Why is Trevor Lawrence a "Generational QB Prospect"?

[predator_05]

He is not a generational prospect. That term has been abused beyond belief by click-baity media and blowhard fans. 

 

But the fanbase is desperate for a messiah...so...

 

 

[JiF]

2 minutes ago, sec101row23 said:

I don’t think he played poorly against PSU, it’s just that they were the only team in that stretch able to pressure him and I don’t think he handled it well.   These kids (Fields and Lawrence) have the luxury of a lot of clean pockets and throwing time, it’s the adversity you really want to see.  This will certainly be a weekly discussion as the likelihood of the number 1 pick looms larger and larger.  

Idk - I cant say I remember the game like yesterday but I remember him being really good.  just looking at the stats; 16/22 75%, 2 TD's,  68 on the ground, 174 efficiency rating...doesnt tell the whole story but idk, seems pretty good.

[JTJet]

51 minutes ago, CTM said:

So basically, in your carefully selected set of criteria their stats look very similair, but adding more games and thus more data makes the comparison look less compelling?

By the time Lawrence is done, barring injury, he'll have 3 full seasons. If he comes out of that as consensus #1 hes a far better prospect than Sam. Period. Talking about some 13 game stretch when 1 was a soph and the other a freshman as the only basis for comparison is absurd.

 

Not accepting stated facts is absurd. 

Their grade in college means absolutely nothing, I am comparing their REGULAR SEASON stats of their FIRST starting seasons. Period. 

That's not "carefully selected" criteria. 

[JTJet]

3 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

Ughh box score scouting reports, nothing worse than those.  
 

First, I loved Sam as a prospect coming out of USC.   But you conveniently leave out context when displaying your stats.  Trevor didn’t become the full time starting QB until week 5 of that season.  Kelly Bryant was the starter for the first 4 games, in his first game as starter against Syracuse he got dinged up and left the game early.  He was  pulled early in a couple blow out wins as well.   He only attempted 12 passes in a 77-16 win against Louisville.  
 

Plus, I’m not sure why you would leave off the 2 most important games of the season (National Championship Playoffs) where Trevor was a ridiculous 46-71 674 yards 6 TDS and ZERO INTs.  
 

You guys really refuse to read the posts dont you?

[CTM]

1 minute ago, JTJet said:

Their grade in college means absolutely nothing, I am comparing their REGULAR SEASON stats of their FIRST starting seasons. Period. 

That's not "carefully selected" criteria. 

Oh 

[UntouchableCrew]

10 hours ago, JTJet said:

Prove it then. Show me what's factually incorrect then. "Show me the receipts" as the kids say. Because I have my proof in hard numbers right here and you choose to just deny. You're like a flat Earther. 

I already did earlier in this thread. You're cherry picking games to help your argument and not counting Lawrence's full season. Your entire argument is predicated on the idea that Lawrence played an easier schedule and you aren't even counting the games he played against the toughest competition (where he tacked on 6 TDs and 0 INTs.)

Quote

These are the regular season stats for both players (13 game season), without the bowl games, as I said before. Darnold has better stats and he did so in less games as a starter, as the first few he only played sparingly. 

You're aware Trevor Lawrence didn't start the season for Clemson right? Kelly Bryant did. And Darnold playing fewers games was because he couldn't beat out Max Browne which saved him the embarrassment of a statistically awful game against Alabama.

Quote

By all mathematical reasoning that exists to mankind, if a player has more TDs, more passing yards, more rushing yards, more rushing TDs, better completion percentage, and he accomplishes that in less playing time. Against better competition, that means he did better. 

 

In terms of passing efficiency their numbers were virtually the same, and Lawrence did it without fumbling 20 times. Not to mention Darnold's volume was higher only because Clemon didn't need to throw in the second half because they were blowing people out.

 

Quote

And the competition was different by a LOT, dont lie to save face. Furman? Georgia Southern? Wake Forest? Duke? Syracuse? That's half of Clemsons schedule that year. Laughable. 

You seem to have a much higher opinion of the Pac-12 than I do. Darnold didn't play Alabama or Stanford, so Darnold only had two impressive wins all year -- on the road against Washington (legit impressive) and Penn State in the Rose Bowl (Colorado was a total fraud paper tiger.) Clemson had two really impressive wins too -- against two top five teams, Alabama (the reigning dynasty in the sport and Notre Dame.

You're also discounting part of the reason that Lawrence didn't have more volume was he wasn't playing the 2nd half of a lot of the games you keep citing.

The thing that's so funny though, is even if we operate under the assumption that Darnold's redshirt freshman year was better than Lawrence's true freshman year -- Lawrence is still a much better prospect and improved as a sophomore -- while Darnold regressed.

[UntouchableCrew]

9 hours ago, Beerfish said:

Come on, did you not actually watch the guy play?

Also you can start by using that same formula for every big talent high profile school including lawrence at clemson.

I did. Burrow looked awesome that year. I'm just saying with largely the same talent around him and largely the same level of competition Burrow went from a pedestrian guy who couldn't crack the lineup at Ohio State to the greatest college season in history.

That raises eyebrows. I'm jealous the Panthers hired Brady.

[BCJet]

1 hour ago, sec101row23 said:

 

Lance scares me, especially if you’re taking him in the first.   I can’t envision a scenario where I would pass up Fields only to take Lance with the Seattle’s pick.  His body of work is so limited, and he’s coming from an FCS program.   

I dont disagree whatsoever that Lance is a huge risk given the limited work and the competition.  The thing is though that since he is a QB, in a year when its gonna be hard for someone else to jump into the top half of the first round, hes going in the top 10.  

Its very hard to project these guys so you have to just keep taking shots and then actually coach these kids up.  The one thing I like about Lance is how much he has played under center, that is something that Fields and Lawerence never do.  

[PS17]

1 hour ago, New York Mick said:

I’m not defending Sam. I’ve said many times I don’t know if he’s the right QB or not but I’m 100% positive Gase isn’t the right HC

My point as far as this thread is Trevor isn’t as good as some people are making him out to be. He’s good but he’s not generational and Luck is from the same generation so is Mahomes. How many QBs are generational for the last 20 to 30 years?

Generational has become the most annoying buzzword in football over the past three or four years. 
 

Hey, bozos. You can’t have “generational” prospects in the draft every single year. 

[maury77]

Man, some of you guys are a lot higher on Fields than I am.

Here is the reality, whether some of you want to accept it or not. A decade of sh!tty drafting by the Jets has left us where we are today. Whether its Andrew Luck, Mahomes, Darnold, Lawrence, Fields, Lance, etc., it doesn't matter. No QB can overcome the lack of talent and crap coaching this team has right now.

Ideally, the Jets trade down a couple of times over the next 2 drafts and start amassing lots of picks (I'm talking 6-7 picks in the first 3 rounds in each of the next 2 drafts) and extend Darnold for a modest 2-3 year extension. If he still sucks, by then the Jets will be picking in the late teens. If they find a QB they like in 2023, trade up for him (like the Chiefs and Texans did) and take it from there. Otherwise, it's going to be 2-3 years of wondering whether Lawrence is any good or if he is just being held back by the roster around him.

[TheMo]

2 hours ago, JTJet said:

You guys really refuse to read the posts dont you?

I've read all your posts. I have been trained in data analytics and also perform data analysis for medical research as a physician. 

Removing data points is not acceptable in my mind. So I would include the bowl games for both. Additionally I would argue that eliminating those points specifically is problematic seeing as those are your opportunities to assess equal playing field situations where the talent on both teams is far more equitable than other contests during the season. 

Additionally a thought on eliminating data points. You can say Lawrence was able to get higher numbers because of that. But equally he had the opportunity to worsen them too. So this is not a reason to eliminate those games for either player. 

Lastly you seem to disregard sample size as trivial. As sample size increases the data is driven to the true meaning, whatever that is. You reduce you statistical uncertainty and this explains why QBs with more games tend to do better in the NFL. It has less to do with the actual reps and more to do with the sample size showing you a more accurate picture of the player. 

[Jetsfan80]

16 hours ago, New York Mick said:

I remember when Luck was going to be the greatest QB to step on the field. That worked out real good. 

He was a great prospect but that of course guarantees nothing.  That being said, he led the Colts to a 33-15 record his first three seasons.  He threw for 40 TDs in his 3rd season in the league. 

Unfortunately, he was stuck with a Colts organization that was terribly run up until recent years when they've turned things around.  If Luck had been drafted in 2017 instead of 2012, he'd have had a LOT more success.

We'd kill for that a QB who can do that, even if his career ended up short-lived.  Sometimes the hype is meaningful.

[Jetsfan80]

5 hours ago, New York Mick said:

Luck would of sucked playing for this Jets team and Gase unless he was as good at calling plays as Peyton Manning. 

So what's the solution?  Wait until we don't suck to draft the QB?  Because that isn't going to happen.  You can't afford to "kick the can down the road" when it comes to QB's.  

Bring in a legitimate HC candidate like Greg Roman, draft the QB (whichever one that is), and watch as this team makes some dramatic improvement.  Players who were JAGs before will start to look like key pieces.  Injuries will magically stop being a problem.  Teams that have been in horrid shape can, and do, get significantly better when a new HC/QB combo arrives on the scene.

[jetophile]

Who came up with the phrase "generational talent"? I'm growing to hate it. Generationally talentless is a different story. GO JETS!

[Wonderboy]

16 hours ago, Larz said:

Who cares he’ll probably be a Giant

if both Giants and Jets go 0-16, who gets the 1st pick?

[Dinamite]

 

3 hours ago, maury77 said:

Man, some of you guys are a lot higher on Fields than I am.

Here is the reality, whether some of you want to accept it or not. A decade of sh!tty drafting by the Jets has left us where we are today. Whether its Andrew Luck, Mahomes, Darnold, Lawrence, Fields, Lance, etc., it doesn't matter. No QB can overcome the lack of talent and crap coaching this team has right now.

Ideally, the Jets trade down a couple of times over the next 2 drafts and start amassing lots of picks (I'm talking 6-7 picks in the first 3 rounds in each of the next 2 drafts) and extend Darnold for a modest 2-3 year extension. If he still sucks, by then the Jets will be picking in the late teens. If they find a QB they like in 2023, trade up for him (like the Chiefs and Texans did) and take it from there. Otherwise, it's going to be 2-3 years of wondering whether Lawrence is any good or if he is just being held back by the roster around him.

If the jets end up with the #1 pick, it makes sense to pick Lawrence and re-start that rookie clock, with a new coaching staff.   If they get any other pick (even #2), I am not sure about the other prospects, and would favor trading down and amassing lots of picks with Darnold on a short extension (provided he doesn't completely get destroyed this year of course).

[Larz]

2 minutes ago, Wonderboy said:

if both Giants and Jets go 0-16, who gets the 1st pick?

He’ll never be a jet. His agent won’t allow it

[maury77]

 
If the jets end up with the #1 pick, it makes sense to pick Lawrence and re-start that rookie clock, with a new coaching staff.   If they get any other pick (even #2), I am not sure about the other prospects, and would favor trading down and amassing lots of picks with Darnold on a short extension (provided he doesn't completely get destroyed this year of course).

You have to take Lawrence if you are picking at 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CTM]

4 hours ago, UntouchableCrew said:

The thing that's so funny though, is even if we operate under the assumption that Darnold's redshirt freshman year was better than Lawrence's true freshman year -- Lawrence is still a much better prospect and improved as a sophomore -- while Darnold regressed.

omg stick to the topic ookk, in these specific 13 games that were mentioned was Darnold and Lawrence statistically similiar? True or false.

[New York Mick]

24 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

So what's the solution?  Wait until we don't suck to draft the QB?  Because that isn't going to happen.  You can't afford to "kick the can down the road" when it comes to QB's.  

Bring in a legitimate HC candidate like Greg Roman, draft the QB (whichever one that is), and watch as this team makes some dramatic improvement.  Players who were JAGs before will start to look like key pieces.  Injuries will magically stop being a problem.  Teams that have been in horrid shape can, and do, get significantly better when a new HC/QB combo arrives on the scene.

Fix the HC first like I said when the dumbasses in the FO thought it was a good idea to hire Gase. Getting a good QB with him at coach is pointless. He’ll just ruin another player’s career. 
I remember being endlessly called out for saying that. Look at where we are now

[Lith]

4 hours ago, maury77 said:

Man, some of you guys are a lot higher on Fields than I am.

Here is the reality, whether some of you want to accept it or not. A decade of sh!tty drafting by the Jets has left us where we are today. Whether its Andrew Luck, Mahomes, Darnold, Lawrence, Fields, Lance, etc., it doesn't matter. No QB can overcome the lack of talent and crap coaching this team has right now.

Ideally, the Jets trade down a couple of times over the next 2 drafts and start amassing lots of picks (I'm talking 6-7 picks in the first 3 rounds in each of the next 2 drafts) and extend Darnold for a modest 2-3 year extension. If he still sucks, by then the Jets will be picking in the late teens. If they find a QB they like in 2023, trade up for him (like the Chiefs and Texans did) and take it from there. Otherwise, it's going to be 2-3 years of wondering whether Lawrence is any good or if he is just being held back by the roster around him.

I hear you.  And I agree that you need to build your roster first to put a rookie QB in position to succeed.  Which is something we have never done, and part of the reason why I think so many young, higly drafted QBs don't succeed.  Not sure I agree that we should extend Darnold.  If he continues to struggle, I am not willing to pay him starting QB $$ on a second contract.  I would rather trade him and sign a veteran hold the fort guy for a year or two.

But if we have the #1 overall pick, it would be awfully tempting to take a guy like Lawrence without having to give up a boatload of picks, and while still having another #1 and two 1s next year.  I think we would have a chance to build around him the way the Bills built around Josh Allen and put him in a position to succeed.

[BigRy56]

I don't know if he's a generational prospect, but I do know that every scouting report I've read on him makes him seem bullet proof and can't miss. While Sam was widely regarded as the top prospect in his draft, he did have some detractors. Lawrence doesn't have any of those.

[Spoot-Face]

18 hours ago, Defense Wins Championships said:

He's a better college QB at every statistical category than Sam was coming out. More TDs. Less ints. Better QB Rating. Better completion percentage. More rushing yards etc etc and he's also bigger stronger more athletic much better arm etc. 

Also has a bigger penis, I hear.

[jetspenguin]

Let's draft Sunshine and call it a day

Sent from the Suicide Watch desk.

[Losmeister]

7 hours ago, predator_05 said:

He is not a generational prospect. That term has been abused beyond belief by click-baity media and blowhard fans. 

But the fanbase is desperate for a messiah...so...

yes. and its THESE people who toos around the word "genius" and "guru"

also you mentioned messiah, Jets annointed Sam befofre he played a snap...  saying his FLOOR was this or that HOFer....

assumption that he was gonna be a top10 guy for years....

now the disappointment seeing Sam being below AVG at this level, is converted into a frothing hate of Gase.

And AGAIN!!! 

IDGAF about Gase.

I've seen a baout 5-6 pretty biggames and Trev generally produces. I'd have to watch some more this year to say anything more...  

[Jet_Engine1]

7 hours ago, JTJet said:

You guys really refuse to read the posts dont you?

Your posts on this subject are stupid beyond belief.

 

Cheerio, mate!

[Jet_Engine1]

 I have said this once or twice in this thread... Trevor Lawrence would have been the consensus number one pick in every draft since around 2000, outside of maybe 2012.

 

Period. 

[Savage69]

8 hours ago, predator_05 said:

He is not a generational prospect. That term has been abused beyond belief by click-baity media and blowhard fans. 

 

But the fanbase is desperate for a messiah...so...

 

 

Hmmm that picture reminds me of Bruce Jenner before he became Caitlyn 

[Zerovoltz]

13 hours ago, predator_05 said:

Would Mahomes be the player he is today on a different team? 

Depends on the criteria...the short answer is yes...he would be the same dynamic player he is.....he would NOT have posted a leauge MVP or SB MVP season however on the Jets.  He'd make the Jets potential contenders every year.  Clearly, he ended up in the most optimal possible situation he could when KC got him. 

[bealeb319]

Honestly we would be better off trading the pick to the highest bidder and building around darnold who can still be the guy if we put a half viable team around him. People keep saying he is regressing but the reality is the team around him is...his offensive line is better this year but still not near a top line...his weapons are non existent and the defense has not done him any favors it is our whole team that has regressed I believe not darnold.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using JetNation.com mobile app

[heymangold]

 

 

[funaz]

That was better pass than I've seen anyone on the jets make in 10 years

[/url]
 
 

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using JetNation.com mobile app

[Scoop24]

Trevor makes it look easy.

[Beerfish]

4 hours ago, Jet_Engine1 said:

 I have said this once or twice in this thread... Trevor Lawrence would have been the consensus number one pick in every draft since around 2000, outside of maybe 2012.

 

Period. 

And it would be just as much of a mistake as passing on pat mahommes.

He is a good prospect, a very good one but to look really good he better be going to a team with talent already because if he goes to a jets like team he'll be called a bust in to years.

[Defense Wins Championships]

The greatest thing about Trevor is that he doesn't turn the ball over nor commit head scratching decisions. Two flaws Sam had coming out were turnovers and questionable decision making. Trevor also has a much stronger arm and way more accurate deep down field. Has elite size too.