Zach Wilson - Breakout Candidate (Fantasy Perspective)

[Tranquilo]

21 minutes ago, Saul Goodman said:

Zach was not close to being an elite prospect. Some pluses to his game, but many red flags. I mean, the kid had to compete to be the starting QB his senior year at BYU.
 

Lance and Fields weren’t elite prospects either. Don’t know what this guy is talking about. 

It's just a different way to evaluate prospects using nerd sh*t, analytics, production thresholds, etc. Not saying it's iron clad, but just another way to look at prospects.

https://establishtherun.com/what-to-look-for-in-qb-prospects/

[maury77]

1 hour ago, slimjasi said:

Regarding the first two bolded points - I have seen evidence for both posted on the interwebs. 

There was a pretty detailed analysis floating around that got brought up on this forum awhile back (maybe from football outsiders?) which suggested that rookie QB performance is a poor predictor of future success or failure (this also jives with my own perception). And the PFF thing has been posted here before, as well. 

I can't comment on the last one. I don't play fantasy. 

PFF was actually pretty harsh on Wilson's metrics

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-new-york-jets-2022-offseason-blueprint-response-to-poor-zach-wilson-rookie-year

At least 1 of the Football Outsiders contributors was as well

https://heavy.com/sports/new-york-jets/wilson-jets-losses-cut/

 

Again, no one knows what the future holds, but the analytics for Wilson have, thus far, not been great. 

[slimjasi]

4 minutes ago, maury77 said:

PFF was actually pretty harsh on Wilson's metrics

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-new-york-jets-2022-offseason-blueprint-response-to-poor-zach-wilson-rookie-year

At least 1 of the Football Outsiders contributors was as well

https://heavy.com/sports/new-york-jets/wilson-jets-losses-cut/

 

Again, no one knows what the future holds, but the analytics for Wilson have, thus far, not been great. 

Right, but the OP was referring to specific analyses that are different from the two you posted here. 

And the football outsiders study that I brought up had nothing to do with Wilson. 

[Pac]

3 hours ago, T0mShane said:

 

Are you young hotboys aware of the works of one Aidan Mackey? 
 

cc: @Pac @Jetsfan80

Mackey had advanced thoughts at an early age.  At this point hes probably 40.

[jeremy2020]

https://www.actionnetwork.com/nfl/sam-darnold-fantasy-football-qbs-breakouts-2019

https://brotofantasy.com/fantasy-football-2020/2021/7/11/the-sunnier-sam-the-case-for-a-sam-darnold-breakout-in-2021

 

[Jetsfan80]

3 hours ago, T0mShane said:

 

Are you young hotboys aware of the works of one Aidan Mackey? 
 

cc: @Pac @Jetsfan80

 

14 minutes ago, Pac said:

Mackey had advanced thoughts at an early age.  At this point hes probably 40.

 

Every year, Pac adds three years to Mackey's age.  

[65 Toss Power Trap]

3 hours ago, Saul Goodman said:

Zach was not close to being an elite prospect. Some pluses to his game, but many red flags. I mean, the kid had to compete to be the starting QB his senior year at BYU.
 

Lance and Fields weren’t elite prospects either. Don’t know what this guy is talking about. 

"Elite" is very subjective. Many thought Mahomes was a dud, Reid/Veach said he was clearly elite. Some thought Jamarcus Russel was elite.

Zach only had to compete his senior year b/c he was coming off an injury. Early on his coach said he was clearly the guy. The competition was pretty perfunctory. He was a top college qb, no doubt about that.

[FidelioJet]

 

[FidelioJet]

17 hours ago, maury77 said:

PFF was actually pretty harsh on Wilson's metrics

https://www.pff.com/news/nfl-new-york-jets-2022-offseason-blueprint-response-to-poor-zach-wilson-rookie-year

At least 1 of the Football Outsiders contributors was as well

https://heavy.com/sports/new-york-jets/wilson-jets-losses-cut/

 

Again, no one knows what the future holds, but the analytics for Wilson have, thus far, not been great. 

 

Agenda driven articles - we always have to be weary of.  

If you're going to quote stats and use their own numbers - and only point to the negative ones - the veracity of the entire piece should be questioned.

Their own numbers:

1. They know he was the 4th ranked QB in the redzone
2. They know was the 4th ranked QB in the short passing game over the last quarter of the season
3. They know his numbers showed VAST improvement after his injury

Yet, those data points were left out to only highlight the negative ones.  I'm not saying don't read the article but take it with a grain of salt.

 

[FidelioJet]

 

Interesting because it seems that's pretty much all he had to throw into - kind of explains the overall low %.  Imagine him with guys open.