Jump to content

~The struggle within: understanding the unwavering Sam Darnold defender


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Snell41 said:

 


This is a very good point, He does have trade value right now. But here’s the thing, if we trade down and keep him one more year we would get far more return on the #2 overall pick that we would by keeping it and drafting a QB and trading Sam instead. Again, I don’t believe in Sam at all really, but I also think Wilson and Fields are just not high level NFL caliber players. I think we’ll be looking to draft their replacement in 3 years again. By trading down we’d likely end up with 3 1st round picks next year, at which point I’d say we could use one of them or all of them to take a QB next year with my opinion that by odds alone the 2nd-4th rated QB will be better prospects than Fields and Wilson.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

 

Trade the 2 and trade Sam.  That way we get more picks.  We might even be able to trade back up a spot to pick up Fields or Lance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I will die on the Sam Darnold hill...

Wow that was long. I am so glad we now have the EXPAND post quote option. 

Posted Images

18 hours ago, Sammybighead said:

Is anyone really an unwavering supporter? There is a healthy debate raging about keeping him, but that mostly due to the current situation the Jets are in, not anything to do with Sam’s “potential”

Saying Sam is better than most of the QBs in this draft class is essentially considered like Qanon cult worship now by the people who know everything 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CanadaSteve said:

I'm not sure what's hard to understand about this formula.

The VAST majority of QB's that come out now do not have the ability to jump from College into the pro levels and carry a team.  For every Patrick Mahomes now there is 3-5 Mitch Trubinsky's.  The better team you put around a QB, the better chance  you have to succeed.

So, what some are suggesting, and perhaps the new coaching staff is thinking, is Darnold IS a good QB, but he can't carry a team all himself.  So, that would mean using the #2 pick to either take the top WR in the draft, or trade down, accumulate picks, and build a better product around Sam.  

I am not sure there are die-hards who are suggesting it is the ONLY move, but it is a possibility.  

 

Much like Sam Darnold, Mitchell Trubisky had less than 20 collegiate starts.  As did Dwayne Haskins.  As did Mark Sanchez.  Even if those guys walk into great situations (like Sanchez did), they will still tend to struggle and probably never figure the pro game out.  This was an even more difficult a task for Darnold, who didn't even play QB in High School.

I was duped by Sanchez's Rose Bowl performance.  I thought he'd be the guy.  I was wrong.  Lesson learned:  Stop drafting inexperienced QB's in the 1st round.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BUM-KNEE said:

I'm not saying Sam is some lock to be an all pro QB, but to suggest there isn't/wasnt mitigating factors to his poor play is ludicrous. 

But those in the pro-Darnold camp assume we didn't bake some of these factors into the equation.  No anti-Darnold person was saying that Darnold would only prove he was good if he threw for 350+ yards and 2+ TDs a game. 

There weren't high expectations on Darnold with the talent and coaching around him.  We merely wanted him to look competent the majority of the time.  50+ % of games and maybe 50 or 60+ % of the snaps where he looked like a franchise QB that we drafted him to be.  That's not too much to ask, yet he didn't even come close.  He was an embarrassment in all but a handful (really, less) of contests last season.  He can't make presnap reads, he misses open receivers or doesn't see them, and he makes at least 1-2 mind-bendingly stupid decisions a game leading to turnovers.  All of that are factors that are independent of the talent and coaching. 

And to make matters worse, he missed 3+ games due to injury/ailment for the 3rd straight season.  You can't put any trust in someone like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Philc1 said:

Saying Sam is better than most of the QBs in this draft class is essentially considered like Qanon cult worship now by the people who know everything 

Sam could be better than most of the QB's in this class and still not be able to cut it as a really good NFL QB.  That's simply the reality of how few really good QB's there are in the NFL despite people drafting them every year.  The Colts could have taken Sam and traded out and built a pretty good team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

But those in the pro-Darnold camp assume we didn't bake some of these factors into the equation.  No anti-Darnold person was saying that Darnold would only prove he was good if he threw for 350+ yards and 2+ TDs a game. 

There weren't high expectations on Darnold with the talent and coaching around him.  We merely wanted him to look competent the majority of the time.  50+ % of games and maybe 50 or 60+ % of the snaps where he looked like a franchise QB that we drafted him to be.  That's not too much to ask, yet he didn't even come close.  He was an embarrassment in all but a handful (really, less) of contests last season.  He can't make presnap reads, he misses open receivers or doesn't see them, and he makes at least 1-2 mind-bendingly stupid decisions a game leading to turnovers.  All of that are factors that are independent of the talent and coaching. 

And to make matters worse, he missed 3+ games due to injury/ailment for the 3rd straight season.  You can't put any trust in someone like that.

Re-read Raiders post I originally replied to then.

Any mention of the crap Sam had to work with is dubbed "excuses".

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, genot said:

Robby averaged over 4 more yds per catch with Sam. He wasn't targeted as much, because with the Jet's they limited his route tree. More proof of what smart coaching can do for a player's production.

The last 2 years with Crowder have been the worst of his career since his rookie season. My issue is Sam's deep ball accuracy, I don't know if Robby's route tree would have changed that at all. Teddy is also not a deep ball thrower so I suppose good coach vs bad coach is were his overall total comes in to play. I think my point stands that Robby would not have done much here last year just like Perriman and Mims.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bla bla bla said:

The last 2 years with Crowder have been the worst of his career since his rookie season. My issue is Sam's deep ball accuracy, I don't know if Robby's route tree would have changed that at all. Teddy is also not a deep ball thrower so I suppose good coach vs bad coach is were his overall total comes in to play. I think my point stands that Robby would not have done much here last year just like Perriman and Mims.

I'll leave the Anderson issue alone. With respect,(bla bla bla, lol), you need to look at Crowder and his career stats again. He was just as effective here, as in Washington. Point being. If your a good receiver, you'll do well with Darnold. Why bring Perriman up. He's been a bust since he was drafted. Lazy. Injury prone. Mims,( talented yes), was just a rookie, with no training camp, and only a half a season to perform. Crowder was literally the only good WR, who has proven to be such, we had.And he did well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam is a real easy guy to like and in turn defend. He has to stop making mistakes which are entirely in his control though. He needs to stop throwing ducks into the middle of the field off the back of his foot that get picked. He needs to stop running out of bounds for a loss instead of throwing an incomplete. He needs to make better reads pre-snap (maybe more pre-snap motion will help). He doesn't control the roster or the staff so I can give him plenty of slack (poor coaching and not a great roster), but there are things he can control that he needs to demonstrate a grasp of if he's back this year.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

 

Much like Sam Darnold, Mitchell Trubisky had less than 20 collegiate starts.  As did Dwayne Haskins.  As did Mark Sanchez.  Even if those guys walk into great situations (like Sanchez did), they will still tend to struggle and probably never figure the pro game out.  This was an even more difficult a task for Darnold, who didn't even play QB in High School.

I was duped by Sanchez's Rose Bowl performance.  I thought he'd be the guy.  I was wrong.  Lesson learned:  Stop drafting inexperienced QB's in the 1st round.

24 is less than 20 now?  Is this new math?  How many starts did Kyler Murray have?  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BUM-KNEE said:

Re-read Raiders post I originally replied to then.

Any mention of the crap Sam had to work with is dubbed "excuses".


Some of his excuses are legit.  All of them aren’t. Some behave as if Darnold is 0 % to blame for his own struggles. It’s probably more like 60-70 % internal reasons for him being terrible at football.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Biggs said:

Sam could be better than most of the QB's in this class and still not be able to cut it as a really good NFL QB.  That's simply the reality of how few really good QB's there are in the NFL despite people drafting them every year.  The Colts could have taken Sam and traded out and built a pretty good team. 

So follow their blueprint and build the OL.  Colts took Nelson, a Guard, at 6.  We should take Sewell who is even better at 2

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 7:52 PM, Adoni Beast said:



That tells you half the story. The other half is that about 12 teams have called about his availability. That tells you all you need to know.

 

does it? they might be calling but what are they offering? 

im sure many teams would take a chance on Sam for a 3rd or 4th with conditions. what do they got to lose. doesnt mean teams think Sams good. its just the price is worth it to try him out.

has anyone notice how last month those NFL insiders all were saying a trade for Sam would include a #1. now everywhere i read a trade for Sam will start with a 2. what will it be next month a 3? 

the less teams are willing to give, the more teams will be interested in Sam. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:


Some of his excuses are legit.  All of them aren’t. Some behave as if Darnold is 0 % to blame for his own struggles. It’s probably more like 60-70 % internal reasons for him being terrible at football.  

I don't really agree with that %, which is fine, we don't have to agree. I'd say it's a 50/50 split.

I still think Sam will mature into a good NFL QB though. Hopefully as a Jet. If JD thinks different then I'm ok with that.

  • Post of the Week 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

But those in the pro-Darnold camp assume we didn't bake some of these factors into the equation.  No anti-Darnold person was saying that Darnold would only prove he was good if he threw for 350+ yards and 2+ TDs a game. 

There weren't high expectations on Darnold with the talent and coaching around him.  We merely wanted him to look competent the majority of the time.  50+ % of games and maybe 50 or 60+ % of the snaps where he looked like a franchise QB that we drafted him to be.  That's not too much to ask, yet he didn't even come close.  He was an embarrassment in all but a handful (really, less) of contests last season.  He can't make presnap reads, he misses open receivers or doesn't see them, and he makes at least 1-2 mind-bendingly stupid decisions a game leading to turnovers.  All of that are factors that are independent of the talent and coaching. 

And to make matters worse, he missed 3+ games due to injury/ailment for the 3rd straight season.  You can't put any trust in someone like that.

what percentage of the snaps did mahomes look good in the superbowl? because the oline darnold was playing behgind was about as good as what mahomes had in the superbowl.....only mahomes had vastly better skill players. not saying darnold will ever be as good as mahomes, but even a player as good as mahomes looked borderline inept behind a crap o-line.... even with guys like kelce and hill to throw to

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Good lord man.  Always so pedantic.  As if the 24 starts and Kyler Murray actually refute the larger point. 

Lack of starts is no longer a predictor of pro failure.  Better players come out earlier.  End of story.  Darnold started for 2 years.  It makes it much harder to predict what they will be in the NFL, but it is not an indicator of anything more than there is a greater swing floor to ceiling.  I do not trust the judgment of a player that is going to go top 3 that stay in for that extra year 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Philc1 said:

So follow their blueprint and build the OL.  Colts took Nelson, a Guard, at 6.  We should take Sewell who is even better at 2

I would and if I could get a 2 or better for Sam I would unload him as part of the rebuild.   He's value is likely near the top before the combine and draft and another pick could be a nice piece.  Much rather be in position to move up or back in the first round if someone started to fall and pick up a veteran stop gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Lack of starts is no longer a predictor of pro failure.  Better players come out earlier.  End of story.  Darnold started for 2 years.  It makes it much harder to predict what they will be in the NFL, but it is not an indicator of anything more than there is a greater swing floor to ceiling.  I do not trust the judgment of a player that is going to go top 3 that stay in for that extra year 

And yet lack of collegiate experience is still highly correlated with low success in the pros.  So what gives here?  I'll trust QBASE's formula a bit more than your questioning of a QB's judgment.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neckdemon said:

what percentage of the snaps did mahomes look good in the superbowl? because the oline darnold was playing behgind was about as good as what mahomes had in the superbowl.....only mahomes had vastly better skill players. not saying darnold will ever be as good as mahomes, but even a player as good as mahomes looked borderline inept behind a crap o-line.... even with guys like kelce and hill to throw to

Actually Mahomes still looked very good while the team played a horrible game.  And he dominated for 3 straight seasons leading up to that.  He gets the benefit of the doubt over Darnold, who has never looked close to great outside of the Rose Bowl and the Packers game his rookie year.  Mahomes' ceiling is the GOAT.  Darnold's ceiling is Andy Dalton.

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

And yet lack of collegiate experience is still highly correlated with low success in the pros.  So what gives here?  I'll trust QBASE's formula a bit more than your questioning of a QB's judgment.  

QBASE is a nice exercise, but their numbers are constantly in flux.  They constantly look at the results and then re-adjust.  That correlation is shrinking quickly and with Covid,it will probably almost be out the window for the next year or two. The last article I read had them skeptical, but considering tweaking the formula because Murray and Haskins had so little experience.  Expected draft position is one of their factors.  That's not exactly a scientific objective measurement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

QBASE is a nice exercise, but their numbers are constantly in flux.  They constantly look at the results and then re-adjust.  That correlation is shrinking quickly and with Covid,it will probably almost be out the window for the next year or two. The last article I read had them skeptical, but considering tweaking the formula because Murray and Haskins had so little experience.  Expected draft position is one of their factors.  That's not exactly a scientific objective measurement.

Their numbers are in flux when it comes to how to account for the talent around a QB.  They got that wrong with Watson (QBASE - 261 DYAR) and had to adjust their thinking accordingly.

However, the low experience factor is NOT an aspect that has seemed to change much at all.  That is a top-2 factor that impacts QBASE, and their formula has historically been right about who would bust at about a 75 % clip.  

The easiest way to determine if a QB with low experience is worth drafting?  Ask yourself if he's an elite athlete and tests out as such.  That's how Cam Newton and Kyler Murray "beat the system" despite not having a ton of collegiate starts.  And that's also why Trey Lance enters the discussion as a 1st round QB.  If he's not an elite athlete (which Sanchez, Darnold, Trubisky and Haskins were decidedly not), AND he is low on experience, then you should not use a 1st round pick on him.

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

what percentage of the snaps did mahomes look good in the superbowl? because the oline darnold was playing behgind was about as good as what mahomes had in the superbowl.....only mahomes had vastly better skill players. not saying darnold will ever be as good as mahomes, but even a player as good as mahomes looked borderline inept behind a crap o-line.... even with guys like kelce and hill to throw to

2BEEAA91-812E-4206-B3E2-30774EAF7EDD.jpeg.79241273b24164888b5ec9eec33808ca.jpeg

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2021 at 6:27 PM, David Harris said:

 

Are you in the pro-Sam Darnold camp or the anti-Sam Darnold camp? There is no gray area. You can either profess your love for the current Jets quarterback or bash him to high heaven. There is no in-between. Those are the rules.

 

Bad premise. Stopped reading here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, neckdemon said:

what percentage of the snaps did mahomes look good in the superbowl? because the oline darnold was playing behgind was about as good as what mahomes had in the superbowl.....only mahomes had vastly better skill players. not saying darnold will ever be as good as mahomes, but even a player as good as mahomes looked borderline inept behind a crap o-line.... even with guys like kelce and hill to throw to

It's not even that with Sam. It's the bad mechanics and not being able to move around the pocket or bailing too soon when all he has to do is step up, when there IS a clean pocket. 

Sure constant pressure from a bad oline can get to you after a while but it wasn't nearly that bad this year and there was plenty of opportunities for him to step up and make plays and he didn't because of those things. 

If the coaching staff thinks they just need to tweak a few things with his mechanics to get things on the right path then i'll be all for giving him another go.

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

Their numbers are in flux when it comes to how to account for the talent around a QB.  They got that wrong with Watson (QBASE - 261 DYAR) and had to adjust their thinking accordingly.

However, the low experience factor is NOT an aspect that has seemed to change much at all.  That is a top-2 factor that impacts QBASE, and their formula has historically been right about who would bust at about a 75 % clip.  

The easiest way to determine if a QB with low experience is worth drafting?  Ask yourself if he's an elite athlete and tests out as such.  That's how Cam Newton and Kyler Murray "beat the system" despite not having a ton of collegiate starts.  And that's also why Trey Lance enters the discussion as a 1st round QB.  If he's not an elite athlete (which Sanchez, Darnold, Trubisky and Haskins were decidedly not), AND he is low on experience, then you should not use a 1st round pick on him.

Fair enough.  I think it will change and it will change quick.  Their next two reviews are 100% guaranteed to have discussion about this factor being difficult to meet.

Trubisky is a pretty elite athlete.  He's not Jackson, but he is probably as good or better than anyone else.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, #27TheDominator said:

Fair enough.  I think it will change and it will change quick.  Their next two reviews are 100% guaranteed to have discussion about this factor being difficult to meet.

Trubisky is a pretty elite athlete.  He's not Jackson, but he is probably as good or better than anyone else.  

True enough.  And low and behold, of the 4 bust QB's I listed, he's had the most success statistically.  I think he'll have a nice journeyman career in this league, at minimum.  

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...