Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

No please. Just no.

Not saying you’re wrong but curious if you could elaborate. No because you want QB addressed earlier, don’t like Mond, don’t like the scheme fit, would prefer a different mid round QB if they go that route, don’t want a mid round QB at all, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, derp said:

Not saying you’re wrong but curious if you could elaborate. No because you want QB addressed earlier, don’t like Mond, don’t like the scheme fit, would prefer a different mid round QB if they go that route, don’t want a mid round QB at all, etc.

 

Because of that. He’s just not good. In a draft where this team picks 2 overall and where there are almost 5 QBs worthy of top 15 draft slots, ending up with Kellen Mond would be a reason to fire Joe Douglas. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually kind of like Mond as a mid/late round flier.   Big athletic kid, huge arm, pro system, takes care of the ball, can run, tons of experience, high level competition.    If the Jets do what I think they're going to do, I'd actually target Mond in the mid rounds to at least give Sam some feeling of competition.   He has little Dak in him to me...idk...not saying he's a starter next level or anything like that but I think he could be an interesting back up.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

 

Because of that. He’s just not good. In a draft where this team picks 2 overall and where there are almost 5 QBs worthy of top 15 draft slots, ending up with Kellen Mond would be a reason to fire Joe Douglas. 

Because of what? 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

 

Because of that. He’s just not good. In a draft where this team picks 2 overall and where there are almost 5 QBs worthy of top 15 draft slots, ending up with Kellen Mond would be a reason to fire Joe Douglas. 

Couple of observations;

  • Jabril Cox jumps off the tape. I know he got a lot of praise for that in the senior bowl, but goddam, even just this game is a great example of his ability. Dude might be a fringe first rounder, and should definitely be in play @ 34 for us, IDGAF if he's a linebacker... there aren't many that can actually cover. Could be our Fred Warner.
  • Mond missed a lot of throws, especially outside the #'s. He was just off. 

I'd like to see more, I'll have to watch more games. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

 

Because of that. He’s just not good. In a draft where this team picks 2 overall and where there are almost 5 QBs worthy of top 15 draft slots, ending up with Kellen Mond would be a reason to fire Joe Douglas. 

Fair enough. I tend to think the top five this year are getting pushed up more than they should be and the track record of quarterbacks drafted in the top three lately is pretty bad so I don’t think Douglas goes that route - maybe in a trade down - as much as it’s appealing as a fan to just throw quarterbacks against the wall.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JiF said:

Because of what? 

 

He was brutal in that game and that wasn’t an anomaly game. If we take Mond then it means probably passed on Fields or Wilson or Jones or Lance and that’s unacceptable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, derp said:

Fair enough. I tend to think the top five this year are getting pushed up more than they should be and the track record of quarterbacks drafted in the top three lately is pretty bad so I don’t think Douglas goes that route - maybe in a trade down - as much as it’s appealing as a fan to just throw quarterbacks against the wall.

Taking QBs is always a risk. There’s no spot in the draft where taking a QB is a safe choice. Not taking them is just as egregious an error as taking the wrong one. Look at the Colts who are gonna continue to tread water until they do something. 

I just feel like I learned my lesson after 2017. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

He was brutal in that game and that wasn’t an anomaly game. If we take Mond then it means probably passed on Fields or Wilson or Jones or Lance and that’s unacceptable.

It was an anomaly this year.  He was quite good to really good in every other game.  I actually remember watching a little bit of that game and fwiw, it was just one of those weird ugly defensive battle games.  Neither offense could do anything that game but he was really bad, for sure.

Idk - year over year progress, tons of SEC starts, pro system, big athletic kid, apparently he's a great kid, awesome leader, dedicated, etc.  again, I'm not advocating the Jets pass on anyone for him and I agree, passing on the QB's early is a mistake but if they actually do build around Sam, I think he's a good mid round target to give some competition.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JiF said:

It was an anomaly this year.  He was quite good to really good in every other game.  I actually remember watching a little bit of that game and fwiw, it was just one of those weird ugly defensive battle games.  Neither offense could do anything that game but he was really bad, for sure.

Idk - year over year progress, tons of SEC starts, pro system, big athletic kid, apparently he's a great kid, awesome leader, dedicated, etc.  again, I'm not advocating the Jets pass on anyone for him and I agree, passing on the QB's early is a mistake but if they actually do build around Sam, I think he's a good mid round target to give some competition.

Fair. I watched that game as it was happening, it was a bad time. I just think Mond is maxed out as a passer and his maxed out is 19 TDs in 10 games. Take a flier in round 5, that’s fine but I hope we’re not in position to be the team taking that flier. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kdels62 said:

Taking QBs is always a risk. There’s no spot in the draft where taking a QB is a safe choice. Not taking them is just as egregious an error as taking the wrong one. Look at the Colts who are gonna continue to tread water until they do something. 

I just feel like I learned my lesson after 2017. 

I think you missed my point.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

I get your point. I just disagree.

Okay what’s my point. Because your explanation before had nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, derp said:

Okay what’s my point. Because your explanation before had nothing to do with it.

That the QBs I view as top 5 guys probably shouldn’t be considered as top 5 guys and it’s a risk to take them. Recent history says those guys drafted after 1 are usually elevated and therefore are riskier picks. You seem to think the reasonable risk averse thing is for Douglas to trade down, and take a guy later.

My point is that I completely disagree. Take QBs and find the one that works and when you’re that high up the draft board you get to pick a potential stud. Especially this year, I think Fields and Wilson are big time prospects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

That the QBs I view as top 5 guys probably shouldn’t be considered as top 5 guys and it’s a risk to take them. Recent history says those guys drafted after 1 are usually elevated and therefore are riskier picks. You seem to think the reasonable risk averse thing is for Douglas to trade down, and take a guy later.

My point is that I completely disagree. Take QBs and find the one that works and when you’re that high up the draft board you get to pick a potential stud. Especially this year, I think Fields and Wilson are big time prospects.

Maybe closer to the opposite of my point than it is to my point, which is largely that NFL teams are absolutely terrible at choosing which quarterbacks to draft at the very top of drafts - the top guys inclusive. So I think sitting at two is a very awkward, not ideal spot to take a quarterback given the recent track record. You used the term "you get to pick a potential stud" - the guys at the top of the draft have repeatedly NOT been studs. It's the guys in that 6-15 range that hit, and a couple of guys in the late first round or the second.

The recent history of guys drafted in the top five overall picks of the draft is horrific. The last #1 pick to really, really work out for their team was probably Eli Manning in 2004. Cam Newton worked out pretty well - that was in 2011 and they did get a Super Bowl appearance out of him and not even a decade. Other top five picks who worked out pretty well long term are guys like Ryan third in what like 2006 and Rivers in 2004. Then you get the bubble guys like Stafford who didn't impact winning for the Lions or Luck who fell short of the crazy expectations and retired before doing anything significant.

The most recent drafts are too early to tell but you've got Herbert at six with a great rookie year and outperforming Tagovailoa at five and Burrow (due to injury) first, Murray has been excellent although when they stopped running him he really struggled, Allen at eight and Jackson at thirty-two have been the best quarterbacks - certainly over Mayfield at one and Darnold at three, Mahomes at ten and Watson at twelve outperforming Trubisky at two. Go back another year and Goff/Wentz 1/2 certainly hasn't worked out well for those teams, one more year and you've got Winston/Mariota with the same story for different franchises, back another year has Blake Bortles third overall in one of the best quarterback drafts in recent memory, the year before had no highly drafted QB's, and then back another year and Luck/Griffin 1/2 didn't work out for those teams - Tannehill at eight didn't either and he's had the most staying power out of that draft. Then the next year you're at Cam. Back another year for Bradford first overall, then another year for the aforementioned Stafford at one and Sanchez at five, then the aforementioned Ryan at three, then Jamarcus Russell first overall, then Vince Young third overall, then Alex Smith first overall followed by Aaron Rodgers at twenty-four, and then you're at the Eli-Rivers-Roethlisberger draft where Roethlisberger at eleven has had as good a career as anyone.

There's something about top of the draft highly drafted quarterbacks that fans seem to think is a slam dunk and the track record is just so, so far the opposite of that. The best quarterbacks in the NFL have fallen in the draft. At two overall you're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks, it's a strategy that's failed repeatedly and I think Joe Douglas has to know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, derp said:

Maybe closer to the opposite of my point than it is to my point, which is largely that NFL teams are absolutely terrible at choosing which quarterbacks to draft at the very top of drafts - the top guys inclusive. So I think sitting at two is a very awkward, not ideal spot to take a quarterback given the recent track record. You used the term "you get to pick a potential stud" - the guys at the top of the draft have repeatedly NOT been studs. It's the guys in that 6-15 range that hit, and a couple of guys in the late first round or the second.

The recent history of guys drafted in the top five overall picks of the draft is horrific. The last #1 pick to really, really work out for their team was probably Eli Manning in 2004. Cam Newton worked out pretty well - that was in 2011 and they did get a Super Bowl appearance out of him and not even a decade. Other top five picks who worked out pretty well long term are guys like Ryan third in what like 2006 and Rivers in 2004. Then you get the bubble guys like Stafford who didn't impact winning for the Lions or Luck who fell short of the crazy expectations and retired before doing anything significant.

The most recent drafts are too early to tell but you've got Herbert at six with a great rookie year and outperforming Tagovailoa at five and Burrow (due to injury) first, Murray has been excellent although when they stopped running him he really struggled, Allen at eight and Jackson at thirty-two have been the best quarterbacks - certainly over Mayfield at one and Darnold at three, Mahomes at ten and Watson at twelve outperforming Trubisky at two. Go back another year and Goff/Wentz 1/2 certainly hasn't worked out well for those teams, one more year and you've got Winston/Mariota with the same story for different franchises, back another year has Blake Bortles third overall in one of the best quarterback drafts in recent memory, the year before had no highly drafted QB's, and then back another year and Luck/Griffin 1/2 didn't work out for those teams - Tannehill at eight didn't either and he's had the most staying power out of that draft. Then the next year you're at Cam. Back another year for Bradford first overall, then another year for the aforementioned Stafford at one and Sanchez at five, then the aforementioned Ryan at three, then Jamarcus Russell first overall, then Vince Young third overall, then Alex Smith first overall followed by Aaron Rodgers at twenty-four, and then you're at the Eli-Rivers-Roethlisberger draft where Roethlisberger at eleven has had as good a career as anyone.

There's something about top of the draft highly drafted quarterbacks that fans seem to think is a slam dunk and the track record is just so, so far the opposite of that. The best quarterbacks in the NFL have fallen in the draft. At two overall you're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping it sticks, it's a strategy that's failed repeatedly and I think Joe Douglas has to know that.

What position players go into and their evaluation are two related factors without correlation. Players are not bad because they go in the top 10 nor are they good because they drop to 24. If any team prior to Green Bay’s pick takes Aaron Rodgers they still get Aaron Rodgers. The reason why you’re seeing more early busts “allegedly” is that QBs are more valuable and cheaper than ever and nobody wants to the the guy taking a DT and passing on the next Mahomes. There are more QB failures up top because more players get taken at the top.

Middle of first round guys and top of 2nd round guys have the benefit of usually going to good teams with better structures, but that does not affect the evaluation process nor the overall ability of a prospect. Even still guys like Kellen Clemens, EJ Manuel, Teddy Bridgewater (in Minnesota), Geno Smith, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert all failed.

The takeaway shouldn’t be  to avoid draft slots because they fail, it’s either to take more QBs or get much better at QB evaluation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

What position players go into and their evaluation are two related factors without correlation. Players are not bad because they go in the top 10 nor are they good because they drop to 24. If any team prior to Green Bay’s pick takes Aaron Rodgers they still get Aaron Rodgers. The reason why you’re seeing more early busts “allegedly” is that QBs are more valuable and cheaper than ever and nobody wants to the the guy taking a DT and passing on the next Mahomes. There are more QB failures up top because more players get taken at the top.

Middle of first round guys and top of 2nd round guys have the benefit of usually going to good teams with better structures, but that does not affect the evaluation process nor the overall ability of a prospect. Even still guys like Kellen Clemens, EJ Manuel, Teddy Bridgewater (in Minnesota), Geno Smith, Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert all failed.

The takeaway shouldn’t be  to avoid draft slots because they fail, it’s either to take more QBs or get much better at QB evaluation. 

I’m well aware that teams draft quarterbacks high because it’s a premium position. It’s not the failures that concern me - it’s the lack of successes.

You are aware that wasn’t a list of the bust top five picks, right? That was literally all of them over 15+ years. It’s not like getting a star quarterback in the top five of the draft is a 50/50 proposition, it’s far, far worse.

You state that there were successful players drafted later - which I already pointed out - and also bring up that those guys often went to better situations. Is that not something important that should be taken into consideration?

Furthermore, of course guys drafted later fail. But there’s less draft capital invested there and it hurts the franchise less. And, added bonus of creating a better situation around the quarterback which we both agree improves the chance of success.

I also agree with taking more quarterbacks - just not utilizing premium picks to do so.

That comment about being better at QB evaluation at the end is kind of flippant. Do you think NFL teams wouldn’t like to be better at QB evaluation? Literally almost the entire point is that they’re not good at it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, derp said:

I’m well aware that teams draft quarterbacks high because it’s a premium position. It’s not the failures that concern me - it’s the lack of successes. It’s not like getting a star quarterback in the top five of the draft is a 50/50 proposition, it’s far, far worse.

You state that there were successful players drafted later - which I already pointed out - and also bring up that those guys often went to better situations. Is that not something important that should be taken into consideration?

Furthermore, of course guys drafted later fail. But there’s less draft capital invested there and it hurts the franchise less. And, added bonus of creating a better situation around the quarterback which we both agree improves the chance of success.

I also agree with taking more quarterbacks - just not utilizing premium picks to do so.

That comment about being better at QB evaluation at the end is kind of flippant. Do you think NFL teams wouldn’t like to be better at QB evaluation? Literally almost the entire point is that they’re not good at it.

My point is unless teams uncover the magic formula for QB evaluation, then they have to draft more QBs. QB demand goes up, QB cost goes up. Being scared to miss isn’t a reason to avoid the risk all together. Pay the premium, and take the QB when you’re in position to take one of the highly regarded prospects. No position is a sure thing at the top other than EDGE rusher.

Therefore it is important to take the QB especially if you’re lucky enough to have high end prospects available to you. Taking a Sam Darnold wasn’t a mistake. I never liked him as a prospect but if it wasn’t gonna be him, then it had to be Rosen or Allen or Jackson. We had to take the swing. This year the same concept applies, we have the pick of the litter, move on from the cost controlled bust and try to find the next guy. If we get 1 overall next year because Fields really sucks, then we take another one. If Fields looks good but the team sucks (like the situation the Chargers are in) then you build around the QB. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

My point is unless teams uncover the magic formula for QB evaluation, then they have to draft more QBs. QB demand goes up, QB cost goes up. Being scared to miss isn’t a reason to avoid the risk all together. Pay the premium, and take the QB when you’re in position to take one of the highly regarded prospects. No position is a sure thing at the top other than EDGE rusher.

Therefore it is important to take the QB especially if you’re lucky enough to have high end prospects available to you. Taking a Sam Darnold wasn’t a mistake. I never liked him as a prospect but if it wasn’t gonna be him, then it had to be Rosen or Allen or Jackson. We had to take the swing. This year the same concept applies, we have the pick of the litter, move on from the cost controlled bust and try to find the next guy. If we get 1 overall next year because Fields really sucks, then we take another one. If Fields looks good but the team sucks (like the situation the Chargers are in) then you build around the QB. 

So you certainly take more QB’s but it’s a lot easier to do that when you have more picks, no? Which is easier to do if you say, trade down into the 6-15 range - which gives you more assets and doesn’t seem to have any adverse impact on the quality of prospects available on a backwards looking basis.

You keep talking about the guys at the top of the draft - “prospects you’re lucky enough to have available”. Or the “highly regarded prospects”. Once again - the guys that NFL teams have put in that category have not had success when drafted there for years. You’re not improving the success rate - barring magical QB evaluation improvements - but you are reducing the assets available to your franchise if you could have chosen to take a guy later.

And of course in addition to the trade down option the Jets have another pick at 23 so they can move up and take someone who falls.

I’m not saying you don’t take someone. Just saying you don’t take them at two when recent history shows there’s not any improved chance of picking the right guy versus taking someone at eight or twelve. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, derp said:

So you certainly take more QB’s but it’s a lot easier to do that when you have more picks, no? Which is easier to do if you say, trade down into the 6-15 range - which gives you more assets and doesn’t seem to have any adverse impact on the quality of prospects available on a backwards looking basis.

You keep talking about the guys at the top of the draft - “prospects you’re lucky enough to have available”. Or the “highly regarded prospects”. Once again - the guys that NFL teams have put in that category have not had success when drafted there for years. You’re not improving the success rate - barring magical QB evaluation improvements - but you are reducing the assets available to your franchise if you could have chosen to take a guy later.

And of course in addition to the trade down option the Jets have another pick at 23 so they can move up and take someone who falls.

I’m not saying you don’t take someone. Just saying you don’t take them at two when recent history shows there’s not any improved chance of picking the right guy versus taking someone at eight or twelve. 

There’s no reason that 8 or 12 is more successful than 2. The only variable is scouting failure, relying on other people to make bad choices for you to get lucky isn’t a strategy. At 8, you’re hoping the other guys made a mistake. It’s not worth the risk. It’s basically random chance at that point and if your GM doesn’t have confidence to make his pick then that’s bad. 

If you trade back to 8 and get stuck with Jones who you like but not as much you like Wilson or Fields or Lance that’s operational failure. If Fields and Lance succeed, and Wilson fails, you don’t get credit for not taking Wilson, you get demerits for failing giving up the right to take Fields or Lance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

There’s no reason that 8 or 12 is more successful than 2. The only variable is scouting failure, relying on other people to make bad choices for you to get lucky isn’t a strategy. At 8, you’re hoping the other guys made a mistake. It’s not worth the risk. It’s basically random chance at that point and if your GM doesn’t have confidence to make his pick then that’s bad. 

If you trade back to 8 and get stuck with Jones who you like but not as much you like Wilson or Fields or Lance that’s operational failure. If Fields and Lance succeed, and Wilson fails, you don’t get credit for not taking Wilson, you get demerits for failing giving up the right to take Fields or Lance. 

You’re ignoring the fact that the scouting failure has happened repeatedly for years. Even teams that have traded up to the top of the draft have failed.

I think there’s something inherently wrong in how NFL teams evaluate top of the draft quarterbacks. That’s what recent history shows.

You can bet on that trend changing. I won’t.

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

You’re ignoring the fact that the scouting failure has happened repeatedly for years. Even teams that have traded up to the top of the draft have failed.

I think there’s something inherently wrong in how NFL teams evaluate top of the draft quarterbacks. That’s what recent history shows.

You can bet on that trend changing. I won’t.

There probably is but teams have traded up for Allen, Jackson and Mahomes to ensure the get their guy. Their scouting was right. Deshaun Watson fell to 14 everyone who picked before that except the Chiefs was also wrong. Everyone who passed on a successful QB is just as wrong as the guys that took the good QB. Mahomes dropping to 10 is just as much a result of bad scouting as Mitch Trubisky going 2 overall. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

There probably is but teams have traded up for Allen, Jackson and Mahomes to ensure the get their guy. Their scouting was right. Deshaun Watson fell to 14 everyone who picked before that except the Chiefs was also wrong. Everyone who passed on a successful QB is just as wrong as the guys that took the good QB. Mahomes dropping to 10 is just as much a result of bad scouting as Mitch Trubisky going 2 overall. 

Yes but where guys go is generally indicative of where teams value those prospects. It lined up with where they were generally rated predraft - not top of the draft prospects, and presumably if teams thought they would’ve been as elite as they have been they would’ve moved up to get them even higher than they were drafted. So yes, a lot of teams missed on those prospects.

And again, you’re expecting that bad scouting to change and those guys to go in the top three. And I do not expect it to change and expect those kinds of prospects to continue to slip while Baker Mayfields, Sam Darnolds, and Mitchell Trubiskys go ahead of them.

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

Yes but where guys go is generally indicative of where teams value those prospects. It lined up with where they were generally rated predraft - not top of the draft prospects, and presumably if teams thought they would’ve been as elite as they have been they would’ve moved up to get them even higher than they were drafted. So yes, a lot of teams missed on those prospects.

And again, you’re expecting that bad scouting to change and those guys to go in the top three. And I do not expect it to change and expect those kinds of prospects to continue to slip while Baker Mayfields, Sam Darnolds, and Mitchell Trubiskys go ahead of them.

I just believe in a GM and scouting department to trust their own evals not rely on others’ failures. Trading back and getting leftovers isn’t a strategy, it might work out but that’s results over process. Having control and backing out of that control is grounds to drop a GM. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

I just believe in a GM and scouting department to trust their own evals not rely on others’ failures. Trading back and getting leftovers isn’t a strategy, it might work out but that’s results over process. Having control and backing out of that control is grounds to drop a GM. 

 

I think that’s fair, but I also believe that data is important and if there’s a trend staring you in the face you shouldn’t ignore it. Better to know your flaws and act accordingly than be overconfident.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, derp said:

I think that’s fair, but I also believe that data is important and if there’s a trend staring you in the face you shouldn’t ignore it. Better to know your flaws and act accordingly than be overconfident.

But the trend can be reframed as “not enough teams at the top of the draft took QBs” it’s still a trend, that is still supported by evidence. If in 2017 the top 3 picks were QBs then a random QB taken at 10 wouldn’t be as good as Patrick Mahomes.

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

Not saying you’re wrong but curious if you could elaborate. No because you want QB addressed earlier, don’t like Mond, don’t like the scheme fit, would prefer a different mid round QB if they go that route, don’t want a mid round QB at all, etc.

Agreed. I don't care for Mond that much either. He hasn't shown me a lot in the SEC games I've watched him in. Especially Bama games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, kdels62 said:

But the trend can be reframed as “not enough teams at the top of the draft took QBs” it’s still a trend, that is still supported by evidence. If in 2017 the top 3 picks were QBs then a random QB taken at 10 wouldn’t be as good as Patrick Mahomes.

There’s a reason they don’t, though. That really, really wouldn’t work out well at the top of the draft almost all years - 2017 is just the example it works out well. You get a lot more years like 2015 and 2016. 

And if 2017 goes in the same order, the first team still misses in a big way. Because teams don’t evaluate quarterbacks well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

James Morgan is a better QB prospect than Mond.   I see no reason why Mond should be anywhere close to the Jets radar this year.  I would be very shocked if Mond develops into anything substantial in the NFL.  I just don’t see it.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, derp said:

You’re ignoring the fact that the scouting failure has happened repeatedly for years. Even teams that have traded up to the top of the draft have failed.

I think there’s something inherently wrong in how NFL teams evaluate top of the draft quarterbacks. That’s what recent history shows.

You can bet on that trend changing. I won’t.

For me this is a very interesting topic and one that over the years I’ve come to understand a lot more.  I don’t think it’s “how” they are evaluating QBs that is the problem as much as there is simply so many factors at play that will determine if the QB will be successful.   I’ve spoken to coaches and scouts in college that will tell you that you really don’t KNOW what a kid will do until he actually has to do it.  We see it where the 5 star QB out of high school does nothing in college, we see first overall picks in the draft become major busts.   If there was a sure fire formula and a “right way” to evaluate QBs we wouldn’t see such a high failure rate at the position.  So much of being a successful NFL QB is between the ears, and you just can’t know how these kids will process the info they are seeing until they are under center doing it.  
 

You can look at physical tools and look at small bodies of work at the college level, but ultimately you are trying to project how these kids will react in the NFL.  The best thing you can do is do the work, evaluate the film, interview the kid and if there is someone who you think can run your offense, then go get him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sec101row23 said:

For me this is a very interesting topic and one that over the years I’ve come to understand a lot more.  I don’t think it’s “how” they are evaluating QBs that is the problem as much as there is simply so many factors at play that will determine if the QB will be successful.   I’ve spoken to coaches and scouts in college that will tell you that you really don’t KNOW what a kid will do until he actually has to do it.  We see it where the 5 star QB out of high school does nothing in college, we see first overall picks in the draft become major busts.   If there was a sure fire formula and a “right way” to evaluate QBs we wouldn’t see such a high failure rate at the position.  So much of being a successful NFL QB is between the ears, and you just can’t know how these kids will process the info they are seeing until they are under center doing it.  
 

You can look at physical tools and look at small bodies of work at the college level, but ultimately you are trying to project how these kids will react in the NFL.  The best thing you can do is do the work, evaluate the film, interview the kid and if there is someone who you think can run your offense, then go get him.  

I haven’t quite figured it out yet and I think that it’s always hard to tell what’s really going on because the sample size of guys is so small.

There’s also a degree of randomness. Some guys land in bad situations, others get hurt.

I do think it’s a hard adjustment to make for guys who have to try to do everything early in their careers without much support. And when teams seem to have dedicated plans to develop their guys and build around them it’s helpful.

All of that said, in recent years it’s really been the second, third, fourth quarterbacks off the the board consistently being the best. So I do think there’s something about the guys who go at the very top of the draft that doesn’t work out. Again, sample size could be an issue.

I looked at two different things recently. There have been those stats about the top five QB‘s by some metric being the 4 championship game QB’s and Watson. That’s guys who went 10/12 in 2017 after a bust who went 2, a guy who went 24 after a career journeyman went at 1, a guy who went 7 after guys went 1 and 3, and obviously a sixth round pick. You take all the guys who went 6-15, compare them to the ones who went 1-5, and you’d think the draft positions would have been reversed based on careers. I’d have to see how many more went 6-15z

It’s not entirely bad situations because guys like Goff and Wentz haven’t worked out and they were traded up for. Darnold too.

There are a few main things I think. One is that the NFL is a copycat league, and teams often overreact to what has worked for another franchise without fully considering how unique each player is. Allen looks great so teams will try to find the next Allen but let the next Rodgers slip. I also think that tends to result to overemphasizing loud traits - Mayfield’s leadership, Russell’s arm talent, Goff’s accuracy, without looking at the whole picture.

The other thing is that for whatever reason visibility, playing in big games, etc gets way way overemphasized. To me you want a quarterback who elevates the talent around him. If a team goes 5-7 but would’ve gone 1-11 without their quarterback, he might be better than the guy who went 11-1 but the team would’ve gone 10-2 with the backup. But the guy who went 11-1 played in big games, had an awesome bowl game, put up amazing stats, has a nicer heat map, etc. And honestly, it’s really hard to objectively and theoretically take a guy away from a school and the guys he’s playing with and see how they’d do without him. Watson played at a great Clemson program as you know but also played a huge, huge role in winning games in a way that was meaningful. But I think it’s harder to distinguish why winning teams are winning than it should be and he probably didn’t get enough for that.

And it’s hard to tell for guys this year. Fields obviously played with a lot of talent at OSU. Wilson quietly played with a lot at BYU.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

We took jams frigin morgan last year in the 4th round and never saw a second of him with lots of talent on the board.

If Douglas takes a mid round or late round QB he should be kicked in the nuts.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/6/2021 at 6:43 AM, sec101row23 said:

James Morgan is a better QB prospect than Mond.   I see no reason why Mond should be anywhere close to the Jets radar this year.  I would be very shocked if Mond develops into anything substantial in the NFL.  I just don’t see it.  

Who?  lol  I actually forgot about Morgan.  They already have their late round flier in the building, good point.  I dont know that he's a better prospect but similar enough to where they probably arent looking at the mid rounds for a flier. 

I think Mond has a good of a chance as any 4/5th round prospect to make a career in the NFL.  Is he going to be a starter?  No....but who is really looking for a starter in the mid round's?  You're just hoping to get lucky and/or find a back up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...