For context, Zach is the 2nd youngest QB in the league

[slimjasi]

3 minutes ago, JoeNamathsFurCoat said:

Wilson literally just fumbled on Sunday, a play which could have easily cost them the game 

I was in Denver when he had that ridiculous fumble where he ran ass backwards first and looked a drunk guy falling down but got bailed out when the refs ruled him down

Fields played a clean game on Sunday with 4 TDs and 0 TOs

Zach Wilson has 6 fumbles in 19 career games. 

Fields has 23 fumbles in 21 career games. 

Zach Wilson has a career interception rate of 2.9%. Fields has a career interception rate of 3.5%

 

I think the point is that Zach is portrayed by a lot of ya'll as a turnover machine, but in point of fact, has not been as turnover prone as Justin Fields - the new golden boy for the folks who didn't want to draft Wilson. 

[GangGreen Machine]

I'm an optimist that ZW will develop given the Jets continue to not ask the world of him this year...

 

But I used the "Sam Darnold is actually younger than Joe Burrow, he will figure things out" line way too much. 

[Fantasy Island]

1 hour ago, PS17 said:

Zach has that dawg in him 

That’s what he said

[Jimmy 2 Times]

2 hours ago, Lith said:

Yup.  Redshirt in 2017, Transferred to JuCo in 2018, back to Georgia with 3 years of eligibility left in 19, then NCAA granted an extra year of eligibility due to Covid, so he had the opportunity to play this season.  Just turned 25 last month.  Not likely to see it again anytime soon.

Wasn't Weinke 28 years old when he played for FSU?

MLB wash out turned NCAA quarterback. 

[Saul Goodman]

1 hour ago, slimjasi said:

Zach Wilson has 6 fumbles in 19 career games. 

Fields has 23 fumbles in 21 career games. 

Zach Wilson has a career interception rate of 2.9%. Fields has a career interception rate of 3.5%

 

I think the point is that Zach is portrayed by a lot of ya'll as a turnover machine, but in point of fact, has not been as turnover prone as Justin Fields - the new golden boy for the folks who didn't want to draft Wilson. 

I’m only seeing 6 lost fumbles for Fields, 1 this year. Counting fumbles that are not lost seems like counting “almost interceptions”, don’t you think? 

[slimjasi]

5 minutes ago, Saul Goodman said:

I’m only seeing 6 lost fumbles for Fields, 1 this year. Counting fumbles that are not lost seems like counting “almost interceptions”, don’t you think? 

Nah, since I'm going it for both guys. Putting the ball on the ground is usually the standard. Whether or not the other team recovered your fumble or not seems like pure luck. 

 

 

[Dunnie]

Check again
Fields has 22
16 INT and 6 lost fumbles 
Nice try though 
Fields’ INT rate is 3.5% trying to force the ball to scrub WRs who can’t get separation 
Wilson’s is 2.9%
Not a massive differential bro
Wilson’s never had more than 2 TD passes a game 
Wilson will never rush for 170+ yards in game.  Not happening. 

Maybe the Jets can trade for Fields and make him their 4th string running back.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[Fantasy Island]

15 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

I think people forget how young this kid is. He’s coming into his own. He will learn to play the position as he grows.

Who gives a fu(#?

[TuscanyTile2]

21 hours ago, Zachtomims47 said:

I for one, need to see more of Brock Purdy.

Mr Irrelevant.  

[TuscanyTile2]

14 hours ago, GangGreen Machine said:

I'm an optimist that ZW will develop given the Jets continue to not ask the world of him this year...

 

But I used the "Sam Darnold is actually younger than Joe Burrow, he will figure things out" line way too much. 

Same here.  Though Sam is STILL younger than Joe Burrow! 

[TuscanyTile2]

20 hours ago, Wit said:

Fields is starting to give me Lamar Jackson vibes, that would be a huge miss if true. 

I haven't seen much of Fields yet but he's starting to get some buzz.  He's in the NFC so I don't mind as much plus the NFL needs more good QBs.  As long as we beat him then I'm good with him being good.

[Dunnie]

Same here.  Though Sam is STILL younger than Joe Burrow! 

Maybe bring Sam back as 3rd string competition in case he is a graduate of the Geno Smith school of development.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

[TuscanyTile2]

1 minute ago, Dunnie said:

Maybe bring Sam back as 3rd string competition in case he is a graduate of the Geno Smith school of development.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk
 

I'd be all for that.  I still think Sam is going to emerge at some point (like Geno has).

[Darnold's Forehead]

Means nothing.  If all QBs needed was time, there would be no bad QBs.  Zach played well Sunday but really has never put 2 consecutive good games together.  We’ll see how he handles NE again in 2 weeks.

[More Cowbell]

22 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

I think people forget how young this kid is. He’s coming into his own. He will learn to play the position as he grows.

Um, you do know he was drafted last season right? How old do you expect him to be? 

[More Cowbell]

22 hours ago, jamesr said:

Out of the 8 that are 22 / 23, Zach is still doing much better in terms of wins. Fields is improving lately, Lawrence is still a question. Rest haven't played enough to judge. 

Zach is improving but the last 4 weeks, Fields is playing at the highest level.  

[Biggs]

17 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

Fields has 22 turnovers since he came in the league (23 total fumbles and 16 INTs) and  Zach has 16. 

It's very possible and looking more likely that Fields, Lawrence and Zach will all be very good.  We could have taken Fields.  We had no shot at Lawrence.  I'd be very happy if this happened.  It's good for the game and good for the Jets. 

[More Cowbell]

17 hours ago, Rhg1084 said:

Fields has 22 turnovers since he came in the league (23 total fumbles and 16 INTs) and  Zach has 16. 

Fields has also played 3 more games than Zach. The difference is negligible.  All things considered, numbers are very similar except for rushing. Fields has a huge edge there. 

[Biggs]

11 minutes ago, More Cowbell said:

Fields has also played 3 more games than Zach. The difference is negligible.  All things considered, numbers are very similar except for rushing. Fields has a huge edge there. 

I really liked Fields coming out.  I'm not surprised that he's developing.  I'm not unhappy that we took Zach.  

[Matt39]

Anyone of an Athletic sub?

 

[jetstream23]

I don't think @Fantasy Island agrees that Zach is the youngest QB in the league. lol 

 

[More Cowbell]

1 hour ago, Biggs said:

I really liked Fields coming out.  I'm not surprised that he's developing.  I'm not unhappy that we took Zach.  

I also wanted Fields over Zach jist due to him coming from a major football program in college. I never thought much of Zach but he is showing improvement. He jist needs to start hitting the not very difficult  passes that he is missing like that one he sailed over Mims head early in the Bills game. 

[xJayce]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:07 AM, Rhg1084 said:

I think people forget how young this kid is. He’s coming into his own. He will learn to play the position as he grows.

Didn't we say the same thing about Darnold? Oh, he's so young! Given him time to grow up!

Maybe he turns it around next year?

[PepPep]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:13 AM, derp said:

Trevor Lawrence is younger than Zach Wilson. Looks like the list is just sorted by integer age and some other factor is determining how the 23 year olds are lined up.

Ok. But really? Not the point of the OP. 

[Warfish]

My view on the issue of youth remains the same.

When you get the #1 QB Job, your age is 100% irrelevant.  You are there to do the job, period.  

If the age reference is only about "they could learn/improve", sure, that is true, but it's no sure thing, and most don't (Sanchez and Darnold being two home-grown examples).

Personally, I'm just not a fan of falling back on age as some form of excuse for today.  If being young excuses bad play, then young QB's should be sitting, not playing, and old QB's playing till the young QB isn't so young anymore.

JMO.

[PepPep]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:27 AM, #27TheDominator said:

The problem with this argument is when you start considering which young QBs started clueless and learned as they went.  I guess it is the Alex Smith argument.  He seemed to figure things out, but that was only after a change in staff, a year off and since even after his good years he was benched for Kaepernick, and traded away, he does not seem to be the poster boy for waiting for a QB to mature.  Did Jameis ever mature into this top flight NFL QB?  He was younger than Wilson.  I guess you can argue more parallels with Smith in that they weren't from really big schools, but I don't see this as a reason to wait on the kid.  He is either good or he isn't, but we can't be sure.  At that point, like Becton, you have to prepare as if he isn't and hope that he is.

Huh? There are tons of examples of QBs who were thrust into action as rookies and played poorly (or I should say, underperformed and made lots of mistakes, etc., etc.) then developed into very good or even SB winning QBs. Alex Smith and Jameis Winston? How about BOTH of the Manning brothers, how about Brees, I mean those three guys might be extremes- and they threw for more yards and TDs than Zach did his rookie year, but they also threw a lot of INTs and they did not lead their teams to wins. How about Geno???

Just saying...Zach will develop into what he will develop. He will either remain the inconsistent QB he is right now, or he will end up a JAG manager type, or he will ascend to a higher level. We will see, its truly too early to tell, and to be honest will probably be too early to tell by the end of the year. He's only had one full season under his belt and now he's battling through his sophomore year. Including missed games due to injuries, etc. 

What I know is he clearly has the ceiling to be a very good QB, good enough to take us all the way. And that's enough to give him a chance and stick with him until proven otherwise. 

[derp]

9 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Ok. But really? Not the point of the OP. 

Was the point that…he’s young? On a Jets forum? Like everyone doesn’t know? He’s a second year player, was an early entry, and is the most talked about player on the board.

On top of that weren’t any meaningful quarterbacks in the rookie class, which we all know 

The only part of the post that would’ve been interesting him being he’s the second youngest quarterback in the league, and it’s in the title. But he’s not.

None of that takes away him being young, but no kidding he’s young.

[#27TheDominator]

2 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Huh? There are tons of examples of QBs who were thrust into action as rookies and played poorly (or I should say, underperformed and made lots of mistakes, etc., etc.) then developed into very good or even SB winning QBs. Alex Smith and Jameis Winston? How about BOTH of the Manning brothers, how about Brees, I mean those three guys might be extremes- and they threw for more yards and TDs than Zach did his rookie year, but they also threw a lot of INTs and they did not lead their teams to wins. How about Geno???

Just saying...Zach will develop into what he will develop. He will either remain the inconsistent QB he is right now, or he will end up a JAG manager type, or he will ascend to a higher level. We will see, its truly too early to tell, and to be honest will probably be too early to tell by the end of the year. He's only had one full season under his belt and now he's battling through his sophomore year. Including missed games due to injuries, etc. 

What I know is he clearly has the ceiling to be a very good QB, good enough to take us all the way. And that's enough to give him a chance and stick with him until proven otherwise. 

Geno sucked for 10 years.  That is not what we are looking to emulate.  The other three?  I can't help you there, but none of them fit the model of too young and thrust into the job.  In fact, Brees and Eli sat behind Flutie and Warner.  They are not examples of what this thread it aiming to prove.   Also, it is a different world.  Geno came out a decade ago.  The others around 20 years ago.  The times they are a'changin'.  I did not say Wilson reached his ceiling or that he could end up being good.  I said that his AGE was not a factor.  Like not at all.  At least no more than it is for any of these kids.

[PepPep]

5 minutes ago, Warfish said:

Personally, I'm just not a fan of falling back on age as some form of excuse for today.  If being young excuses bad play, then young QB's should be sitting, not playing, and old QB's playing till the young QB isn't so young anymore.

If wishes were horses then beggars would ride. 

The thing is this is not how the NFL works anymore. Normally, Zach WOULD sit for 1, probably 2 years to learn from a vet, learn the system, learn how to be a professional NFL QB and step into his first action playing with a re-built team with a young, nasty defense, solid O-line and weapons all around him. But when you are the #2 pick, thats just not how it works. You are thrust into action. You have to 'take your lumps', you have to learn on the job and you have to (usually) deal with playing on a BAD team.  

So while I agree that THEORETICALLY, age should have nothing to do with your level of play once you are named starting QB. The reality is not always that cut and dry. The reality is that SOMETIMES you have a better vet QB sitting on the bench so that the high draft pick can learn on the job or that the GM does not bring in a proven starter so that he can evaluate his high draft pick right away in actual games.  

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, More Cowbell said:

Fields has also played 3 more games than Zach. The difference is negligible.  All things considered, numbers are very similar except for rushing. Fields has a huge edge there. 

They have the same # of dropbacks (if anything Fields has more). Wilson has 100 more pass attempts. Fields also has 200 more rushing attempts, and some of those are busted pass plays where he reached the LOS or further, but he surely also has more designed runs than Wilson & official rushing stats don't differentiate between designed runs and scrambles. Given how many sacks Fields has taken, it's reasonable to at least guess a lot of those rushes were on passing dropbacks. 

But yeah, Fields has also taken more sacks than Wilson, and has a crazy 33 so far this year (averaging nearly 4 per game). I'm sure that, like with Wilson, some of that is on the line and some of it is on the QB moving to places the linemen don't expect, since their backs are to the QB & they could be pushing/pulling a pass rusher towards the QB without realizing. But in fairness I haven't watched every Fields snap so I'll let others judge him better than me lazily looking up stats that may not tell the whole story (and often don't).

Regarding sacks, it is worth mentioning that Wilson loses 1-2 more yards per sack each year; I don't know if that's purely his pirouette routine or if they both do it to a degree and, while certainly mobile, Wilson certainly doesn't have Fields's wheels -- just like many of Fields's would-be sacks not only weren't as deep because he's faster but he turns some into outright gains for the same reason (and are then statistically converted into rushing attempts). Again I'd have to watch both regularly and admittedly I haven't. This year's been busy for me but I make time for the Jets, even if it's often watching 1-2 hrs after the game's begun. At least I get to FF over commercials lol.

I think Fields also had a pick called back by a penalty this past Sunday (like Wilson's had of his own share of turnovers undone), but since I wasn't watching the game - nor highlights - I don't know if the penalty was the primary reason for the would-be pick or it was just a convenient flag for Chicago. Just like if there was defensive holding they'd have called Wilson's fumble back even if he never looked in the direction of that D-hold (which should be a factor in throwing the flag when it's that obvious), or that non-fumble call 2 weeks ago; meanwhile we all saw the play.

I guess I'm just not too throughly impressed with either one until they stop getting graded on a curve due to youth or inexperience or surrounding cast, which will happen in time. 

I'd be much more upset if anyone from that class - that we had a chance to draft instead of Wilson - was putting up rookie-Herbert #s. I don't have my face in my hands yet over Wilson vs. Fields. I wouldn't be surprised if either one ultimately became the better QB between those two. Obviously I'd like it to be Wilson, and though his game wasn't perfect I was happy with how he played vs. Buffalo. In fairness Allen's game wasn't perfect either: he threw a couple picks that counted and a 3rd easy one that Whitehead simply dropped.

[derp]

44 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Geno sucked for 10 years.  That is not what we are looking to emulate.  The other three?  I can't help you there, but none of them fit the model of too young and thrust into the job.  In fact, Brees and Eli sat behind Flutie and Warner.  They are not examples of what this thread it aiming to prove.   Also, it is a different world.  Geno came out a decade ago.  The others around 20 years ago.  The times they are a'changin'.  I did not say Wilson reached his ceiling or that he could end up being good.  I said that his AGE was not a factor.  Like not at all.  At least no more than it is for any of these kids.

Good post, and I’d toss in that times are different now in part due to the rookie wage scale. Teams can take a QB early, have him cost controlled for five years, and build a loaded team around him.

I think that’s a big part of why now instead of seeing a lot of young guys struggle and get better over time, we more often see guys look pretty good on good teams and then struggle when they get paid and need to elevate the talent around them because they’re eating up 15-20% more salary cap than they were before and the quality of the team struggles.

The value of the rookie QB contract and how guys play on it is part of why Douglas decided to move on from Darnold. Granted Douglas took Wilson, but the importance of that rookie deal still holds. That being the case, I think for purposes of Wilson’s future with the team the years of his contract matter more than the years since he was born.

[PepPep]

3 minutes ago, #27TheDominator said:

Geno sucked for 10 years.  That is not what we are looking to emulate.  The other three?  I can't help you there, but none of them fit the model of too young and thrust into the job.  In fact, Brees and Eli sat behind Flutie and Warner.  They are not examples of what this thread it aiming to prove.   Also, it is a different world.  Geno came out a decade ago.  The others around 20 years ago.  The times they are a'changin'.  I did not say Wilson reached his ceiling or that he could end up being good.  I said that his AGE was not a factor.  Like not at all.  At least no more than it is for any of these kids.

Well his age also means he is a second year QB. I mean thats what are we talking about here. 

I just don't understand how Jet fans can't step back and see that this is a 2nd year QB with 19 actual games under his belt. It astounds me how quick fans are ready to throw in the towel on this kid and make arguments liek 'age isn't a factor' and 'he won't get better' etc., etc.

Just take a step back. 

Zach Wilson. Drafted last year. One full season in the league. This is his second season and we are less than half way through. He has PLENTY of time.  

[More Cowbell]

16 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They have the same # of dropbacks (if anything Fields has more). Wilson has 100 more pass attempts. Fields also has 200 more rushing attempts, and some of those are busted pass plays where he reached the LOS or further, but he surely also has more designed runs than Wilson & official rushing stats don't differentiate between designed runs and scrambles. Given how many sacks Fields has taken, it's reasonable to at least guess a lot of those rushes were on passing dropbacks. 

But yeah, Fields has also taken more sacks than Wilson, and has a crazy 33 so far this year (averaging nearly 4 per game). I'm sure that, like with Wilson, some of that is on the line and some of it is on the QB moving to places the linemen don't expect, since their backs are to the QB & they could be pushing/pulling a pass rusher towards the QB without realizing. But in fairness I haven't watched every Fields snap so I'll let others judge him better than me lazily looking up stats that may not tell the whole story (and often don't).

Regarding sacks, it is worth mentioning that Wilson loses 1-2 more yards per sack each year; I don't know if that's purely his pirouette routine or if they both do it to a degree and, while certainly mobile, Wilson certainly doesn't have Fields's wheels -- just like many of Fields's would-be sacks not only weren't as deep because he's faster but he turns some into outright gains for the same reason (and are then statistically converted into rushing attempts). Again I'd have to watch both regularly and admittedly I haven't. This year's been busy for me but I make time for the Jets, even if it's often watching 1-2 hrs after the game's begun. At least I get to FF over commercials lol.

I think Fields also had a pick called back by a penalty this past Sunday (like Wilson's had of his own share of turnovers undone), but since I wasn't watching the game - nor highlights - I don't know if the penalty was the primary reason for the would-be pick or it was just a convenient flag for Chicago. Just like if there was defensive holding they'd have called Wilson's fumble back even if he never looked in the direction of that D-hold (which should be a factor in throwing the flag when it's that obvious), or that non-fumble call 2 weeks ago; meanwhile we all saw the play.

I guess I'm just not too throughly impressed with either one until they stop getting graded on a curve due to youth or inexperience or surrounding cast, which will happen in time. 

I'd be much more upset if anyone from that class - that we had a chance to draft instead of Wilson - was putting up rookie-Herbert #s. I don't have my face in my hands yet over Wilson vs. Fields. I wouldn't be surprised if either one ultimately became the better QB between those two. Obviously I'd like it to be Wilson, and though his game wasn't perfect I was happy with how he played vs. Buffalo. In fairness Allen's game wasn't perfect either: he threw a couple picks that counted and a 3rd easy one that Whitehead simply dropped.

Your breakdown is more dissecting than mine with the pass attempts but would you not agree that Zach for the most part had been shield by the running game of Hall and now Carter? Look at the last drive against the Bills. I know the run was working but what was that, 8 straight running plays? Who besides maybe the Titans does that? There are also some plays called that I think show the Jets are just not willing to let Zach throw the ball down field. There was a third and 5 I think against the Bills where they called a WR screen to GW. I thought that was a horrible call and Zach got crunched on the play and didn't  pickup the first down. That play looked like they didn't  trust Zach to throw in that situation or at least throw down field. I haven't  watched Fields enough either to know if he is being handled like this but it doesn't  appear that way. It think they are willing to take more chances with Fields which is making the pick numbers higher.

[nycdan]

33 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

They have the same # of dropbacks (if anything Fields has more). Wilson has 100 more pass attempts. Fields also has 200 more rushing attempts, and some of those are busted pass plays where he reached the LOS or further, but he surely also has more designed runs than Wilson & official rushing stats don't differentiate between designed runs and scrambles. Given how many sacks Fields has taken, it's reasonable to at least guess a lot of those rushes were on passing dropbacks. 

But yeah, Fields has also taken more sacks than Wilson, and has a crazy 33 so far this year (averaging nearly 4 per game). I'm sure that, like with Wilson, some of that is on the line and some of it is on the QB moving to places the linemen don't expect, since their backs are to the QB & they could be pushing/pulling a pass rusher towards the QB without realizing. But in fairness I haven't watched every Fields snap so I'll let others judge him better than me lazily looking up stats that may not tell the whole story (and often don't).

Regarding sacks, it is worth mentioning that Wilson loses 1-2 more yards per sack each year; I don't know if that's purely his pirouette routine or if they both do it to a degree and, while certainly mobile, Wilson certainly doesn't have Fields's wheels -- just like many of Fields's would-be sacks not only weren't as deep because he's faster but he turns some into outright gains for the same reason (and are then statistically converted into rushing attempts). Again I'd have to watch both regularly and admittedly I haven't. This year's been busy for me but I make time for the Jets, even if it's often watching 1-2 hrs after the game's begun. At least I get to FF over commercials lol.

I think Fields also had a pick called back by a penalty this past Sunday (like Wilson's had of his own share of turnovers undone), but since I wasn't watching the game - nor highlights - I don't know if the penalty was the primary reason for the would-be pick or it was just a convenient flag for Chicago. Just like if there was defensive holding they'd have called Wilson's fumble back even if he never looked in the direction of that D-hold (which should be a factor in throwing the flag when it's that obvious), or that non-fumble call 2 weeks ago; meanwhile we all saw the play.

I guess I'm just not too throughly impressed with either one until they stop getting graded on a curve due to youth or inexperience or surrounding cast, which will happen in time. 

I'd be much more upset if anyone from that class - that we had a chance to draft instead of Wilson - was putting up rookie-Herbert #s. I don't have my face in my hands yet over Wilson vs. Fields. I wouldn't be surprised if either one ultimately became the better QB between those two. Obviously I'd like it to be Wilson, and though his game wasn't perfect I was happy with how he played vs. Buffalo. In fairness Allen's game wasn't perfect either: he threw a couple picks that counted and a 3rd easy one that Whitehead simply dropped.

Not sure what the future holds, but I could see both Wilson and Fields developing into very good QBs.  Fields already shows Lamar-like potential and I think he can become a very good passer as well.  We saw the arm in the OSU-Clemson game.  Certainly he can become good enough to give the Bears a real shot if they can address their weak-ass roster. 

Zach is still very boom-or-bust to me, but I see enough glimmers of growth this season to think that he can continue the trend, and turn into a strength of the team next season.  The roster is set up for him to be successful, so it's really just about him shoring up his weaknesses (and not by turning dirt-balls into air-balls please).  After seeing the bashing of so many here (JD, Saleh, Ulbrich, Quinnen, Mosley, AVT, Davis, the list goes on....) I'm pretty much ignoring the negativity and reserving judgment. 

To be honest, how he plays up in NE next week is going to be a big test for me.  Show me 250 yards and 2 TDs and a win, and I will do the snoopy dance.

[#27TheDominator]

4 minutes ago, derp said:

Good post, and I’d toss in that times are different now in part due to the rookie wage scale. Teams can take a QB early, have him cost controlled for five years, and build a loaded team around him.

I think that’s a big part of why now instead of seeing a lot of young guys struggle and get better over time, we more often see guys look pretty good on good teams and then struggle when they get paid and need to elevate the talent around them because they’re eating up 15-20% more salary cap than they were before and the quality of the team struggles.

The value of the rookie QB contract and how guys play on it is part of why Douglas decided to move on from Darnold. Granted Douglas took Wilson, but the importance of that rookie deal still holds. That being the case, I think for purposes of Wilson’s future with the team the years of his contract matter more than the years since he was born.

I agree completely.  I have been spouting this for ages. I think Douglas and Saleh seriously considered sticking with Darnold, but did not like the uncertainty of whether he was worth the 5th year option.  I read somewhere that Derek Carr was the cut-off.  They felt if you were worse than Carr, not 2nd contract.  I don't think they loved Wilson so much as they felt WIlson cheap for 21, 22, 23, 24 with an option on 25 + a 2nd rounder > Darnold for 21, on the expensive 5th year option for 2022 + #2 overall.  I don't know that I would argue with that, plus I think having a rookie QB gives some built in install time for their system. 

I always say the important thing is the years of the contract, not the age of the player.  A guy like Duane Brown?  Sure it matters how old he is, but it is only a year or two deal.  For rookies, I used to not care about age since even the old ones will be under 30 when their first contract expires.  OTOH, where that throws me off is that there are some metrics that show that young prospects that dominate turn out to be better pros than older guys.  I think it matters more at the top of the 1st considering guys like Johnson, than in for later guys like Clemons and Shepherd.  Both based on the level of asset given up for the risk and the one less year of contract.  Of course putting too much emphasis on age sometimes means you are selecting Amobi Okoye in the top 10.