BrianS

I'm not a Trey Lance fan at all, but there is NO WAY you take Jones over Lance at any point.  I'm not sure Jones is even Kellen Mond or Jamie Newman.  He's definitely no Trey Lance.

If you draft Lance, at least there's the chance that you just drafted the next Kyler Murray / Lamar Jackson / Josh Allen / etc.

Isn't Kiper the guy who was gonna call it a career if Pickles flopped?  I mean . . . 

1 hour ago, AU-panther said:

very true.  People love to look at the just the first round QBs and conclude that the chance of being right is low, which it is, but you have to take the time to compare it to the other rounds.

Maybe the chance of a 1st round QB is only 20%, seems low, but maybe the chance of a later round QB is only 2%.  That means you are 10 times more likely to be right in the first.  

A team that is constantly trying to beat the odds in the later rounds usually  just ends up wasting draft picks that could have been used on players that had a realistic chance of working out.

 

The actual numbers over the last 25 years is that the first round QB's succeed at about 50%, and the other rounds at about 10%.  The last 10 years or so have been weaker.

I read somewhere on the Huddle in the last couple days that an analyst had predicted that would be the case due to so many one read systems cropping up in the college game.  If true, that guy is a genius.

1 hour ago, Louie said:

If we don't trade for Desean Watson and Wilson and Fields is already gone when we pick at 8. I might would draft Mac Jones. The kid just won. He hit receivers in stride and made good decisions. HE made the decisions to throw it and completed the passes. I know his team was good! Joe Burrow's team was good! Trevor Lawrence's team was good! I think he is just a winner. People are over analyzing him like they did Herbert last year! 

Pass efficiency	QBR
1. Mac Jones 203.9	1. Mac Jones 96.0
2. Joe Burrow 202	2. Kyler Murray 95.4
3. Tua Tagovailoa 199.4	3. Joe Burrow 94.9
4. Kyler Murray 199.2	4. Tua Tagovailoa 94.8
5. Baker Mayfield 198.9	5. Justin Fields 94.8
6. Baker Mayfield 196.4	6. Russell Wilson 94.1
7. Justin Fields 196.1	7. Andrew Luck 93.1
8. Zach WIlson 195.4	8. Tua Tagovailoa 93.1
9. Kaleb Eleby 194.8	9. Baker Mayfield 92.3
10. Dustin Crum 192.7	10. Justin Fields 92.1

ffs this again.  Mac Jones hit receivers running so ridiculously wide open that anyone could have done it.  This is the same Mac Jones who couldn't manage to beat out Tua at 'Bama.  Tua, who has looked flat out bad in the NFL.

Show me Jones fitting a ball in a tight window.  Show me Jones hitting the deep out cross field.  Show me Jones bringing his team back from behind in the fourth.

Listen, it's not his fault he never had to show that.  I get it.  But he still hasn't shown it.  I'd rather have a guy who has shown those things.  I'd rather have a guy who played out of his mind on a two or three loss college team, that dealt with adversity, who didn't have the best around him and showed some of those NFL traits.

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

It shouldn't be. He cannot help us win games. It is the one thing he has proved.

This to me is the biggest strike against Bridgewater.  I don't care how far he throws it, as long as he wins.  I don't care who he throws it to, as long as he wins.

Bridgewater had eight opportunities this year to show me that he's a WINNER.  He failed to accomplish it . . . EIGHT TIMES.  You can't go on a Super Bowl run with a guy who can't come up big in big situations.  This is the problem with Teddy.

Imagine Teddy managed to get it done four times out of eight.  Again, I don't care how.  Had he done so, this team would have been 9 - 7 and we would have all been amazed at how quickly the franchise turned.  We would have gone into late game situations with the mindset that "We have a chance".

Nope.  We have no shot with TB5.  Even the locker room at this point has to see it.  He just didn't get it done, and you can't go to war with "that guy" leading the charge.

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

WR would be easy to do a side by side, similar to RB's. The pool would be equally diluted as the RB pool due to multiple players being utilized and less #1 overall WR's. DE would be a little more complex because you really have to agree on what you want to consider critical aspects of their production. Sacks are obvious, QB Pressures and Hits are important, turnovers forced, maybe tackles for loss. That needs some fine tuning before you could do a good comparison.

LT would be extremely difficult. You have to rely on a lot of subjective data to get you there. PBWR, RBWR, PFF ratings, Sacks Allowed, Pressures Allowed, etc. I think OL stats are the most difficult to isolate because they operate so much as a unit that when you have the guy next to you screwing up, it might impact your play pretty considerably. I suppose DT play could be considered that, as well. 

It would probably be easier to judge OL/DL play on the entire unit than specific players, although pass rushers are probably easier to isolate. 

I was more thinking in terms of positional spending versus post season success.  I tried to do it with Spotrac but apparently that's a "premium" feature.  What positions SHOULD you spend on to achieve post seaons success, again, QB aside since it's stupidly obvious.

50 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I can do the same breakdown for QB's but it will likely be fairly heavily weighted in the QB's favor for obvious reasons. I've done a top 10 QB Super Bowl breakdown before and it was pretty obvious how critical the QB is to getting a title. 

That just isn't the case for RB's or really most positions on the field, in all honesty. 

Sure, but set aside QB for a moment.  Honestly, QB is so obvious it's not even very interesting.  Everyone gets it.

I think the interesting data here would be what positions actually increase your chances over the baseline.  Is it WR?  Is it RB?  DE?  LT?  I'd love to know, I just don't even know where to start to collect all that data.

Bear in mind, the chance for any team to reach the Super Bowl any given year is 6.25%.  In this case, it appears that high dollar running backs actually slightly increase your chances from 6.25% to 8%.  Not huge, but there it is.

As was said, Brady has REALLY skewed stats the last 15-20 years.  Six of the years since 2010 (the scope of the discussion) Brady has been in the game, meaning that those high dollar RB's didn't really have much chance.  High dollar RB's are one thing, the GOAT QB is a different level entirely.

I dunno, we all like to think there's an argument to be made against it, but I'm not so sure.  At first glance, it doesn't appear that there is a strong case in either direction.

3 hours ago, unicar15 said:

Three team deal if we can’t get Watson. Give me Tua and we can still make a QB upgrade. 

NO.  Tua looked friggin terrible man.  Long windup, slow delivery, low velocity ball.  All things that don't spell winner in the NFL.  I don't want him anywhere near our squad.

Rebuilds done right don't happen quickly.  We are currently on course for an EXTREMELY fast rebuild.  2021 is the last year where our cap is in a bad place.  Let's not screw that up by pushing the pain into 2022.

We were able to compete in 2020 with no offseason, a new staff and a weak roster.  The roster WILL get better this year.  Maybe not as fast as we'd like, but it WILL improve.  Our staff will have an actual offseason to get things right.  The staff will now have actual NFL experience.

We aren't talking playoffs here, but with the right signings, draft picks and a healthy CMC we could win 7 games next year.  Maybe 8 at a push.  To me, that would be outstanding progress.

1 hour ago, LinvilleGorge said:

The Jets and Dolphins having higher 1st round picks and multiple 1st round picks THIS year definitely gives them a huge advantage.

The only way I see Watson here is if Watson himself says "I don't want to go there" to pretty much every other team that makes an offer.  That's his actual leverage in the situation, invoking his no trade clause if he doesn't like the team he's supposed to go to.

51 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

This. 100% this. You want to max those guys always produce and it is a year to year deal. See Boston, Tre.

And Samuel, Curtis.

The problem with Curtis is you now have a conundrum.  Was 2020 an outlier?  His catch rate prior to last year was around 55%, but in 2020 it was 79%.  That's a HUGE change, and you have to figure out whether that's sustainable or not.

Had he continued his career catch rate last year, he would have caught 53 balls for 592 yards and no one would be talking about testing free agency.  He'd be an easy retention, but would we even want him?

Curtis knew it was a contract year.  Did he play out of his skin specifically because of that?  Will he drop back off to his career rates next year?

You have to look at the body of work in my mind.  You can't base a contract off of one year.  This is what we all crucified Marty for.  It's a tough call, but I think you let Samuel walk unless he demonstrates that he REALLY wants to be here.

9 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wilson's skill set is phenomenal, but his physical durability concerns me.

Also, while I'm not about to predict that Lawrence will be bad, I don't necessarily believe he's the quarterback god that a lot of people see him to be.

Even factoring both those things in though, this is still hard for me to believe.

Based on what?  His BMI is higher than Trevor, so you're not talking about some toothpick of a prospect.  He had the one shoulder injury that he played with since high school, had it fixed and has played two seasons since at a high level.

Seems like grasping at straws for a reason not to like the kid.  I don't think we have a chance in hell of getting him, but I really like him.

42 minutes ago, kungfoodude said:

I do also want to point out how ironic it is that the guy I compared Joe Burrow so much to(Andy Dalton), they are right next to each other in the bottom of the rankings.

TBD if this holds up but I did warn people that the only real elite attributes he had were intangibles. His physical skills were not exceptional.

For the Mac Jones stans......take note.

I've been trying to point this out for a while.  If TB5 was not your guy, Mac Jones is not your guy either.

3 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Rookie contracts are not very long, especially outside the first. I think the payday is fine for most positions but QB is one where you can get RG3ed or Carred in a poorly run franchises.

I just value good play at QB for the NFL over a crazy franchise's right to waste more talent at a position where there just isn't enough good players in total in the league.

I don't think you can drag Carr into that argument, he went to an expansion team.  Those teams are always bad.  Carr was on a rookie contract as well.  Sucks what happened to him, but there is really no evidence that he ever would have been good.  His NFL completion percentage is right at the level he established in college.  He was drafted where he was based on ONE great season in college.

RG3 had priors with injuries in college.  Torn ACL while at Baylor.  Multiple injuries prior to the one that really ended him in the NFL.  I think the guy was just injury prone, it happens.

I certainly value good QB play, clearly the NFL does too.  If you really wanted to argue for poorly run franchises wasting QB talent, you should probably look at the Lions / Stafford.  Even that doesn't really hold up very well.  Stafford had a chance to get out after 2015, he signed.  Had another chance after 2017.  Signed again. 

Players need to take responsibility for themselves.  If you don't see your organization taking the right steps, DON'T SIGN THE CONTRACT.  If you truly value winning over money, SHOW IT.  The GOAT QB did exactly that for years in New England and helped them build an absolute monster.  He took that attitude to Tampa, and won another one.

11 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I get it but I wasn't looking at it as too much against the parity but punishment for bad teams being run badly. Also, im not sure most draft prospects have that power, just QBs in the very top of the draft. 

I look at it as a glove slap to the face more than ruining thr parity. If the team learns thr player is not going to play then they can trade that for a ransom and trade or draft another player. Hard to say SD was devastated by having to go with Rivers.

I don't disagree with your premise that bad teams should be punished for being run badly.  In fact, the players and their agents ALREADY have the power to do so.  They simply refuse to exercise that power in the face of the almighty "Payday".

30 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Wow. At an impasse with Watson, totally neglecting him and his wishes. But JJ ask for a trade and he gets released in a couple minutes to help him out. Weird. 

This is a COMPLETELY different situation.  Releasing or trading JJ was going to happen anyway.  The cap situation in Houston is dire.  It is nothing but a benefit to the Texans to have him off their cap.  The fact that they did so via release as opposed to a trade is in fact handling JJ Watt with respect.  He still had a year on his contract, they could have traded him to whomever they chose giving Watt no input to the situation.

Deshaun has too much guaranteed money left on his contract to even CONSIDER handling in this manner.  Forget about the value of the player.

The players are being silly.  They already hold ALL of the power with the exception of one player on every team - whomever gets the franchise tag.

No one is forcing a player to sign for any team.  If they don't like the way the team is run, fine, don't sign.  Go into free agency, bet on yourself.

Look, I get it, rookies don't have much say, and that's fine.  Most rookies don't really pan out anyway.  Once that first contract is done, anything from that point forward is on their shoulders.

Don't like the team?  Don't sign.  Not really sure?  Take a shorter contract with less guaranteed money.

The players for too long have simply tried to maximize their money.  You can't have it both ways!  If you want flexibility and mobility, fine, work that into your contract.  Do you want a guaranteed payday?  Also fine.  Just understand that it limits those other things.

Just now, SCO96 said:

I think the NFL know exactly what they've done. Their intent was to drive up scoring and that is exactly what has happened.  The prolific statistics we see every year are a result tilting the game in favor of the offense. During the 1977 season Drew Pearson led the league in receiving with 870. He's the last guy to win the crown with less than 1,000.

Some of us old school guys like a good defensive slug fest. The general public...not so much. Most casual fans I spoke with after the last Rams/Pats Super Bowl absolutely HATED that game. They thought it was boring. The Eagles/Pats 41-33 game more to their (and the NFL's liking). With even female fans hooked on fantasy football things will never go back to the old days. If defenses EVER get an advantage, the rules committee will find a way to negate it.

I am surprised that QB is so bad at times. The league has made it so much easier to throw the ball these days.

No, they haven't.  That's what folks don't get.  It's not any easier now than it was before.  It's easier for receivers to get open, yes.

The difference here is that with receivers more able to get open, a premium was placed on QB's who have great ball placement and anticipation.  There are plenty of "good" QB's out there, but because receivers are more open now, ball placement and anticipation are incredibly important.

In the past, it was ok for a QB to "just miss".  Now it's not.  That's new.  Good QB's now have certain traits.  Big arm isn't nearly as important.  Sure, you need to be able to get the ball downfield - you can't be a Teddy Bridgewater - but hitting your receiver consistently in a place where he can catch and run is far more critical than being able to put it 70 yards down the field.

I don't see us picking up a WR before the fourth round unless someone inexplicably slides to the point where the value is just overwhelming.

I don't believe the NFL has fully comprehended the actual impact of what they've been doing over the past 10 years making it more and more difficult to defend a WR.  It's clearly made the discrepancy between an elite QB and a good QB much more obvious, and the difference between having a good QB and not having one even more obvious.

Effectively, by changing the rules to allow more WR play, they've elevated the QB position to the point where you just can't compete without a really good one.

Torn by the idea of Darnold.

Others have said, well look what happened when the Bills stuck with Josh Allen.  And it's not really comparable.  Allen made VERY clear strides forward every year.  His completion percentage went up, every year.  His TD% went up, every year.  His INT% went down, every year.  His yardage went up, every year.

Some have "It's Gase fault" and I don't discount the legacy of Adam Gase either.  But consider the curious case of Ryan Tannehill.  He actually became a better QB under Gase.  I know!  I couldn't believe it either.  But the stats are there.  Gase drove Tannehill from a career 60% passer to a 65% passer.  Gase did drive Tannehill's INT% way up, but as soon as Gase was out of the picture, it dropped back to his career norms, but his completions stayed up.

That's where my concern with Darnold comes in.  Darnold just isn't completing the ball.  Remember, his rookie year, Darnold was NOT with Gase.  I'm sure the ineptitude of the coaches was at a similar level, but the Gase QB effect we saw in Miami with Tannehill didn't happen with Darnold.

Darnold has been who he is regardless of the coaching.  No major shifts.

I wouldn't mind taking a flyer on him.  Jets get our 3rd and TB5, we get Darnold.  No one will do that deal, but I'd take it if we could get it.  

Of teams that gave up more points per game than we did, two made the playoffs (Browns and Titans).

Of teams that scored fewer points per game than we did, none made the playoffs.

*shrug*

11 minutes ago, pantherj said:

The Panthers were 31st in team spending on defense. The defensive performance for 2020 was offset by all the new draft picks, so we moved closer to the middle of the pack stats wise. The Panthers defense did what one would expect given the roster, or you could argue they did a little better. Unfortunately 2020 was not a season of surprises as the Panthers team as a whole did almost exactly what we were expecting given the roster. We didn't overachieve, and we didn't underachieve. We hit the target for what most were anticipating, which was a losing season near the bottom on the league, but not rock bottom. I said that going into the season. We did just that. My point is that our talent level on the roster is what really matters. Grandpa Snow is not going to take a roster like we had in 2020 and coach them into a top defense. No chance of that.

Moving forward we should improve on stats on defense due to last season's rookie wave improving, and new picks and better free agents rolling into town.

This doesn't even make any sense.  I mean "...performance was offset by all the new draft picks, so we moved closer to the middle of the pack..."  You do realize that most people who bring in so many rookies fall to the bottom right?  We were 31st on defense last year!  THIRTY FIRST!  Snow got us up to 18th, with a lesser group.

By every measure, that defense overperformed given expectations and talent.  Honestly, it wouldn't be all that hard to argue that our defense was better than our offense.  Yes, I agree, a great many of our problems on offense revolved around the QB, but nonetheless, our defense handed the ball to our offense in the fourth quarter at least seven times this year with a chance to win.

That's the kind of defense you want.  Keep you in the game, hand the ball to your team and give them a chance.  

6 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Any other teams run a 3-3-5? 

Yea, pretty much every 3-4 team when they go nickel.