Yeah, with the Jets situation of a new Head Coach and the #2 overall pick, I understand moving on from Sam. What I don't understand is the people who don't see Sam's value and are surprised people like Adam Schefter think he is worth a 1st Round pick. You are right though. Joe Douglas and his staff watched Darnold way more than we possibly can. If they feel he is the best option at QB and want to use the rest of their draft and cap resources on other players, I would completely support that.
This breaks down the reasons why they lead to longer passes and shows the splits on average yards per attempt, yards per attempt and yards per completion. https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/09/nfl-play-action-passing-stats-2019-cowboys-ravens-chiefs It supports the fact that play action passes go further down the field than normal passes.
Just look at Vilma's posts the last couple of pages. There isn't a correlation between an effective run game and being able to use play fakes effectively. Play fakes are meant to misdirect the defense; to get them moving in a different direction than where the play is going. You don't need an effective run game to use misdirection.
off topic I was listening to that interview and mims seemed like a nice, respectful kid but was one of the more boring interviews I have ever heard. If I hadn’t been driving I might have fallen asleep.
That includes the YAC. A PA pass completed to a receiver at the LOS who runs 10 yards is a 10 yard completion. What the video clip I was referring to shows Darnold throwing 20+ yards in the air - those are NOT high percentage passes.
Why are you surprised people don't think Sam is worth #1 pick? Your postulate is basically that Sam is indeed worth #1 pick as a matter of fact, and you make it sound like people who disagree are just factually wrong. Sam's 1st rounder worth is not a fact and very much debatable. The reasons why people don't think his worth is as high is because of him being playing very poorly first three years and particularly last year, where he actually regressed. He is currently far and away the worst passer in NFL from CLEAN POCKET. He was also poorly rated from clean pocket when he was out of College. He has more INTs than TDs in his third year. He was also bottom 5 out of College in TO worthy plays. Basically the trend here is that he had accuracy issues and TO issues for many years now, including College, and never corrected them. He was a good prospect, though overrated by media, and didn't go #1 as they predicted, who didn't realize his potential and didn't fix major red flags he had as a prospect in 3 years. On top of that you have washed up veteran coming off injury posting significantly better passing numbers in the same system. You have the fact Sam has the absolute worst rating of any QB in the League last year who started. And to top it off, this the last year of Sam's contract. Unless he plays like FQB this year and you franchise tag him, he will be a FA, free to go anywhere. Admittedly I feel that Gase didn't help his growth, but we ended up here three years later with Sam regressed. So, with all that considered, why is it a surprise that people feel his stock from 3 years ago has drastically fallen away from first round? I actually not against the idea that if we can't get a 2nd/3d rounder for him, we can just keep him and start while Wilson/Fields learns. But I don't think saying the guy currently is not worth 1st rounder is in any way out of touch with reality. Probably more in touch with it actually, given the facts above. With all that said, I will be very happy and first one to say I was wrong if JD does pull off a 1st rounder for him.
None of what JV posted proves this assertion. The statistics used that he referenced actually showed that a weak running game did have a negative effect - though according to their conclusions, marginal effect - on PA. Moreover, coaches themselves say that establishing the run helps to set up the fakes and misdirection of PA. Beyond that, it's simple common sense - if I'm a defender and I know your run game is shit, I'm not going to bite hard on your run fake.
High percentage passes or not, most NFL quarterbacks complete those passes at a higher percentage than Darnold does. The YAC has its own column. Air yards per completion are almost a full yard higher. The play action passes that Darnold threw are no different than what happens around the league as far as play action is concerned. And there's shorter routes built into all of those plays. It's his own fault for not throwing them even if the player has leverage (which in bootlegs and rollouts dictate that if your player has leverage you throw the damn ball and walk away with your 3-6 yard gain depending on situation). But your minds made up because of your own observations that are contrary to what the statistics to support. You do you even if it's not supported by fact.
Where is your proof of this? How do you know what Darnold was told to do, or what he saw as the play unfolded? As I said before, this is going nowhere. ATD.
No, I said I can't understand why there are some people who are so surprised that Sam has value. It is easy to see. You can put up all those stats and say how bad Sam has been in his 3 seasons, but you should be able to see that some team may value Sam and see his ability. You should be able to see that he can turn it around and will likely never be in such a bad situation for the rest of his career as he was in during the 2020 season. Some guys on here are so vocal that Sam is terrible it is ridiculous. That is what I can't understand. I believe Sam does have ability and can turn his career around, but I also think it is possible that he just isn't good enough and no amount of coaching will help him. We need to see though. Someone will take a risk because, if they are right, they are getting a huge steal. And if they are wrong, then they wasted a late 1st round pick or 2nd round pick on a solid back-up in the NFL.
Players are not given a defined player to throw to on each play. You can hate Gase all you want, hate his play design, hate him as a person, hate the way he coaches. But even he will not circle the X on 15 plays and say throw here no matter what. He's a bad coach. A really bad coach. But some of you act like he's coaching bizarre things. We have to agree to disagree because you simply won't admit that play action isn't a short passing play, by design or by execution. Even though I provide proof and you counter it with your observations. It's silly.
There's an entire lowlight clip a few posts up of Darnold whiffing on deep balls that were off play action. Play action wasn't used in Gase's offense because the starting QB was abysmal at play action. There's a million reasons to crush Gase, but not using play action isn't one of them. Man just watching Darnold try to use play action is sad; his play fake is AWFUL, bordering on lazy.
that's pretty fair on offense but a lot of it was teams keying in on the run and daring trubisky to beat them. and their run game was a little better then us but montgomery is a better RB then we had. not a huge upgrade though i'll agree on offense trubisky was in a similar situation as sam except for having robinson. their D was worlds better though. jets had the 5th worst passing D while the bears were 12th. both etams were middle of the pack for rushing D
https://www.footballoutsiders.com/s...ng#:~:text=Conclusion,of teams, it just works. "Conclusion. We have an ever-growing body of evidence that teams don't need to run often -- or run well -- to set up play-action. Play-action works for teams that run frequently, infrequently, well, or poorly. For the vast majority of teams, it just works." Good enough? I swear Darnold has made some of you lose all sense of logic.
Could be. I'm also shocked that their sack numbers weren't worse. I'd imagine it's a lot of the fact that Trubisky can't really throw the ball downfield and most of their passing game was short and quick. But that offensive line was worse than the numbers indicate. Either way, the only way I brought him up is because there is absolutely zero market for him.
It's also indicative that the Falcons and Bills are two of the top play action teams in the league while having bottom ten running games. And realistically the Bills are much worse than the statistics indicate as it relates to play action, because Allen ran for 400 yards and their backs were relatively bad all year. The Bears as well. Either way, even if that study isn't absolute Sam doesn't get a pass for being bad on play action passes because of a bad running game. Other teams have bad running games and succeed when running play action passes. I'd imagine it has more to do with the fact that he loses vision of the field when he turns his back to the field.
I'm not looking to stir the pot and commented to the "study" that supposedly made this statement, but c'mon let's use some reason If the Jets hire 57 year old me to play running back are you telling me that play action to me will be effective for the passing game? WHat about if my 58 year old sister were right tackle? it's all a matter of degree of course but the statistics didn't say that, and logic doesn't support that As a general statistical matter across all teams, all downs, yardage, score etc. it says you're better off with PA than without. It also shows (it's in the diagram) if you run infrequently PA sucks, and if you take away the outliers, running frequently (not successfully) PA has better benefit with increasing frequency of runs. (which kind of makes sense, if you run a lot, the opponent is more likely to believe you might run again and bite on the PA) Then of course you have the issue of who runs a lot. Teams that are good at it. Teams that are in the lead and want to burn clock (i.e., good teams), meaning some of those numbers are correlated as much to "team goodness" as they are to the play call
