Would you TRADE Sam for the #1 pick?

[CTM]

2 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

we  know nothing of QB prospects . Its the position everyone gets wrong over and over 

Good grief 

[greenwichjetfan]

13 minutes ago, CTM said:

Manning went first and rightfully so. I'm still pissed at that fat arrogant windbag Parcells who refused to promise to draft Manning in 97 which set the franchise back 15 years.

Parcells was the eternal hack. Worst thing to ever happen to this franchise.

[Philc1]

Just now, greenwichjetfan said:

Parcells was the eternal hack. Worst thing to ever happen to this franchise.

Parcells passed on Peyton Manning for James Farrior

 

 

Just think about it

[southparkcpa]

1 hour ago, Kleckineau said:

Depending on which bathroom New York would really embrace him.

The "East Village" reference was not by accident.

[Philc1]

40 minutes ago, jgb said:

I am skeptical of all QBs who have not yet developed into a franchise QB. It’s not about Sam, it’s about statistics. Even I think the idea of trading him now is lunacy. Even if you could get the overall 1 for him, which I doubt. GMs greatly overestimate their drafting prowess and thus also overvalue draft picks.

Everyone keeps saying offensive line but the biggest thing holding back Sam has been coaching

[Philc1]

3 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

we  know nothing of QB prospects . Its the position everyone gets wrong over and over 

Because the people who know everything kept saying Mariota and Mayfield would be good?

[Sonny Werblin]

12 hours ago, Ohio State NY Jets fan said:

No - Burrow is older than Sam and would have the same success behind this oline - worst idea since Mac drafted a DT at #3 - need to address positions of need

Also can't trade anyone until JD proves he can draft, we know the scout team is terrible based on the last decade

The QB market will be interesting this year...

Agree. The fact that Burrows is 6 months older than Sam and is in his 5th year playing college football as a grad student taking on line classes and literally spending every waking moment at the football complex learning an offense no college D was prepared to face is the real tell here.
 

If Sam stayed in college, what would he have looked like this season as a college QB 5th year grad student with nothing on his plate but football? I venture he would have been dominant even if not surrounded by the most talent and placed in a pass first system.

I’m disappointed that so many fans don’t realize how truly great Sam will be if he fulfills his potential. His arm talent is off the charts. His judgment at times is questionable but that comes with time and guys who have dominated their whole lives are used to taking chances and having it work out for them. That’s why we celebrate them as great. It’s not because they can hit an open receiver. It’s because they can complete passes to guys who are not open.

 I, for one, expect he will retire a multiple SB champion and sure fire HOFer.

[Philc1]

3 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Agree. The fact that Burrows is 6 months older than Sam and is in his 5th year playing college football as a grad student taking on line classes and literally spending every waking moment at the football complex learning an offense no college D was prepared to face is the real tell here.
 

If Sam stayed in college, what would he have looked like this season as a college QB 5th year grad student with nothing on his plate but football? I venture he would have been dominant even if not surrounded by the most talent and placed in a pass first system.

I’m disappointed that so many fans don’t realize how truly great Sam will be if he fulfills his potential. His arm talent is off the charts. His judgment at times is questionable but that comes with time and guys who have dominated their whole lives are used to taking chances and having it work out for them. That’s why we celebrate them as great. It’s not because they can hit an open receiver. It’s because they can complete passes to guys who are not open.

 I, for one, expect he will retire a multiple SB champion and sure fire HOFer.

Sam is going to be really good but we have to draft some OL and WRs and, most importantly, move on from Adam Gase.

[jgb]

1 hour ago, CTM said:

The fact that old school scouts types got enamored by the tall inaccurate QB with a big arm is not relevant to my statement

Manning had tremendous pedigree, was a multi year starter and still has one of the best Qbase projections ever. 

Manning went first and rightfully so. I'm still pissed at that fat arrogant windbag Parcells who refused to promise to draft Manning in 97 which set the franchise back 15 years.

Draft isnt as much of a crap shoot when you approach it as something other than an arrogant dumbass

Kudos on calling it right, but at the time the scouts were roughly evenly split. A public ESPN poll at the time was 64% of Leaf and 36% for Manning as to which should go #1.

"In an ESPN SportZone poll asking who the best player in the upcoming draft was, 64% of people answered Leaf compared to just 36% that plumped for Manning from over 45,000 respondents. That’s a colossal goof by everybody, not just the insiders evaluating the two quarterbacks. Leaf was seen by many as the better prospect, not just by a select few lunatics or people that didn’t correctly do their homework in the lead up to the Draft."

[Jetmech]

..

 

[OilfieldJet]

13 hours ago, varjet said:

I like Darnold.

But Mac blew it with the roster both leading up to and after picking Darnold.

By the time the roster improves, Darnold will be owed too much money.

Getting Burrow for Darnold and keeping the other draft picks gives the Jets an opportunity to build a team with 3-4 years of a rookie contract.  

This is not about Darnold.  Its about constructing a competitive roster under the salary cap.

 

This is spot on.

[Jet Nut]

1 hour ago, greenwichjetfan said:

Parcells was the eternal hack. Worst thing to ever happen to this franchise.

Parcells knew what we didnt.'

Hess had a couple of years left and was hired to pul all the stops to win one for the owner before he died.  

Sucks but what can you do.  

 

[nj meadowlands]

This thread, the wildfires, the popularity of The Bachelor, Trump's twitter account.  Why should I have faith in humanity anymore?

[nj meadowlands]

My name is nj meadowlands and I will die on the Joe Burrow Is Not Actually Good hill, right next to my neighbor T0m on his Jamal Adams Sucks hill.

[y2k8]

14 hours ago, rangerous said:

here's the thing.  the way the qb salaries are going, the jets will most likely have to pay darnold a boatload long before they actually win anything.  i'll be an optimist and say they'll make the playoffs and should have a pretty good run but in year 5 of darnold's contract he will need to be re-signed or let walk.  getting a top qb prospect now for darnold shouldn't be the plan because even if the jets were stacked it would take a season or two for the rookie qb to reach the same experience level that darnold has.  however, getting a good prospect every 3 or 4 seasons isn't a bad plan because it prepares the team for if and when the qb opts for free agency.  a qb on his rookie deal will cost way less than a vet.  and two top tier qb's on their rookie deals will also cost less than a highly rated nfl vet qb.

and this speaks to draft allocation.  should the jets draft a qb this draft?  probably not but next season it would be wise for them to spend a reasonably high draft pick on one.

I think the concern over the rookie contract window is overblown.  Watson and Mahomes are going to set the market before Sam's deal expires.  And depending how well he plays over the next 2 seasons, we may actually sign him to a team friendly deal - one in which he continues to improve as a QB as the team begins to really compete.  

You know who the rookie window is real problem for?  The Ravens. 

[Warfish]

16 hours ago, PepPep said:

Thoughts? 

Sam Darnold for the 2020 #1 Overall Pick (i.e. Burrows?)

Is Burrows a better prospect than Sam is today?  If so, then yes.  If not, then no.  

Seems strait-forward (albeit an entirely unrealistic hypothetical).

[peekskill68]

Woody and CJ need to get going having SD14 products pipelined thru Johnson and Johnson so Darnold can remain here long term working well below market...

[CTM]

1 hour ago, jgb said:

Kudos on calling it right, but at the time the scouts were roughly evenly split. A public ESPN poll at the time was 64% of Leaf and 36% for Manning as to which should go #1.

"In an ESPN SportZone poll asking who the best player in the upcoming draft was, 64% of people answered Leaf compared to just 36% that plumped for Manning from over 45,000 respondents. That’s a colossal goof by everybody, not just the insiders evaluating the two quarterbacks. Leaf was seen by many as the better prospect, not just by a select few lunatics or people that didn’t correctly do their homework in the lead up to the Draft."

Yeah dumb people said dumb things 20 years ago. The bolded tells you all you need to know.

But how does that apply to me saying I wouldnt trade Sam for Joe Burrow but I would for a Peyton Manning type prospect, (one in which the scouts and analytics agree is elite elite)

 

 

[PepPep]

19 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Sam Darnold for the 2020 #1 Overall Pick (i.e. Burrows?)

Is Burrows a better prospect than Sam is today?  If so, then yes.  If not, then no.  

Seems strait-forward (albeit an entirely unrealistic hypothetical).

Well, the question is posed to you. Do you feel Sam is a better prospect after what you have seen? Those who have chimed in, I'm going to assume, didn't even click on the link and read the fan article who suggested this hypothetical (not me btw). It seems like he likes Burrow a lot and views him as a really impressive prospect. He also portrays it as, if not realistic, then at least a reasonable prospect. Suggesting that it would give JD an opportunity to start from scratch with his own QB for 5 years and Cincy a young QB they really like. 

I made my feelings clear in the thread. As good as Burrows COULD be, he is a complete unknown right now. We know what we have in Sam and I think he is a special QB. We need to build around him and plan to re-sign him when the time comes, not try to win it all while he is under his rookie deal.   

[funaz]

16 hours ago, David Harris said:

Joe Burrow IS OLDER THAN SAM DARNOLD! AMazing right?
 

Sam is legit. Should’ve been the number one pick two years ago. At times has looked downright special. Has two years under his belt in the NFL.

Absolutely wouldn’t trade him 

I haven't seen anything remotely "special" about Darnold. He looks like, and stats back it up, a middling Top 16-25 range QB. He makes good plays, he makes bad plays, mostly just meh plays. His inability to hit deep balls is also becoming a major problem. 

Would I take burrow over him, yes because Burrow is an unknown and we have seen 2 years of Darnold and it's pretty obvious he isn't going to be a mahomes, or a rodgers type of QB. He may end up being a stafford, or eli though which is good enough to win with if you build a really good team. I just don't have the faith we can do that.

[Larz]

No

 

[bitonti]

Yes the Jets would do this, today, for 2 reasons 

1) Joe Barrow is objectively probably maybe possibly better than Sam Darnold. 1.1 picks are usually better than 1.3 picks. without getting into the weeds of scouting or film or stats or anything else. Historically 1.1 QBs are better than 1.3 QBs.  

2) more importantly the "rookie QB" contract window would reset again i.e.  the Jets wouldn't have to give Darnold 100 million dollars in 2 years or whatever AND it would happen before the new CBA (which really screwed rookies at the top end). 

besides Woody Johnson's really good at ponying up and treating star players well 

everyone who bought a Darnold jersey should be SUPER confident right now in their purchases 

 

[Matt39]

3 hours ago, Sonny Werblin said:

Agree. The fact that Burrows is 6 months older than Sam and is in his 5th year playing college football as a grad student taking on line classes and literally spending every waking moment at the football complex learning an offense no college D was prepared to face is the real tell here.
 

If Sam stayed in college, what would he have looked like this season as a college QB 5th year grad student with nothing on his plate but football? I venture he would have been dominant even if not surrounded by the most talent and placed in a pass first system.

I’m disappointed that so many fans don’t realize how truly great Sam will be if he fulfills his potential. His arm talent is off the charts. His judgment at times is questionable but that comes with time and guys who have dominated their whole lives are used to taking chances and having it work out for them. That’s why we celebrate them as great. It’s not because they can hit an open receiver. It’s because they can complete passes to guys who are not open.

 I, for one, expect he will retire a multiple SB champion and sure fire HOFer.

Wilson  was 24 his rookie season. Unless it's a Weinke type of situation I dont see how the age is overly relevant.The contract starts once you enter the league, regardless of age. There's no redshirting. 

[Warfish]

33 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Well, the question is posed to you. Do you feel Sam is a better prospect after what you have seen?

I don't know. 

I do not watch or scout college football, as I've said many times, and generally don't truly start "getting to know" prospects till a month or so before the draft.

I think I've been clear that I do not hold Darnold in the same awe that many here do.  I do not think he is the best QB of his class (so far) and I don't think he is or has been "elite" or "special" in any form or specific aspect of his play so far.  He has missed time, played very poorly at times, played better (usually vs. the worst teams in the NFL, as in 2019) and shown some flashes, but only flashes so far.  He's got a long way to go, in my view.

It does not help that he is playing behind a mostly horrible O-line.  It doesn't help that, IMO, he is playing for two of the worst coaches in the NFL the past two years.  These are certainly mitigating factors in his development.

With that said, he is not an accurate QB.  He is not a consistent QB.  He makes bad decisions and misses the open guy often enough to be noted.  He turns the ball over too much.  The things he himself can control in his game remain as questionable/problematic today as they did when he was drafted.

I do not know the future.  Will Darnold ever get it together, lower his turnovers materially, and become a more accurate, consistent (and winning) QB?  He certainly could, he has the basic potential required, clearly.  There ARE reasons for positivity and optimism with Sam.  The clock is also ticking on Darnold, he is already near the half-way point of his cheap rookie deal and we remain an NFL also-ran to-date.  2020 will be a key year both for the Jets and Darnold.  

Personally, I would not bail on Darnold yet unless Burrows was a clear-cut materially better prospect.  Trading one unknown for another makes little sense.  I want to see Sam Darnold play behind a better and more consistent O-line in 2020, and with a superior WR group to the 2018 and 2019 groups.  I'd like to eliminate the endless excuses of health and talent in 2020 when evaluating Darnold's future here.

Quote

Those who have chimed in, I'm going to assume, didn't even click on the link and read the fan article who suggested this hypothetical (not me btw). It seems like he likes Burrow a lot and views him as a really impressive prospect. He also portrays it as, if not realistic, then at least a reasonable prospect. Suggesting that it would give JD an opportunity to start from scratch with his own QB for 5 years and Cincy a young QB they really like.

I did not click the link, no.  Didn't feel it was needed.

 

[jgb]

43 minutes ago, CTM said:

Yeah dumb people said dumb things 20 years ago. The bolded tells you all you need to know.

But how does that apply to me saying I wouldnt trade Sam for Joe Burrow but I would for a Peyton Manning type prospect, (one in which the scouts and analytics agree is elite elite)

 

 

My point was that it isn’t always easy in advance to identify which prospects are Peyton Manning until they become Peyton Manning. Think about it—about half of pro scouts and 2/3 of the public picked the all-time biggest bust over Peyton frickin’ Manning at the time. This wasn’t like picking a guy who was a 9/10 over one who was 10/0. It was not being able to tell the difference between a 10/0 and a 0/10.

But still nice job calling Manning/Leaf correctly. I bought into the Manning arm-strength myth and was a Leaf guy. That’s when I realized personality and intangibles really do matter—lessons I applied when calling Rosen a huge bust before that draft.

[rangerous]

1 hour ago, y2k8 said:

I think the concern over the rookie contract window is overblown.  Watson and Mahomes are going to set the market before Sam's deal expires.  And depending how well he plays over the next 2 seasons, we may actually sign him to a team friendly deal - one in which he continues to improve as a QB as the team begins to really compete.  

You know who the rookie window is real problem for?  The Ravens. 

maybe but i think the bigger point is why sign a player beyond their rookie contract?  i know it's all hypothetical and i would love to see darnold in green for the next 10 seasons but if the last 10-20 superbowls are a guide (and leaving out the patsies and brady)then it can be shown that the older and more expensive qb's  just don't get there that often.

[Losmeister]

17 hours ago, PepPep said:

Hypothetical proposed by...

https://www.ganggreennation.com/2020/1/13/21033580/would-you-joe-burrow-sam-darnold-new-york-jets-hypothetical-trade

Personally, I would not. I know what we have in Sam, we are lucky enough to have gotten him and we need to build round him. As good as Burrow may become, he is a huge question mark. 

But I know there are a lot of Burrow fans out there and a lot of Darnold doubters who may disagree. 

Thoughts? 

fastern you can say NY minute

[Losmeister]

4 hours ago, CTM said:

The fact that old school scouts types got enamored by the tall inaccurate QB with a big arm is not relevant to my statement

Manning had tremendous pedigree, was a multi year starter and still has one of the best Qbase projections ever. 

Manning went first and rightfully so. I'm still pissed at that fat arrogant windbag Parcells who refused to promise to draft Manning in 97 which set the franchise back 15 years.

Draft isnt as much of a crap shoot when you approach it as something other than an arrogant dumbass

Qbase is football outsiders?

[jgb]

23 hours ago, New York Mick said:

Lmao. Ok it was a bag of gummy dicks

 

 

@T0mShane did they use your willy for the original mold?

Erect

4 hours ago, Philc1 said:

Parcells passed on Peyton Manning for James Farrior

 

 

Just think about it

The story I’ve always heard was that Archie asked Parcells for a guarantee Peyton would be picked first. He demurred so Peyton stayed another year in college. Keep in mind this was many months before the draft or even the combine. And you know what? I don’t think I’d want a GM who lets prospects lock me into a draft strategy months before the draft. Maybe Parcells was considering a trade, for example. Sure in hindsight bad move but do you really want someone so pliable running your team?

Keep in mind how the Mannings manipulated the draft again when it was Eli’s turn.

Now Parcells does deserve criticism for reneging on his deal with Belichick which led directly to a 20-year Patriot dynasty.

[y2k8]

23 minutes ago, rangerous said:

maybe but i think the bigger point is why sign a player beyond their rookie contract?  i know it's all hypothetical and i would love to see darnold in green for the next 10 seasons but if the last 10-20 superbowls are a guide (and leaving out the patsies and brady)then it can be shown that the older and more expensive qb's  just don't get there that often.

You can't simply remove data points from your theory because they don't align with your conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that most of the teams that reach the Super Bowl do not have QBs on their rookie contracts. This will be the first time since the 2012 season that the QB of the AFC representative in the Super Bowl was not named Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning (2nd SB), Drew Brees, Big Ben (2nd, 3rd Sb), were not on rookie deals when they played in the most recent Super Bowls. 

It definitely makes it easier to build a good team when your QB is on a rookie deal, but I'd rather over pay for a great QB than try to win a championship without one and cap space.

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, y2k8 said:

You can't simply remove data points from your theory because they don't align with your conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that most of the teams that reach the Super Bowl do not have QBs on their rookie contracts. This will be the first time since the 2012 season that the QB of the AFC representative in the Super Bowl was not named Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning (2nd SB), Drew Brees, Big Ben (2nd, 3rd Sb), were not on rookie deals when they played in the most recent Super Bowls. 

It definitely makes it easier to build a good team when your QB is on a rookie deal, but I'd rather over pay for a great QB than try to win a championship without one and cap space.

“Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”

[neckdemon]

18 hours ago, PepPep said:

Hypothetical proposed by...

https://www.ganggreennation.com/2020/1/13/21033580/would-you-joe-burrow-sam-darnold-new-york-jets-hypothetical-trade

Personally, I would not. I know what we have in Sam, we are lucky enough to have gotten him and we need to build round him. As good as Burrow may become, he is a huge question mark. 

But I know there are a lot of Burrow fans out there and a lot of Darnold doubters who may disagree. 

Thoughts? 

Next year for trevor lawrence yes

[CTM]

51 minutes ago, jgb said:

My point was that it isn’t always easy in advance to identify which prospects are Peyton Manning until they become Peyton Manning. Think about it—about half of pro scouts and 2/3 of the public picked the all-time biggest bust over Peyton frickin’ Manning at the time. This wasn’t like picking a guy who was a 9/10 over one who was 10/0. It was not being able to tell the difference between a 10/0 and a 0/10.

But still nice job calling Manning/Leaf correctly. I bought into the Manning arm-strength myth and was a Leaf guy. That’s when I realized personality and intangibles really do matter—lessons I applied when calling Rosen a huge bust before that draft.

It's not so much of a mystery.

Top screenshot is QBase's top picks of past 20 years (not sure when this was assembled as Baker Mayfield made this cut)

Griffen got hurt after setting the league on fire.

Leftwhich was a jag

John Beck and Ponder a bust

Pretty good hit rate, compare that to the bottom which is filled with losers. This is publiclly available and wildly circulated, you'd hope / think / imagine billion dollar franchises have access to even better analytical data.

Yet here we are in 2019 and people still act like drafting a QB is akin to getting drunk, putting a blindfold and and throwing a dart at a dart board.  Even wrose, flagrantly innumerate jagaloons like Mac still get FO jobs and still draft QB's like Hackenberg. Mind boggling.

 

 

[rangerous]

13 minutes ago, y2k8 said:

You can't simply remove data points from your theory because they don't align with your conclusion.

The fact of the matter is that most of the teams that reach the Super Bowl do not have QBs on their rookie contracts. This will be the first time since the 2012 season that the QB of the AFC representative in the Super Bowl was not named Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.

Cam Newton, Matt Ryan, Eli Manning (2nd SB), Drew Brees, Big Ben (2nd, 3rd Sb), were not on rookie deals when they played in the most recent Super Bowls. 

It definitely makes it easier to build a good team when your QB is on a rookie deal, but I'd rather over pay for a great QB than try to win a championship without one and cap space.

i'm glad you researched it.  yes you can remove data points that are outliers and that's why brady and the patsies can be excluded.

[y2k8]

3 minutes ago, rangerous said:

i'm glad you researched it.  yes you can remove data points that are outliers and that's why brady and the patsies can be excluded.

That's a ridiculous response.  If you take away the Pats, you don't have a large enough sample size.

Besides, I just rattled off a bunch of QBs who still manage to disprove the QB on a rookie contract theory.

Are they outliers too?  LOL