Huh? Why? They were all high drafted prospects put in bad situations with subpart NFL performances. It's a perfectly reasonable comparison. Just because it doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean it doesn't fit the debate.
When evaluating Darnold, how can you neglect to factor in Gase's abominable effect on the offense: https://elitesportsny.com/2020/09/1...-is-setting-up-the-new-york-jets-for-failure/ Patrick Mahomes would struggle to be adequate in a Gase offense.
Just like the Watson thread, everyone has their point of view, which is fine... how good/bad is Darnold? Stats say he’s sucked, but there are definitely surrounding circumstances/excuses. Again, fine...to some, they are mitigating factors, to others they are excuses. All good. same with Watson....he’s clearly great, but what is a fair price to pay for OUR team....most agree that two first rounders is a no brainer, while four first rounders is too much (though maybe some would be fine with even 4), and the ground for argument seems to be around three...some like it, some don’t. Again, all good. but it seems to me that for Sam, there is very little risk for JD to keep him AND draft a QB early...that would be a safe move that’s affordable for next season, and easy enough to cut bait and let him walk if he sucks, or extend him or franchise him if he balls out. At least financially it’s feasible. and if he’s good, we’d have a tradable asset in either him or the rookie. may not be the way to maximize draft picks, but may be the way to minimize risk.... very interesting to see how this will play out
I respectively think this study is being slightly misinterpreted. What it's actually suggests is PA is a good thing regardless of your rushing frequency or rushing success and it's rare for PA to be net negative. SO the takeaway first and foremost is that PA is a good thing and unsurprisingly you're seeing teams like CHiefs use a lot of it. And statistically speaking it suggest the benefit exists across rushing success or frequency, but if you look at the data you'll see for very low rushing percentage the benefit is clearly lower than for the others. In English, if you rush rarely, the PA is not that effective. AND if you filter out the outliers at either end of frequency how can one not see the slight upward trajectory for rushing frequency, but not true for rushing success where it's flat Also it leaves the interpretation a little wanting. Who rushes so infrequently? Either teams with a sucky running game. Or teams that are playing deep catch up and passing a lot. Who runs so frequently? teams that are good at it. So just using frequency or success can mask a lot of information. I'd be much more interested in situational statistics, e.g., third and short or first down. Regardless it begs the question of how do we judge Sam sucks at PA? is it an eyeball test that he's not hiding the ball well? IF so who cares if you're using that study and the result you suggest. Is it that his passes suck off of PA? what is our basis to say that's a cross for Sam alone to suffer.
There is some real truth to this. If you want to use stats like yard/game yard/attempt etc to prove Sam is bad, you want to compare Sam's stats to another QB having the same Jets teams against the same Jets opponents. that has just the one changed variable, e.g., a control group Now even with many changing variables the stats could still suggest Sam sucks, but the stats could also suggest (perhaps more strongly) that the team sucks and even with Rodgers back there we'd suck So I like stats but it also needs judgment because stats can be very misleading
Interesting points. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision on whether or not to pull the plug on Sam's tenure with the Jets. I must admit I was optimistic about him coming into this season, and you make a compelling argument. I'm just going to have to hope the team makes the right decision, armed with more insight than I can have, thanks to them seeing Sam in practice. Only time will tell, whichever way they decide to go.
I just did this on the last page but I'll go into more detail... through the first three years of their careers: EJ Manuel -drafted 16th overall -benched a quarter of the way through his second year -backed up Tyrod Taylor in his third year -19 TD, 15 INT, 59% completion in 16 games as a starter Brady Quinn -drafted 22nd overall -benched a quarter of the way through his third (2nd really) year -10 TD, 9 INT, 52% in 12 games as a starter -traded for two picks and a player which turned out to be Pro Bowler Peyton Hillis Brandon Weeden -drafted 22nd overall (AT AGE 27) -off and on starter for two years before being cut in year 3 -23 TD, 26 INT, 55% completion in 20 games as a starter Sam Darnold -drafted 3rd overall -never benched -45 TD, 39 INT, 60% completion in 38 games as a starter On what planet are the first three situations comparable to the fourth?
This would be a good indicator as to judging that he sucks off play action. It's likely a reason it was underutilized. The Bills lead the league in passing yards off play action. The Bears, and Falcons also rank in the tops of the league despite having sub par running games. Of course, there are teams that have good running games that likely believe that there is a correlation. In your example as well, bad teams are likely down more often and more likely to simply abandon play action because they are in obvious passing situations in shotgun with more receivers on the field. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2020/advanced.htm It's an interesting debate. I would like to see more motion and play action regardless of whose under center next year.
I am of the opinion that its time to move on from Darnold but I will say if he ends up in Indianapolis it would hurt. They fleece us in a trade to draft Darnold, then when he busts they get Darnold back anyway. ouch. I would probably root for Darnold to succeed in any other city besides division rivals and Indianapolis because of that
And again, Because Darnold has had to play behind a shit OL with sub-NFL weapons while trying to run an offense that is 20 years behind the times, he's picked up bad habits. Yes, we can all see the video and the stats, but none of it is in the context of the truly terrible conditions he was playing in. This doesn't excuse his part in this, but his part is the lesser of it. When you're kept in a game being told to run the same plays over and over that actually allow great pressure to be applied to the QB - the Patriots "Ghosts" game - and that's not an isolated incident but one of many similar, is it any wonder that the QB is going to begin bailing early? When you refuse to run motion before the snap - which all the most successful teams do to help their QB read the defense and give him a heads up on what he can expect - is it any wonder that your QB struggles to read the defense? But somehow all of this - and more - is entirely the fault of Darnold! SMFH.
And they were out of the league bro. I never said Darnold has absolutely zero value and will get the Brandon Weeden treatment. I said he is not going to be worth the teams most premium asset in an offseason where a large portion of the league is going to be strapped for cap space in free agency. The only way teams like the Saints are going to be able to add talent is in the draft after they restructure their cap down and make cuts. They're not going to trade their top pick for a project. The Colts and 49ers reportedly didn't want to part with a first round pick for Matthew Stafford. They're going to pony it up for Sam Darnold?
Your entire point was that Darnold would buck some trend of former highly-drafted QBs forced into shit situations not fetching anything worthwhile on the trade market. My point the whole time was that there is no trend to buck because there hasn't been a situation like this. Everything I posted above shows you why.
the stats certainly suggest Play action is a good thing, and as a general matter it makes sense too! i looked through that clip you sent. Every play but the very last (goal line) involved a sizeable throw. Don't you think that affects his completion %, which is the basis of the criticism? Besides the study you linked to measured success not on completion % but on yards/attempt. So of course a low % can still have a high yards/attempt if you're throwing farther than "normal". So maybe his low % is because he sucks, or maybe it's because he's trying to throw 30 yards in the air. I'm not even including how many times in the clip the ball was catchable I have the same issue with completion % generally. I live here in Boston. Have been watching Brady for years throw to a WR at the line of scrimmage for the guy to run 10 yards and it counts as a 10 yard pass. Another guy throws a 15 yard pass on the money, and receiver drops it. Zero yards. So I don't hate statistics but they need context and judgment and a heavy dose of skepticism sometimes. Francis Galton was a renowned statistician -- he was Kinghted for it I believe -- and yet used it to advance a Eugenics movement. The Nazis used it too.
Also there's reports that the Colts DID offer their pick, so who knows what went down there. The Niners didn't want to part with the 12th pick, which is irrelevant in a discussion about teams in the late 20s.
You're right. Darnold is the first quarterback drafted in a premium spot to underperform in a bad football situation. Why was there no market for Mariota and Winston and a minimal market for Tannehill? Better situations but much better overall performances. What about Blake Bortles? No market for him at all. Teddy checkdown netted a third round pick (albeit off a big injury so maybe accelerated to a second if not?).
I mean for as long as you're not gonna understand that every situation you've rattled off is not comparable to Sam's, this conversation is going nowhere. And judging by the fact that you brought up Mariota and Winston, I'm gonna assume you think those were the same too. Agree to disagree and let's see how it plays out. Again to reiterate, I don't even think we are getting a first for Sam.
