Good post. One could argue Aaron Rodgers, Patrick Mahomes, Deshaun Watson point to the opposite of the need to draft a superstar Qb vs building a dynamic team. Rodgers is perhaps the most talented Qb ever and has 1 SB to his credit. Mahomes had the best offense in the league and with just a few holes on oline, was not able to do anything in the SB this year. Houston has a bad team around Watson, in truth what Watson did this year is more impressive vs both Rodgers and Mahomes, but their record was 4-12... Does a great Qb mean more than a great team? IDK The draft is a huge gamble. I like Wilson, but just like Darnold turning it around is unlikely, the odds of hitting on a Qb in the draft are equally unlikely... Probably the smart move based on odds is to go get Watson vs wishful thinking (Darnold or Wilson)...
That's just not true. Statistically, a QB who starts his career like Darnold has about a 5-10% chance of ever becoming an average starter. QB's taken high in the first round tend to become long term starters in the league about 60% of the time, and they become pro bowlers at some point in their career about 40% of the time. https://bleacherreport.com/articles...e-safest-riskiest-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft
I don't know that a third round pick represents Darnold's value today - I also don't know what that handful of anonymous teams we constantly hear want him are valuing his services at. Off the top of my head, based on nothing other than what we've all seen for three years and those "insider" claims, I'd guess that his value falls somewhere between the 25th and the 75th pick. The thing is that the Jets don't need to be in a hurry to move him - I wouid not expect his value, whatever it is, to decline much in the next year but it could rise. Well, if there really are those in important positions that think he's still an unpolished gem, it could. Who knows what he may be capable of? The main point is that the rebuilding won't be done in a few months and to rush a decision on Darnold this season is unnecessary.
Curious where did you get the 5-10% for Darnold? Also the article is 6 years old + i’ve found others that conflict these numbers. Even so, it’s not just the percentages you look at. When you draft a Qb with the #2 pick, you are locked in for the next 3+ years. Does this qb sit a year? What happens if this Qb plays like a solid NFL starter but nothing more (Andy Dalton, etc.)... The nice thing with Darnold, there’s only one year left. If the Jets trade out of #2 and get a few more high picks... then the argument is not apples to apples... Is it better to have the rookie Qb with less team talent around him, or Darnold with a better team for 1 year and with amo for next years 1st round... A case can be made for either.
I've referenced the 5-10% thing many times here. It was a study done by either PFF or Football Outsiders that looked at a probabilistic range of outcomes for QB's that start their careers like Darnold. It specifically used Darnold as the reference point. We all know Darnold's situation hasn't been great, but even if for argument's sake we say he's had a situation TWICE as bad as the normal QB, it would still lead us to believe he has maybe a 10-20% chance of ever becoming average. Since when is it smart to go with low probability outcomes? The article is 6 years old but it used 25 years of data. The conclusions wouldn't change much by adding 5 years of data to the sample size. Your argument is basically to question the data instead of accepting it for the conclusions it has drawn. That's bias 101. It's clearly better to select a QB this year in a strong QB class than to take the tiny chance that we'll be in better shape to get a top QB next year where the class is most likely worse and we will most likely be picking lower.
The problem with this is that it neglects to account for the absolute "Perfect Shit Storm" that Darnold has been in for his three years here. What are the odds of ANY QB succeeding under such conditions? Has it ever happened? And how many QBs starting out their first 3 years in such conditions were able to escape them, either because they got cut/traded and landed in a decent situation, or because the team that drafted them finally turned things around? I don't know the answers to these questions but I'd hazard a guess that there are very few - almost zero - situations like what Darnold has had to deal with which means that any statistics you might want to use to "prove" that he's a failure and can't succeed aren't of much value. I do agree that the odds are against him, but I don't think they're insurmountable if he gets in the right situation, either here with a new CS and more talent, or elsewhere.
I addressed this in my follow up response to SoylentGreen. Even if we say Darnold has faced a situation twice as bad as the normal highly drafted QB (which, honestly, is preposterous. All highly drafted QB's go to bad teams or franchises) then it would lead us to believe he still has maybe a 10-20% chance of ever becoming average. The numbers are so bad that even with huge concessions it's still not a favorable risk/reward to keep him.
A more recent article, the winning percentage for 1st round qb’s from 1990-2016 is 29% so a little worse than Darnold’s 34%... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mi...5880748/success-rates-of-drafted-quarterbacks Here’s another article that shows - qb’s bust 45% of the time https://theriotreport.com/more-than...usts-and-other-terrifying-draft-statistics/3/ Also the article you posted shows that Qb’s have by far the lowest overall odds of being great vs all the other positions - by that I mean look at the odds of being an all-pro - 5.3% (this is your Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Mahomes)... When you site pro-bowlers as a measure of NFL success realize you are talking about your Cam Newtons, Andy Daltons, Trubisky, Vince Young, Cordell Stewart, Jameis Winston, Tyrod Taylor, Derek Carr, Teddy Bridgewater, etc... These are the guys who skew the stats and why I don’t take your 40% as meaningful (not bias 101)... With that, I’m not even saying I’m no in favor of taking Wilson at 2, but I realize it’s not a clear cut decision + a case can be made to keep Darnold.
Have you ever watched a bad football team with a good QB? I think we all have. When you watch you say to yourself, "Man if only this guy had some help." I never felt that way when I was watching Sam. I would watch him run around and take terrible sacks, throw the ball into triple coverage, not see open receivers or just sail balls over their heads. Not once did I ever think, "Holy shit if only this guy had a team around him he'd be great." That's my issue with Sam. Even when Mahomes was running for his life he still looked like a guy that knows how to play the game. Watson put up insane numbers with a truly terrible team. I totally get Sam not having a winning record but would it be too much to ask that he at least look like a 3rd year NFL QB? Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
The first round versus other argument is kind of silly. There's 32 starting quarterbacks in the league every year. One is a first team All-Pro. Of course the percentages are always going to be relatively low. There's maybe 15-17 quarterbacks in any given year that are "good," and that's pretty subjective anyways. Either way - what I liked about taking Morgan was that we took a crack at a long shot and a guy who at the very least probably be an NFL backup. Bottom line is that we need to keep trying to find one until we have one.
this is fair, the only argument a Darnold supporter can make is Gase and the Jets being not just bad, but really bad... the boneheaded plays are hard to ignore/excuse away.
In Sam's first year, and the latter part of his second I did think he could be good if only the talent and CS were good.
It comes down to how much they like the QB options at 2. I like Wilson or Lance there. But if they wanted BPA non QB I grab Kyle Pitts. Best TE in the draft. Best WR in the draft.
That's the problem with using these statistics, or any statistics really, to predict individual outcomes. There's no context. You can't do it because no two individual situations are the same. There is no control group and there are so few instances of similar performance that it becomes largely invalid to try and make the comparison. Now if you want to tell that there's 1000 year 3 QBs who've had Morton and Gase calling exactly the same plays for them, with exactly the same receivers, the same running backs, exactly the same line protecting them against exactly the same opposition (who scored the same points at the same time against them) then you might be able to say that of 100 QBs who posted similar figures to Darnold's first three years only x percent went on to recover and become average. Without that sort of control level though I think the figures are largely meaningless.
Monday morning PFT live: Question: What will happen with Cam Newton? In his prime and with the right offense, he can be dangerous. So, which starting QBs is Cam better than, and should Cam be considered? NE Jarrett Stidham: Answer: Yes, Cam is better than Stidham, and should be brought back with a different offense. Buffalo Josh Allen: Answer: No, Josh Allen is better than Cam, stick with Josh. Miami: Tua: Answer: Yes, Cam would be better in Miami than Tua. Jets: Sam Darnold: No, Sam is better than Cam, stick with Sam. Chris Simms has a hard on for Sam Darnold. He always talks very highly of him, loves his upside. They went through the rest of the NFL. Pretty interesting. Cam measured out to be better than about a third of the starting QBs (Cam tied with NY Giants Daniel Jones). Sam was in the 2/3rds of starting QBs that's better than Cam.
It's a large enough sample size where there were likely many QB's within it that had situations as bad as Darnold's was. The probability of Sam ever being good still isn't high even if we make huge concessions for him and say his situation was 2-3X as bad as the average QB over their first 3 years. Even putting all the stats aside though, we all watched Darnold play during the last 3 years. His surrounding talent wasn't good but there were just so many consistent mistakes he made that were entirely his fault. Taking bad sacks. Running out of bounds instead of throwing it away. Throwing into multi coverage. Not seeing open receivers. Missing open receivers when he did see them. Fumbling a lot.
Sorry, MoWilkBeast has it right - there is no way to make a valid comparison without context, and each situation is so different. Just take a game where a team gets blown out 49-10. Looking at that game you could conclude "These guys suck", but we've seen enough teams lose games like that and turn around and win most of their other games, maybe even a title. The point is the old saying "You're never as bad as you look when you lose; you're never as good as you look when you win", applies here. Moreover, there is a ripple effect to bad play and losing, where one player's mistakes lead to other player's mistakes, and so on, and then as each player tries harder to overcome that they make more mistakes by trying to do more than they're capable of. In short, you can't simply look at statistics to understand all that goes into failure. And I'm not absolving Darnold of his part, nor denying that he contributes to the "ripple effect" that then comes back to make him struggle even more, but there is LOT more involved in his failure beyond his control. I agree that he doesn't possess enough unique talent to warrant relying on him as the FQB the Jets need, and he might've been ruined by his experience here, but if he hasn't been, I think he's better than any of the potential vet QBs (short of Watson), and probably better than Mac Jones or Trask, assuming Saleh and LeFleur can give him a system suited to his game (which I understand the SF offense is).
I'm sorry, I think there's no way they should even entertain BPA @2 (if it's not a QB). Take one of the 3 you're comfortable with or trade down and acquire more picks (and likely stick with Sam). If we can trade back with Carolina, that would be great (should we trade down).
After 100s of pages on this, I think we’ve covered all the options... to me it just comes down to what JD and Saleh think of Fields, Wilson, or Lance. If they believe in any one of the then you have to take him at two and move on I think. My problem is that I’m not sure I do. Fields looks pretty good but that school has NEVER produced a quality NFL QB. Why not? It’s a big red flag to me. No idea on Wilson...he had what, one year? At a 2nd tier school? Playing pretty bad competition? Lance? Who knows... I think history will show that at least one of them should be pretty damn good, but which one? Just because they will be picked high doesn’t mean they will all be good, and in fact I’m guessing two of the three have a good chance to bust. Stats are stats, but they don’t mean shit as to picking the right guy for our team. I do t know about next years class....I hear it’s not as good, but then there are always guys who pop up....a year ago I hadn’t heard squat about Wilson. So who knows? I personally don’t have a clear view se guys but will be fun to watch it all play out...
