let's talk about Brock Purdy and Mike White

[top dawg]

I don't  have time to read at the moment, but just in general I think it's too soon to make any definitive judgment. But, I also think that coaches are generally susceptible to the notion that higher draft picks are better simply because they're higher--and hyped. It's another lesson about being patient.

[Sean Payton's Vicodin]

1 hour ago, kungfoodude said:

If you want to try a strategy of only trying late round QB's, good luck. This is a strategy of ignoring all facts and statistics. If you build your decision tree on only considering outliers, you will fail. If you fall prey to hot takes, you will also fail.

The statistics are extremely and painfully obvious when it comes to drafting QB's and their success rate. It is very heavily weighted towards 1st round picks historically. 

If you are looking for 100% success rate, it's probably best to just never draft anyone because that isn't how the NFL draft works.

The examples used here are completely ridiculous. The 49ers are not going to move on with Brock Purdy. They have seen less than a game of him. In all likelihood he will play well for a stretch and then fall apart, like most backup QB's do. Mike White is not the future in NY. They know that because he has been on their team for the last two years and had a 2-3 record with some middling to bad production. 

At some point you do actually have to look beyond a game or a stretch if games. If you don't, you'll end up with Sam Darnold/Kyle Allen with a 10 year, $500 billion dollar contract after 3 games of play.

I really just wonder what is running through some of your heads sometimes.

It's because these kids only hear about the Dak Prescotts or Kirk Cousins which leads to them jumping to dumb conclusions. For every one of those there are 10 Jeff Driskels or Brad Kaayas

[kungfoodude]

19 minutes ago, Sean Payton's Vicodin said:

It's because these kids only hear about the Dak Prescotts or Kirk Cousins which leads to them jumping to dumb conclusions. For every one of those there are 10 Jeff Driskels or Brad Kaayas

IMO, it is because a simple, basic understanding of statistical probability isn't present in most fans. 

You just see Russell Wilson in the 3rd or Tom Brady in the 6th and that now becomes the norm, despite the fact that nothing could be further from the truth.

[BrianS]

Statistically speaking, QB's selected in the first round hit at a rate of about 50%.  Which isn't wonderful . . . until you consider that QB's selected in every other round hit at a rate of about 10%.  Coaching and system play a huge role in this, yes, but the delta between round 1 and all other rounds is so high that you simply can't ignore it.

[PootieNunu]

The biggest problem is our HC and OC selections. 

We are not going to see a prolific offense or great QB play under Steve Wilks, he is a run the ball, play D type of coach. 

Stuff needs to change and it starts at the top, Wilks is a good guy but hes not a NFL head coach in this era.

[Barney]

Nobody has any real film on these 2.  Happens all the time.  Let teams get some film learn their tendencies, strengths, weaknesses etc. and then see how they do when their best attributes are mitigated by a good defensive coordinator.  Not saying they won't be able to overcome them, but there is a reason many quarterbacks struggle in year 2 and many end of as journeymen after that season.  

[KillerKat]

2 hours ago, kungfoodude said:

If you want to try a strategy of only trying late round QB's, good luck. This is a strategy of ignoring all facts and statistics. If you build your decision tree on only considering outliers, you will fail. If you fall prey to hot takes, you will also fail.

The statistics are extremely and painfully obvious when it comes to drafting QB's and their success rate. It is very heavily weighted towards 1st round picks historically. 

If you are looking for 100% success rate, it's probably best to just never draft anyone because that isn't how the NFL draft works.

The examples used here are completely ridiculous. The 49ers are not going to move on with Brock Purdy. They have seen less than a game of him. In all likelihood he will play well for a stretch and then fall apart, like most backup QB's do. Mike White is not the future in NY. They know that because he has been on their team for the last two years and had a 2-3 record with some middling to bad production. 

At some point you do actually have to look beyond a game or a stretch if games. If you don't, you'll end up with Sam Darnold/Kyle Allen with a 10 year, $500 billion dollar contract after 3 games of play.

I really just wonder what is running through some of your heads sometimes.

The huddle is stupid AF man.

[frankw]

This isn't a reason not to select a QB in the first round. But for our situation this is a dig on some of the weird Darnold Stans. The Jets have zero qualms in quickly moving on from mistakes. Meanwhile some Panthers fans want to quadruple down. Cope to the extreme.

[4Corners]

[Waldo]

I would be happy with a regular pick for a QB in the 1st, no trades. It's never perfect but the odds are a lot better. I wouldn't mind a miss but a low ceiling guy like MJones or Pickett would be worst case scenario for me.

If we miss out on in the first than draft one later and be prepared to draft one again, just like we should do after Corral last year. Keep drafting QBs until we get a franchise QB, ok or servicable is not a reason to pass on a potential upgrade.

[Wundrbread33]

1st round QB’s are certainly more talented on average than rounds after.

But I think what’s more impactful is that the 1st round QB’s are given much more commitment from the front office/coaches than rounds after. 
 

If every rookie QB, no matter what round, was given the same commitment, I’d be curious to see how many starters would still be 1st round picks. 

[OceanPanther]

 

We literally have NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT on our message board. 

[Gerry Green]

5 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

1st round QB’s are certainly more talented on average than rounds after.

But I think what’s more impactful is that the 1st round QB’s are given much more commitment from the front office/coaches than rounds after. 
 

If every rookie QB, no matter what round, was given the same commitment, I’d be curious to see how many starters would still be 1st round picks. 

 

Good point. In a perfect world, every QB would get a fair shot. Unfortunately, that's not how things go. The CBA doesn't allow for enough practice time for this to be a possibility. 

 

Man, the scouting gurus on here would go nuts having to actually learn more than just a few top names. Imagine the research that would go into picking a QB in the later rounds? Imagine the arguments over which 5th rounder has the most upside. It could be epic.

 

[Wundrbread33]

5 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

Good point. In a perfect world, every QB would get a fair shot. Unfortunately, that's not how things go. The CBA doesn't allow for enough practice time for this to be a possibility. 

 

Man, the scouting gurus on here would go nuts having to actually learn more than just a few top names. Imagine the research that would go into picking a QB in the later rounds? Imagine the arguments over which 5th rounder has the most upside. It could be epic.

 

Makes me think of Jake Delhomme/Chris Weinke. 
 

Back in their day, there were enough reps for a legit QB battle. Weinke vs. Lewis, and a couple years later, Weinke/Delhomme/Peete.

 

Delhomme, undrafted, backup for years, but was brought in and given a chance, and then the staff committed to him.