New Hughes pod, talks extensively Zach && Mims. Does Hysterical Mims drill imitation. Concludes Douglas is headed for the unemployment line

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

sigh

First 11 games, 0-11, 52.9% completions, 1749 yards, 9TD/18INT 55.7 QB rating

who am I?

Probably some QB from 40 years ago if I had to guess.  Or perhaps Brett Favre or Peyton?

As I said in a post above, the caveat is you have to compare the QB to his peers.  Comparing across generations, particularly pre-Ty Law rule QBs to post-Ty Law rule QBs, is not helpful. 

[Barry McCockinner]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Probably some QB from 40 years ago if I had to guess.  Or perhaps Brett Favre or Peyton?

As I said in a post above, the caveat is you have to compare the QB to his peers. 

https://www.footballdb.com/statistics/nfl/player-stats/passing/1989/regular-season

[Lith]

26 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I looked at the complete rookie seasons of highly drafted QBs, but I’ll gladly isolate the first 9 games if necessary. 

Link is to google doc I created with data from Pro Football Reference.  QBs with at least 9 starts as rookies, through 9 games.  2009- present.  Numbers very similar to Allen and Matthew Stafford.  But most of the guys near the bottom of the list have sucked.  Allen/Stafford are exceptions and that is what we are now reduced to hoping Zach will be as well.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ViGIC9pnHU-P1G8Hfp62_d2o3XJMQo23JMcPdu8N7xg/edit?usp=sharing

[Jetsfan80]

Just now, Barry McCockinner said:

https://www.footballdb.com/statistics/nfl/player-stats/passing/1989/regular-season

As I expected.  A QB from a completely different era of football.  Again, it’s a comparison to peers that is relevant.  1989 football was an entirely different game. 

[slimjasi]

13 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I looked at the complete rookie seasons of highly drafted QBs, but I’ll gladly isolate the first 9 games if necessary. 

It's not enough to just look at them, though. That's what I'm getting at. 

From a statistical point of view - the proper question is: Are the first 5/10/15/etc. games of an NFL QB's career a significant statistical predictor of future success or failure? You can't just look at a bunch of examples and say "seems like it" You have to actually do some math to see if there is a significant correlation (let's say at a P value of 0.05 or some other agreed upon significance level) and then see how strong the correlation is or isn't. 

For example, it could be that, statistically speaking, rookie seasons aren't significant predictors of future performance. It could be that there have been enough guys who have either initially sucked and developed into good QBs OR have started out fast only to come back down to earth to make rookie seasons largely not useful as a metric for predicting future outcomes.  

[Barry McCockinner]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

As I expected.  A QB from a completely different era of football.  Again, it’s a comparison to peers that is relevant.  1989 football was an entirely different game. 

and Troy Aikman was the worst QB in the league

you said no qb ever, now you're moving goal posts. I'll just let you have your whatever this thing is and move on. Giving up on a QB after 9 games is dumb.

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Lith said:

Link is to google doc I created.  QBs with at least 9 starts as rookies, through 9 games.  Numbers very similar to Allen and Matthew Stafford.  But most of the guys near the bottom of the list have sucked.  Allen/Stafford are exceptions and that is what we are now reduced to hoping Zach will be as well.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ViGIC9pnHU-P1G8Hfp62_d2o3XJMQo23JMcPdu8N7xg/edit?usp=sharing

Yep. And at least Stafford had over 2,000 yards and 12 TDs at this point.  Clearly he was asked to be the whole offense right away. 

And Allen at least had elite athleticism to turn to.  Factor in his rushing numbers and it’s not even comparable between him and Wilson. 

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

and Troy Aikman was the worst QB in the league

you said no qb ever, now you're moving goal posts. I'll just let you have your whatever this thing is and move on. Giving up on a QB after 9 games is dumb.

Then look at what @Lith just posted if you don’t want to listen.

[varjet]

54 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

No QB has ever been THIS bad his first 9 games and gone on to success.  Not even Allen performed anywhere close to this bad.  And he at least had elite athleticism he could turn to, which Wilson lacks.

Its not just normal rookie struggles, it’s a matter of “Jesus, this guy just can’t play the position at all.”  The kind of stuff we said about Darnold, but somehow even worse. 

Matthew Stamford was this bad his first season. Otherwise you are correct.  Darnold was this bad but had great last four games 

[varjet]

52 minutes ago, slimjasi said:

Are there any stats to back this up? 

Are there any studies we can cite that have statistically analyzed the first handful of games of NFL QBs and gauged how much of a predictor those games are for future success or failure? That's really the question. 

Locked On Jets did a study of this.  It ain’t pretty. 

[Prodigal Syndicate]

18 hours ago, Green hat said:

How so? AVT, Moore, MC1, MC2 are EXCELLENT picks. Echols and Sherwood are quality depth. Nas, Pinnock, Marshall may also contribute. Best draft we've had in many years. Overrated?? You stack a few drafts like this together and the Jets are  loaded. After so many years of sh*tty drafts, I think some fans don't even know what a great draft looks like. 

These posts describing this draft are looking scarily like the Douglas defenders posts last season about the last draft.

[jgb]

2 hours ago, Barry McCockinner said:

and Troy Aikman was the worst QB in the league

you said no qb ever, now you're moving goal posts. I'll just let you have your whatever this thing is and move on. Giving up on a QB after 9 games is dumb.

Sometimes the 10,000 - to - 1 long shot comes in. But you don't bet the milk money on it.

[Barry McCockinner]

3 minutes ago, jgb said:

Sometimes the 10,000 - to - 1 long shot comes in. But you don't bet the milk money on it.

This whole thing is stupid. 80 made a dumb "no qb ever" type statement which I said was probably wrong but didn't want to get into exceptions. Then he insisted, NO NO NO ... NO QB EVAAAAAAAAAAA

Then he started moving the goal posts. I really couldn't care less about whatever argument it is being made.

Zack has sucked so far. I hope he gets better but I wouldn't bet your milk money on it let alone my own. I'm not giving up on the kid after 9 games either.

[jgb]

21 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

This whole thing is stupid. 80 made a dumb "no qb ever" type statement which I said was probably wrong but didn't want to get into exceptions. Then he insisted, NO NO NO ... NO QB EVAAAAAAAAAAA

Then he started moving the goal posts. I really couldn't care less about whatever argument it is being made.

Zack has sucked so far. I hope he gets better but I wouldn't bet your milk money on it let alone my own. I'm not giving up on the kid after 9 games either.

I get ya but if the dividing line is between 0 ever or like 2 ever, don't you think JF80's point is still pretty freaking strong?

[Barry McCockinner]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

I get ya but if the dividing line is between 0 ever or like 2 ever, don't you think JF80's point is still pretty freaking strong?

I think words have meaning and people should use them properly. When people say things like never or literally but don't really mean never or literally it weakens their ability to effectively communicate and makes me want to punch babies.

[jgb]

5 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I think words have meaning and people should use them properly. When people say things like never or literally but don't really mean never or literally it weakens their ability to effectively communicate and makes me want to punch babies.

Yeah, well, you're probably in the wrong place for an intellectual semantic discourse.

It's the internet, and a sports messageboard, at that. People write in short hand and hyperbole. If you take everything literally and at face value, you're going to be constantly frustrated. 

[Barry McCockinner]

Just now, jgb said:

Yeah, well, you're probably in the wrong place for an intellectual semantic discourse.

It's the internet, and a sports messageboard, at that. People write in short hand and hyperbole. If you take everything literally and at face value, you're going to be constantly frustrated. 

[Jetsfan80]

33 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

This whole thing is stupid. 80 made a dumb "no qb ever" type statement which I said was probably wrong but didn't want to get into exceptions. Then he insisted, NO NO NO ... NO QB EVAAAAAAAAAAA

Then he started moving the goal posts. I really couldn't care less about whatever argument it is being made.

Zack has sucked so far. I hope he gets better but I wouldn't bet your milk money on it let alone my own. I'm not giving up on the kid after 9 games either.

I mean who gives a f**k dude.  For our purposes, “never” applies.  Zach Wilson doesn’t have the abilities Josh Allen and Matthew Stafford came into the league with, and both indeed performed better than Wilson thru 9 games anyways.  The rest of the names on Lith’s list sucked.  The dude has been worse than Sanchez, Geno and Darnold, and with a better supporting cast/offensive coaching than 2 of those guys. 

If you want to grasp hope for Wilson based on players who started their careers in the 80s when you could mug receivers, who am I to keep you from hoping?  

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

I get it. I'd also divert the debate to semantics if I was defending your point of view.

[jgb]

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

I mean who gives a f**k dude.  For our purposes, “never” applies.  Zach Wilson doesn’t have the abilities Josh Allen and Matthew Stafford came into the league with, and both indeed performed better than Wilson thru 9 games anyways.  The rest of the names on Lith’s list sucked.  The dude has been worse than Sanchez, Geno and Darnold, and with a better supporting cast/offensive coaching than 2 of those guys. 

If you want to grasp hope for Wilson based on players who started their careers in 80s when you could mug receivers, who am I to keep you from hoping?  

Talk about winning the battle but losing the war. 

"It didn't never happen! There was one guy back when "Take on Me" was the #1 single in America."

He doesn't even realize he's proving your premise.

[Jetsfan80]

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

Talk about winning the battle but losing the war. 

"It didn't never happen! There was one guy back when "Take on Me" was the #1 single in America."

He doesn't even realize he's proving your premise.

And the funny thing is Troy Aikman really wasn’t THAT good.  He’s the rare instance where a team is so perfect it almost didn’t matter who was at QB.  Aikman only had one season in his career where threw for 20+ TDs and only 3 seasons where he broke 7.5 YPA.  Even for his era that’s a pretty unimpressive career.

Good luck building a similarly dominant roster around Zachapono.

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

And the funny thing is Troy Aikman really wasn’t THAT good.  He’s the rare instance where a team is so perfect it almost didn’t matter who was at QB.  

Good luck building a similarly dominant roster around Zachapono.

Zach isn't even over the Sanchez line of "can be dragged into the playoffs." 

[Jetsfan80]

2 minutes ago, jgb said:

Zach isn't even over the Sanchez line of "can be dragged into the playoffs." 

If you’re gonna play “hide the QB” to any success, he at least needs to be able to complete easy passes to his RBs with some regularity.  

[jgb]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

If you’re gonna play “hide the QB” to any success, he at least needs to be able to complete easy passes to his RBs with some regularity.  

Let's not be so hard on the Wilsonians. It's not that they are terrible at arguing, they just need to be surrounded by better facts.

[Barry McCockinner]

10 minutes ago, jgb said:

I get it. I'd also divert the debate to semantics if I was defending your point of view.

This was literally my only point in responding from the beginning. The fact that you two keep harping on it as if I'm trying to argue something else isn't annoying at all. 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Let's not be so hard on the Wilsonians. It's not that they are terrible at arguing, they just need to be surrounded by better facts.

I prefer “Wilsonites”.  Or perhaps “Zachapostles”.

[jgb]

Just now, Barry McCockinner said:

This was literally my only point in responding from the beginning. The fact that you two keep harping on it as if I'm trying to argue something else isn't annoying at all. 

It's entertaining to me

 

[Jetsfan80]

1 minute ago, Barry McCockinner said:

This was literally my only point in responding from the beginning. The fact that you two keep harping on it as if I'm trying to argue something else isn't annoying at all. 

If it was purely a semantics issue, you wouldn’t be saying “I’m not giving up on Wilson after 9 games”.  

[jgb]

Just now, Jetsfan80 said:

I prefer “Wilsonites”.  Or perhaps “Zachapostles”.

Yes, I suppose my use of a term for those who supported the naive idealism of Woodrow Wilson which led to appeasement and ultimately the most destructive conflict in human history probably goes over too many heads.

[jgb]

1 minute ago, Jetsfan80 said:

If it was purely a semantics issue, you wouldn’t be saying “I’m not giving up on Wilson after 9 games”.  

When you're stuck arguing the definition of words, you already lost the debate.

[Barry McCockinner]

12 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

If it was purely a semantics issue, you wouldn’t be saying “I’m not giving up on Wilson after 9 games”.  

Only a fool would give up on a rookie QB thrown onto a bad team starting the most rookies in the league and having the most guys on IR in the league with a rookie HC & rookie OC after 9 games. 

The most annoying thing is we are like 95% on the same page.

[derp]

I will never fully understand why with a ton of draft capital upcoming, a bad roster, a six year contract, the recent track record of quarterbacks picked in the top three, and a new system being installed by a rookie HC and OC - Joe Douglas decided that second overall was the right time to take a talented but raw quarterback who played a soft schedule behind an elite college offensive line - and he should play immediately.

I want to like Douglas and I find the way he approaches some things interesting but man the results haven’t been great so far. I think he gets this draft but boy it needs to be strong.

[Jetsfan80]

10 minutes ago, Barry McCockinner said:

Only a fool would give up on a rookie QB thrown onto a bad team starting the most rookies in the league and having the most guys on IR in the league with a rookie HC & rookie OC after 9 games. 

The most annoying thing is we are like 95% on the same page.

Well then call me a fool because I’m ready to give up on the kid.  He is not the goods and I have no interest in honoring a sunken cost for 3 years like we did with Darnold, who was better with a weaker supporting cast. 

At any given time only about 20 guys on the planet can play QB at a high level, and people question why it’s ok to give up on one early on?  Come on now.  The odds were already stacked against the kid AND he looks hopeless out there.  

[Adoni Beast]

I suspect the coaching staff and front office all agree to go after the best possible FA QB and or trade for someone this off-season...in hopes of keeping their jobs.

In the end...I suspect we go the Jimmy G route and sign him to a 2 year deal and a true QB competition in camp.

Just my 2 cents...this team needs wins...fast...and stadium seats filled.

[Grandy]

Watched the vid and Hughes gave a great analysis, and explained why this is so weird. These are issues that just turned up out of the blue, and are most likely due to overthinking. Just real concerning.