Grade the Pick @6: Patrick Mahomes, QB, Texas Tech

[DetroitRed]

On 3/31/2017 at 6:00 AM, DetroitRed said:

Suck for Sam. Let's please sit out the year, go 2-14, and finally finally get a Qb.. Thank You


Sent from my iPad using JetNation.com mobile app

I wanted Sam from the jump?

[Warfish]

Hot Necro Action.

Wanted Watson then, still think him at #6 woulda looked and been just fine.

But yeah, I missed on Mahomes, like most of the league.

[14 in Green]

Bumping this thread was eye opening to someone like me who’s only here 3 months. Whenever I read a Jamal thread, it seems almost everyone says they wanted Mahomes. Banged tables for him actually....

[Saul Goodman]

Lol this is some fun reading. Everyone claims to have wanted Mahomes. Nobody wanted him, and maybe 2-3 posters wanted Watson at the time. I didn’t at the time either. But I’m not going to lie and claim I did. 

Nice bump. 

[Mogglez]

1 hour ago, Lupz27 said:

Lol 25-8 combined record this year (I thought Trubisky sucked balls also).

LMFAO.

Granted, I still believe Mahomes would not be the guy he is right now under Bowles & Morton/Bates.

[Lupz27]

39 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Bumping this thread was eye opening to someone like me who’s only here 3 months. Whenever I read a Jamal thread, it seems almost everyone says they wanted Mahomes. Banged tables for him actually....

?

[Thai Jet]

2 hours ago, RJIII said:

He would have gotten Bowels fired like Baker did Hue Jackson. Jets would have the best of both worlds.

We'll never know will we ?

[Thai Jet]

56 minutes ago, 14 in Green said:

Bumping this thread was eye opening to someone like me who’s only here 3 months. Whenever I read a Jamal thread, it seems almost everyone says they wanted Mahomes. Banged tables for him actually....

Like they say.... don't believe everything you read. I'm so glad Mick bumped this thread.

[Fantasy Island]

On 3/30/2017 at 1:27 AM, Mogglez said:

No. It really doesnt.

LOL, good times.

[New York Mick]

9 hours ago, Thai Jet said:

Great job of bumping this Mick.

TT2 bumped it. I responded to him. 

[Villain The Foe]

Threads like this further confirms why folks hate Jamal Adams so much. It also confirms how the hate has nothing to do specifically with Jamal Adams. 

With that said, former GM John Dorsey and HC Andy Reid did a great job identifying the talent that is Mahomes, but more importantly, how he would work in that style of offense.

Wish we had a John Dorsey and Andy Reid

[Patriot Killa]

16 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

Threads like this further confirms why folks hate Jamal Adams so much. It also confirms how the hate has nothing to do specifically with Jamal Adams. 

With that said, former GM John Dorsey and HC Andy Reid did a great job identifying the talent that is Mahomes, but more importantly, how he would work in that style of offense.

Wish we had a John Dorsey and Andy Reid

Go look at the draft day thread. The entire board wanted Adams aside from like 3 guys and those three guys continue to attack Jamal every chance they get because of it.

[CTM]

7 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Bumping this thread was eye opening to someone like me who’s only here 3 months. Whenever I read a Jamal thread, it seems almost everyone says they wanted Mahomes. Banged tables for him actually....

Lol no, but there were a handful of people who werent happy with positional value most of whom still hold that opinion.

If positional value is a factor for you then a QB in that spot was the move to make, although most liked Watson over Mahommes

[Scott Dierking]

8 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Bumping this thread was eye opening to someone like me who’s only here 3 months. Whenever I read a Jamal thread, it seems almost everyone says they wanted Mahomes. Banged tables for him actually....

Oh, there are a lot of hindsight geniuses around. Just don't ask them to pull out their resume. I fall in the same class.

[Sarge4Tide]

[JustInFudge]

2 hours ago, Patriot Killa said:

Go look at the draft day thread. The entire board wanted Adams aside from like 3 guys and those three guys continue to attack Jamal every chance they get because of it.

Very vocal I wanted Watson but yes, the entire board...

[JustInFudge]

1 hour ago, CTM said:

Lol no, but there were a handful of people who werent happy with positional value most of whom still hold that opinion.

If positional value is a factor for you then a QB in that spot was the move to make, although most liked Watson over Mahommes

Literally my response was; depressing pick, awesome player.  And guess what, it still applies today.  

Who would you rather have Watson or Adams? 

And hypothetically, if you took Watson and the Jets ruined him like they're going to ruin Darnold...how much worse off would we be?  The reality is, not a single bit.  And that was the problem with taking Adams.  For as great as he his, he could be gone tomorrow and the only reason we'd know is his twitter account. 

[CTM]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Literally my response was; depressing pick, awesome player.  And guess what, it still applies today.  

Who would you rather have Watson or Adams? 

And hypothetically, if you took Watson and the Jets ruined him like they're going to ruin Darnold...how much worse off would we be?  The reality is, not a single bit.  And that was the problem with taking Adams.  For as great as he his, he could be gone tomorrow and the only reason we'd know is his twitter account. 

Well i think at this point it's

Watson + 6th pick 2018  + all those 2's  

vs

Adams +  Darnold

Which at the end of the day comes down to Darnold vs Watson, and the early returns point to Watson being better obv. The fact that Adams is almost inconsequential in this analysis is part of the original issue with positional value of S, as you indicated we are 3-8 with or without Adams.

Also, I don't buy all of this Mahommes / Baker wouldn't be good here stuff. Cleveland is as much if not more of a dumpster fire than we are.  If Darnold is a great player we aren't going to ruin him, it's far more likely that he is what his statistical projection said he was, a guy with 50/50 chance of busting outright and a very small chance of being elite (Darnold had a 4% chance whereas Mayfield a 28% of being elite)

[bealeb319]

I feel like we would be reaching taking mahomes in round 2 honestly...this isn't a good draft for qbs and he isn't the top of a bad qb class. If he is still available with our second third round pick he might be worth a thought otherwise we have other holes to fill with better prospects.

Sent from my LG-D850 using Tapatalk

Without hindsight I stand by what I said. The kid with hindsight is pretty darn good (with a ton of weapons on offense and a solid line)

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[Villain The Foe]

1 hour ago, JiF said:

Literally my response was; depressing pick, awesome player.  And guess what, it still applies today.  

Who would you rather have Watson or Adams? 

And hypothetically, if you took Watson and the Jets ruined him like they're going to ruin Darnold...how much worse off would we be?  The reality is, not a single bit.  And that was the problem with taking Adams.  For as great as he his, he could be gone tomorrow and the only reason we'd know is his twitter account. 

It really depends. You can also look at it as, who would you want, Watson or Adams and Darnold. 

Also, folks are talking about wanting the Texans-version of Watson. What happens every time we get a QB? Just look at the conversations we're having in different threads right now. The rhetoric is "Darnold doesnt have the players around him". It probably would have been the same situation with Watson, and folks who either liked Adams or Mahomes would have been calling him a bust while others would have been defending him talking about the lack of help around him. 

Watson to Hopkins or Fuller isnt the same as Watson to Anderson or Enunwa. 

 

It's the same thing with Mahomes. Mahomes is a legit MVP candidate, he sure as hell wouldn't be (at this stage) if he was a Jet. 

There are other variables at play here. 

[JustInFudge]

17 minutes ago, CTM said:

Well i think at this point it's

Watson + 6th pick 2018  + all those 2's  

vs

Adams +  Darnold

Which at the end of the day comes down to Darnold vs Watson, and the early returns point to Watson being better obv. The fact that Adams is almost inconsequential in this analysis is part of the original issue with positional value of S, as you indicated we are 3-8 with or without Adams.

Also, I don't buy all of this Mahommes / Baker wouldn't be good here stuff. Cleveland is as much if not more of a dumpster fire than we are.  If Darnold is a great player we aren't going to ruin him, it's far more likely that he is what his statistical projection said he was, a guy with 50/50 chance of busting outright and a very small chance of being elite (Darnold had a 4% chance whereas Mayfield a 28% of being elite)

Right, so even worse...

I dont think Mahomes or Mayfield would be remotely close to what they are here.  And I disagree, Cleveland has 10x the talent of the NY Jets.  Sure, they've been terrible and had to fire a Head Coach but they're so much better positioned to be successful it's not even funny.  The talent level is night and day in comparison.  And you cant even compare us the Chiefs, it's like 2 different sports.

Are you basing these odds of QBbase or whatever?  What was Mahomes odds to bust?  Watson?

[Warfish]

10 hours ago, Saul Goodman said:

Lol this is some fun reading. Everyone claims to have wanted Mahomes. Nobody wanted him, and maybe 2-3 posters wanted Watson at the time. I didn’t at the time either. But I’m not going to lie and claim I did. 

Nice bump. 

People rarely own their mistakes in judgement. Welcome to the internet.

 

[JustInFudge]

23 minutes ago, CTM said:

Watson + 6th pick 2018  + all those 2's  

Ugh, I just looked at what this roster could look like if we took Watson (or Mahomes) with all those picks. 

So depressing. 

[JustInFudge]

14 minutes ago, Villain The Foe said:

It really depends. You can also look at it as, who would you want, Watson or Adams and Darnold. 

Also, folks are talking about wanting the Texans-version of Watson. What happens every time we get a QB? Just look at the conversations we're having in different threads right now. The rhetoric is "Darnold doesnt have the players around him". It probably would have been the same situation with Watson, and folks who either liked Adams or Mahomes would have been calling him a bust while others would have been defending him talking about the lack of help around him. 

Watson to Hopkins or Fuller isnt the same as Watson to Anderson or Enunwa. 

 

It's the same thing with Mahomes. Mahomes is a legit MVP candidate, he sure as hell wouldn't be (at this stage) if he was a Jet. 

There are other variables at play here. 

True story; the NY Jets took an ILB that nobody in the league knows anything about directly before Will Fuller. 

I hear you though, I'm one of those people.  I dont think any QB in the league would be successful here.  That's how bad this team and coaching staff is.

[CTM]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Right, so even worse...

I dont think Mahomes or Mayfield would be remotely close to what they are here.  And I disagree, Cleveland has 10x the talent of the NY Jets.  Sure, they've been terrible and had to fire a Head Coach but they're so much better positioned to be successful it's not even funny.  The talent level is night and day in comparison.  And you cant even compare us the Chiefs, it's like 2 different sports.

Are you basing these odds of QBbase or whatever?  What was Mahomes odds to bust?  Watson?

 

Darnold: 51.9% bust vs 4.1% elite ( the other 2 categories are adequate stater and upper tier)

Mayfield: 29.3% bust vs 28.2% elite

Watson: 56.5% bust vs 3.4% elite

Mahommes: 45.7% bust vs 9.4% elite

Qbase projects what they will do during years 3-5, but had Mayfield as one of their highest grades ever. Mahommes was 2nd out of the 4 but not that special all time. Darnold #3 and Watson last. Recently it's favorite QB's have been

2018 Mayfield

2017 Mahommes

2016 Goff 

2015 Mariotta

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2017/qbase-2017

 

[Scott Dierking]

9 minutes ago, CTM said:

 

Darnold: 51.9% bust vs 4.1% elite ( the other 2 categories are adequate stater and upper tier)

Mayfield: 29.3% bust vs 28.2% elite

Watson: 56.5% bust vs 3.4% elite

Mahommes: 45.7% bust vs 9.4% elite

Qbase projects what they will do during years 3-5, but had Mayfield as one of their highest grades ever. Mahommes was 2nd out of the 4 but not that special all time. Darnold #3 and Watson last. Recently it's favorite QB's have been

2018 Mayfield

2017 Mahommes

2016 Goff 

2015 Mariotta

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2017/qbase-2017

 

So, you're saying there is a chance?

[JustInFudge]

12 minutes ago, CTM said:

 

Darnold: 51.9% bust vs 4.1% elite ( the other 2 categories are adequate stater and upper tier)

Mayfield: 29.3% bust vs 28.2% elite

Watson: 56.5% bust vs 3.4% elite

Mahommes: 45.7% bust vs 9.4% elite

Qbase projects what they will do during years 3-5, but had Mayfield as one of their highest grades ever. Mahommes was 2nd out of the 4 but not that special all time. Darnold #3 and Watson last. Recently it's favorite QB's have been

2018 Mayfield

2017 Mahommes

2016 Goff 

2015 Mariotta

 

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2018/qbase-2018

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/nfl-draft/2017/qbase-2017

 

Yeah, the  QBase is dumb, no offense.  Interesting but sooooo stupid and subjective.  Like, do you actually read how they come up with that stuff?  It's contradiction after contradiction. 

[CTM]

2 hours ago, JiF said:

Yeah, the  QBase is dumb, no offense.  Interesting but sooooo stupid and subjective.  Like, do you actually read how they come up with that stuff?  It's contradiction after contradiction. 

None taken, we've had this disagreement before. I don't think you understand how it works if you think it's subjective. I'm certainly no expert on it but in a basic sense they develop and tweak their methodology by applying it to known seasons of former players. You start by taking known good Qb's (or known busts) and try and find out what commonality they had in college in order to build a system of projection that you then test against all QB's. 

So they look at a guy like Phillip Rivers collegiate career, apply the current Qbase formula to it and compare what is projects to Philip Rivers to do vs his actual performance in years 3-5 and repeat for 100's of other qb's taken over the past 20 years until they find the recipe that fits best in agrregate. That's not subjective at all, subjective is what scouts do and why you have dunderheads like Mac drafting Hack because "he looks the part" when Qbase said don't touch him.

 

[T0mShane]

4 hours ago, JiF said:

For as great as he his, he could be gone tomorrow and the only reason we'd know is his twitter account. 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[JustInFudge]

2 hours ago, CTM said:

None taken, we've had this disagreement before. I don't think you understand how it works if you think it's subjective. I'm certainly no expert on it but in a basic sense they develop and tweak their methodology by applying it to known seasons of former players. You start by taking known good Qb's (or known busts) and try and find out what commonality they had in college in order to build a system of projection that you then test against all QB's. 

So they look at a guy like Phillip Rivers collegiate career, apply the current Qbase formula to it and compare what is projects to Philip Rivers to do vs his actual performance in years 3-5 and repeat for 100's of other qb's taken over the past 20 years until they find the recipe that fits best in agrregate. That's not subjective at all, subjective is what scouts do and why you have dunderheads like Mac drafting Hack because "he looks the part" when Qbase said don't touch him.

 

The purely statistical stuff isnt subjective (except I dont fully get how you can compare a 4 year starters stats to a 2 year starter but whatevs) but when they factor in competition and teammates in the way they do, it is 100% is subjective.

For example, they knock Mayfield for having NFL talent all around him but Mason Rudolph who put up similar numbers, doesnt get a boost for not having NFL talent all around him. 

Then you look at Watson.  Played the toughest schedule out of any prospect, doesnt get a boost for it.  Then they knock him for having NFL talent (while recognizing they're not that good), and go figure, all those dudes suck yet he's gets knocked for having "NFL talent".

They also use the Air Raid as a knock on Mahomes and Goff, yet, rate them the highest those years. 

That stuff is subjective and totally hokey but it's cool if you dig it.  

[Jetsfan80]

21 minutes ago, JiF said:

The purely statistical stuff isnt subjective (except I dont fully get how you can compare a 4 year starters stats to a 2 year starter but whatevs) but when they factor in competition and teammates in the way they do, it is 100% is subjective.

For example, they knock Mayfield for having NFL talent all around him but Mason Rudolph who put up similar numbers, doesnt get a boost for not having NFL talent all around him. 

Then you look at Watson.  Played the toughest schedule out of any prospect, doesnt get a boost for it.  Then they knock him for having NFL talent (while recognizing they're not that good), and go figure, all those dudes suck yet he's gets knocked for having "NFL talent".

They also use the Air Raid as a knock on Mahomes and Goff, yet, rate them the highest those years. 

That stuff is subjective and totally hokey but it's cool if you dig it.  

 

It's been more accurate at projecting the future success of QB's than any other publically available statistical tool out there.  QB is the hardest position to project, so I don't think you can just wave that off. 

Smart front offices probably use way more complicated statistical models, but its still a good tool.  Guys like Macc, meanwhile, seem to ignore analytics like the plague.  And this is the roster we ended up with as a result. 

[JustInFudge]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

It's been more accurate at projecting the future success of QB's than any other publically available statistical tool out there.  QB is the hardest position to project, so I don't think you can just wave that off. 

Smart front offices probably use way more complicated statistical models, but its still a good tool.  Guys like Macc, meanwhile, seem to ignore analytics like the plague.  And this is the roster we ended up with as a result. 

Meh, I dont need a statistical analysis to tell me a dude played more and threw the ball more successfully in college, which is the only thing this really provides...anyone can look that up.  On this very board we've discussed taking the risk of an underclassman, players who cant complete 60%, Big 12, level of comp, etc.  So it's not like they're presenting anything ground breaking, more so just cleaning it up and presenting in a nice fashion. 

And then ultimately, every single player they rate has a 50/50 chance of busting, so...where does the real meat come in with this analysis?  The elite projection?   Do they have an example of where that played out?  Has it been around long enough to see that play out? 

[BigRy56]

An A average for Adams and F- average for Mahomes... go figure!

[Obrien2Toon]

5 hours ago, JiF said:

Ugh, I just looked at what this roster could look like if we took Watson (or Mahomes) with all those picks. 

So depressing. 

So most likely it would be

Watson/ Minkah + 2’s

Darnold/ Adams

[Sperm Edwards]

8 hours ago, Scott Dierking said:

Oh, there are a lot of hindsight geniuses around. Just don't ask them to pull out their resume. I fall in the same class.

10 of 16 "A" range grades (and 8 of 11 A+ grades) came in the past 20 hours, lol.

You should all be like me. Never make a prediction and only find fault with those that don't work out. Bunch of novices, the whole lot of you.