Jump to content

Rookie QB Stats Through 10 Games (2009 - 21)


Lith
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, The Crusher said:

I honestly wouldn’t. Personally haven’t seen enough from him. Could he be good?  Sure maybe , but being in business for myself for the last 29 years? Not a big fan of sure or maybe. 

There's gotta be a point you'd pay. On draft capital alone he's worth something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ultraJETfan said:

After Saints game I had given up on him. But he made multiple plays like this yesterday that made me say WOW he might actually put it all together eventually. But then the 2nd half was a complete disaster and I'm not football savvy enough to know who the blame falls on. Because there was about 5 pass plays that were over before he snapped the ball. Literally 0 chance. I don't know if that was Zach"s fault or the OC, the line, the blockers, the scheme, brilliant defense.

General consensus is that Miami has a good defense. Safe to say the Jaguars do not. If he struggles mightily against the Jags then that will be another sign that he is another doomed rookie QB that will be a backup in a couple years. He really really needs to ball out on Sunday. Might be the biggest game of his young career.

Good take.  He looked pretty good early in that game.  To be fair Miami looked very flat out of the gate but Zach looked good.  The second half was a turd pile across the board. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jgb said:

I don't think JD has the stones. Not much of indictment of him. I don't think many GMs do. Dorsey (who I wish we could've gotten as GM) and Keim.

I don’t know, man. We’re looking at an offseason where Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Deshaun Watson, Kirk Cousins, and Derek Carr could be available. If you’re looking at a chance to replace the worst QB in the league with one of those guys, you gotta at least sniff around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, T0mShane said:

I don’t know, man. We’re looking at an offseason where Aaron Rodgers, Russell Wilson, Deshaun Watson, Kirk Cousins, and Derek Carr could be available. If you’re looking at a chance to replace the worst QB in the league with one of those guys, you gotta at least sniff around. 

Not hoping against it, just don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

2020 jets pts per game offense 15.1 pts per game defense 28.6

2021 jets pts per game offense 17.9 pts per game defense 30.6

There should be no conversation about the plight of the new york jets that should not start with, "Why is the defense so utterly horrible.'

15.2 with Zach btw

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Beerfish said:

2020 jets pts per game offense 15.1 pts per game defense 28.6

2021 jets pts per game offense 17.9 pts per game defense 30.6

There should be no conversation about the plight of the new york jets that should not start with, "Why is the defense so utterly horrible.'

The Jets are like a Porta-Potty -- it's impossible to attribute each nuance of the stench to the butthole it came out of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Joe Willie White Shoes said:

It's somewhat disconcerting, but there are some bad QBs above him and some good ones below him.  I'm not sure what this means at the end of the day.

It means that the results on different teams and different circumstances cannot accurately forecast future success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JetFreak89 said:

While this certainly looks bad for Zach, it also proves my point about Josh Allen as there are posters here who swear he never looked as bad as Zach despite having less yards, a lower completion percentage and the same amount of INT's on way less pass attempts. 

Throwing rushing numbers into the equation certainly changes the analysis.  Allen definitely sucked his rookie year but he at least had elite athleticism to turn to.

And unlike the many, many QB's who came before and after him, Allen was able to "fix" his accuracy issues at the pro level in year 3.  That's exceedingly rare, and not something you can count on.  

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Throwing rushing numbers into the equation certainly changes the analysis.  Allen definitely sucked his rookie year but he at least had elite athleticism to turn to.

And unlike the many, many QB's who came before and after him, Allen was able to "fix" his accuracy issues at the pro level in year 3.  That's exceedingly rare, and not something you can count on.  

The human mind doesn't innately understand statistics and probability. Each of us contains the atavistic DNA that ensured the thousands of generations leading from the plains of Africa to you today survived in a cruel inhospitable world that rewarded extreme risk aversion.

One guy gets eaten by a bear? Avoid caves and sleep in the rain.

A caveman gets killed by a venomous snake? Kill them all without determining which are dangerous and which are not.

Someone in a neighboring settlement gets sick from eating a pig? Tell your children that it's against divine law to eat pork.

Anecdotal evidence remains a powerful draw tens of thousands of years later.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, rtnelson said:

It means that the results on different teams and different circumstances cannot accurately forecast future success.

With enough of a sample size, all those silly variables/excuses get washed away.  

Stick with the "it hasn't been long enough!" argument.  That's really the only reasonably legitimate one that can be made.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

With enough of a sample size, all those silly variables/excuses get washed away.  

Stick with the "it hasn't been long enough!" argument.  That's really the only reasonably legitimate one that can be made.  

If it's enough of a sample size we have a better QB than Josh Allen and Matt Stafford.  Sounds okay to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rtnelson said:

If it's enough of a sample size we have a better QB than Josh Allen and Matt Stafford.  Sounds okay to me.

No. What you have is the baseline percentage of QBs who have had similar rough starts that have succeeded. According to the last ten years, you're looking at a 22% chance that Wilson becomes Stafford or Josh Allen.

I happen to think that's generous but let's call it that.

Would it not be reasonable to at least consider there is a 78% chance of a total bust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jgb said:

No, what you have is the baseline percentage of QBs who have had similar rough starts that have succeeded. According to the last ten years, you're looking at a 22% chance that Wilson becomes Stafford or Josh Allen.

I happen to think that's generous but let's call it that.

Would it not be reasonable to at least consider there is a 78% chance of a total bust?

Considering that QBase gave Wilson only a 29 % chance of being a bust coming out of school this is certainly an alarming descent for Wilson's career chances.

Even if we were to be exceedingly fair to him and only say its about a 50 % chance Wilson busts, these first 10 games have damaged his stock precipitously.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Considering that QBase gave Wilson only a 29 % chance of being a bust this is certainly an alarming descent for Wilson's career chances.

Even if be exceedingly fair to him and only say its about a 50 % chance Wilson busts, these first 10 games have damaged his stock precipitously.  

Isn't it interesting that on Lith's list there are 2 extremely good QBs and 6 absolutely total busts? There are no Teddy Bridgewaters on that list. This leads me to believe there is something about Stafford and Allen intrinsically that made them succeed. It isn't random. Does Zach have that "it" is the question.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this certainly looks bad for Zach, it also proves my point about Josh Allen as there are posters here who swear he never looked as bad as Zach despite having less yards, a lower completion percentage and the same amount of INT's on way less pass attempts. Again, I'm not expecting Zach to make a similar jump as Allen did but for those who say he is the absolute worst rookie QB ever and has 0% chance of turning things around, that simply isn't true. 


He’s never looked as bad as Zach because Zach is pretty much zero threat to run. Allen had/has a massive weapon at his disposal while he learns the NFL game. He was equally as far behind in terms of understanding NFL schemes coming from a small school. The difference is Allen can compensate for
his lacking as a proficient passer with his legs. Zach has speed but he better not dare to consider himself a rusher or he’ll get killed given his puny stature. Small school QB’s have got to either test incredibly high on NFL intellect and have all the passing game measurables, or they better be able to run as well. A strong arm with some cool “off platform” throws just doesn’t cut it. Zach and Allen aren’t even in the same stratosphere as NFL prospects even before ever taking into account their current NFL experience.


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jgb said:

Isn't it interesting that on Lith's list there are 2 extremely good QBs and 6 absolutely total busts? There are no Teddy Bridgewaters on that list. This leads me to believe there is something about Stafford and Allen intrinsically that made them succeed. It isn't random. Does Zach have that "it" is the question.

Tantalizing upside made those Allen and Stafford rookie seasons palatable for fans of those teams.  

Wilson does not have tantalizing upside.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Considering that QBase gave Wilson only a 29 % chance of being a bust coming out of school this is certainly an alarming descent for Wilson's career chances.

Even if we were to be exceedingly fair to him and only say its about a 50 % chance Wilson busts, these first 10 games have damaged his stock precipitously.  

Was thinking about this. The QBASE guys have admitted they over-penalized QBs in the past based on having a strong supporting cast. I wonder if they need to tweak how they account for college QBs who savage weaker competition.

The issue is that it's very hard to do that. If a QB plays poorly against weak or strong competition, he's probably going to make a bad pro. Conversely, if he dominates against the best, he'll probably be decent in the pros. At least in terms of relative likelihood.

What if he puts up video game numbers against weak comp? Much harder to predict how he would have done against stronger competition. I mean he plays who he plays. How do you decide whether and how much to penalize him from dominating the schedule he had? As a GM, I'd definitely have a bias for guys like Jones, Lawrence, Fields who put up against the cream of the crop. I would be very reluctant to take a guy like Wilson or Josh Allen. I'd put a lot less emphasis on measurables. If he has the baseline level of arm talent, check the box and move onto the immeasurables...

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/20/2021 at 10:26 AM, UntouchableCrew said:

So basically he's been terrible and he'd have to be a huge outlier like Allen and Stafford (who had immense physical gifts and two of the strongest arms ever) to pan out.

Possibly but other guys like Tannehill and Andrew Luck were lower on the list than I’d expect.

Need more games, bigger sample size.

The other key is that IF a poorly performing rookie QB is to make a marked improvement it usually happens from Year 1 to Year 2. We’ll really know what Zach is by the end of next year. Two seasons is enough. 

Link to comment
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...