Sam Darnold Discussion Thread: MERGED

[jgb]

Lol cherry picking. You’re the one selecting years and then rolling out the tired “supporting cast” arguments. This is Miami we are talking about not the Steeelrs. Believe whatever you want. I hope I’m wrong but Darnold wishes he has done a tenth what Tannehill has in this league.

My super simple “good players play good” method has served me very well over the years. I’ll stick with that. You stick with hopes.

[Jetsfan80]

8 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Agree on the "too early to give up" part.

And, I'd suggest that it isn't a correct approach to analysis if you think A. The roster is bad and B. The HC/offensive coaching is bad that you can determine if C. the QB is bad.  The NFL has some pretty notable examples of guys that meandered around and didn't have the light bulb go on for them until they were a little older and in a better system with good personnel.

 

 

So nearly 20 years.  You have to go back nearly 20 years to find an example.  That's not a great reason.  For every Young or Gannon, there's a ton of Joey Harrington's.  

[jetstream23]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

We have until May 3, 2021 to make that decision.  There's absolutely no reason to exercise that option until after the 2020 season.   

Correct.  I don't think I was clear.  I'm saying that if it had to be done now (either clicked in the 5th year option or not) I'd do it.  I'm not saying exercise it now way in advance of when they have to.

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

So nearly 20 years.  You have to go back nearly 20 years to find an example.  That's not a great reason.  For every Young or Gannon, there's a ton of Joey Harrington's.  

Wish I played poker with these guys. They don’t understand probabilities very well.

[slimjasi]

8 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

It sure sounds like many Jets fans are.  Somehow, Darnold's Week 1 performance, as alarming as it was, has left many Jets fans still a 5 or 6 on the Darnold meter when they should be 1-3.  We have 2 seasons + 1 game of data on Darnold and its overall horrifying, independent of the awful circumstances surrounding him. 

We should expect better.  A 75 QB Rating should not be good enough, even if we're playing the 2000 Ravens, have Rich Kotite as the HC and 3 blind people starting at WR.

"horrifying?" You don't think you are overstating things just a little? 

I just posted stats for our local Ryan Tannehill fanboy showing him that Darnold put up very similar numbers to Ryan Tannehill (the first of his name, rightful heir to the iron throne, the unburnt, the father of footballs, and all that) through two years - is that really "horrifying?" Disappointing, sure. But horrifying? 

I am definitely concerned about Darnold (voted a 3), but I think there is clearly some middle ground here between posters on this board. 

[Jetsfan80]

6 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

"horrifying?" You don't think you are overstating things just a little? 

I just posted stats for our local Ryan Tannehill fanboy showing him that Darnold put up very similar numbers to Ryan Tannehill (the first of his name, rightful heir to the iron throne, the unburnt, the father of footballs, and all that) through two years - is that really "horrifying?" Disappointing, sure. But horrifying? 

I am definitely concerned about Darnold (voted a 3), but I think there is clearly some middle ground here between posters on this board. 

 

He has been ranked 30-32 in DVOA for his first 2 seasons and put up a 75 QB Rating his first game of year 3.  It doesn't get much worse than that, unless you want to compare him to Mark Sanchez (who finished as, I believe, QB40 in his rookie season).

In his rookie season, Tannehill was QB20.  In year 2, QB26, and year 3, QB15.  

And shouldn't we be looking for a lot better than Ryan Tannehill anyways?  Darnold was a # 3 overall pick for pete's sake.  Tannehill's lightbulb only seemed to "turn on" in Year 8, with his 2nd team.  Do we really want to wait that long?

If your fear of moving on from Darnold is that he "might end up the next Ryan Tannehill", its time to demand better out of the QB position. 

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

"horrifying?" You don't think you are overstating things just a little? 

I just posted stats for our local Ryan Tannehill fanboy showing him that Darnold put up very similar numbers to Ryan Tannehill (the first of his name, rightful heir to the iron throne, the unburnt, the father of footballs, and all that) through two years - is that really "horrifying?" Disappointing, sure. But horrifying? 

I am definitely concerned about Darnold (voted a 3), but I think there is clearly some middle ground here between posters on this board. 

You are confusing something important. Everyone who plays poorly isn’t a good QB in disguise. Most of them simply suck. Comparing Darnold to a QB who we already know to be one of the outliers is not how statistics work.

[ZachEY]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

Wish I played poker with these guys. They don’t understand probabilities very well.

Jets fans are the basics of behavioral economics on display.  You've already spoken about sunken cost.

How about Prospect Theory/Loss-aversion, Endowment effect, Status Quo bias?

[BroadwayBen]

Entered the season at a solid 5.5 but dropped down to 4 after week 1. Hope he proves me wrong

[slimjasi]

12 minutes ago, jgb said:

Lol cherry picking. You’re the one selecting years and then rolling out the tired “supporting cast” arguments. This is Miami we are talking about not the Steeelrs. Believe whatever you want. I hope I’m wrong but Darnold wishes he has done a tenth what Tannehill has in this league.

My super simple “good players play good” method has served me very well over the years. I’ll stick with that. You stick with hopes.

Bruh, you wrote this:

46 minutes ago, jgb said:

Except Tannehill had three 4,000 yard seasons (ok one of those was 3,913) under his belt when Gase the Destroyer rolled into town. You must see something I can’t to compare the two.

But, through two their first two years in the league, Darnold and Tannehill posted extremely similar stats - hence, your notion that they can't be compared is nonsense. Do you understand better now? 

[jgb]

Just now, slimjasi said:

Bruh, you wrote this:

But, through two their first two years in the league, Darnold and Tannehill posted extremely similar stats - hence, your notion that they can't be compared is nonsense. Do you understand better now? 

Don’t think you understand what cherry picking means. 

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, slimjasi said:

Bruh, you wrote this:

But, through two their first two years in the league, Darnold and Tannehill posted extremely similar stats - hence, your notion that they can't be compared is nonsense. Do you understand better now? 

Well that's why Darnold's Week 1 performance is so much worse than some people are trying to suggest.  We need Darnold to progress significantly in year 3, like Tannehill did.  How much confidence do you have that Darnold's final 15 games this year are going to demonstrate he is a top 20 QB?  Top 15?

[ZachEY]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

Well that's why Darnold's Week 1 performance is so much worse than some people are trying to suggest.  We need Darnold to progress significantly in year 3, like Tannehill did.  How much confidence do you have that Darnold's final 15 games this year are going to demonstrate he is a top 20 QB?  Top 15?

Almost once per game, Darnold just launches a ball up for grabs.  When does this stop?

[slimjasi]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

Don’t think you understand what cherry picking means. 

I'm sure you don't think so

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Almost once per game, Darnold just launches a ball up for grabs.  When does this stop?

Guy turns it over a ton in college and also turns it over in the pros.  News at 11.

He pulled a Sanchez and a Geno last game, yet somehow fans still think he's going to turn it all around and be worth $30M+ per. 

It's so sad.

[Losmeister]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

You are confusing something important. Everyone who plays poorly isn’t a good QB in disguise. Most of them simply suck. Comparing Darnold to a QB who we already know to be one of the outliers is not how statistics work.

Speaking of which...      wanting Darnold to prove he is a good QB, we would expect his QBR to be 50 and above.

His QBR of 19 in week 1 means that to climb to this goal after 4 weeks , he will need to produce 3 performances of avg of 60

Last year he had this type of stretch MIA/NYG/WASH/OAK (56/75/69/84)

1st year he had such a stretch at the end of the year...

Flashes. Yes. 

[ZachEY]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

He pulled a Sanchez and a Geno last game, yet somehow fans still think he's going to turn it all around and be worth $30M+ per.  It's so sad.

I wonder if it's all loss aversion.  No one is presenting reasons he will be good - largely because there aren't any.  But, many are speaking about fear that he will go and be good somewhere else.

[jetstream23]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

So nearly 20 years.  You have to go back nearly 20 years to find an example.  That's not a great reason.  For every Young or Gannon, there's a ton of Joey Harrington's.  

I'm not sure that's a fair comp.  In 6 seasons Joey Harrington had more INTs than TDs 5 times.  5 out of 6.  Sam hasn't done that once yet in two full seasons.  Darnold also has a higher completion % in both his seasons than Harrington did in any of his except 1.

I always appreciate your perspective on things.  Your takes are mostly level-headed and based on facts.  I'd like to think mine are as well.  What I've seen in two seasons of Sam Darnold is generally good QB performance in the face of significant roster challenges and 2 different offensive systems.....WITH a handful of really bad games thrown in.  That's what the data tells me.

14 TDs, 5 INTs in his past 9 games.  Within those past 9 there were probably 3 bad games... Cincy, Buffalo and Buffalo.

 

I'm not debating whether Darnold is good, bad, will be great or will never be better than average.  I simply don't know.  I'm saying two things:

1. It's too early to say the Jets need to move on to another QB.

2. There are signs (and more than a few) that Darnold can be a very good starting QB.

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, TeddEY said:

I wonder if it's all loss aversion.  No one is presenting reasons he will be good - largely because there aren't any.  But, many are speaking about fear that he will go and be good somewhere else.

The best he'd do elsewhere is be a serviceable starter or a good backup.  That's it.  That's all we have to "fear".

I want better than serviceable.  You don't win titles with serviceable.

[jgb]

11 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Well that's why Darnold's Week 1 performance is so much worse than some people are trying to suggest.  We need Darnold to progress significantly in year 3, like Tannehill did.  How much confidence do you have that Darnold's final 15 games this year are going to demonstrate he is a top 20 QB?  Top 15?

Also it’s not I that introduced Tannehill into this thread. All I did was respond to an incoherent statement that it was “ironic” that I had a Tannehill signature while being down on Darnold (yeah, I don’t get it either). So I pointed out that Tannehill had some evidence of not being terrible (those 4,000 yard seasons) before Gase did his thing to him. Darnold has no such evidence. It is a very poor bet that Gase is Darnold’s problem. Most QBs fail in this league because they simply are not good enough.

[DoubleDown]

I am a big supporter of Darnold, but his performance on Sunday was concerning to say the least.  I'm giving him the rest of the season to prove that he is the guy to lead this franchise.  If he fails to live up to expectations, the Jets absolutely need to be in the market of drafting a new franchise quarterback if in position to do so.

The worst possible scenario would be an injury that takes him out for the rest of the season.  The Jets will be left in limbo again.

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

I wonder if it's all loss aversion.  No one is presenting reasons he will be good - largely because there aren't any.  But, many are speaking about fear that he will go and be good somewhere else.

Exactly. When all you can do to support your position is point to outliers rather than what Darnold has actually done, that’s not a strong position at all.

[TuscanyTile2]

1 minute ago, TeddEY said:

I wonder if it's all loss aversion.  No one is presenting reasons he will be good - largely because there aren't any.  But, many are speaking about fear that he will go and be good somewhere else.

It's definitely somewhat loss aversion for me.  But I also just don't feel in my gut that he's had enough of a chance here. 

Last year, he played pretty well all things considered (horrible OL and he was sick with mono). 

This year it's been only 1 game so far.  And there was a shortened training camp and a brand new OL (not to mention his best WR is gone and his top RB got hurt).

As for an example of his FQB potential, this play is certainly of note:

 

[jetstream23]

19 minutes ago, jgb said:

Wish I played poker with these guys. They don’t understand probabilities very well.

Some of us understand them very well.  These are mutually exclusive events.  Just because you've drafted 5 bad QBs in a row doesn't mean you'll do it again on the 6th try, or that "you're due" to have the roulette ball land on an Even number because it's hit Odd several times in a row.  But if you tilt the odds by removing many of the Even numbers on the wheel (having no preseason, starting only 3 WRs, playing a Top Defense, losing your starting RB at half time) you're going to increase the chances of an Odd result....and a result that looks different than past 8 spins (or games that Darnold has played).

 

[TuscanyTile2]

5 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

The best he'd do elsewhere is be a serviceable starter or a good backup.  That's it.  That's all we have to "fear".

I want better than serviceable.  You don't win titles with serviceable.

If Sam only ends up being "serviceable" then I'll admit that I was 100% wrong on him.  I still feel like he can be a legit FQB who can win us a Superbowl.  And for the record, if I didn't believe that then I wouldn't be defending him.

[slimjasi]

6 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Well that's why Darnold's Week 1 performance is so much worse than some people are trying to suggest.  We need Darnold to progress significantly in year 3, like Tannehill did. 

As already alluded to - the first game was brutal and worrisome - but I humbly ask that we be allowed to make this comparison again at the end of year 3. 

I would never purposefully look to offend the followers of His Majesty, Lord Tannehill, who is of a far different ilk than the lowly Mr. Darnold. 

[jetstream23]

23 minutes ago, TeddEY said:

Jets fans are the basics of behavioral economics on display.  You've already spoken about sunken cost.

How about Prospect Theory/Loss-aversion, Endowment effect, Status Quo bias?

How about Week 1 recency bias?

 

[jgb]

4 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

Some of us understand them very well.  These are mutually exclusive events.  Just because you've drafted 5 bad QBs in a row doesn't mean you'll do it again on the 6th try, or that "you're due" to have the roulette ball land on an Even number because it's hit Odd several times in a row.  But if you tilt the odds by removing many of the Even numbers on the wheel (having no preseason, starting only 3 WRs, playing a Top Defense, losing your starting RB at half time) you're going to increase the chances of an Odd result....and a result that looks different than past 8 spins (or games that Darnold has played).

 

Doesn’t address my premise. Finding a FQB is a crapshoot. So stop testing candidates in sequence. Bring in more until you find him. We should’ve kept Bridge. We should’ve brought in Tannehill. Now what are our options? Yeah, none. Thanks, Macc!

[jetstream23]

Just now, jgb said:

Doesn’t address my premise. Finding a FQB is a crapshoot. So stop testing candidates in sequence. Bring in more until you find him. We should’ve kept Bridge. We should’ve brought in Tannehill. Now what are our options? Yeah, none. Thanks, Macc!

I don't disagree with this.  The Jets under Joe D seem to be doing exactly as you suggest.  The QB room has a promising recent Draft pick in Darnold on a rookie deal, they've added Mike White recently, they draft James Morgan.

I would have loved keeping Bridgewater.  Do you think Tannehill would be doing any better here under Gase than he did in Miami under Gase?

[Jetsfan80]

21 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

I'm not sure that's a fair comp.  In 6 seasons Joey Harrington had more INTs than TDs 5 times.  5 out of 6.  Sam hasn't done that once yet in two full seasons.  Darnold also has a higher completion % in both his seasons than Harrington did in any of his except 1.

I always appreciate your perspective on things.  Your takes are mostly level-headed and based on facts.  I'd like to think mine are as well.  What I've seen in two seasons of Sam Darnold is generally good QB performance in the face of significant roster challenges and 2 different offensive systems.....WITH a handful of really bad games thrown in.  That's what the data tells me.

14 TDs, 5 INTs in his past 9 games.  Within those past 9 there were probably 3 bad games... Cincy, Buffalo and Buffalo.

 

I'm not debating whether Darnold is good, bad, will be great or will never be better than average.  I simply don't know.  I'm saying two things:

1. It's too early to say the Jets need to move on to another QB.

2. There are signs (and more than a few) that Darnold can be a very good starting QB.

 

So he's better than Joey Harrington.  That can be true and simultaneously not be a reason for hope.  It's important to note that Harrington played half his career in the era BEFORE the illegal contact rule.  It's never been easier to be a QB than it is in 2020.  Yet Darnold is just barely throwing more TDs than INTs.  

The data shows there is more than just a "handful" of bad games for Darnold.  In his 27 starts, he's had 12 games where he had a QB Rating below 80, and of those, he had 4 where his QB Rating was below 40:

Darnold "bad games" (below 80 QB Rating):

• 2018, Week 2, vs MIA:  25/41, 334 yds, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 74.6 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 3, @ CLE:  15/31, 169 yds, 0 TD, 2 INTs, 38.2 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 4, @ JAX:  17/34, 167 yds, 1 TD, 0 INTs, 74.0 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 7, vs MIN:  17/42, 206 yds, 1 TD, 3 INTs, 34.4 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 8, @ CHI:  14/29, 153 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT, 75.8 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 9, @ MIA:  21/39, 229 yds, 0 TD, 4 INTs, 31.8 QB Rating
• 2018, Week 16, @ NE:  16/28, 167 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT, 74.6 QB Rating
• 2019, Week 7, vs. NE:  11/32, 86 yds, 0 TD, 4 INTs, 3.6 QB Rating
• 2019, Week 8, @ JAX:  21/30, 218 yds, 2 TD, 3 INTs, 73.3 QB Rating
• 2019, Week 13, @ CIN:  28/48, 239 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT, 71.4 QB Rating
• 2019, Week 17, @ BUF:  23/36, 199 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, 76.0 QB Rating
• 2020, Week 1, @ BUF:  21/35, 215 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT, 75.3 QB Rating

And you'll notice a lot of these opponents weren't exactly world-beaters. 

There was also at least one "good game" in that mix (2018, Week 5, @ DEN), where he had a good QB Rating, but didn't really do a whole lot.  In that game he was 10-22, but threw 3 TDs.  

But either way, 12/27 bad starts (44 %) is way too high.  And 4/27 absolutely god awful starts (15 %) is also way too high.

[Jetsfan80]

11 minutes ago, DoubleDown said:

I am a big supporter of Darnold, but his performance on Sunday was concerning to say the least.  I'm giving him the rest of the season to prove that he is the guy to lead this franchise.  If he fails to live up to expectations, the Jets absolutely need to be in the market of drafting a new franchise quarterback if in position to do so.

The worst possible scenario would be an injury that takes him out for the rest of the season.  The Jets will be left in limbo again.

An injury would also mean we can't trust him, since he'll have missed games all 3 seasons.  Lack of availability would also mean its time to look for a new QB. 

Certainly keep him on the roster in 2021 regardless, unless you can trade him for a sizable package of picks (unlikely), but drafting a QB high would absolutely be in play.  An injury doesn't "protect" Darnold in the least.

[Losmeister]

9 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

2. There are signs (and more than a few) that Darnold can be a very good starting QB.

I showed 2 stretches. These would be the signs, the way I would define signs. 

There are 2 sets of games where you see very good.

Am not gonna bother with the 3-4 games stretches where he showed below AVG.

[Jetsfan80]

9 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

It's definitely somewhat loss aversion for me.  But I also just don't feel in my gut that he's had enough of a chance here. 

He has all of this season, and possibly 2021, to show us something.  That will be more than enough time to evaluate him.  

[jgb]

3 minutes ago, jetstream23 said:

I don't disagree with this.  The Jets under Joe D seem to be doing exactly as you suggest.  The QB room has a promising recent Draft pick in Darnold on a rookie deal, they've added Mike White recently, they draft James Morgan.

I would have loved keeping Bridgewater.  Do you think Tannehill would be doing any better here under Gase than he did in Miami under Gase?

Good point re reuniting Tannehill and Gase. I wanted Tannehill badly last off season but knew as soon as Gase got hired that dream was dead.

[ZachEY]

6 minutes ago, TuscanyTile2 said:

It's definitely somewhat loss aversion for me.  But I also just don't feel in my gut that he's had enough of a chance here. 

Last year, he played pretty well all things considered (horrible OL and he was sick with mono). 

This year it's been only 1 game so far.  And there was a shortened training camp and a brand new OL (not to mention his best WR is gone and his top RB got hurt).

As for an example of his FQB potential, this play is certainly of note:

 

I'm glad you brought up this play.  Because, I think it actually speaks to my point about the emotional investment in Darnold vs. the reality.  Obviously that is a nice play, and probably more so, a fun one.  Huge celebrations, great TD, etc.  But, that's what Darnold's got.  It's who he is.  It's complete sandlot ball.  There's a reason why trick shot artists never make it in the NBA as well.

What Darnold lacks is the fundamentals.  Sure, every once in a while he'll make a play like the one you're sharing, but that's not actually what makes a franchise QB, even if it makes a highlight reel.  What makes a franchise QB is the boring stuff.  It's the ability to step up in the pocket and avoid the rush, rather than run from it.  It's the ability to scan through progressions and deliver a strike.  It's reading a defense and knowing when to check down.  It's the ability to hit open WRs in stride when they're open.  Darnold lacks in all of this.  However, he does make fun plays from time to time.  As I said the other day, improvisation is a bonus, it cannot be the main skill set.  For Darnold, it is.  It's his only weapon - and it's why he fails so frequently.  Because, more often than not, the sandlot sh*t just doesn't work.