on the field, RGIII off the top of my head.  Most of them ended up good.  Some guys had more questions about them, like Rivers' delivery, Wilson and Brees' size, Rothlesberger and Flacco competition.  It's a risk, but for the ones you hit, there are more Blaine Gabberts and Jake Lockers floating around as well.  There were risks with Sanchez, or Tannehill, or Jamarcus, etc.  

I think opportunity cost has to be factored in because if a guy isn't ready his first year, it's worth less to a team rebuilding now.  I have no problem taking a shot on Lynch/Hackenberg because they have potential but I think they went atleast a round before I thought they deserved.  Now, I've been wrong before, so I could be completely wrong here.  I didn't think highly of Brady even though I was a Michigan fan, and that turned out wrong.  I thought Justin Hunter was going to be a match up nightmare.

If he looks good no one will care, but if he busts at a 2nd Rd pick instead of 1st, it'll be much better for the GM long term in terms of liability.

 

[win4ever]

8 hours ago, drdetroit said:

Anytime he faced a good defense in college he fell apart.  Like you said he has no touch on his passes which aren't accurate btw

 

 

 

He did well against Ole Miss I believe, which is what really put him on the map.  But I saw a lot of short throw offense, which relied on quick passes with YAC as the main weapon, and then throw deep passes when the defense tried to defend it.  

Hackenberg is much more advanced in progression, but is much worse in accuracy. 

It'll be interesting to track their careers.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, win4ever said:

Yes, hit on a QB at any draft position and you are set for a decade barring injury.

I don't know if all of them were supposed to be good year 1 though.  Luck, Peyton, Ryan, Bradford, maybe Winston on the field, RGIII off the top of my head.  Most of them ended up good.  Some guys had more questions about them, like Rivers' delivery, Wilson and Brees' size, Rothlesberger and Flacco competition.  It's a risk, but for the ones you hit, there are more Blaine Gabberts and Jake Lockers floating around as well.  There were risks with Sanchez, or Tannehill, or Jamarcus, etc.  

I think opportunity cost has to be factored in because if a guy isn't ready his first year, it's worth less to a team rebuilding now.  I have no problem taking a shot on Lynch/Hackenberg because they have potential but I think they went atleast a round before I thought they deserved.  Now, I've been wrong before, so I could be completely wrong here.  I didn't think highly of Brady even though I was a Michigan fan, and that turned out wrong.  I thought Justin Hunter was going to be a match up nightmare.

If he looks good no one will care, but if he busts at a 2nd Rd pick instead of 1st, it'll be much better for the GM long term in terms of liability.

 

Well then since it's only the rare exception that is expected to be good year one, and who then makes good on this purported guarantee, your rationale suggests it is never wise to draft a QB in round 1. Not unless we've got a top-2 pick in the year one of those rare 'good in year 1 guaranteed' QBs is there.

I'm not trying to be a douche (it just comes naturally without trying), but you see where I'm going with this?

Using the logic you prescribe, 1st round (ok, top 32) prospects you mention like like Roethlisberger, Flacco, Rivers, Brees? You consider them all to be undraftable because of a lack of guaranteed goodness in year one. Where instead of any of them, we're better off taking a pretty good ILB prospect whose impact is likely marginal (and who we could replace in FA almost any offseason with only moderate cost).

[win4ever]

1 minute ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Well then since it's only the rare exception that is expected to be good year one, and who then makes good on this purported guarantee, your rationale suggests it is never wise to draft a QB in round 1. Not unless we've got a top-2 pick in the year one of those rare 'good in year 1 guaranteed' QBs is there.

I'm not trying to be a douche (it just comes naturally without trying), but you see where I'm going with this?

Using the logic you prescribe, 1st round (ok, top 32) prospects you mention like like Roethlisberger, Flacco, Rivers, Brees? You consider them all to be undraftable because of a lack of guaranteed goodness in year one. Where instead of any of them, we're better off taking a pretty good ILB prospect whose impact is likely marginal (and who we could replace in FA almost any offseason with only moderate cost).

I think there are different variations of risk though.  I think it's rare for a guy to come out and you know he's going to be good.  You knew Luck was good, you knew Peyton was good so the moment they are drafted, the future was set.

With guys like Rothlesberger or Brees, there was inherent risk that you couldn't guarantee it.  I think first Rd QBs have to have minimal risk (Rothlesberger, Wilson, Brees etc had one area of weakness).

With guys like Lynch/Hackenberg the risk is greater. 

Same for someone like Geno or EJ Manuel, risk about system and surrounding talent for Geno, accuracy and surrounding talent for EJ.  Same for Locker, Ganbert, etc

For someone like Lynch, there is system, pass variance, and competition concerns.  With Hackenberg, there is production, accuracy, and mechanical concerns.  If Lynch put up numbers at say MSU, I'd be much higher on him.

Now if Lynch turns out to be a star, I'm wrong.  But I think the chances of Lee becoming a good player is much higher than Lynch becoming a good QB so I'd rather take a shot later than before.

[Sperm Edwards]

Just now, win4ever said:

I think there are different variations of risk though.  I think it's rare for a guy to come out and you know he's going to be good.  You knew Luck was good, you knew Peyton was good so the moment they are drafted, the future was set.

With guys like Rothlesberger or Brees, there was inherent risk that you couldn't guarantee it.  I think first Rd QBs have to have minimal risk (Rothlesberger, Wilson, Brees etc had one area of weakness).

With guys like Lynch/Hackenberg the risk is greater. 

Same for someone like Geno or EJ Manuel, risk about system and surrounding talent for Geno, accuracy and surrounding talent for EJ.  Same for Locker, Ganbert, etc

For someone like Lynch, there is system, pass variance, and competition concerns.  With Hackenberg, there is production, accuracy, and mechanical concerns.  If Lynch put up numbers at say MSU, I'd be much higher on him.

Now if Lynch turns out to be a star, I'm wrong.  But I think the chances of Lee becoming a good player is much higher than Lynch becoming a good QB so I'd rather take a shot later than before.

I don't disagree about the chances. The problem is Lynch becoming good is 100-fold more important and useful than Lee becoming good.

Lee can be a good player and still have it not mean a whole lot on balance. Too many other things have to also be just right for him to make a tangible impact over a merely average ILB we can get from anywhere.

A truly good QB replacing an average one (like we're constantly told Fitzpatrick is) turns an ok team into a playoff team/contender. Even with a meh running game. Even with an inconsistent or poor defense. A QB with some dangerous targets (which we do have) means we can beat anyone anywhere. Puncher's chance and all that.

[drdetroit]

8 hours ago, win4ever said:

He did well against Ole Miss I believe, which is what really put him on the map.  But I saw a lot of short throw offense, which relied on quick passes with YAC as the main weapon, and then throw deep passes when the defense tried to defend it.  

Hackenberg is much more advanced in progression, but is much worse in accuracy. 

It'll be interesting to track their careers.

What I don't get is the constant comparisons between the two.  Lynch was a first Hack was a second.

 

 

The people who acted like Lynch was the next Elway now think lynch is vindicated because Hackenburgh might suck, too?

[win4ever]

12 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

I don't disagree about the chances. The problem is Lynch becoming good is 100-fold more important and useful than Lee becoming good.

Lee can be a good player and still have it not mean a whole lot on balance. Too many other things have to also be just right for him to make a tangible impact over a merely average ILB we can get from anywhere.

A truly good QB replacing an average one (like we're constantly told Fitzpatrick is) turns an ok team into a playoff team/contender. Even with a meh running game. Even with an inconsistent or poor defense. A QB with some dangerous targets (which we do have) means we can beat anyone anywhere. Puncher's chance and all that.

The potential reward is much better but they have to fill out the other parts of the team.

I think there was just too much risk with Lynch that they thought Lee/second Rd QB was better than Lynch/second Rd LB.

I remember watching Hackenberg's pro day and Macc was pretty prominent in the background charting passes, so I think he was hand picked by him, and they didn't want to risk a Wilson and wait one more round.

I think we have better QBs on the roster right now.  Just for this season alone, I would take Geno or Petty over Lynch.  Next season on, might become a different story.  

I'm just frustrated because this offense is quite possibly the most talented offense I've seen and it's all in the gutter because of a Qb.

[PatsFanTX]

What I don't get is the constant comparisons between the two.  Lynch was a first Hack was a second.

If it weren't for the Jets, Hack would have been a 4th round pick.

[joewilly12]

1 minute ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

If it weren't for the Jets, Hack would have been a 4th round pick.
 

 

Maybe

[win4ever]

4 hours ago, drdetroit said:

What I don't get is the constant comparisons between the two.  Lynch was a first Hack was a second.

 

 

The people who acted like Lynch was the next Elway now think lynch is vindicated because Hackenburgh might suck, too?

I think they'll be compared for awhile here because they passed on one for another.  

I think it's interesting to see how they end up because both are rare in their own ways.

Lynch has freakish size and arms, while Hackenberg has everything but basic mechanics.

[PatsFanTX]

Lynch has freakish size and arms, while Hackenberg has everything but basic mechanics.

If a NFL QB does not have basic mechanics, what else is there?

[drdetroit]

5 hours ago, PatsFanTX said:

 

If it weren't for the Jets, Hack would have been a 4th round pick.
 

 

If it wasn't for unemployment insurance Matt Cassell would have 0 income

[drdetroit]

5 hours ago, win4ever said:

I think they'll be compared for awhile here because they passed on one for another.  

I think it's interesting to see how they end up because both are rare in their own ways.

Lynch has freakish size and arms, while Hackenberg has everything but basic mechanics.

It's a cop out.

 

I remember Cimini saying the jets should draft Lynch before the draft and he projected us picking him.  QB evaluation isn't some people's strong suit

 

 

Just ask Patsfantx

 

[win4ever]

5 hours ago, drdetroit said:

It's a cop out.

 

I remember Cimini saying the jets should draft Lynch before the draft and he projected us picking him.  QB evaluation isn't some people's strong suit

 

 

Just ask Patsfantx

 

I don't think most beat writers really follow much football outside of what they cover.  

A few years back, I used to write for a Yankees website, but I followed the minors ardently, so I knew the scouting reports off hand.  I tuned in to the radio, and I believe they were talking about bringing up Joba Chamberlain, and the reports were so far off, beat reporter like stammering trying to find scouting report that it was enlightening to the depth that most of these guys don't cover.  

I think most of these guys just look a popular opinion and spin that off as true value.  

[drdetroit]

11 hours ago, win4ever said:

I don't think most beat writers really follow much football outside of what they cover.  

A few years back, I used to write for a Yankees website, but I followed the minors ardently, so I knew the scouting reports off hand.  I tuned in to the radio, and I believe they were talking about bringing up Joba Chamberlain, and the reports were so far off, beat reporter like stammering trying to find scouting report that it was enlightening to the depth that most of these guys don't cover.  

I think most of these guys just look a popular opinion and spin that off as true value.  

Most commentators and sports writers don't know more than the average fan

 

That's why Francesa is so successful as arrogant as he is he knows a helluva lot more than a Cimini