What are the reasons to not draft Watson?

[SenorGato]

I need it laid out for me because I can not think of one.

[johnnyjet]

See Geno smith.  Too many question marks, not a true can't miss prospect.  Too many other needs.  Crappy qb class.  Next years class much better. Let the browns make the mistake

[pointman]

10 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

I need it laid out for me because I can not think of one.

Cause the mighty Mike Mayock said so? 

[flgreen]

49

Arm velocity is not the end all for a QB, but like the 40, it can take a player out of serious consideration.

Watson's a nice kid with some leg talent, probably going to be a leader and hag around the league for 10 years.  He's never going to be a franchise QB with an arm velocity of 49.

[joewilly12]

6 minutes ago, johnnyjet said:

See Geno smith.  Too many question marks, not a true can't miss prospect.  Too many other needs.  Crappy qb class.  Next years class much better. Let the browns make the mistake

Next year never comes with this team we need a legitimate QB here and now or nothing else matters. 

Watson is better than any QB on our roster. 

[flgreen]

1 minute ago, joewilly12 said:

Next year never comes with this team we need a legitimate QB here and now or nothing else matters. 

Watson is better than any QB on our roster. 

You possibility might be better then any QB on our roster, but with due respect, I don't want you as QB on this team.

[johnnyjet]

And you know this because........

[Kevin L]

5 minutes ago, flgreen said:

49

Arm velocity is not the end all for a QB, but like the 40, it can take a player out of serious consideration.

Watson's a nice kid, with some leg talent, probably going to be a leader and hag around the league for 10 years.  He's never going to be a franchise QB with an arm velocity of 49.

I'm no draft guru, but that's Alex Smith level arm strength. 

I don't want to draft Alex Smith.

[joewilly12]

4 minutes ago, flgreen said:

You possibility might be better then any QB on our roster, but with due respect, I don't want you as QB on this team.

Neither do I but we need something better than the sh*t Macc has assembled on the roster, Watson or Trubisky move this team in a positive direction. 

[flgreen]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

Neither do I but we need something better than the sh*t Macc has assembled on the roster, Watson or Trubisky move this team in a positive direction. 

Taking either at 6 also commits this team to them for 3-5 years.  I don't think either of them is worth that investment.........If you do? OK

Sure hope Macc doesn't

[Jet_Engine1]

Arm velocity, accuracy, and having a giant with a 12' wing span to throw to that was matched up with 5'9 Corners. 

 

Watson is a good kid. He's a gamer. He was a winner at the NCAA level. But he doesn't have the tools to be anything but an average NFL Quarterback, and that's after a couple of years of learning the game. He's not Cam Newton. He's honestly more like Tim Tebow. High character, "leader" type, but without the tools. As they say, it is what it is...

[JoJoTownsell1]

19 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

I need it laid out for me because I can not think of one.

That really isn't the way this works. Just because Watson played on a great college team and won a national title doesn't make him the presumptive best QB in the draft class. See Tebow/Mccaron/Mcelroy/Vince  Young etc.....

He doesn't have a strong arm, isn't that accurate and threw 17 Ints against College CBs while he had elite weapons on offense including arguably the best WR in this coming draft class. 

So let me ask you, aside from being on a national championship team (which has been proven to mean nothing when it comes to future NFL success), what makes you think Watson is a franchise QB?

[joewilly12]

3 minutes ago, flgreen said:

Taking either at 6 also commits this team to them for 3-5 years.  I don't think either of them is worth that investment.........If you do? OK

Sure hope Macc doesn't

Ok fair enough in Macc we trust for now. 

[joewilly12]

2 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

That really isn't the way this works. Just because Watson played on a great college team and won a national title doesn't make him the presumptive best QB in the draft class. See Tebow/Mccaron/Mcelroy/Vince  Young etc.....

He doesn't have a strong arm, isn't that accurate and threw 17 Ints against College CBs while he had elite weapons on offense including arguably the best WR in this coming draft class. 

So let me ask you, aside from being on a national championship team (which has been proven to mean nothing when it comes to future NFL success), what makes you think Watson is a franchise QB?

Watson has more upside than Hackenberg. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

3 minutes ago, flgreen said:

Taking either at 6 also commits this team to them for 3-5 years.  I don't think either of them is worth that investment.........If you do? OK

Sure hope Macc doesn't

If you take Watson at 6, and he shows the staff that he is awful, they could easily pivot and take another QB high in 2018. What it does do is weaken the general talent pool of the team since we would have passed on guys like Fournette/Williams/Howard and a few highly talented defensive players. 

[JoJoTownsell1]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

Watson has more upside than Hackenberg. 

That's just about the worst justification for drafting a player that I have ever read. 

[T0mShane]

You really, really, really want to put this guy in the Jets locker room to help balance out all the me-first losers on the roster, by the arm talent is pretty meh and there's a better than aberage chance we'll be in position to draft one of the big three guys next year. If Watson was there in round two, you could deal with it. But at 6? It'd be dicey AF

[joewilly12]

3 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

That's just about the worst justification for drafting a player that I have ever read. 

Again Watson would be the best QB on the roster if you don't agree then I don't know what to tell you. 

[joewilly12]

3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You really, really, really want to put this guy in the Jets locker room to help balance out all the me-first losers on the roster, by the arm talent is pretty meh and there's a better than aberage chance we'll be in position to draft one of the big three guys next year. If Watson was there in round two, you could deal with it. But at 6? It'd be dicey AF

Who at 6 instantly improves this team?  We need a QB nothing else matters. 

[NoBowles]

2 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You really, really, really want to put this guy in the Jets locker room to help balance out all the me-first losers on the roster, by the arm talent is pretty meh and there's a better than aberage chance we'll be in position to draft one of the big three guys next year. If Watson was there in round two, you could deal with it. But at 6? It'd be dicey AF

Exactomundo 

[SenorGato]

21 minutes ago, johnnyjet said:

See Geno smith.  Too many question marks, not a true can't miss prospect.  Too many other needs.  Crappy qb class.  Next years class much better. Let the browns make the mistake

What? What does "see Geno Smith" mean? What does that explain? What are any of these questions? 

[flgreen]

2 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

If you take Watson at 6, and he shows the staff that he is awful, they could easily pivot and take another QB high in 2018. What it does do is weaken the general talent pool of the team since we would have passed on guys like Fournette/Williams/Howard and a few highly talented defensive players. 

Taking QB's early in back to back drafts can be, and has been done.  Boy it takes a set of chops to do it, particularly when you have a 2nd round pick, and your current starter from last year is a 4th rounder you traded up for.

If you hit, no one cares, if you miss again, and again, and again, you become the laughing stock of the league.  Tough to do

[JoJoTownsell1]

2 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Again Watson would be the best QB on the roster if you don't agree then I don't know what to tell you. 

You can tell me why you would take a QB first simply because he would be better than Hackenberg. That's absolutely idiotic. Sorry if you don't understand why. 

[joewilly12]

We are on the clock at 6 and Watson and Tubisky are there this is a guarantee, there is no guarantee we are on the clock in 2017 and Darnold is there. 

You do what you need to do to improve this team immediately, we havent had a decent QB in ages. 

[SenorGato]

3 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You really, really, really want to put this guy in the Jets locker room to help balance out all the me-first losers on the roster, by the arm talent is pretty meh and there's a better than aberage chance we'll be in position to draft one of the big three guys next year. If Watson was there in round two, you could deal with it. But at 6? It'd be dicey AF

See, I don't get what this means. What's wrong with it and why is it not reflected in the 1200+ passes he threw in college? 

[joewilly12]

3 minutes ago, JoJoTownsell1 said:

You can tell me why you would take a QB first simply because he would be better than Hackenberg. That's absolutely idiotic. Sorry if you don't understand why. 

Whats idiotic is you lobbying for any of the QB's on our current roster. 

If you can improve the position in the upcoming draft you improve it.

[dbatesman]

21 minutes ago, flgreen said:

49

Arm velocity is not the end all for a QB, but like the 40, it can take a player out of serious consideration.

Watson's a nice kid with some leg talent, probably going to be a leader and hag around the league for 10 years.  He's never going to be a franchise QB with an arm velocity of 49.

This is literally the only reason, and in all fairness, it is a serious concern.

[NoBowles]

Just now, joewilly12 said:

We are on the clock at 6 and Watson and Tubisky are there this is a guarantee, there is no guarantee we are on the clock in 2017 and Darnold is there. 

You do what you need to do to improve this team immediately, we havent had a decent QB in ages. 

Either are likely a marginal improvement that both take you out of the running next year at a real franchise QB. Would be a big mistake.

[T0mShane]

2 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

See, I don't get what this means. What's wrong with it and why is it not reflected in the 1200+ passes he threw in college? 

Gato.

 

[JoJoTownsell1]

1 minute ago, joewilly12 said:

Whats idiotic is you lobbying for any of the QB's on our current roster. 

If you can improve the position in the upcoming draft you improve it.

LMAO, you don't get it at all. But I've noticed that pattern from you in the past so I will leave it be. 

[dbatesman]

7 minutes ago, T0mShane said:

You really, really, really want to put this guy in the Jets locker room to help balance out all the me-first losers on the roster, by the arm talent is pretty meh and there's a better than aberage chance we'll be in position to draft one of the big three guys next year. If Watson was there in round two, you could deal with it. But at 6? It'd be dicey AF

this too, all of those guys will be good, and we will definitely draft one next year, and he will be good for us,

[Jet_Engine1]

4 minutes ago, joewilly12 said:

Again Watson would be the best QB on the roster if you don't agree then I don't know what to tell you. 

Yeah, maybe if they're going to play Alabama...Lol. He doesn't even know How to play NFL Football yet. His arm strength is below average, and he throws at a lower velocity than the standard. Hes never worked from under center OR operates a huddle. He's inaccurate. But yeah, he'd be the "best Quarterback on the roster". LOL. 

We'll find out what the NFL thinks about him on the 27th. Maybe.

[JoJoTownsell1]

2 minutes ago, dbatesman said:

This is literally the only reason, and in all fairness, it is a serious concern.

17 Ints last year isn't another reason? Questionable accuracy isn't a 3rd reason? 

We aren't talking about taking this kid in the 2nd or 3rd round, we are talking about taking him at 6. Could he become a franchise QB, of course. So could Trubisky/Kizer/Mahomes/Webb etc... The question is whether you want to use the 6th overall on a QB that has some serious weaknesses. 

Meanwhile, teams like the Niners/Browns don't seem to be that eager to take Watson with picks ahead of us. That doesn't mean he will be bad, but it's certainly something many of you should be wondering. 

[Jet_Engine1]

5 minutes ago, SenorGato said:

See, I don't get what this means. What's wrong with it and why is it not reflected in the 1200+ passes he threw in college? 

Because he threw them in....College. And if you watched him play, you would have recognized immediately that the ball doesn't come out of his hand the way it does from an NFL caliber QB. 

 

 

[varjet]

• He played on one of the most talented teams in the country and threw to receivers who were able to outclass their competition.  Poor accuracy was compensated for by his receivers.
• His arms-strength does not appear to resemble another successful NFL QB.
• He played in a college system that does not resemble an NFL offense, and it is uncertain that he can develop to drop back and read progressions.
• NFL history is littered with successful/champion college QBs whose game does not transfer to the NFL.  Evaluation of a college QB requires much more forecasting and is not necessarily based on past performance.  See Rodgers, Brady, etc., as opposed to Tebow, Manziel.

These are some of the reasons why not.  There are reasons to draft him.