grimesgoat

Someone made the comment that Shaq was supposed to be TD but was average at best. Lots of people consider Shaq a disappointment, but I'm not so sure. Its sometimes useful to compare players at similar points in time to see who might have the better career, but in this case its a little tricky for two reasons: 1. TD was hurt and missed much of his 5th year, and practically all of his 6th year while Shaq has been healthy through his first 6 years 2. TD shared tackling counts with Beason early in his career whereas Shaq had to deal with two tackling machines - TD and Keuchly. He may have started most games but he would be pulled often in passing situations so his numbers are somewhat deflated by sharing the field with these two. He actually played less than 50% of defensive snaps his first 3 years. Having said all that, here are the 6-year comparisons... Starts Tks Avg. Sack FF+INT TFL QB hits TD 54 392 7.3 11 11 36 23 Shaq 76 470 6.2 9.5 5 35 22 Shaqs avg. Tackles has actually creeped up to 7.6 per start over the last 3 years as TD and then Luke exited. Otherwise the sack, TFL, and QB hits are remarkably similar through 6 years. Again - remember while Shaq was starting, he was not playing every down. Shaq played less than 50% of defensive snaps his first 3 years. I don't have similar stats for TD, but I would wager he wasn't coming off the field very often in favor of Na'il Diggs. It remains to be seen whether Shaq can be as good as Davis, but he is just getting started. Davis didn't make his first pro-bowl until age 32. Shaq is 26.

I doubt 31 other teams are watching our practice to see how hard Ian Thomas jogs around the track.

Since you asked... I'm optimistic and patient. We will win 8-9 games but be in every game. Darnold will improve as the season goes on and will be extended at a fair price. Horn, Christensen, Tremble, and 1 of our new guards will be starting by the end of the season. Burns and Reddick will both have double digit sacks. CMC will have 2000 all-purpose yards, 15 TDs., and will be Fantasy MVP. 2022 we improve to 10-11 wins and make the playoffs. 2023 and beyond we will be like the steelers - perennial contenders winning 11-13 games every year. 2024 we make post-Darnold plans and draft our Mahomes. He sits for a year. 2025 conference championship game. 2026 we win the Superb owl. Book it.

Just went back and looked at the stats. I understand why Ron didn't do anything different. We came in 17-1. During the game, our offense was moving the ball (21 first downs to denver's 11, 315 yds to denver's 194) and our defense was lights out. We gave up a 61 yard punt return that led to 3 pts, turned the ball over 4 times, had 100+ yards in penalties (vs. denver's 51 yds), missed a chippy 44 yard FG, and had multiple ref bad calls / no calls. Despite all that, we were only down 6 with the ball on our own 28 with 4.5 minutes left. Our superman MVP needed just 1 more TD drive and we're champs. Didn't work out obviously. Point is, we were the better team and had a fantastic opportunity to win at the end despite all of the blunders (self imposed and not). Other than helping Remmers out a little by some TE chipping, I really don't see what would have made a big difference in the end. We were right there - just needed 1 drive. I will not speak of this business again.

Seems like this has been discussed before. It’s actually much more rare for a top 5 QB to be any good at all his first 3 years, especially since they were probably drafted by a shitty team. The exceptions are Marino, Cam, Peyton, Luck, Mahomes, Brady. There really are not many qbs that stood out as franchise qbs after only 3 years. There is a steep learning curve and guys coming out of college just don’t have enough experience. Years 4-5 of his career will reveal what Sam is.

Any value we can get from a 3rd QB is a bonus. Whether he plays special teams like Webb used to do, or he lines up somewhere on offense to make defenses have to adjust. That will have more value than Grier holding a clipboard in street clothes each week.

I'd go to battle with: Christianson - Elflein - Paradise - Miller - Moton. Let the rookie take his lumps - he'll get better. By the time we are ready for the superb owl in 2 years, he'll be a brick wall.

I'd love to see if Little has improved any after a year in the system and a full offseason to think about his lack of success in 2020. Ultimately I think he'll be our other post June 1 cut: 1m dead in each 2021 and 2022. I'm actually a little surprised they didn't "Boston" him already.

I think Stevens just needs to beat out Ian Thomas. We could save 1.5m in cap by going with Stevens over Thomas. I like Tremble's versatility - being able to play TE/FB/HB etc., but he is going to take a pounding. I'd be excited if he plays all 17 games, but it's not a given. I think we carry 3 TEs (including Stevens) + Tremble. I could see Stevens being the emergency QB/3rd TE/wildcat guy and cutting Grier. I hate to take a dead cap hit on a 3rd string QB, but Grier just doesn't seem to have it (yet).

Ironically, Sanchez went 33-29 for the Jets. A QB with a winning record for the Jets is a rare gem indeed. Not too many around.

I'm trying, but I just can't find that fact all that interesting.

The irony in this thread is epic. Half the huddle thinks we overachieved by winning 5 games and blowing our chance to get the first pick in the draft. The other half thinks we underachieved by only winning 5 games because we hired a flawed QB and a coach in over his head. Conclusion - at least half of you guys are wrong.

I'm optimistic because for the first time that I can remember, they seem to be thinking 2-3 years out instead of just next year. They are conserving cap. Cap is useful when you are ready to make a run. That is still 2 years out. Early draft selections were at positions that traditionally cost quite a bit (CB, WR, LT). The guys they selected might allow guys that are due a huge payday a chance to walk (Jackson, Anderson, Moton) that will save cap and produce high comp picks. Just a totally different approach.

fixed.

LOL - I don't give a rat's ass about the 2 QBs we "passed" on. I was never obsessed with getting a QB. I'll keep up with these bozos about as much as I keep up with the other 250 players we passed on at pick 8.

most of the guys will make less than 1m. They just replace someone else at the bottom of the roster making about the same. Remember only the top 51 count against the cap. Net cost is probably around 2m max.

Drafts like this one and last year pave the way for letting solid players walk in free agency. Our top 3 picks play some of the most expensive positions to fill and all could see significant PT in their rookie year. As a result, I could see Anderson and Jackson having solid years and moving on next year for big contracts - scoring us a couple of 3rd round comp picks while having decent replacements ready. Try to stay young, hungry, and fiscally smart.

I think we got 3 guys that will start this year (Horn Marshall and Christiansen). I think Taylor Nixon and the two guards will eventually start (probably next year). Shi could start next year if we let Anderson walk. Tremble is a starter anytime we run a play with a Fb or h- back. And I don’t want to reignite the whole ‘is a long snapper a starter?’ So I’ll just say Fletcher will be our starting long snapper. That is an efficient draft.

Wait - do you think Tepper spent time breaking down film on Darnold and Fields? To me, that's the only way to decide. The rest is all bullshit.

There have definitely been qbs picked high that did not work out - Vince Young, Jamarcus Russell, David Carr, etc. But so many highly drafted guys started out like Darnold and ended up being studs. Have a little hope.

My understanding is that Tepper wanted Fields for marketing reasons. To me, that's the wrong reason to want a particular QB.

I wasn't cherry-picking. As I said, my list includes HOF or Near-HOF QBs drafted very high that had won championships. I tossed the guys that got to sit a few years as I see that as a big advantage. If you can think of other examples, i'll be glad to add them to the list. More recent guys - Stafford's first 3 years are similar (60% completion %, 7,840 yds, 37 ints) while Alex Smith's are significantly worse (54% completion rate and a 19/31 td-to-int. ratio.). Cam, Luck and Matt Ryan had good years immediately, but they haven't won the big one. Sam Bradford had very similar numbers (58% completion, 45/34 td-to-int ratio), but he was always running for his life and getting hurt. Again, the point was not to compare him to everyone - just similarly situated peers that started out on lousy teams, had mediocre numbers for 3 years, but over time, figured it out. He may end up in that category - but its too early to tell.

I figured you might say that. But the pass attempts are very similar. The overall average is 30 per game. Darnold averaged 32 per game. Namath 36, Griese 28, Elway 31, Aikman 28, etc. These older guys were still slinging it. I think the confusion centers around the term "bust". I think of a bust as a final grade. A guy that never lived up to his draft spot. You seem to suggest he's a bust until he's not - but I don't want to put words in your mouth. I think the QB position is unique and difficult and takes many years to become competent at it. Especially these days where the offensive and defensive concepts/schemes are so much more difficult. I look to a QB to work hard and get better. I would never label anyone a bust they have had a fair opportunity to succeed.

Dude. I always read and appreciate your posts. But you have to get off this whole Darnold is a bust/reclamation project. He's been in the league 3 years. QB is a tough job. that takes more than 3 years to become really good at it. I took a look at several QBs' first 3 year stats and compared them to Darnold. I limited the comparison to first round picks that played right away, won championships and became franchise QBs, many HOFs. These are some of the greatest QBs to ever play. This does leave some all-time greats out, such as Rogers, Young, Staubach and Kelly - who all got to watch a few years before they were thrown into the fire, plus Marino who never won anything. I included Brees despite the fact he did get to sit and watch his rookie year. Other than Peyton Manning, the numbers are extraordinary similar to Darnold's. No one would say these guys are busts. QB Dft. # Age Games Comp Att % Yds Yds/Game td int sk Namath 1st 22 36 654 1,302 50% 9,606 267 63 70 - Griese 4th 22 34 473 938 50% 6,173 182 46 50 - Bradshaw 1st 22 41 433 899 48% 5,556 136 31 58 87 Elway 1st 23 40 664 1,244 53% 8,152 204 47 52 90 Aikman 1st 23 38 618 1,055 59% 7,082 186 31 46 90 P Manning 1st 22 48 1,014 1,679 60% 12,287 256 85 58 56 Roethlisburger 11th 22 41 644 1,032 62% 8,519 208 52 43 99 Brees 3rd 22 28 540 909 59% 5,807 207 29 31 47 E Manning 1st 23 41 690 1,276 54% 8,049 196 54 44 66 Darnold 3rd 21 38 729 1,219 60% 8,097 213 45 39 98 Average 3rd 22 39 646 1,155 56% 7,933 205 48 49 79 Although Darnold's numbers are consistent with the averages of these great QBs, a couple of other things jumped out at me: 1. He was the youngest starting out. 2. He was sacked more than anyone, suggesting his OL sucked. 3. His completion % was actually much higher than the overall average. 4. All of these guys (including Peyton) threw more INTs than games played (Darnold was right at 1 per game). Look - we know he was under the microscope in NY and had a shortage of help from his coaching and supporting cast. His numbers are consistent with a guy picked early by a team bad enough to pick early. The next 2 years will show how good he can be. Its just waaaaay to early to call him a bust or reclamation project. He has just as good of a chance to become a franchise QB as Fields or anyone else.