That’s one arbitrary while oddly specific criteria. Why is the top 10 some line of demarcation when not every team are in the market for a QB each draft? Seems rather convenient. The order of QBs taken in comparison to how they end up says more about the NFL scouting community’s success or failure in the aggregate.
dam that's brutal. 2 pro bowlers and 7 busts and 1 unknown. so rougly 20% chance for fields to be a pro bowler and 80% chance to be a bust
Because Fields fell to 11. Outside of top 10 but still in first round seemed like the most fair way of doing it. Somehow I don't think you'd have a problem if the numbers supported your stance. You made the claim that the NFL usually gets it wrong when guys fall when that couldn't be further from the truth. At least frame your bullshit in a way that isn't so easy to disprove.
So an analysis of three positions without huge percentage gaps except at runningback proves that to be true? I was talking about the entire league, not a couple positions. Not to mention it's easier to achieve a higher percentage with a smaller sample size. 10 picks versus 22 picks. If one quarterback is chosen in the top ten and hits the mark, it's a 100% success rate. Everything put together shows that it's a pretty difficult process to draft correctly in the first round. You also do understand that Mitchell Trubisky and Sam Bradford both hit some of those marks like 3,200 yards and 24 touchdowns right?
when you are in the mood to do so, you are more than capable of providing quality content to the message board, Jonathan. Excellent point and well-done.
I never said anything about the size of the gap. My only claim was that guys taken outside of the top 10 are indeed usually worse than guys taken within it. This study looked at drafts going back 20 years. If you don't think that's enough of a sample size to draw conclusions then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe try accepting the data for what it is rather than twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to convince yourself you weren't wrong about Fields.
Cool so no response to anything that I said. This is why you guys wonder why you got trolled for a month and then complain about "no discussion." No one is right or wrong about either player yet. Another victory flag planted. Neither guy has played a fucking snap. The bold proves you do not want to have a conversation you just want to pound your chest about someone who hasn't signed an NFL contract yet.
@REVISion @Jonathan_Vilma @legler82 (i have him muted but assume he's still at it) Why don't we drop the fields/wilson debate at this point. Wilson is a jet, fields isn't. everyone knows how you all feel towards each player. it's been done for 500 pages in another thread. no reason to crap up the boards with the nonsense @Brook! hope i'm not out of line with this comment but it's getting out of hand
I didn't address your points because they were nonsense. Your initial claim was that guys selected in the 20's aren't usually worse than guys taken higher. I provided evidence disproving that. The end. I'm not taking a victory lap about Wilson being great. Clearly nobody knows if he is yet. I'm taking a victory lap on the fact that actual NFL teams didn't like Fields nearly as much as you and a couple other people here.
How about you provide evidence proving your point? You've provided 0, just tried to take issue with mine. You have no coherent point, as usual. Just snide one liners.
What? I didn't say that. You said that top ten picks are "usually" better and used anecdotal evidence on three positions (22 players on the field at once...) - one with nonsensical criteria that two high profile busts fit into for some of those categories. You just got your panties bunched up your ass because I said there are valid concerns about Wilson that no one wanted to discuss for a month and a half and were repeatedly knocked down as being no big deal. You've planted a bunch of flags and keep saying things like "take the L."
Players taken in the 20's are generally worse than ones taken earlier. Do you have evidence to the contrary?
You are not out of line. This is a fair call. Not singling anybody out but at this point, fuck Fields. He is not a Jet. Wilson is our QB and let's focus on the future not the past. I personally am tired of the constant back and forth between Fields and Wilson supporters. We are Jets fans and we now have our QB. Let's put the differences aside and root for the kid to be successful.
Nope and neither do you. Because the vague terms you initially used are so subjective yet you've tried to use fantasy football data to dictate success. Jameis Winston also hits a lot of these marks several times. Was he better than Deshaun Watson? Bradford, Trubisky. Rodgers versus Alex Smith... Good players are found throughout the draft. Bad players are found throughout the draft. Trying to lynchpin it into data that shows as low as 4 percentage point differences without factoring in the differing sample sizes of each data point is just silly, especially when using three positions.
I have some proof for my claims, using 20 years of draft data. There was nothing vague about my statement, I very clearly said that players taken earlier are generally better. You've taken issue with the data, and that's fine. Generally I find an argument that presents some evidence more compelling than one that provides no evidence at all, but that's just me.
Looking at 1st round only. 2020 1st Joe Burrow < 3rd Justin Herbert 2nd Tua Tagovailoa < 3rd Justin Herbert 2018 1st Baker Mayfield < 3rd Josh Allen 2nd Sam Darnold < 3rd Josh Allen 4th Josh Rosen < 5th Lamar Jackson 2017 1st Mitchell Trubisky < 2nd Patrick Mahomes 1st Mitchell Trubisky < 3rd Deshaun Watson 2015 1st Jameis Winston < 2nd Marcus Mariota 2014 1st Blake Bortles < 3rd Teddy Bridgewater 2nd Johnny Manziel < 3rd Teddy Bridgewater 2012 2nd Robert Griffin < 3rd Ryan Tannehill
While we re on the topic of Wilson and Fields and Jets and Chicago, Chicago now has 3 QBs including Foles and Dalton. I think Jets should trade 5th or 6th for Foles or Dalton IMO, and which QB vet would be good for Wilson or Fields???
