PFF grade on throws past first read since 2019

[top dawg]

29 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

And it's not that I hate Lance but I cant see how an objective look has him in the vicinity of Fields. 

Well, I said this last week somewhere (got it from my late mother-in-law):

What you don't see makes a whole 'nother world.

[LinvilleGorge]

2 minutes ago, Varking said:

I agree with this opinion. And a part of me thinks that around year 3-4 he might be the best QB in this class regardless. Just not drafted first. 

It's very possible. Fast forward five years and I think any of the "big four" could end up being the best QB out of this class and hell, if Mac Jones ends up in Shanny's system as much as I don't care for him as a prospect, I don't completely rule out him being the best either. 

[top dawg]

Just an added bonus, also from my late mother-in-law:

If you find a woman in the street, that's where you'll leave her.

[Varking]

Just now, LinvilleGorge said:

It's very possible. Fast forward five years and I think any of the "big four" could end up being the best QB out of this class and hell, if Mac Jones ends up in Shanny's system as much as I don't care for him as a prospect, I don't completely rule out him being the best either. 

I think whoever the 49ers draft is set up for success. I think the Jags, Jets, Broncos, WFT, Panthers potential QB draftees are going to have to work harder and have the ball bounce their way a little more to become dominant. 

[Moo Daeng]

15 minutes ago, top dawg said:

Well, I said this last week somewhere (got it from my late mother-in-law):

What you don't see makes a whole 'nother world.

Nobody seems to even try to explain why either. Guess it's just latching on the he small school gem thing.

Fields has more experience against significantly better competition, throwing many more passes for many more yards with many  more tds, with a higher completion percentage, higher qb rating, and is more athletic.

Edited April 5, 2021 by Moo Daeng

[mav1234]

39 minutes ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Its lying season. It's not unheard of for teams to try to smear prospects they like  leading up to the draft in a desperate effort to get them to fall.

sure, there is some of that, but it is more than that.  there are historical trends and at this point it just feels predictable what adjectives are being used for what prospects.  blech.

[Vagrant]

not sure what to make of this information. i think a stat regarding time from snap until throw and the number of progressions prior to the pass would be far more valuable. if you've got one of these dudes patting the ball for fifteen seconds before finding that next read because his line is NFL caliber, it's not quite as impressive to me as guys who identify the scripted route is no good right away and get their eyes down the field. not picking on fields, but dude had an eternity to make decisions. that line he played behind was rock solid. especially his sophomore season. but again, with the exception of BYU and NDSU, you're talking about powerhouse teams. 

[t96]

51 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

And it's not that I hate Lance but I cant see how an objective look has him in the vicinity of Fields. 

Lance's skillset and intangibles are right there with Fields and his production in his 1 year as a starter was definitely amazing and up there with Fields. The issue though is that season was 2 years ago now and it's a small sample size against worse competition. Lance very well could end up being better than Fields, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But he's also got a pretty high chance of busting, which Fields doesn't have. It's a no brainer, especially since Fields' ceiling is easily as high as Lance's, if not higher.

[Moo Daeng]

Its apparent people are looking for things to hold against Fields. 

[Moo Daeng]

1 minute ago, t96 said:

Lance's skillset and intangibles are right there with Fields and his production in his 1 year as a starter was definitely amazing and up there with Fields. The issue though is that season was 2 years ago now and it's a small sample size against worse competition. Lance very well could end up being better than Fields, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. But he's also got a pretty high chance of busting, which Fields doesn't have. It's a no brainer, especially since Fields' ceiling is easily as high as Lance's, if not higher.

His production is nowhere near Fields. He was asked to throw very little and accounted for less than 175 yards per game passing in his single year as a starter. Fields approached the number of TDs (22) as Lance (28) in half as many games. Lance may be a great prospect but it's certainly not based on much materialized experience or production

[top dawg]

3 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

Nobody seems to even try to explain why either. Guess it's just latching on the he small school gem thing.

Fields has more experience against significantly better competition, throwing many more passes for many more tds, with a higher completion percentage, higher qb rating, and is more athletic.

Well, he gets dinged on his processing speed. Lance seems to process the plays much faster, which kinda stands to reason because he read defenses and called his own protections, in a legit pro-style offense! 

I've seen both of them play. I don't think Fields is more athletic, and, perhaps more importantly, as explosive or as strong as Lance. Fields is certainly faster, but doesn't seem as smooth or as natural as Lance as a runner, or in the pocket, particularly as things begin to break down.

Like I've said before, Lance played against "lesser competition", but he also had a lesser quality of weapons, so that kinda goes both ways.

As I've heard many evaluators say before, it's about traits and projection. I don't think a small school gem is a compelling reason to desire any player, much less a QB. You must isolate those traits and envision how the person will do on the next level. And if you're a GM, coach or scout for a team, you must also consider whether or not the prospect in question would be a good fit for your system--what you're trying to do, because situations, theories, timelines and personalities do matter! The way that you develop a QB does matter! It matters a lot! 

All that being said, what the players did in college matters, but they're all beginning anew--in many respects--once they put that pro cap on. That's why traits, leadership, ability to listen and learn--teach-ability--matters! We're all just looking from the outside in, but the franchise has so much more to consider. 

[Moo Daeng]

19 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

His production is nowhere near Fields. He was asked to throw very little and accounted for less than 175 yards per game passing in his single year as a starter. Fields approached the number of TDs (22) as Lance (28) in half as many games. Lance may be a great prospect but it's certainly not based on much materialized experience or production

And Fields contributed 41 tds in his last full season of 14 games to Lances 28 in 16 games. I don't see how that is comparable.

[t96]

17 minutes ago, Moo Daeng said:

His production is nowhere near Fields. He was asked to throw very little and accounted for less than 175 yards per game passing in his single year as a starter. Fields approached the number of TDs (22) as Lance (28) in half as many games. Lance may be a great prospect but it's certainly not based on much materialized experience or production

You can't compare raw volume stats directly like that, they are in 2 tremendously different situations. Look at their ratings and rushing stats too.

[JawnyBlaze]

I’d love to see the video they’re looking at to make this assessment. I watched every single snap available on YouTube multiple times over and I saw him throw to a 2nd+ read exactly two times.  I know YouTube isn’t a great source of intel, but it’s what I have available.  I like Fields, I want to like him more. I’ll be thrilled if we’re able to draft him (but not quite as thrilled as if we got Wilson) but I’m just not seeing this evidence of making reads.