Sam Darnold third highest pff grade since week 10

[Philc1]

5 hours ago, RonaldJet said:

Fitz it’s a pros pro. You don’t last in the league as long as he has without earning a ton of respect/credibility. 

You can plug guys like McCown and Fitz into the starting lineup, and instantly have credible QB play. 

 

There’s always a market for bad qbs to fill out depth charts

 

Kellen Clunkers lasted 10 years in the nfl despite being horrible 

 

[greenwichjetfan]

16 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Not enough time has passed to make a complete analysis of the 2017-19 classes.  But when you look back at their archive, it's quite definitive that it's a useful tool.  Here's their top 10 since 1997:

 

PLAYER	QBASE	DRAFTED	CAREER YARDAGE	CAREER TDS
Philip Rivers	1,964	No. 4, 2004	50,348	342
Carson Palmer	1,916	No. 1, 2003	46,247	294
Donovan McNabb	1,799	No. 2, 1999	37,276	234
Baker Mayfield	1,480	?	?	?
Russell Wilson	1,288	No. 75, 2012	22,176	161
Peyton Manning	1,279	No. 1, 1998	71,940	539
Marcus Mariota	1,277	No. 2, 2015	9,476	58
Byron Leftwich	1,216	No. 7, 2003	10,532	58
Aaron Rodgers	1,216	No. 24, 2005	38,502	313
Ben Roethlisberger	1,211	No. 11, 2004	51,065	329

 

Hits:  Rivers, Palmer, McNabb, Wilson, Manning, Rodgers, Big Ben

Misses:  Mariota, Leftwich, and possibly Mayfield.  

 

QBase is a great predictor of bad. It is not however a great predictor of good. If anything, the above is proof of that. Also, the eye test would have gotten the hits right as well. 

My entire industry centers around creating a mosaic of varying qualitative and quantitive attributes to tell a story, so it’s always mind boggling to me that anyone could be so firmly in either camp.

Bringing this back to Darnold, it’s clear that both the eye test and QBase don’t have Darnold as a bust-bust, so accordingly, there’s still hope. 

[greenwichjetfan]

2 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

QBase is a great predictor of bad. It is not however a great predictor of good.

??? Case in point:

16 hours ago, 14 in Green said:

Mayfield at #1?

 

[Jetsfan80]

24 minutes ago, greenwichjetfan said:

QBase is a great predictor of bad. It is not however a great predictor of good.

Again, they're better than most scouts.  Very few people had Pat Mahomes or Lamar Jackson as elite prospects when compared to other top-end QB prospects.  

[jetstream23]

7 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

Yeah but last time I looked Mono does not cause bad mechanics 

When was the last time you looked?

And how much data did you analyze of NFL quarterbacks playing with mononucleosis?

COMMON MAN!

[greenwichjetfan]

2 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Again, they're better than most scouts.  Very few people had Pat Mahomes or Lamar Jackson as elite prospects when compared to other top-end QB prospects.  

Again, the guy they have above them is Baker, and the guy they had 14 down from them is Deshaun. I can play that game too and ask you to explain some of the guys that QBase missed on which scouts got correct. Also, the list you provided shows expected DVOA in years 3-5, and we’re not even finished with year 2 (playing) for either. Fairly certain you’ve done a lot of posting around here that what LJ is doing- while remarkable, is not sustainable. If so, by years 3-5, he’ll be considered another miss for QBase.

Ultimately, you can take QBase to the grave with you if it makes you feel good, but the only persistent predictions it’s good for is to eliminate bad QBs from draft boards. You’re also not taking need/human element into account which makes QBase seem more right than it may actually be (coaches/scouts artificially pumping up the guy’s draft grade because they believe they can mold a lower rated QB just because they need a new QB to save their job, etc). 

Anyway, my point is, it’s not the ride-or-die stat you’re touting it to be. The two guys you used to make your point would be considered outliers. I’d be happy to continue this with you if it were going to be an engaging debate, but it’s clear in this thread and others during the off-season that you want one simple metric to give you all of your answers, so that’s that.

[RutgersJetFan]

Right on. Take out all the bad stuff and only keep the good stuff and this season has been top notch.

[bitonti]

23 hours ago, JiF said:

Damn!  Anderson has had some crucial drops! 

When people complain about the line it's plays like that- Darnold had tons of time, several yards of space to step into the throw and chose to back foot a 40 yard go route 

who does he think he is?

Josh Allen? 

[RutgersJetFan]

19 hours ago, nico002 said:

QBASE is a pretty basic formula, if you’re accurate and start 4+ years you’ll have a high score. 

Correct, but on this premise, the results got skewed this year for Haskins and Murray due to their situations, which FO tried to adjust for in implementing a small penalty for good situations. That said they didn't match the top projections of previous years and neither were that impressive in a weak class, so the experience factor still holds merit, but I think years from now we'll be looking at 2019 as an anomaly in the data due to their outstanding college production v lack of experience.

[14 in Green]

1 hour ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Again, the guy they have above them is Baker, and the guy they had 14 down from them is Deshaun. I can play that game too and ask you to explain some of the guys that QBase missed on which scouts got correct. Also, the list you provided shows expected DVOA in years 3-5, and we’re not even finished with year 2 (playing) for either. Fairly certain you’ve done a lot of posting around here that what LJ is doing- while remarkable, is not sustainable. If so, by years 3-5, he’ll be considered another miss for QBase.

Ultimately, you can take QBase to the grave with you if it makes you feel good, but the only persistent predictions it’s good for is to eliminate bad QBs from draft boards. You’re also not taking need/human element into account which makes QBase seem more right than it may actually be (coaches/scouts artificially pumping up the guy’s draft grade because they believe they can mold a lower rated QB just because they need a new QB to save their job, etc). 

Anyway, my point is, it’s not the ride-or-die stat you’re touting it to be. The two guys you used to make your point would be considered outliers. I’d be happy to continue this with you if it were going to be an engaging debate, but it’s clear in this thread and others during the off-season that you want one simple metric to give you all of your answers, so that’s that.

That #1 ranking for Mayfield was pure gold though... ?

[Snook]

24 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

Right on. Take out all the bad stuff and only keep the good stuff and this season has been top notch.

Or look at things objectively. 

[RutgersJetFan]

41 minutes ago, Snook said:

Or look at things objectively. 

The aggregate is objective. Self-selection is not.

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Again, the guy they have above them is Baker, and the guy they had 14 down from them is Deshaun. I can play that game too and ask you to explain some of the guys that QBase missed on which scouts got correct. Also, the list you provided shows expected DVOA in years 3-5, and we’re not even finished with year 2 (playing) for either. Fairly certain you’ve done a lot of posting around here that what LJ is doing- while remarkable, is not sustainable. If so, by years 3-5, he’ll be considered another miss for QBase.

Ultimately, you can take QBase to the grave with you if it makes you feel good, but the only persistent predictions it’s good for is to eliminate bad QBs from draft boards. You’re also not taking need/human element into account which makes QBase seem more right than it may actually be (coaches/scouts artificially pumping up the guy’s draft grade because they believe they can mold a lower rated QB just because they need a new QB to save their job, etc). 

Anyway, my point is, it’s not the ride-or-die stat you’re touting it to be. The two guys you used to make your point would be considered outliers. I’d be happy to continue this with you if it were going to be an engaging debate, but it’s clear in this thread and others during the off-season that you want one simple metric to give you all of your answers, so that’s that.

 

No one said its ride or die.  Only that it's better than trusting scouts, who are supposed to be the "experts" on this stuff, or the "eye test" and ONLY the eye test.  

The thing you're discounting is that this tool can only serve to IMPROVE as they re-tool it more.  Scouts and the eye test tend to hit/miss at about the same rate.  It doesn't get any better.  

Yes, I'll take tools like these "to the grave", because we need them in order to help confirm OR oppose what our eyes are seeing in order to get the best results.  And the best teams in the league are embracing tools like these, so go ahead and discount them if you'd like.  That seems smart.  

[JohnnyLV]

On 12/4/2019 at 1:58 PM, Warfish said:

I think this is accurate.  A little optimistic, but generally fair.  He's not a FQB yet, but belief that he will be one in the future is perhaps justifiable. 

This is just laughable tho.  I can't even take this seriously.....

There is alot of the rest I can find some agreement with.  So I'm not going to go line by line as usual or crap on your optimism, hyperbolic and lacking objectivity tho it appears to be to me in some places.  

I hope, from the deepest recesses of my bitter cynical soul, that you're right and my doubts are wrong.  But if you are, I do expect to start seeing it in actual production, not just flowery prose on a forum, or endless rationale about how bad everyone else is so Sam can't be judged....  

 

One if The types of plays I was referring to are throws on the run to his opposite side the Left

. Only a couple l of QBs can do this with any consistency Rodgers Mahomes maybe Wilson

[Smashmouth]

On 12/5/2019 at 10:04 AM, jetstream23 said:

When was the last time you looked?

And how much data did you analyze of NFL quarterbacks playing with mononucleosis?

COMMON MAN!

I'm not talking about any weakness caused from MONO here and you would know that if you read what I wrote. MONO does not cause a QB to start developing bad habits or bad mechanics those are fully ingrained into Sam Darnold. The way you're describing it.... If Aaron Rodgers got mono he would then start losing his mechanics and throwing off his back foot at an alarming rate. 

[greenwichjetfan]

On 12/5/2019 at 2:01 PM, Jetsfan80 said:

 

No one said its ride or die.  Only that it's better than trusting scouts, who are supposed to be the "experts" on this stuff, or the "eye test" and ONLY the eye test.  

The thing you're discounting is that this tool can only serve to IMPROVE as they re-tool it more.  Scouts and the eye test tend to hit/miss at about the same rate.  It doesn't get any better.  

Yes, I'll take tools like these "to the grave", because we need them in order to help confirm OR oppose what our eyes are seeing in order to get the best results.  And the best teams in the league are embracing tools like these, so go ahead and discount them if you'd like.  That seems smart.  

If you’re saying that QBase should be exclusively relied upon because it’s “better than scouts”, then yes I absolutely will ‘discount’ it. That doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it though. My entire point from the start has been that QBase is a tool which should supplement an analysis on a QB (i.e., “creating a mosaic“ from my initial post). Your stance in this thread as well as others historically makes it seem like you believe QBase is a tool which should provide an analysis on a QB. If you do that, you’re taking Baker Mayfield over Peyton Manning and taking Nathan Peterman over Aaron Rodgers - just to point out a few. What part of that is smart?

Again, look at the lists. The only realized persistency is that QBase is great at finding the busts.

[Jetsfan80]

2 hours ago, greenwichjetfan said:

If you’re saying that QBase should be exclusively relied upon because it’s “better than scouts”, then yes I absolutely will ‘discount’ it. That doesn’t mean I’m dismissing it though. My entire point from the start has been that QBase is a tool which should supplement an analysis on a QB (i.e., “creating a mosaic“ from my initial post). Your stance in this thread as well as others historically makes it seem like you believe QBase is a tool which should provide an analysis on a QB. If you do that, you’re taking Baker Mayfield over Peyton Manning and taking Nathan Peterman over Aaron Rodgers - just to point out a few. What part of that is smart?

Again, look at the lists. The only realized persistency is that QBase is great at finding the busts.

No, I do not and have not stated or believed that QBase is all you need.