Jump to content

Daniel Jeremiah first mock is out


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 226
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

He's wrong this year.

Obviously this is the mock you want to pay attention to as a Jets fan. He nailed the Becton to Jets pick last year. He’s got us going with Zach Wilson.    

A few things:  If the Jets are picking second, I agree they will pick Zach Wilson. There is no scenario they pick 2nd and draft a player that's not a QB. As the process unfolds, I think we'll

On 1/22/2021 at 2:34 PM, BroadwayRay said:

Interesting that you've lowered your odds on Donald returning. It was most recently 75%.

60/40 was told to me before knowing who the HC would be. 

75/25 knowing who the HC/OC are.

60-70 considering that there is a *slight* possibility that (1) Watson is traded to the Jets; and/or (2) the Colts offer a 1st round pick for Sam now that Philip has officially retired. 

Happy?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 2:35 PM, Augustiniak said:

saleh certainly didn't give darnold a vote of confidence yesterday.  your percentage estimate of how likely darnold will remain with the jets seems high to me.  i think wilson is the best qb in the draft by far and would excel in the system the jets are installing.  certainly these football guys know this.  why wouldn't you just take wilson and trade darnold and have the guy who is tailored to excel in this system?

It's based on what I was told by a member of the front office lol

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, football guy said:

Elaborate 

Well, I kind of feel like you should be answering that question - not me. 

Lance spent a year backing up Easton Stick, played a full season of FCS football, and showed up looking completely over matched against an FBS opponent (albiet a weird game) - one in which he had to win with his legs, something I assume you'll throw at Fields.

There's really no comparison. Fields has played clean, accurate, decisive football against the best in college. He's been surrounded and practicing against future NFL talent for 3 years, starting for 2 of them. He's leagues ahead of 1-season Lance. Especially with timing and accuracy when pushing the ball IMO.

I admit, I haven't given Trey the time of day yet, largely because he's like Jordan Love to me - go somewhere where he can be groomed.. ie. PIT, ATL, etc  - cause all he is right now is a ball of good looking clay. Absurd to suggest he's somehow more refined at this point than Fields is my take. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

You asked me to elaborate, rather curtly, still waiting for to circle back and respond. 

He tends to do that, I've noticed.  Ask for people to provide info/feedback, then not respond when they do.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

He tends to do that, I've noticed.  Ask for people to provide info/feedback, then not respond when they do.  

Yea I’m getting that impression. Quick to receive praise and hang lanterns on it - but not so much on the “we disagree” playing field.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Paradis said:

You asked me to elaborate, rather curtly, still waiting for to circle back and respond. 

Don't pay close attention on the weekends. But thanks for reminding me... also, I don't hate/dislike anyone lol. What I sense is that some people on this forum want to challenge my intelligence/doubt what I have to say without even articulating what they're doubting or questioning my logic without pointing out what is being questioned. 

On 1/23/2021 at 8:14 PM, Paradis said:

Well, I kind of feel like you should be answering that question - not me. 

Lance spent a year backing up Easton Stick, played a full season of FCS football, and showed up looking completely over matched against an FBS opponent (albiet a weird game) - one in which he had to win with his legs, something I assume you'll throw at Fields.

There's really no comparison. Fields has played clean, accurate, decisive football against the best in college. He's been surrounded and practicing against future NFL talent for 3 years, starting for 2 of them. He's leagues ahead of 1-season Lance. Especially with timing and accuracy when pushing the ball IMO.

I admit, I haven't given Trey the time of day yet, largely because he's like Jordan Love to me - go somewhere where he can be groomed.. ie. PIT, ATL, etc  - cause all he is right now is a ball of good looking clay. Absurd to suggest he's somehow more refined at this point than Fields is my take. 

You're saying my logic is absurd so no, you should be the one to explain what is absurd about it, not me.

I've went over time and time again what is questionable about Fields as a prospect, so I'll focus on Lance...

You mention how Lance spent a year backing up Stick as if that has anything to do with how he projects as an NFL player. Justin Fields had to transfer because he couldn't surpass JT Daniels, does that make JT Daniels better? How about Carson Wentz, who sat behind Brock Jensen for 2 years... Joe Flacco transferred because he lost his job to Palko at Pitt... Josh Allen sat at Wyoming... Baker Mayfield at Texas Tech behind Webb... Brady couldn't hold of Hansen... there are plenty of QB examples of a player who sits behind a less-talented player in college - whether it be at QB or at RB (i.e. Kamara). That's, like, the worst argument one can make re: evaluation. People fail in scouting because they place higher emphasis on results/production than they do skill/process... that's what made Josh Allen such a great prospect. That's what made Herbert such a great prospect. They may not have played consistently well on tape, but they had the type of responsibilities and made throws that QBs were required to do in the NFL to be successful, which made them projectable. 

Why Lance is a better prospect? He played in a pro-style system at NDSU, which places a high emphasis on forcing their QBs to play QB the way the NFL expects them to, not just any funky scheme designed to get the most output. Stats are irrelevant. Instead, they run a system that asks their QBs to carry an offense the way a traditional NFL offense expects their QBs to, they have an abundance of on-field responsibilities. So for one, Lance is more developed at "quarterbacking" than all of these prospects are, albeit he has played in fewer games. Second, in the few games he has played it is clear to me that he is head-and-shoulders above Fields in 3 major categories: poise, decision-making, and field-vision. It's not to say that Fields isn't these things, but he never showed them in college... he wasn't consistently asked to make throws in the face of pressure, to read the whole field, to make decisions intra-play. Instead, Fields played in a scheme that predetermined his throws (which many times were to wide-open receivers), to escape after the 1st read and check-down weren't there (no decision-making), and very rarely was asked to make throws in the face of pressure... these are things Lance did on every play. Furthermore, Lance mastered a pro-style scheme in his redshirt-freshman season... the same offense which took NFL players Wentz and Stick years to master. When you couple the things he was asked to do, his ability to maximize his play in a pro-style system, his field processing ability, elite decision-making, and his rare physical traits and arm talent (which are right there with Fields if not better), it's an easy decision for me. NFL teams are going to be fearful of competition and lack of playing time, and I think the pandemic hurts him (since teams can't spend as much time with him, picking his brain, etc.), but at the end of the day, he has a great throwing motion, excellent skill, and experience/production in an offense that translates very well to the NFL. He's the perfect complement of runner and passer, and in my mind is right there with Zach Wilson as the #2 guy... probably would be the definite #2 if he played a full season. 

Fields is accurate, yes. He has a great arm. He's decisive executing within the offense he was asked to run. But you hit the nail on the head: he's been surrounded by elite-level talent and was asked to operate within a system that doesn't ask him to make many field reads, is a "see it, throw it" scheme requiring no anticipatory throws, and is very much a "coach will scheme someone open, you just need to execute" scheme. That's not to say he can't be a very good QB... he can... but if you're trying to project him into an NFL offense as a ready starting QB you're making a big mistake. He needs to sit and learn. He's not nearly as developed as Lance is, and I think they are apples-to-apples in terms of athleticism/arm talent (if not favoring Lance more). 

  • Upvote 3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

Don't pay close attention on the weekends. But thanks for reminding me... also, I don't hate/dislike anyone lol. What I sense is that some people on this forum want to challenge my intelligence/doubt what I have to say without even articulating what they're doubting or questioning my logic without pointing out what is being questioned. 

You're saying my logic is absurd so no, you should be the one to explain what is absurd about it, not me.

I've went over time and time again what is questionable about Fields as a prospect, so I'll focus on Lance...

You mention how Lance spent a year backing up Stick as if that has anything to do with how he projects as an NFL player. Justin Fields had to transfer because he couldn't surpass JT Daniels, does that make JT Daniels better? How about Carson Wentz, who sat behind Brock Jensen for 2 years... Joe Flacco transferred because he lost his job to Palko at Pitt... Josh Allen sat at Wyoming... Baker Mayfield at Texas Tech behind Webb... Brady couldn't hold of Hansen... there are plenty of QB examples of a player who sits behind a less-talented player in college - whether it be at QB or at RB (i.e. Kamara). That's, like, the worst argument one can make re: evaluation. People fail in scouting because they place higher emphasis on results/production than they do skill/process... that's what made Josh Allen such a great prospect. That's what made Herbert such a great prospect. They may not have played consistently well on tape, but they had the type of responsibilities and made throws that QBs were required to do in the NFL to be successful, which made them projectable. 

Why Lance is a better prospect? He played in a pro-style system at NDSU, which places a high emphasis on forcing their QBs to play QB the way the NFL expects them to, not just any funky scheme designed to get the most output. Stats are irrelevant. Instead, they run a system that asks their QBs to carry an offense the way a traditional NFL offense expects their QBs to, they have an abundance of on-field responsibilities. So for one, Lance is more developed at "quarterbacking" than all of these prospects are, albeit he has played in fewer games. Second, in the few games he has played it is clear to me that he is head-and-shoulders above Fields in 3 major categories: poise, decision-making, and field-vision. It's not to say that Fields isn't these things, but he never showed them in college... he wasn't consistently asked to make throws in the face of pressure, to read the whole field, to make decisions intra-play. Instead, Fields played in a scheme that predetermined his throws (which many times were to wide-open receivers), to escape after the 1st read and check-down weren't there (no decision-making), and very rarely was asked to make throws in the face of pressure... these are things Lance did on every play. Furthermore, Lance mastered a pro-style scheme in his redshirt-freshman season... the same offense which took NFL players Wentz and Stick years to master. When you couple the things he was asked to do, his ability to maximize his play in a pro-style system, his field processing ability, elite decision-making, and his rare physical traits and arm talent (which are right there with Fields if not better), it's an easy decision for me. NFL teams are going to be fearful of competition and lack of playing time, and I think the pandemic hurts him (since teams can't spend as much time with him, picking his brain, etc.), but at the end of the day, he has a great throwing motion, excellent skill, and experience/production in an offense that translates very well to the NFL. He's the perfect complement of runner and passer, and in my mind is right there with Zach Wilson as the #2 guy... probably would be the definite #2 if he played a full season. 

Fields is accurate, yes. He has a great arm. He's decisive executing within the offense he was asked to run. But you hit the nail on the head: he's been surrounded by elite-level talent and was asked to operate within a system that doesn't ask him to make many field reads, is a "see it, throw it" scheme requiring no anticipatory throws, and is very much a "coach will scheme someone open, you just need to execute" scheme. That's not to say he can't be a very good QB... he can... but if you're trying to project him into an NFL offense as a ready starting QB you're making a big mistake. He needs to sit and learn. He's not nearly as developed as Lance is, and I think they are apples-to-apples in terms of athleticism/arm talent (if not favoring Lance more). 

So when I said -- it's ok to prefer one QB over another, i meant -- It's ok to prefer Lance over Fields. The majority of this post is outlining that argument.... What i said was your reasoning (That Lance is further along development wise) is absurd. This doesn't put a dent in that argument.

Now its obvious you prefer Lance for a variety reasons and see his potential as a lot higher. That's fine. I think Mac Jones will walk circles around Lance in the pros. I tell you this only to highlight I too have feelings that may not be popular takes... 

But to suggest that Lance spending 1 year starting in a "pro style" offense somehow makes him more developed is silly (an argument that in and of itself has lost a lot of weight giving how many teams run spread Os, and the biggest names like Watson, Mahomes, Jackson, Allen -- none of them came from an under-center offense.)

  • Surround by elite talent?...and... you guessed it; had to practice and play against elite talent. That's not a knock on Fields. It's a strength. this whole "did more with less" fantasy actually doesn't translate to the pros. At all. What's a better gauge? Playing against teams like Penn/Michigan/Clemson etc 2 years in a row and competing in the playoffs..... or beating the piss out of Colgate 1x in the FCS? hmmm. Those FCS colgate corners can really make life hell for QBs I hear... especially from NDSU, like easily the most stacked program in the FCS
  • Where did I say backing up Easton Stick was a knock on his projection in the NFL? You went on a long tangent there. I said that in reference to his whole college career consisted of 1 year as a backup, 1 year starting, and 1 year not playing.... VS 
  • 1 year backing up at more difficult program (meaning better reps in practice. better positional coaches usually too), and 2 years starting in the big ten...  and you wanna tell me that 1 year in a pro offense is enough to say Lance is more developed? 

 

"Instead, Fields played in a scheme that predetermined his throws (which many times were to wide-open receivers), to escape after the 1st read and check-down weren't there (no decision-making), and very rarely was asked to make throws in the face of pressure...

That's not an accurate assessment of Fields as a QB - and I don't think that fair representation of what he's asked to do. Also, there's NFL offenses that survive on what you just said there. Nothing Fields has done suggests he can't do more in the NFL. On other hand: "these are things Lance did on every play"  Will go through a series of filters for scouts including what happened in the FBS game when those easy reads where not there. and when he missed a lot of timing throws b/c of pressure...  

I think you need to calibrate your answers to acknowledge the level competition and volume of games started. Again, nothing wrong with preferring Lance over Fields if that's your honest take -- but the "Lance is more developed" notion is for the birds IMO

For record, your critique of Fields reads identical to that most had of Watson... Sometimes the man's bigger than the game. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Paradis I get the sense you’re just looking to argue without even providinng facts of your own; simply looking to poke holes in what I have to contribute. They call this making an argument from ignorance.

Firstly, what does Ohio State’s system, or BYU’s and Clemson’s for that matter, do to prepare QBs for what they’re going to see in the NFL? I’ve posted countless examples specifying how OSU’s offense does exactly what I said on a down-to-down basis and your response is “no that’s not correct.” Then prove it... 

Second, Lance may have played in less games, but he’s been asked to operate within a system that is far more comparable to an NFL system. His down-to-down responsibilities are far more comparable to what an NFL QBs responsibilities are. He’s more developed as a passer than Fields is and it’s not close... Fields started 22 games in a gimmick college offense designed to predetermine reads for the QB and get a bunch of 5-star recruits open. He didn’t learn how to be an NFL QB at Ohio State, nor did he display an ability to handle the responsibilities that an NFL offense would require him to handle at Ohio State. Trey Lance did. So yes, Lance is far more developed as a QB than Fields is. Lance displays NFL readiness, Fields does not. That doesn’t mean Fields can’t or won’t, but from a projection standpoint (the tape) it’s clear Lance is further along than Fields. Citing competition is a legitimate concern: how will the player adjust to playing against better players. However, strength of competition has zero to do with QB development. It’s far less significant for a QB, whose job is to play within the scheme and to be a point guard for the offense, rather than to outrun or outmuscle people. From a development perspective, he’s shown more ability to play within an NFL offense than Fields can even if he played another 30 games... NDSU offense prepares the QB what it’s like to play QB in a pro-style offense (read coverages as opposed to looking for a poster on the sideline to help you figure out your reads; call protections at the line of scrimmage; read the entire field; allow the coverage to dictate your progressions). 

Third, I never said Fields couldn’t be Watson. Watson shared some of these concerns but not as many. For all I know Fields could be the next Mahomes. He could just as easily be the next Haskins. I can’t evaluate what I don’t know, I can only evaluate what I do know. 
What I know: Fields’ offense at OSU did not prepare him to be a starter in an NFL offense, nor did it allow him to display the ability to operate in an NFL offense. Does that mean he can’t? No. But should I assume that he can? No.

  • Upvote 3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, football guy said:

@Paradis I get the sense you’re just looking to argue without even providinng facts of your own; simply looking to poke holes in what I have to contribute. They call this making an argument from ignorance.

Firstly, what does Ohio State’s system, or BYU’s and Clemson’s for that matter, do to prepare QBs for what they’re going to see in the NFL? I’ve posted countless examples specifying how OSU’s offense does exactly what I said on a down-to-down basis and your response is “no that’s not correct.” Then prove it... 

Second, Lance may have played in less games, but he’s been asked to operate within a system that is far more comparable to an NFL system. His down-to-down responsibilities are far more comparable to what an NFL QBs responsibilities are. He’s more developed as a passer than Fields is and it’s not close... Fields started 22 games in a gimmick college offense designed to predetermine reads for the QB and get a bunch of 5-star recruits open. He didn’t learn how to be an NFL QB at Ohio State, nor did he display an ability to handle the responsibilities that an NFL offense would require him to handle at Ohio State. Trey Lance did. So yes, Lance is far more developed as a QB than Fields is. Lance displays NFL readiness, Fields does not. That doesn’t mean Fields can’t or won’t, but from a projection standpoint (the tape) it’s clear Lance is further along than Fields. Citing competition is a legitimate concern: how will the player adjust to playing against better players. However, strength of competition has zero to do with QB development. It’s far less significant for a QB, whose job is to play within the scheme and to be a point guard for the offense, rather than to outrun or outmuscle people. From a development perspective, he’s shown more ability to play within an NFL offense than Fields can even if he played another 30 games... NDSU offense prepares the QB what it’s like to play QB in a pro-style offense (read coverages as opposed to looking for a poster on the sideline to help you figure out your reads; call protections at the line of scrimmage; read the entire field; allow the coverage to dictate your progressions). 

Third, I never said Fields couldn’t be Watson. Watson shared some of these concerns but not as many. For all I know Fields could be the next Mahomes. He could just as easily be the next Haskins. I can’t evaluate what I don’t know, I can only evaluate what I do know. 
What I know: Fields’ offense at OSU did not prepare him to be a starter in an NFL offense, nor did it allow him to display the ability to operate in an NFL offense. Does that mean he can’t? No. But should I assume that he can? No.

could you see the jets trading back and taking lance, keeping darnold and then having a competition between the two?  if darnold improves, great, if not, you sit him and lance takes over.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

could you see the jets trading back and taking lance, keeping darnold and then having a competition between the two?  if darnold improves, great, if not, you sit him and lance takes over.

I think that’s the least likely scenario based on nothing more than the huge risk Lance has attached to him as to whether his success in the FCS will translate. I have to assume Joe and Rob are looking for a path of lesser resistance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

could you see the jets trading back and taking lance, keeping darnold and then having a competition between the two?  if darnold improves, great, if not, you sit him and lance takes over.

I can’t see it personally. If they’re moving forward with Darnold they’re going to give him the opportunity to be the man. If he doesn’t they’ll solve the QB dilemma next year 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, football guy said:

I can’t see it personally. If they’re moving forward with Darnold they’re going to give him the opportunity to be the man. If he doesn’t they’ll solve the QB dilemma next year 

and you still see/hear it as 75% sam's the man?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

@Paradis I get the sense you’re just looking to argue without even providinng facts of your own; simply looking to poke holes in what I have to contribute. They call this making an argument from ignorance.

Firstly, what does Ohio State’s system, or BYU’s and Clemson’s for that matter, do to prepare QBs for what they’re going to see in the NFL? I’ve posted countless examples specifying how OSU’s offense does exactly what I said on a down-to-down basis and your response is “no that’s not correct.” Then prove it... 

Second, Lance may have played in less games, but he’s been asked to operate within a system that is far more comparable to an NFL system. His down-to-down responsibilities are far more comparable to what an NFL QBs responsibilities are. He’s more developed as a passer than Fields is and it’s not close... Fields started 22 games in a gimmick college offense designed to predetermine reads for the QB and get a bunch of 5-star recruits open. He didn’t learn how to be an NFL QB at Ohio State, nor did he display an ability to handle the responsibilities that an NFL offense would require him to handle at Ohio State. Trey Lance did. So yes, Lance is far more developed as a QB than Fields is. Lance displays NFL readiness, Fields does not. That doesn’t mean Fields can’t or won’t, but from a projection standpoint (the tape) it’s clear Lance is further along than Fields. Citing competition is a legitimate concern: how will the player adjust to playing against better players. However, strength of competition has zero to do with QB development. It’s far less significant for a QB, whose job is to play within the scheme and to be a point guard for the offense, rather than to outrun or outmuscle people. From a development perspective, he’s shown more ability to play within an NFL offense than Fields can even if he played another 30 games... NDSU offense prepares the QB what it’s like to play QB in a pro-style offense (read coverages as opposed to looking for a poster on the sideline to help you figure out your reads; call protections at the line of scrimmage; read the entire field; allow the coverage to dictate your progressions). 

Third, I never said Fields couldn’t be Watson. Watson shared some of these concerns but not as many. For all I know Fields could be the next Mahomes. He could just as easily be the next Haskins. I can’t evaluate what I don’t know, I can only evaluate what I do know. 
What I know: Fields’ offense at OSU did not prepare him to be a starter in an NFL offense, nor did it allow him to display the ability to operate in an NFL offense. Does that mean he can’t? No. But should I assume that he can? No.

It's clear you're getting a little annoyed at this back and forth, but from an outsider's point of view you're BOTH providing food for thought (even though it's two completely different meals), so thanks . . .

 

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

@Paradis I get the sense you’re just looking to argue without even providinng facts of your own; simply looking to poke holes in what I have to contribute. They call this making an argument from ignorance.

Not at all, but remember this started with you making a proclamation that warranted some skepticism... but don't mistake my not having time at work to write an essay as a sign that i don't have an proof in my pudding.  You're stating that someone who played 1 season -- largely against near div-II talent, is far more developed simply because he was asked to do a 3 step drop.  Spending the time to learn a more conventional "go through your reads" progression is valuable education, but (but with regards to development) you're placing ALL the value in what the QB is doing, and not enough in what the defense is doing -- that which Fields will have a much higher threshold for dealing with IMO

Providing facts?  Like what? like this--

1 hour ago, football guy said:

@Paradis

Lance displays NFL readiness, Fields does not. That doesn’t mean Fields can’t or won’t, but from a projection standpoint (the tape) it’s clear Lance is further along than Fields. Citing competition is a legitimate concern: how will the player adjust to playing against better players. However, strength of competition has zero to do with QB development. 

 

Exhibit A vv

Pressure, more complicated defensive looks, faster athletes == trey looks like trash. Missing throws. Missing reads. Etc etc. 

 

I think we can agree to disagree on what constitutes "development"... you seem to be equating that mostly scheme exposure particularly associated with the exercise of making progressions in NFL offenses.. (to me) that's of course part of the puzzle, but there's a whole other side to development when it comes to execution and application. 

Football guy: Lance is further along with under center/mechanics and understanding what's asked of him to go through his "progressions"

Paradis: fair enough. He's had more exposure, I agree.

Football guy: which also means he's more developed. Footwork, ball placement, timing, dealing with pressure etc

Paradis: hol up...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 2:24 PM, Paradis said:

Wilson at #2 - not a fan, but i get it. 

Etienne at #23 is a joke. I have as much of a chance going in the 1st round as Etienne does, let alone by Joe Douglas on roster full of charlie chaplins.

At #23, who would you take. Creed Humphrey or Wyatt Davis. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, genot said:

At #23, who would you take. Creed Humphrey or Wyatt Davis. Thanks.

Probably Creed - but I confess I’m not a great measure of insight with Olinemen. @RobR has been scarily accurate in his feelings about who’s fools gold. Maybe he’ll chime in? I feel like the those interior linemen from OU  have been low risk picks lately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Augustiniak said:

and you still see/hear it as 75% sam's the man?

I haven't asked for an odd's update honestly. 60/40 was what I was told before we even started the process. Knowing what I know about the Shanahan's views on Sam and Saleh's philosophy, it's my belief that he's returning, yes. 

If Deshaun is made available (I'm fairly certain he won't be, barring a massive shift in philosophy on Houston's end), I'd expect the Jets to try to acquire him; if they don't they can fall back to the original plan, which is figure out whether to move forward with Darnold and trade down (more likely) or take Zach Wilson at #2 and trade Darnold (less likely). 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Probably Creed - but I confess I’m not a great measure of insight with Olinemen. @RobR has been scarily accurate in his feelings about who’s fools gold. Maybe he’ll chime in? I feel like the those interior linemen from OU  have been low risk picks lately. 

Wow. I haven't been on draft forum in a while. RobR hasn't posted on main. He nailed me to the wall defending the Polite pick. The thing about Creed, other than his physical skills is, he's very smart. Need to get on that forum.This one is getting very redundant at the moment. Thanks, 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 1:25 PM, Beerfish said:

Hes had slater above sewel for a while now.

Fields below wilson and lance.

This is the draft the jets need to trade down from #2 at least once if not twice.

Lots of what I consider nice prospects mid 1st round and we can address a lot of needs in this draft and be loaded for the 2022 draft.

Two years from now we have a rebuilt team.

How many more years are we going to rebuild ? I want to win a bowl before I'm in a wheelchair .

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2021 at 1:15 PM, varjet said:

This is where we see if Woody is really back to his old self here, because he would overpay for Watson so he can fill the seats next year.  

JD is flawed in almost the other direction-he basically burned 2020 because he would not overpay for Conklin and Anderson while trying to find prospects in the draft that would take a year plus to develop (Hall, Clark, Zuniga) and unloading Bell and Adams.  

We don’t want to panic buy, but can’t wait until next year every year to be competitive. 

I would offer the Texans both 2021 first rounders for Watson, if they take Darnold and his salary too.  That is it. 

Although I agree he is not going to overpay for people, I think his plan was to get rid of Gase and losing like they did made it a lot easier. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Paradis said:

Not at all, but remember this started with you making a proclamation that warranted some skepticism... but don't mistake my not having time at work to write an essay as a sign that i don't have an proof in my pudding.  You're stating that someone who played 1 season -- largely against near div-II talent, is far more developed simply because he was asked to do a 3 step drop.  Spending the time to learn a more conventional "go through your reads" progression is valuable education, but (but with regards to development) you're placing ALL the value in what the QB is doing, and not enough in what the defense is doing -- that which Fields will have a much higher threshold for dealing with IMO

Providing facts?  Like what? like this--

Exhibit A vv

Pressure, more complicated defensive looks, faster athletes == trey looks like trash. Missing throws. Missing reads. Etc etc. 

 

I think we can agree to disagree on what constitutes "development"... you seem to be equating that mostly scheme exposure particularly associated with the exercise of making progressions in NFL offenses.. (to me) that's of course part of the puzzle, but there's a whole other side to development when it comes to execution and application. 

Football guy: Lance is further along with under center/mechanics and understanding what's asked of him to go through his "progressions"

Paradis: fair enough. He's had more exposure, I agree.

Football guy: which also means he's more developed. Footwork, ball placement, timing, dealing with pressure etc

Paradis: hol up...

 

These are just overgeneralizations and massive mischaracterizations, but OK.

As far as your second part: yes, I'm saying that makes him a more developed QB. If you want a more specific term, we'll call it "more developed as a pro-style quarterback." Like, I'm not sure what your angle is here... You are trying to redefine what QB development is by expanding the scope as if it means something else. Yeah it's something that may have many factors and isn't simply defined, but the overall "puzzle" as it relates to pro-style QB development is being able to hone the skill set required to operate in a professional system. That means tangibly (physical ability, passing mechanics, poise/toughness) and intangibly (anticipation, field vision, poise Xs & Os, pre-snap/post-snap responsibilities, decision-making, understanding protections and coverages). A more developed pro-style QB will harness more of these qualities and it will become "instinctual" to them. Being a further developed QB also has nothing to do with being a more talented QB. Josh Rosen was a far more developed QB than Josh Allen was, yet look how that turned out. 

Trey Lance is a more developed pro-style QB than Justin Fields and it's not even close. One can make the argument that Lance is more advanced as a pro-style QB than anyone else in this class (I think that's a correct statement). However, being more developed does not necessarily mean better; it does not necessarily mean projects to be better. That's why people use the oh so popular term "potential" and "upside" when evaluating QBs. 

What makes Lance a better prospect than Fields is that not only is he more developed, but he's just as talented. He has the same throwing ability and running ability that Fields does. I think that Zach Wilson is a better QB prospect than Lance not because he's more developed, but because his natural throwing ability/instincts are more gifted... he has a rare arm and rare ability (instinct) to throw with anticipation. Trevor Lawrence has the whole package. 

 

Honestly I don't know what the point of your argument is other than you claiming that "development" is more than just the things I outlined above. FIelds hasn't been asked to do anything remotely close to what a professional offense will ask of him on a down-to-down basis. He's raw. That doesn't mean he can't be good, but yes, it means he's less developed. The only thing he's done that Trey Lance hasn't is play in big games, which is an important factor RE: poise. Level of competition doesn't have much to do with pro-style QB development; that's a matter of figuring out his upside... does he play well just because its poor competition, or is he playing within the limits of the system? Josh Allen, Carson Wentz, Daniel Jones, Justin Herbert were held back by their college offenses, but they were asked to do everything an NFL QB is asked of them. Patrick Mahomes, Derek Carr, Marcus Mariota, Cam Newton, Dwayne Haskins played in systems that minimized their responsibilities but maximized their output. That's not to say that player is incapable or not privy to something (for instance, Mahomes shocked people with how much he knew about play design/progression and defensive reads because he wasn't asked to do any of it at Texas Tech), but it would be premature for me to assume Fields is advanced in any pro-style department considering he's not asked to be. 

The bottom-line: Lance is every bit as talented as Fields and is more versed operating within a pro-style system. The question with Lance is can he adjust to stronger competition. The question with Fields is can he adjust to a pro-style offense. I feel better about Lance because he's more developed in pro-style quarterbacking than Fields is, who was deprived of that playing within OSU's system. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

How many more years are we going to rebuild ? I want to win a bowl before I'm in a wheelchair .

Don't we all.

Is getting Watson and coughing up all of our 1srt rounders we have going to win us a super bowl?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, football guy said:

These are just overgeneralizations and massive mischaracterizations, but OK.

As far as your second part: yes, I'm saying that makes him a more developed QB. If you want a more specific term, we'll call it "more developed as a pro-style quarterback." Like, I'm not sure what your angle is here... You are trying to redefine what QB development is by expanding the scope as if it means something else. Yeah it's something that may have many factors and isn't simply defined, but the overall "puzzle" as it relates to pro-style QB development is being able to hone the skill set required to operate in a professional system. That means tangibly (physical ability, passing mechanics, poise/toughness) and intangibly (anticipation, field vision, poise Xs & Os, pre-snap/post-snap responsibilities, decision-making, understanding protections and coverages). A more developed pro-style QB will harness more of these qualities and it will become "instinctual" to them. Being a further developed QB also has nothing to do with being a more talented QB. Josh Rosen was a far more developed QB than Josh Allen was, yet look how that turned out. 

 

The bottom-line: Lance is every bit as talented as Fields and is more versed operating within a pro-style system. The question with Lance is can he adjust to stronger competition. The question with Fields is can he adjust to a pro-style offense. I feel better about Lance because he's more developed in pro-style quarterbacking than Fields is, who was deprived of that playing within OSU's system. 

I think the word has different meanings to you and I ...By that measure, any QB who played in pro style / I formation heavy system is more "developed"... but teams need to believe the player can Win... if development has no correlation to ability to win -- then what good is it as a measure?

Im not as vested in the QB coach's assessment... maybe to a fault. Who knows... If both had to debut this Sunday for NFL teams Fields would have better success than Lance right now for a variety of reasons.. I think he would struggle more so than Justin. He's not a NFL ready as Wentz was. You're overvaluing "pro-offense" experience in 2021. There's no recent correlation between that and being successful at present. That central Arkansas game is worth a look. 

I don't have anything else to add... I may have to concede on this endurance contest... I just don't have appetite anymore for long exchanges where there's clearly a difference in perspective. Not at QB anyway. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, football guy said:

People fail in scouting because they place higher emphasis on results/production than they do skill/process

one guy who couldn't complete passes in college works out for 1 season and we are back to this?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Paradis said:

I think the word has different meanings to you and I ...By that measure, any QB who played in pro style / I formation heavy system is more "developed"... but teams need to believe the player can Win... if development has no correlation to ability to win -- then what good is it as a measure?

Im not as vested in the QB coach's assessment... maybe to a fault. Who knows... If both had to debut this Sunday for NFL teams Fields would have better success than Lance right now for a variety of reasons.. I think he would struggle more so than Justin. He's not a NFL ready as Wentz was. You're overvaluing "pro-offense" experience in 2021. There's no recent correlation between that and being successful at present. That central Arkansas game is worth a look. 

I don't have anything else to add... I may have to concede on this endurance contest... I just don't have appetite anymore for long exchanges where there's clearly a difference in perspective. Not at QB anyway. 

I mean your just redefining what development means on the fly, adding more qualifiers that really don't explain what "QB development" most generally means in the NFL, in order to defend your position which quite frankly doesn't really make sense... It's not about results, it's about process... and again, your overgeneralizing some very microscopic points while ignoring the overall big-picture.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. What makes you think that Justin Fields would perform better? There's nothing on tape to suggest such. Do you have access to him? Have you worked on the board with him? Are you saying that Fields is playing for Greg Roman or for Kyle Shanahan? How about Lance? Why don't you think he's as NFL ready as Wentz was? I'm not disagreeing with you but what evidence do you have to support it? He did everything Wentz did in the same offense... as far as correlation to being successful, that's not my argument. Lance is more developed. I have no idea what that means for his ceiling or how he'll compare to Fields. I don't know what he'll be on Sunday's, I can only project... I get your throwing things out there to defend Fields like LoC or "others have done it before", but none of those things are evaluations; they're talking points... Sounds to me like you merely have a gut feeling that Fields is going to be better out of your own bias. I don't do gut feelings. I accumulate as much information as possible to make an informed opinion. 

Based on what I know, Lance is right up there in terms of talented with Fields. You're splitting hairs between the two. Both in many ways are see-it, throw-it QBs who have an abundance of arm strength and can throw with accuracy. Both have sturdy, compactish builds and are terrific runners. What separates the two is skill. Lance is more skilled at being a professional QB. He's further along in his development as a quarterback, not just a player who happens to throw a football; his understanding of the game and his role within a pro system far exceeds that of Fields and probably Wilson for that matter... not only can you see that on tape, but you know it because of the systems the QBs run; it's not a secret. What I cannot account for is mental capacity/capacity to grow, football IQ, intangibles, physical potential... a lot of those things cannot be evaluated from our perspective, and without having access to the prospects themselves there's no way to evaluate those qualities. Is it possible that Fields will be better? Of course. But that's just a guess. Is he more developed at this point? No. He has done anything to suggest such and Lance actually has done much to suggest such. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, football guy said:

I mean your just redefining what development means on the fly, adding more qualifiers that really don't explain what "QB development" most generally means in the NFL, in order to defend your position which quite frankly doesn't really make sense... It's not about results, it's about process... and again, your overgeneralizing some very microscopic points while ignoring the overall big-picture.

Just because you think something doesn't make it true. What makes you think that Justin Fields would perform better? There's nothing on tape to suggest such. Do you have access to him? Have you worked on the board with him? Are you saying that Fields is playing for Greg Roman or for Kyle Shanahan? How about Lance? Why don't you think he's as NFL ready as Wentz was? I'm not disagreeing with you but what evidence do you have to support it? He did everything Wentz did in the same offense... as far as correlation to being successful, that's not my argument. Lance is more developed. I have no idea what that means for his ceiling or how he'll compare to Fields. I don't know what he'll be on Sunday's, I can only project... I get your throwing things out there to defend Fields like LoC or "others have done it before", but none of those things are evaluations; they're talking points... Sounds to me like you merely have a gut feeling that Fields is going to be better out of your own bias. I don't do gut feelings. I accumulate as much information as possible to make an informed opinion. 

Based on what I know, Lance is right up there in terms of talented with Fields. You're splitting hairs between the two. Both in many ways are see-it, throw-it QBs who have an abundance of arm strength and can throw with accuracy. Both have sturdy, compactish builds and are terrific runners. What separates the two is skill. Lance is more skilled at being a professional QB. He's further along in his development as a quarterback, not just a player who happens to throw a football; his understanding of the game and his role within a pro system far exceeds that of Fields and probably Wilson for that matter... not only can you see that on tape, but you know it because of the systems the QBs run; it's not a secret. What I cannot account for is mental capacity/capacity to grow, football IQ, intangibles, physical potential... a lot of those things cannot be evaluated from our perspective, and without having access to the prospects themselves there's no way to evaluate those qualities. Is it possible that Fields will be better? Of course. But that's just a guess. Is he more developed at this point? No. He has done anything to suggest such and Lance actually has done much to suggest such. 

I think you, like many others, are underrating/completely ignoring Fields elite throwing talent. His down field accuracy is special/rare and on a completely different level than Lance. I get it, he holds on to the ball and looks to be a little slow getting to his check down... you extrapolate that to mean he has a slow processor/football instincts I chuck it up to him trusting his physical ability to create more time for a big play.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, QB1 said:

I think you, like many others, are underrating/completely ignoring Fields elite throwing talent. His down field accuracy is special/rare and on a completely different level than Lance. I get it, he holds on to the ball and looks to be a little slow getting to his check down... you extrapolate that to mean he has a slow processor/football instincts I chuck it up to him trusting his physical ability to create more time for a big play.

I'm not though. I give him a lot of credit for it, and I believe it's something to build off of, but not something to base an evaluation off of. Too many people throw around the term "elite"... if Fields has elite throwing talent, that must mean Wilson and Lance have some of the greatest arms the game has ever seen. 

Lance is superior to Fields from a throw-power perspective. There's an argument to be made on touch/ball placement, but we can give the nod to Fields there. Wilson is superior in all arm talent fields (pun intended) and may be the best downfield thrower ever. 

Not once did I say Fields was a bad prospect. He's a good one. He's a ball of clay to mold. He's displayed the requisite leadership/intangibles needed for the position and he clearly has talent, but he'd raw. Put him on Atlanta with Arthur Smith, let him sit and learn behind Matt Ryan and he could very well could develop into a great QB. I'm not saying he doesn't have the capacity to learn or maximize his skill, I'm saying that drafting him to be a day-1 starter in a pro-style offense is not only a disservice to your team, it's a disservice to him. 

As far as you chucking it up to him trusting his physical ability over playing within the offense... if that's the case it's a concern and it won't work consistently in the NFL. Mahomes was like that in college (although he displayed far superior instincts and throwing ability than Fields displays) and he has since transitioned to becoming better within structure. He didn't go picks 1-9 because he was raw. Luckily enough for him, he had the benefit of going to Kansas City, sat and learned how to play for a year, and he still gets the benefit of playing with the best offensive coach in the NFL, fastest collection of talent, and is constantly making easy read throws/throwing to open receivers. Had he landed with say the Jets or Bears, he probably wouldn't be half the player he is today. That's the thing people often miss. 

 

You want Fields? Assure me that he's going to sit on the bench for a year-plus until he's ready to display an ability to handle the responsibilities required of a QB in our offense, or scrap it and go hire Greg Roman away from Baltimore. Otherwise he's not ready to grasp our offense/the responsibilities that will be asked of him. Readiness doesn't mean he's going to have great stats, but I want him to be advanced enough that the adversity of running an offense is not going to weigh down on him/ruin him if the production isn't there. If he's ready sooner great, but he'd be a freak to be ready sooner. He needs time. That's not a knock, it's a reality. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2021 at 5:50 PM, football guy said:

60/40 was told to me before knowing who the HC would be. 

75/25 knowing who the HC/OC are.

60-70 considering that there is a *slight* possibility that (1) Watson is traded to the Jets; and/or (2) the Colts offer a 1st round pick for Sam now that Philip has officially retired. 

Happy?

Idk what this is all about but there's a 0% chance anyone offers a 1st round pick for darnold. Would be lucky to get a 3rd

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

I'm not though. I give him a lot of credit for it, and I believe it's something to build off of, but not something to base an evaluation off of. Too many people throw around the term "elite"... if Fields has elite throwing talent, that must mean Wilson and Lance have some of the greatest arms the game has ever seen. 

Lance is superior to Fields from a throw-power perspective. There's an argument to be made on touch/ball placement, but we can give the nod to Fields there. Wilson is superior in all arm talent fields (pun intended) and may be the best downfield thrower ever. 

Not once did I say Fields was a bad prospect. He's a good one. He's a ball of clay to mold. He's displayed the requisite leadership/intangibles needed for the position and he clearly has talent, but he'd raw. Put him on Atlanta with Arthur Smith, let him sit and learn behind Matt Ryan and he could very well could develop into a great QB. I'm not saying he doesn't have the capacity to learn or maximize his skill, I'm saying that drafting him to be a day-1 starter in a pro-style offense is not only a disservice to your team, it's a disservice to him. 

As far as you chucking it up to him trusting his physical ability over playing within the offense... if that's the case it's a concern and it won't work consistently in the NFL. Mahomes was like that in college (although he displayed far superior instincts and throwing ability than Fields displays) and he has since transitioned to becoming better within structure. He didn't go picks 1-9 because he was raw. Luckily enough for him, he had the benefit of going to Kansas City, sat and learned how to play for a year, and he still gets the benefit of playing with the best offensive coach in the NFL, fastest collection of talent, and is constantly making easy read throws/throwing to open receivers. Had he landed with say the Jets or Bears, he probably wouldn't be half the player he is today. That's the thing people often miss. 

 

You want Fields? Assure me that he's going to sit on the bench for a year-plus until he's ready to display an ability to handle the responsibilities required of a QB in our offense, or scrap it and go hire Greg Roman away from Baltimore. Otherwise he's not ready to grasp our offense/the responsibilities that will be asked of him. Readiness doesn't mean he's going to have great stats, but I want him to be advanced enough that the adversity of running an offense is not going to weigh down on him/ruin him if the production isn't there. If he's ready sooner great, but he'd be a freak to be ready sooner. He needs time. That's not a knock, it's a reality. 

The whole issue that many are struggling with is that different people value different things in QBs as prospects. Let's take 2018 for example. A lot of people (myself included) valued the more finished prospect (Rosen and Mayfield) over the QB with more upside (Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson). I was clearly wrong, but that doesn't mean you should always value upside over pro readiness (that would be an overreaction on my end from a small sample size). 

I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong (we are both lawyers and we know how difficult it is to change someone's opinion), but for those that are still on the fence between Fields and Wilson, let's compare:

Mark Schofield is one of the best writers about QB play on the internet and he wrote an article about QB traits and which are natural versus the ones that can improve with time: http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/2016-nfl-draft/2016/03/17/quarterback-traits-the-attainable-versus-the-inherent/

I'm going to use that article as a starting point and go from there.

Size: Fields. Even assuming that their school listings are true (and I am HIGHLY skeptical of Wilson's numbers), Fields is listed at 6'3" 230 while Wilson is listed 6'3", 210lbs. Can Wilson put on weight? Hypothetically, yes as he is a man in his early 20s, but look at this interview of Wilson (I acknowledge this is not the most scientific approach):

Look at the width of his shoulders. He's got a small frame for an NFL QB and I have serious doubts that he will able to put on a lot of weight. 

Durability: Fields. Fields does have some injuries in his past (hip pointer in the championship game and a thumb injury earlier in the season), but Wilson has had surgeries on both shoulders. Availability is your best ability. I don't believe durability can improve, although I think it can get worse once you reach the pros if you don't learn to take care of your body (Fields needs to improve at this). 

Athleticism: Fields. Wilson has good mobility, but Fields is, on tape, clearly the better athlete. Wilson can improve his athleticism some, but he is never going to catch Fields as an athlete. 

Footwork: Fields. Fields consistently resets his feet towards his target. Wilson often throws off platform (one of his strengths) without needing to, but I think Wilson can catch up to Fields on this as it is an attainable trait (unless you are Sam Darnold, whose footwork has somehow gotten worse since his rookie season). 

Fluidity: Tie (this is an inherent trait according to Schofield). 

Throwing Mechanics: Tie

Arm Talent: "This is a loose term that refers to the ability to consistently make every type of throw. By this definition, arm talent would include arm strength because it takes arm strength to make deep passes to the sideline as well as passes far downfield. This does not mean that a quarterback has to have an elite arm, but simply that he has enough arm strength to make deep and intermediate passes. Arm talent also includes accuracy, because every type of throw includes proper ball placement. One aspect of arm talent that often overlooked is touch. Certain throws require taking something off or lobbing a pass over a defender. Even though raw strength is not a factor in touch, this is not an easy skill.

For a quarterback to have arm talent, he would have to have all three of these traits. A player like Colin Kaepernick might have an amazing arm, but struggles making touch passes; therefore, he does not have arm talent, he has great arm strength. Although he has tried to work on his touch, he has not shown that he can consistently make those passes – further evidence that arm talent is an inherent trait. Aaron Rodgers, on the other hand, can make every type of throw, from amazing Hail Mary passes, to pin-point sideline passes, to seam passes that barely get over the outstretched fingertips of a linebacker. He has arm talent – maybe the best arm talent in the world."

I think it was important to define "arm talent" first. Using this definition, I believe Wilson and Fields are tied. I think WIlson's arm strength is a bit overrated. I think the best way to show arm strength is the throw to the far sideline.

Wilson: Look at the throw at 3:40. The ball starts to die as it gets to the WR

 

Fields: Look at 8:00. Same throw and it is a rope.

Quick release: Wilson. Wilson has an effortless throwing motion and I don't think Fields (who can improve here) will ever catch Wilson. 

Reading a Defense: I can't render an honest opinion here because I don't have all 22 film for both Wilson and Fields, but it has been deemed an attainable trait so let's assume both guys can improve in this area. 

Mental Processing; WIlson. I do disagree with Schofield here that this area cannot be improved upon with experience. For example, there are many examples of Fields processing his reads quickly, but as of right now, he does not do it as consistently as Wilson does. Wilson has played in more games (30 vs 22) and I think as Fields gets more experienced, his processing speed will become more consistent. 

Accuracy from a clean pocket: Tie

Accuracy throwing from different positions: Wilson. This is his best trait, no one in the draft is better at it and I doubt Fields ever catches him here. 

Eye Manipulation: TIe. I've seen examples of both guys doing it on film and it is an attainable trait. 

Poise in the pocket: Fields. Fields will consistently hang in the pocket and take a shot to deliver a throw. This is the area about Wilson that bothers me the most. When he is in the pocket undisturbed, he makes some nice throws. But there are a lot of examples with Wilson of him abandoning the pocket without necessity or running backwards ala Geno Smith. This is an inherent trait and I think Wilson is afraid of getting hit (I think Darnold also has this problem and I missed this on his film in college). 

Clutch Factor: Fields. Wilson has played well in his bowl games, but what Fields did on national TV this year against Clemson (after having to come out of the game because of the shot he took) was one of the most clutch games I've seen at the college level. 

Decision making: Fields. As slow as Fields can be at processing at times, you rarely see him make bad decisions (even if he misses some reads). This is why he has such a high TD to INT ratio in his career. Wilson has a good TD to INT ratio as well (although not quite as high as Fields), but Wilson gets away with a lot of risky throws because of the level of competition he plays against. 

Work ethic: I can't opine on this. 

So the question is this: Do you want the Baker Mayfield prospect (Wilson) who may set a rookie record for TDs only to have the league catch up to him by his second and third year when he caps out as maybe an above average QB or do you want the Lamar Jackson/Josh Allen candidate (Fields) who will be more limited his first or second season but be a top 5-10 QB by his third season? I'll take the latter, but I understand why you and others may prefer the former. @JiF @Paradis

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, football guy said:

Wilson is superior in all arm talent fields (pun intended) and may be the best downfield thrower ever. 

Steve Harvey Reaction GIF

  • Upvote 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, maury77 said:

The whole issue that many are struggling with is that different people value different things in QBs as prospects. Let's take 2018 for example. A lot of people (myself included) valued the more finished prospect (Rosen and Mayfield) over the QB with more upside (Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson). I was clearly wrong, but that doesn't mean you should always value upside over pro readiness (that would be an overreaction on my end from a small sample size). 

I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong (we are both lawyers and we know how difficult it is to change someone's opinion), but for those that are still on the fence between Fields and Wilson, let's compare:

Mark Schofield is one of the best writers about QB play on the internet and he wrote an article about QB traits and which are natural versus the ones that can improve with time: http://insidethepylon.com/nfl/2016-nfl-draft/2016/03/17/quarterback-traits-the-attainable-versus-the-inherent/

I'm going to use that article as a starting point and go from there.

Size: Fields. Even assuming that their school listings are true (and I am HIGHLY skeptical of Wilson's numbers), Fields is listed at 6'3" 230 while Wilson is listed 6'3", 210lbs. Can Wilson put on weight? Hypothetically, yes as he is a man in his early 20s, but look at this interview of Wilson (I acknowledge this is not the most scientific approach):

Look at the width of his shoulders. He's got a small frame for an NFL QB and I have serious doubts that he will able to put on a lot of weight. 

Durability: Fields. Fields does have some injuries in his past (hip pointer in the championship game and a thumb injury earlier in the season), but Wilson has had surgeries on both shoulders. Availability is your best ability. I don't believe durability can improve, although I think it can get worse once you reach the pros if you don't learn to take care of your body (Fields needs to improve at this). 

Athleticism: Fields. Wilson has good mobility, but Fields is, on tape, clearly the better athlete. Wilson can improve his athleticism some, but he is never going to catch Fields as an athlete. 

Footwork: Fields. Fields consistently resets his feet towards his target. Wilson often throws off platform (one of his strengths) without needing to, but I think Wilson can catch up to Fields on this as it is an attainable trait (unless you are Sam Darnold, whose footwork has somehow gotten worse since his rookie season). 

Fluidity: Tie (this is an inherent trait according to Schofield). 

Throwing Mechanics: Tie

Arm Talent: "This is a loose term that refers to the ability to consistently make every type of throw. By this definition, arm talent would include arm strength because it takes arm strength to make deep passes to the sideline as well as passes far downfield. This does not mean that a quarterback has to have an elite arm, but simply that he has enough arm strength to make deep and intermediate passes. Arm talent also includes accuracy, because every type of throw includes proper ball placement. One aspect of arm talent that often overlooked is touch. Certain throws require taking something off or lobbing a pass over a defender. Even though raw strength is not a factor in touch, this is not an easy skill.

For a quarterback to have arm talent, he would have to have all three of these traits. A player like Colin Kaepernick might have an amazing arm, but struggles making touch passes; therefore, he does not have arm talent, he has great arm strength. Although he has tried to work on his touch, he has not shown that he can consistently make those passes – further evidence that arm talent is an inherent trait. Aaron Rodgers, on the other hand, can make every type of throw, from amazing Hail Mary passes, to pin-point sideline passes, to seam passes that barely get over the outstretched fingertips of a linebacker. He has arm talent – maybe the best arm talent in the world."

I think it was important to define "arm talent" first. Using this definition, I believe Wilson and Fields are tied. I think WIlson's arm strength is a bit overrated. I think the best way to show arm strength is the throw to the far sideline.

Wilson: Look at the throw at 3:40. The ball starts to die as it gets to the WR

 

Fields: Look at 8:00. Same throw and it is a rope.

Quick release: Wilson. Wilson has an effortless throwing motion and I don't think Fields (who can improve here) will ever catch Wilson. 

Reading a Defense: I can't render an honest opinion here because I don't have all 22 film for both Wilson and Fields, but it has been deemed an attainable trait so let's assume both guys can improve in this area. 

Mental Processing; WIlson. I do disagree with Schofield here that this area cannot be improved upon with experience. For example, there are many examples of Fields processing his reads quickly, but as of right now, he does not do it as consistently as Wilson does. Wilson has played in more games (30 vs 22) and I think as Fields gets more experienced, his processing speed will become more consistent. 

Accuracy from a clean pocket: Tie

Accuracy throwing from different positions: Wilson. This is his best trait, no one in the draft is better at it and I doubt Fields ever catches him here. 

Eye Manipulation: TIe. I've seen examples of both guys doing it on film and it is an attainable trait. 

Poise in the pocket: Fields. Fields will consistently hang in the pocket and take a shot to deliver a throw. This is the area about Wilson that bothers me the most. When he is in the pocket undisturbed, he makes some nice throws. But there are a lot of examples with Wilson of him abandoning the pocket without necessity or running backwards ala Geno Smith. This is an inherent trait and I think Wilson is afraid of getting hit (I think Darnold also has this problem and I missed this on his film in college). 

Clutch Factor: Fields. Wilson has played well in his bowl games, but what Fields did on national TV this year against Clemson (after having to come out of the game because of the shot he took) was one of the most clutch games I've seen at the college level. 

Decision making: Fields. As slow as Fields can be at processing at times, you rarely see him make bad decisions (even if he misses some reads). This is why he has such a high TD to INT ratio in his career. Wilson has a good TD to INT ratio as well (although not quite as high as Fields), but Wilson gets away with a lot of risky throws because of the level of competition he plays against. 

Work ethic: I can't opine on this. 

So the question is this: Do you want the Baker Mayfield prospect (Wilson) who may set a rookie record for TDs only to have the league catch up to him by his second and third year when he caps out as maybe an above average QB or do you want the Lamar Jackson/Josh Allen candidate (Fields) who will be more limited his first or second season but be a top 5-10 QB by his third season? I'll take the latter, but I understand why you and others may prefer the former. @JiF @Paradis

The league hasn't caught up to Lamar Jackson? OK.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SAM SAM HE'S OUR MAN said:

How many more years are we going to rebuild ? I want to win a bowl before I'm in a wheelchair .

I would encourage you to exercise and avoid salt, this may take a while.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...