Jump to content

If Wilson develops into prime Joe Flacco as a passer, are you satisfied?


HawkeyeJet
 Share

Recommended Posts

I, for one, can’t wait for football to go the way of baseball, where certain QBs will play on certain downs, at certain times of day, when the wind is blowing in certain conditions, against certain defensive packages, when Jupiter and the moon are in a certain alignment, etc.

Sports baybee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Playing Odds, and claiming you are the be all end all final say on QB's, and smashing every post into oblivion that does not want to burry Wilson is not the same thing.

No, again, I admit odds are only odds and I want another season with him playing as much as possible to increase the sample size.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Prior to the last 10-15 years, just about every valid starting QB were late bloomers because they did not start immediately and were often given several years to develop and learn. Terry Bradshaw was said to be too dumb to play QB, Warner was out of the NFL bagging groceries, and Eli Manning was about 6 games from being replaced. The data isnt there because there is no statistically valid data on developing QB's, and its been made worse in the last 10 years because colleges and NFL systems are so vastly different now compared to where they were before that.

There are very few QBs who post a terrible (bottom 3, or so) first year and blossom into FQBs. There are many, many who have a bad first year and just stink forever. Those are the odds I am referring to.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

don't hurt that rotator cuff on that self reach around bud, but do enjoy the tickle

It is an inside JN joke from back in the day. A guy used to tell everyone they didn’t understand sports because they were never in a pro locker room. He played a season of single A summer league or something like that. It was an attempt at humor, not at your expense.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

When Murray wins a SB, we can talk about the Cardinals being rewarded. For now, they just gave a middle of the pack QB top of the NFL QB money.

They have already been rewarded. Rosen will never give anyone a chance to even make the playoffs. He’s a total washout and waiting for him would've carried a large opportunity cost to the Cards. One they wisely internalized.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

OK, so give us the magical cutoff that you have, this way we can all learn from your great knowledge and wisdom that you have, and we can all stop wasting our time and declare QB's a complete bust from day 1. 
 

I didn’t declare him a bust. I said the odds are, unfortunately, high that he will. But I’d like another season of data before really solidifying a position.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Cute, again, enjoy the tickle

See above.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Oh, ok, thanks, so please proceed to pound every thread and poster into oblivion who hasn't yet buried Wilson.

I don’t take homework assignments over the Internet. If you have a point, you are free to make it. I will then decide whether to agree, retort, or not engage.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

HOF players who go into slumps did not forget how to play, they lose their confidence.

Ok but if a player has never shown good play, how do you differentiate a slump from a sucks? Another season of data should allow us to really narrow the margin of error in evaluating potential outcomes for the QB.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

 

 

A young QB doesn't have confidence, they need to get it, they also need a reason to get it.  Acting like human emotions and factors don't play into it is expecting a robot.

Emotional makeup is huge for a QB, no doubt about it. But one must internalize the opportunity cost when deciding how long to wait on a guy.

2 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

If a QB has no faith in their O line, or their receivers to be in the right place, they will undoubtedly play worse than a QB who has that faith. Its why HOF hitters say when they are in a slump the baseball looks like a pea, but when they are on fire it looks like a beachball, their eye site does not change, their confidence does, again, they are not robots. 

Again, the large gap that I see in your position is that it justifies waiting for guys who may blossom (relatively rare, especially when starting with the worst-rated QB in that league) and those that won’t and indeed never will. To date no one has been able to proactively assign players into either category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jgb said:

No, again, I admit odds are only odds and I want another season with him playing as much as possible to increase the sample size.

There are very few QBs who post a terrible (bottom 3, or so) first year and blossom into FQBs. There are many, many who have a bad first year and just stink forever. Those are the odds I am referring to.

It is an inside JN joke from back in the day. A guy used to tell everyone they didn’t understand sports because they were never in a pro locker room. He played a season of single A summer league or something like that. It was an attempt at humor, not at your expense.

They have already been rewarded. Rosen will never give anyone a chance to even make the playoffs. He’s a total washout and waiting for him would've carried a large opportunity cost to the Cards. One they wisely internalized.

I didn’t declare him a bust. I said the odds are, unfortunately, high that he will. But I’d like another season of data before really solidifying a position.

See above.

I don’t take homework assignments over the Internet. If you have a point, you are free to make it. I will then decide whether to agree, retort, or not engage.

Ok but if a player has never shown good play, how do you differentiate a slump from a sucks? Another season of data should allow us to really narrow the margin of error in evaluating potential outcomes for the QB.

Emotional makeup is huge for a QB, no doubt about it. But one must internalize the opportunity cost when deciding how long to wait on a guy.

Again, the large gap that I see in your position is that it justifies waiting for guys who may blossom (relatively rare, especially when starting with the worst-rated QB in that league) and those that won’t and indeed never will. To date no one has been able to proactively assign players into either category.

Your changing your tune a tad. You spent much of last season berating anyone who dare have even a somewhat hopeful position on Wilson to now wanting to give him a year to get more data, as well as breaking down 74 mouses by up voting every post JF80 made on how bad Wilson sucks.

Let me be clear here, I am 100% in favor of trying to get a QB in here that can win a SB. If there is a big QB available to draft, get him, if there is a big QB available by trade or FA, get him.  Only exception to that is Watson who I believe certain things are bigger than winning football games. I have zero tie to Wilson, zero, like I had zero tie to Darnold or anyone before him. 

I don't believe that drafting a new QB has any higher probability of succeeding than Wilson does with the same staff and the same training unless you can get a generational guy which is an outlier of outliers. You guys act like drafting the next QB is a 75% probability of success, its not, its closer to 90% probability of failure, so giving up on Wilson after 1 year makes it every bit as unlikely to draft the next guy being successful than Wilson's light bulb going on at some point in the next 2 seasons. 

In todays NFL with salary cap and rookie deals you absolutely cannot give QB's unlimited time to develop, but I also firmly believe the really high failure rate with QB's has to do with the modern NFL and how they are thrown into the fire in very different systems than they played in college and have to get used to the speed of the game and the complexity of their own system as well as opposing systems. 

I think the NFL would be better with more good QB's and it really behooves the NFL to figure something out with rookie deals and cap space to allow QB's to develop longer than they have now, I really believe the position is that complex now and obviously its that important. 

I also don't believe that legit Franchise QB's are made available without huge issues or risk. But I am not opposed to taking that risk in most cases if its there. The Saints took risk with Brees and it paid off, but that type of guy becoming available is extremely rare.

I don't dislike Trubisky at all, and would not be opposed to him being our QB, but I don't think he is talented enough to win a SB without a monster team around him. I want a SB victory, not 9-7 teams, but to each their own.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

Your changing your tune a tad. You spent much of last season berating anyone who dare have even a somewhat hopeful position on Wilson to now wanting to give him a year to get more data, as well as breaking down 74 mouses by up voting every post JF80 made on how bad Wilson sucks.

Let me be clear here, I am 100% in favor of trying to get a QB in here that can win a SB. If there is a big QB available to draft, get him, if there is a big QB available by trade or FA, get him.  Only exception to that is Watson who I believe certain things are bigger than winning football games. I have zero tie to Wilson, zero, like I had zero tie to Darnold or anyone before him. 

I don't believe that drafting a new QB has any higher probability of succeeding than Wilson does with the same staff and the same training unless you can get a generational guy which is an outlier of outliers. You guys act like drafting the next QB is a 75% probability of success, its not, its closer to 90% probability of failure, so giving up on Wilson after 1 year makes it every bit as unlikely to draft the next guy being successful than Wilson's light bulb going on at some point in the next 2 seasons. 

In todays NFL with salary cap and rookie deals you absolutely cannot give QB's unlimited time to develop, but I also firmly believe the really high failure rate with QB's has to do with the modern NFL and how they are thrown into the fire in very different systems than they played in college and have to get used to the speed of the game and the complexity of their own system as well as opposing systems. 

I think the NFL would be better with more good QB's and it really behooves the NFL to figure something out with rookie deals and cap space to allow QB's to develop longer than they have now, I really believe the position is that complex now and obviously its that important. 

I also don't believe that legit Franchise QB's are made available without huge issues or risk. But I am not opposed to taking that risk in most cases if its there. The Saints took risk with Brees and it paid off, but that type of guy becoming available is extremely rare.

I don't dislike Trubisky at all, and would not be opposed to him being our QB, but I don't think he is talented enough to win a SB without a monster team around him. I want a SB victory, not 9-7 teams, but to each their own.

 

You’re free to your opinion but not to mine. I disclaim wholeheartedly your mischaracterization  of my position. I’ve now tried to explain it many times, there’s nothing else I can offer you.

Oh and yes, sometimes on the Internet, people do respond in shorthand. You’d have to very selectively take cherry-picked posts in isolation to make the very weak case that I just “hate” the QB and have no basis upon which I formed my opinion. I do not and will never append to each post the entire body of references for which I have now stated many times leads me to lack confidence in the current Jets QB1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, jgb said:

You’re free to your opinion but not to mine. I disclaim wholeheartedly your mischaracterization  of my position. I’ve now tried to explain it many times, there’s nothing else I can offer you.

Oh and yes, sometimes on the Internet, people do respond in shorthand. You’d have to very selectively take cherry-picked posts in isolation to make the very weak case that I just “hate” the QB and have no basis upon which I formed my opinion. I do not and will never append to each post the entire body of references for which I have now stated many times leads me to lack confidence in the current Jets QB1. 

lol, when you got called out for your negativity and your sh*tting on every thread with it, you went and pouted for a few months and left the boards, but I mischaracterized your position, ok

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mogglez said:

I, for one, can’t wait for football to go the way of baseball, where certain QBs will play on certain downs, at certain times of day, when the wind is blowing in certain conditions, against certain defensive packages, when Jupiter and the moon are in a certain alignment, etc.

Sports baybee.

Missing that Sanchez/Tebow tandem?

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2022 at 12:20 PM, Jetsfan80 said:

Oh boy, here we go.  HS coaches claiming they know better when it comes to Pro QB's.

The biggest problem with that take?  Elite QB's were all incredible in High School.  Men among boys.  Except Darnold, of course, because he was a boogie boarding Linebacker at the time.  No HS coach would have any doubt that a future NFL QB has what it takes to play the game at the highest level when watching them play at the HS level.

However, there are skills even elite QB's have to gain in HS and the collegiate level, or are gifted at due to DNA and a quick-processing brain, in order to succeed at the pro level.  If they don't have it by the time they reach the pros and display it within the first 2 years, odds are very strong they never will.

"Landing spot" is overrated in that sense.  It's a QB's makeup and development at the prior levels that far better determine his success rate.  Not the pro-level coaches and receivers he's paired with.  That's what makes the position unique and makes it so difficult to evaluate prospects at the position.

Landing spot is not even a little bit overrated, in fact it's still probably heavily underrated.

Talent and coaching around a young QB is everything.  You talk about processing as it's some tangible data point.  There are multiple variables in every play that can make the QB's job much easier or harder.

If you have WR's that can get open, know the system and coaches that can call the right plays - you have first reads or second reads that are open far more often - and always where they're supposed to be.  Giving the QB a much simpler play to work though.  When you have an OL that gives the QB more time that matters.

We're talking about a second here or a second there that make all the difference in a plays success or failure.

This processor as you call it - will continue to get better with reps - with every year, every game, every drop back - it becomes more natural - less thinking and more reacting..  The better place the QB goes will give your QB the time to get there?  Making their life easier early, as they grow, means everything.

Surely it comes more natural to some that others - or others might be more advanced due to their HS/college career. Agreed.

But that doesn't change the fact that 1 - it can be learned and evolved over time and 2. having a strong supporting cast early will immensely help that learning curve and give said QB the time necessary to get to that next level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

lol, when you got called out for your negativity and your sh*tting on every thread with it, you went and pouted for a few months and left the boards, but I mischaracterized your position, ok

The irony of accusing others of pouting when this is your response to a couple hours of a good faith attempt to engage you is so delicious that it doesn’t require the seasoning of additional commentary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jgb said:

The irony of accusing others of pouting when this is your response to a couple hours of a good faith attempt to engage you, is so delicious that it doesn’t require additional seasoning via commentary.

sorry, as I get older I just have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. I am fine with different opinions and respect them, but I own my sh*t and expect others to as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

sorry, as I get older I just have little tolerance for intellectual dishonesty. I am fine with different opinions and respect them, but I own my sh*t and expect others to as well.

Ohhhhh man, this is not a place you want to go. You’ve falsely claimed several times to put me on ignore. If you want to be honest with the board and yourself, that’s an obvious place to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jgb said:

Ohhhhh man, this is not a place you want to go. You’ve falsely claimed several times to put me on ignore. If you want to be honest with the board and yourself, that’s an obvious place to start.

lol, you do know you can put someone on ignore and then take them off, right? Its not permanent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flea Flicking Frank said:

lol, you do know you can put someone on ignore and then take them off, right? Its not permanent

Wise choice — truth is irresistible and ignored at one’s own peril.

  • Confused 1
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...