Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

let's talk about Brock Purdy and Mike White


GOAT
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BrianS said:

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.

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

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.  

 

IMO, the CBA is the reason there is so much bad football. Not enough practice time. I get that you can only get so much out of practice. That nothing beats actual playing time. But practice is the only time some of these guys have to impress the coaches. 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "let's skip drafting a QB in the 1st and just take late-round QBs instead" would be a stupid argument...but I don't think anyone is making that argument?  What's debatable and the question that the OP seems to be asking is: is it worth deliberately tanking in hopes that you're gonna draft the savior of your franchise at the top of the 1st when it's such a volatile crapshoot?

I keep hearing people bring up Kyle Allen but the irony is that Kyle Allen (UFA) won more games for us than any of our highly drafted 1st round picks in recent years: Teddy, Darnold, or Baker.  You guys are only unironically bolstering the OP's argument lol.

My position is that you wholeheartedly compete for the entire season (no "tanking"), let the chips fall where they may, then if there's a QB you think can be your franchise QB wherever you're picking in the 1st, you pull the trigger on him or even move up for him.  Don't lose your minds over our team winning too many games to take one of the Top 2 guys or w/e...people did exactly that last season with Zach Wilson.

  • Pie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

 

I get really confused about stat usage around here.

 

Stats are good if you want to make a point.

 

Stats are bad when you want to make a counterpoint.

 

However, stats, I've been told, are for losers. 

 

I guess I'll continue to use them when I think I need them, and lol at them when others use them? Is there a handbook for this sort of thing? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are 2 teams with a realistic shot at the SuperB owl. Buf, and KC. both their QBs were taken right around where we will be sitting. 

 

You play to win, take what you get, and do the best you can with it.

 

Edit to add; Or Hurts in the 2nd, and Prescott in the 4th. It may be nice to have a top pick. But if you play it right. You don't need it.

Edited by Gerry Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are good at showing what happened, but they don’t tell you why.

 

See: Teddy’s completion percentage 

Kinda.  A better example might be to look at the Browns history of drafting 1st round QB's over the last 25 years or so.  They've drafted Baker Mayfield, Johnny Manziel, Brandon Weeden, Brady Quinn and Tim Couch.  Statistically speaking, they should have "hit" on a couple of those. 

Heck, look at their picks in other rounds over that time period:  Dishone Kizer, Cody Kessler, Colt McCoy, Charlie Frye, Luke McCown and Spergon Wynne.  I mean, come on!  Just sheer dumb luck at some point should have gone their way.

But it didn't.

This is where coaching and organizational quality come into play.  The truth is that some of those guys probably were "good not great" QB's.  Unfortunately, the overall situation in Cleveland doomed them.

QB is the hardest position in professional sports to play.  It's the hardest position in professional sports to predict.  It doesn't invalidate the general statistical trend.

Generally speaking, if you want the best opportunity for the most advantageous outcome you need to draft your QB in the first round.  Generally speaking, having a pick toward the top of the draft is more important since the league has placed such an emphasis on offense in recent history.  It's pushed teams to select QB's earlier in the draft since the difference between having a good QB and not having one can't be as easily overcome in the league today.

 

  • Pie 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gerry Green said:

 

I get really confused about stat usage around here.

 

Stats are good if you want to make a point.

 

Stats are bad when you want to make a counterpoint.

 

However, stats, I've been told, are for losers. 

 

I guess I'll continue to use them when I think I need them, and lol at them when others use them? Is there a handbook for this sort of thing? lol

Stats are a good starting point. They’re part of the puzzle. I don’t think they are useless, but if people rely on them too heavily they won’t get the full picture. 
 

 

  • Beer 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Wundrbread33 said:

Stats are a good starting point. They’re part of the puzzle. I don’t think they are useless, but if people rely on them too heavily they won’t get the full picture. 
 

 

 

I agree. Stats can be a useful tool when forming an argument. But on their own, they are a curse. lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Franchise QBs feast when things are rolling and the tide that raises boats when things are going sideways.  Bryce isn't that. He's a complimentary player, that's it.  When the defense and STs are on point, he plays loose and it shows.  When we are in a dog fight and things haven't gone our way, he struggles.  It's that simple. He's not a horrible QB, but he's not top tier either.  So the question begs, is this worthy of a second contract?  The answer should be no.  It definitely is my answer. Bryce will never be a QB that can produce wins largely on his arm.  That's a FRANCHISE QB, any other QB is simply a placeholder at the starter's position until that guy can be found.   At some point the excuses of lack of weapons will be a straw man.  Heck, it's nearly there now.  I mean if he doesn't look even better than last year will we blame it on the TE position?  'Well if Bryce only had a player like Kelce, Kittle or Gronk on this team...'  Are we really going to do that?  
    • When I arrived at college, I was 18, not too much younger than some of these draft picks.  It was not a huge school, but there were guys on the team who were 21, 22, 23....playing ahead of me.  I was seventh on the depth chart.  Those guys have been through a few seasons, were stronger, more knowledgeable.  I was a better raw player than some of them, but those other factors matter.  As I grew stronger, more familiar with the playbook, and learned what it was like to play in college, I gradually improved and with that, I rose up the depth chart.  It took most of my freshman year for the light to come on.  Had the coach thrown me into the starting lineup day 1, I would have probably failed.    And that was college.  So I agree with you based on my experience on a much lower level.  Frankly, I think that is why so many kids drafted to fill huge gaps bust.  The teams are desperate.  Anyone who looks to fill vacancies in the starting lineup through the draft is desperate.  You draft depth to develop.  For this reason, I say, "Let Walker start for a while."  Maybe Brazzell can be our WR 4.  Throw Hunter into a rotation and ask him to do one or two things.  Freeling needs some strength and he needs to work on run blocking.
    • I see Bryce's development this way: He improved when his supporting cast improved.  TMac and Dowdle saved his arse last year, but in fairness, most good QBs have good WRs and good RBs--and good OLs.   The 2025 OL underperformed, actually. They were above average, but they should have been elite if you consider the salary cap.   As soon as we signed Lewis and Hunt, I started thinking, "That's not sustainable.  With Ickey about to get paid a LT salary, Moton and Hunt grabbling $50m per season combined, and Lewis around $17m--that would be nearly $100m and the Center just walked.  Yikes.  What does that mean?  Rico walks, Mays walks, and we do not have a top 5 WR on a second contract.  We do not have an elite TE, and only 1 is on a modest second contract. And now Bryce will demand $50m for his incremental rise to mediocrity?   So when we sign Bryce, we will get weaker at other positions.  Hunt, Moton, maybe Ickey and Lewis, will all be casualties--that is the right move regardless (not sure yet about Ickey, but he was not elite) Bryce is one lucky, entitled camper.  No competition since being drafted, and he lost his job for a while to the aging clipboard holder.  Now we are bringing in UDFAs and busts to compete with him.  
×
×
  • Create New...