The Uninformed Fan: Warfish Mock Draft 2017

[thadude]

1 minute ago, DetroitRed said:

Suck for Sam!

Samantha Ryan?

[Tinstar]

The lasting image of Watson for me was leading his team and I mean leading, not going along for the ride, but leading his team to a National championship with little to no time left on the clock when he got the ball .

The lasting image of Trubisky for me was leading his team down the field for what should have been a game tying TD with little to no time left on the clock when he got the ball back only to come up short because the OL couldn't block Solomon Thomas a potential top 10 pick from breaking through the line before he took a step from center .

At 6 I would gladly take either of these guys, but for this market and it's fans, I prefer Trubisky .  

[Komba]

4 minutes ago, gEYno said:

Who needs math when you can watch videos and make educated guesses.  Plus, Cam Newton, so projection > math.

Videos?  You thinking I'm talking about random youtube highlights?

I'm talking entire game videos.  I.E. exactly what scouts do when they watch these players. Yeah, it's a stupid hobby but something i spend my time doing.

[thadude]

Just now, Komba said:

Come on... If lack of experience at USC contributed to being a turnover machine, wouldn't that have corrected itself given he's gotten so much experience at the NFL level?

Sanchez turns the ball over because he makes stupid decisions when the bullets fly.  You can't teach that or get better at that.  

 

Most of these kids at the QB position who get drafted fail miserably at the next level.  It's just a fact.  Sanchez is no different and it's certainly not due to lack of experience. It's just because he's not good enough.  Like 97% of the kids at that position who are drafted.

If experience in college isn't important why did Bill Parcells make a huge deal about only wanting Qb's with 4 years?

I don't agree entirely with that philosophy but you gotta have at least 2-3 seasons of game experience if I'm spending a top 10 pick on you

 

[#27TheDominator]

3 minutes ago, thadude said:

If experience in college isn't important why did Bill Parcells make a huge deal about only wanting Qb's with 4 years?

I don't agree entirely with that philosophy but you gotta have at least 2-3 seasons of game experience if I'm spending a top 10 pick on you

 

To **** us out of Peyton Manning?

When did that fat **** become the QB whisperer?  

[Komba]

Just now, thadude said:

If experience in college isn't important why did Bill Parcells make a huge deal about only wanting Qb's with 4 years?

I don't agree entirely with that philosophy but you gotta have at least 2-3 seasons of game experience if I'm spending a top 10 pick on you

 

That's fine, I just disagree.

And even though I do consider Parcells the best coach of all time, he missed plenty of times on QB's.  If he hadn't wasted far too long on Rick Mirer in 99, we would have been in the playoffs.

[RutgersJetFan]

21 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

wow, hadn't thought of it that way, instead of using a simple statistical method with a large sample size and an established track record of predictive accuracy, I'll just judge guys by how good they are/aren't

Now cue Down With The Sickness!

[Jet Nut]

44 minutes ago, Komba said:

Sanchez wasn't awful for that reason... He stinks because he stinks.  Like most of these QB's who make the leap from college to the NFL.

You're missing the point. 12 or so games aren't enough to see all his flaws.  Aren't enough games, games under duress, etc to get a read on what he is.  Anyone can look good for most of a season.  Doesn't mean it translates to the NFL.  Need as much info as to avoid another Sanchez bust

[Komba]

13 minutes ago, Jet Nut said:

You're missing the point. 12 or so games aren't enough to see all his flaws.  Aren't enough games, games under duress, etc to get a read on what he is.  Anyone can look good for most of a season.  Doesn't mean it translates to the NFL.  Need as much info as to avoid another Sanchez bust

First of all, you must come to the conclusion that the next 10 guys we draft are VERY likely going to bust.  The bust rate for QB's is so insanely high.  Unless you get a top 15 or top 10 QB, it's basically a bust because the modern era shows you can't win a super bowl without one.  Hell, it's hard even getting there without a top 10 QB. There are exceptions here and there, but that's generally the rule nowadays.  Probably the worst case scenario is ending up with someone like Alex Smith because he's not complete trash, but he's not going to win you anything either. So you end up wasting like 5+ years on him.  Poor KC is doing exactly that right now.  The just rationalize trying over and over because they know how tough it is to get someone better than him. Every probability is that they end up with someone worse.

Sanchez wasn't a bad pick because he hadn't shown a tendency to turn the ball over like that in college. An extra year of tape from the year prior wasn't going to make that any more obvious.  USC was so far ahead that there were limited moments where Sanchez had to face difficulty.  With him, I was worried about how he handled the rush and that proved true.  He just didn't feel it as clearly as the good ones seem to.  But with Sanchez, he had unreal feet and he threw an accurate ball.   I didn't hate the pick because there were enough things there that suggested it could work out.  But you aren't going to be perfect.. If Belichick lost Brady you'd be watching him struggle like everyone else in finding another top 10 guy.

 

Yes, in a perfect world you have a guy who started 3 years and it hits you over the head with how good he is.  Unfortunately those guys don't fall to 6. They really don't even fall to 3.   And we very likely aren't going to be picking first overall either because it's tough to end up with that first pick. 

 

[Warfish]

Hackenberg started 37 games.

I appreciate the concerns over number of starts, because it limits the amount of evaluation that can be done.  

With that said, number of starts in and of itself is not an issue for me if the player has the other things one wants in an NFL starting QB.

More concerning with Trubisky might be his lack of Pro-Style, Under-Center experience, as he operated in a very Shotgun-oriented system.

I get it.  I also get that Hack and Petty are almost assuredly not the answer, and you need/should select a QB every year till you find one that sticks IMO.

In a weak draft class, Trubisky may be the guy available.  If he is, I would select him, then go in a general way with the rest of my plan.  

If he's not, and Watson is available, maybe we take him.

And then we take a QB next year too if we have to.  Repeat till the problem is solved.  In the NFL you can have three QB's on your roster (usually), nothing says those three can't all be draft picks, young, and in development/tryout for #1, till we find a guy who sticks.

I, for one, would not place my next four years on Hackenberg, nor would I play the "wait till 20XX to pick a QB" game, because 20XX is who knows what may happen.  Control the now.  Give us as many chance to land a QB of our own that we can.

[Komba]

3 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Hackenberg started 37 games.

I appreciate the concerns over number of starts, because it limits the amount of evaluation that can be done.  

With that said, number of starts in and of itself is not an issue for me if the player has the other things one wants in an NFL starting QB.

More concerning with Trubisky might be his lack of Pro-Style, Under-Center experience, as he operated in a very Shotgun-oriented system.

I get it.  I also get that Hack and Petty are almost assuredly not the answer, and you need/should select a QB every year till you find one that sticks IMO.

In a weak draft class, Trubisky may be the guy available.  If he is, I would select him, then go in a general way with the rest of my plan.  

If he's not, and Watson is available, maybe we take him.

And then we take a QB next year too if we have to.  Repeat till the problem is solved.  In the NFL you can have three QB's on your roster (usually), nothing says those three can't all be draft picks, young, and in development/tryout for #1, till we find a guy who sticks.

I, for one, would not place my next four years on Hackenberg, nor would I play the "wait till 20XX to pick a QB" game, because 20XX is who knows what may happen.  Control the now.  Give us as many chance to land a QB of our own that we can.

Majority of snaps now come from shotgun so under center doesn't matter.   That all changed 5 years ago.

And completely agree with you that you basically take a swing on QB every single year until you get one.  

Don't agree that this is a weak QB class though.  People act like last year was crazy strong with Wentz and Goff when it wasn't.  On that same note, this RB class is way overrated.  The truly strong areas of this class are DB and TE.  Those two positions are athletically above where they usually are so it will be interesting if it proves out that way.

[rangerous]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

It's silly, surely poorly thought out, risky, and likely dumb (since I don;t follow College Football), so it's PERFECT for a NY Jets Draft.

1st Round (#6 Overall):  Mitchel Trubisky, QB, North Carolina
2nd Round (#38):  Fabian Moreau, CB, UCLA
3rd Round (#70): Bucky Hodges, TE, Virginia Tech
3rd Round (#107 Comp):  Rasul Douglas, CB, West Virginia
4th Round:  The New York Jets do not currently have a 4th Round Pick
5th Round (#134):  Conor McDermott, OT, UCLA
6th Round (#165):  T.J. Logan, RB, North Carolina
7th Round (#196):  Ryan Switzer, WR, North Carolina

While the individual players above are all clearly debatable, I would LOVE if we had a draft that generally looked (position wise) like this.

A QB prospect, a RB to pair with Powell in 2018, a flexable pass catching TE, two or more CB's, and at least one O-lineman project with big upside at low draft cost.

And yes, I'm totally going all in crazy on "if we draft Trubisky, blow a few late rounders on players he knows and is used to handing off/throwing to".  Because why the hell not?  6th and 7th rounders are rarely long term keepers, and giving your QB prospect a few faces their comfortable with simply cannot hurt his development.  At best, we get a #2 RB and #4 WR our future starting QB likes and knows, at worst, the wash out after thier first year or go on the P.S., same as a few million 6th and 7th round picks before them.

And yes, this draft does not address LB, Safety or much of the O-line.  For these spots, I either look young, cheap FA prospects, or wait, and collect players (UDFA or Draft Picks who get cut) from other teams, and keep my powder dry at those positions for 2018 Draft.

And no, IMO, drafting Trubisky at #6 does NOT mean we cannot or should not draft a QB at #1 in the 2018 draft.  I'll say it again, you keep drafting the best possible QB prospects you can till you find one.  And if you find two, great, trade one!  But FIND ONE!!!!  My faith in Hack and Petty is limited, so Trubisky gives us a more legitimate prospect than either, despite his limited resume.  And since we can play Hack and Petty all year in 2017, Trubisky can get at least one season to sit and learn, pressure free.....but he damn well better play the 4th quarters in preseason!!!

So there it is, the first go of the uninformed idiots Mock Draft for the NY Jets 2017.

Make it so!

 

to me, if there's a top flight qb when the jets draft, they should draft him.  the only waffling is dependent on how good they feel about petty/hack.  if those guys are deemed good enough then they can pick a qb in round 5 or so.  peterman?  why not.  good name for the ny market and he wasn't too bad at pitt.

[#27TheDominator]

It's not starts.  It's starts + completion percentage.  Hack had the starts, but his completion percentage sucked.  It's not like dbates made this up or that starting, but playing poorly is an indicator of success. 

Here is another:

the Rule of 26-27-60. The rule predicted that if a NFL prospect scored at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, started at least 27 games in college, and completed at least 60 percent of his passes, he would succeed in the NFL

[ChuckkieB]

I'm fine if the Jets take a QB in the first round, no matter who it is.  If they don't, Fornette all the way.

[#27TheDominator]

Looking at this stuff I am wondering Davis Webb's wonderlic and I am ready to sign Christian Ponder for the vet min.

[varjet]

Davis Webb is going higher than 32.    People are thinking he is 2017's Dak Prescott.

If teams thought that the Dak Prescott on Draft Day was the Dak Prescott who played for the Cowboys, where does he get drafted last year?

Mitch Trubiskey could be 2017's Jared Goff.  

Watson could be 2017's Geno Smith.

Watch this space.

[Jet Nut]

3 hours ago, Komba said:

First of all, you must come to the conclusion that the next 10 guys we draft are VERY likely going to bust.  The bust rate for QB's is so insanely high.  Unless you get a top 15 or top 10 QB, it's basically a bust because the modern era shows you can't win a super bowl without one.  Hell, it's hard even getting there without a top 10 QB. There are exceptions here and there, but that's generally the rule nowadays.  Probably the worst case scenario is ending up with someone like Alex Smith because he's not complete trash, but he's not going to win you anything either. So you end up wasting like 5+ years on him.  Poor KC is doing exactly that right now.  The just rationalize trying over and over because they know how tough it is to get someone better than him. Every probability is that they end up with someone worse.

Sanchez wasn't a bad pick because he hadn't shown a tendency to turn the ball over like that in college. An extra year of tape from the year prior wasn't going to make that any more obvious.  USC was so far ahead that there were limited moments where Sanchez had to face difficulty.  With him, I was worried about how he handled the rush and that proved true.  He just didn't feel it as clearly as the good ones seem to.  But with Sanchez, he had unreal feet and he threw an accurate ball.   I didn't hate the pick because there were enough things there that suggested it could work out.  But you aren't going to be perfect.. If Belichick lost Brady you'd be watching him struggle like everyone else in finding another top 10 guy.

 

Yes, in a perfect world you have a guy who started 3 years and it hits you over the head with how good he is.  Unfortunately those guys don't fall to 6. They really don't even fall to 3.   And we very likely aren't going to be picking first overall either because it's tough to end up with that first pick. 

 

All I said is with only 12 or so games to judge a player on you might not get as accurate a picture of what a player is or isnt.  

 

[SR24]

Why is everyone so down on Trubisky? What are the big knocks against him

[Pcola]

4 hours ago, Komba said:

The point was just to disprove your post and I did that with barely any research.  if I actually took some time, there are others.

Hell, I'm sure Tannehill is around the same amount of games started and he's better than anything we've had at QB since Favre for the one season. Hell, Brady is another guy that likely didn't start many games at Michigan.  

If you are going to judge someone on games started, you're just doing it wrong.  Judge them by how good they are/aren't and move on from there. 13 games is plenty of tape to figure out if someone's game translates to the next level.

I think the point being made is that QBs drafted early in the first round that have either limited experience or below a certain completion (60% or 65%) the chance of them being a bust is exponentially greater than taking a QB with more experience or more accurate.

Trubisky might be a franchise QB. But if the Jets draft him, or anyone else in the top 10, he will most likely have to start week 1.  With that in mind, his chance to fail is much greater than if he goes to GB and gets to sit for a couple of seasons before he goes to a team to start.

Plus, Cam played in the SEC, beat AL and won a NC.  Trubisky played in NC and didn't play ANY team with legitimate NFL defenders.

[Pcola]

17 minutes ago, SR24 said:

Why is everyone so down on Trubisky? What are the big knocks against him

I watched him multiple times this year.  He has a very high completion % so I was really intrigued.  But his offense is a tom of dinking and dunking.  The transition from his NC offense to the NFL and the defenses he played against could not have prepared him from what he'll see come August.

I would easily pass based on that he would be at best the 4th best QB in next year's draft behind Darnold, Allen, and Rosen.

[The Crusher]

6 hours ago, dbatesman said:

He started 13 games. I wouldn't touch him before day 3.

Plus his name isn't Sam Darnold. Can we just so right once?  One damn time!

[The Crusher]

5 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Komba, thank you

Does this mean you are a scout now? Damn that happen fast. 

[Warfish]

1 hour ago, The Crusher said:

Plus his name isn't Sam Darnold. Can we just do it  right once?  One damn time!

My good friend, there is major flaw in the Darnold idea:  How are you sure you can get him?

You're not, because we can't be sure.  

Nothing stops us going QB 2017, QB 2018.

But wait, and watch, we win one game too many, pick #2 or #3, and watch this supposed savior go one pick ahead of us, Favre-like.  Oops, all for naught.

Take one every year.  Every year.  Increase your odds.

[NoBowles]

7 hours ago, dbatesman said:

Cam's an outlier in every possible way. Games started + completion percentage is the simplest way to sort out good QB prospects from bad QB prospects in the first round.

Tim Tebow should have been an NFL God then

[sourceworx]

12 minutes ago, Warfish said:

My good friend, there is major flaw in the Darnold idea:  How are you sure you can get him?

You're not, because we can't be sure.  

Nothing stops us going QB 2017, QB 2018.

But wait, and watch, we win one game too many, pick #2 or #3, and watch this supposed savior go one pick ahead of us, Favre-like.  Oops, all for naught.

Take one every year.  Every year.  Increase your odds.

I'd go Trubisky or Watson this year. If they don't show anything, move on.  If the Jets don't have the #1 pick next year, and Darnold solidifies himself as the next great QB, then I offer whoever has that top pick Leonard Williams and our first round pick for the next 5 years to move up. F*ck it. 

[The Crusher]

9 minutes ago, Warfish said:

My good friend, there is major flaw in the Darnold idea:  How are you sure you can get him?

You're not, because we can't be sure.  

Nothing stops us going QB 2017, QB 2018.

But wait, and watch, we win one game too many, pick #2 or #3, and watch this supposed savior go one pick ahead of us, Favre-like.  Oops, all for naught.

Take one every year.  Every year.  Increase your odds.

I'm not sure and certainly  I'm not being rational. I just want  a true to life franchise QB. One more time my friend.   I watched Sam play all year and after the Rose Bowl, I can tell you  the kid is the closest thing to one I have seen in a very long time. "Save us Sam!" 

[The Crusher]

10 minutes ago, sourceworx said:

I'd go Trubisky or Watson this year. If they don't show anything, move on.  If the Jets don't have the #1 pick next year, and Darnold solidifies himself as the next great QB, then I offer whoever has that top pick Leonard Williams and our first round pick for the next 5 years to move up. F*ck it. 

Honestly. I think that's a bargain. 

[Warfish]

10 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

I'm not sure and certainly  I'm not being rational. I just want  a true to life franchise QB. One more time my friend.   I watched Sam play all year and after the Rose Bowl, I can tell you  the kid is the closest thing to one I have seen in a very long time. "Save us Sam!" 

And if we all get our hopes up, with so much uncertainty between now and then.....we're almost assured to be disappointed when we can't get him.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pick Darnold.  I'm saying picking a guy here, and now, makes sense regardless.  Maybe.

[The Crusher]

2 minutes ago, Warfish said:

And if we all get our hopes up, with so much uncertainty between now and then.....we're almost assured to be disappointed when we can't get him.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pick Darnold.  I'm saying picking a guy here, and now, makes sense regardless.  Maybe.

Honestly I'm fine with taking a QB this year too. A good back up in case Sam has to come off for a play to replace the buckle on his chinstrap. 

 

 

[sourceworx]

14 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Honestly. I think that's a bargain. 

That's just my opening offer. I'd be willing to give up the first round for the next decade. 

[Warfish]

9 minutes ago, The Crusher said:

Honestly I'm fine with taking a QB this year too. A good back up in case Sam has to come off for a play to replace the buckle on his chinstrap. 

The Crusher is officially "All In" on Darnold, lol.

I don't know, does this guy look like a starting QB to you?

[dbatesman]

45 minutes ago, NoBowles said:

Tim Tebow should have been an NFL God then

No sane person saw Tebow as a first-round QB prospect.

[Mogglez]

2 hours ago, Warfish said:

My good friend, there is major flaw in the Darnold idea:  How are you sure you can get him?

You're not, because we can't be sure.  

Nothing stops us going QB 2017, QB 2018.

But wait, and watch, we win one game too many, pick #2 or #3, and watch this supposed savior go one pick ahead of us, Favre-like.  Oops, all for naught.

Take one every year.  Every year.  Increase your odds.

Taking a QB in the first round this year will all but guarantee that we don't draft a QB in the first next year.  I'm not saying don't draft one if they truly love one (I personally wouldn't with this class, but if they do...so be it), but everyone should be ready to ride or die with that guy for at least 3 years, barring a Manziel-esque tenure (life problems & on the field problems).

[BurnleyJet]

3 hours ago, Warfish said:

The Crusher is officially "All In" on Darnold, lol.

I don't know, does this guy look like a starting QB to you?

Looks better the Geno already

[NoBowles]

7 hours ago, dbatesman said:

No sane person saw Tebow as a first-round QB prospect.

Exactly my point, thanks