Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'New York Jets' started by NYJ1970, May 28, 2022.
He's also in the HOF...
No. Absolutely nothing at all...
I'm optimistic on Zach playing better in year two... if he doesn't, it's time to sit.
But who do we plug in?
Warning: These two articles are very geek-based, but if you can wade through that, the author does a very good job of explaining - IMO - why you can't just look at a QB's stats his first 2-3 years (and in a few cases even longer) and say, "He'll never make it".
The first article's premise is:
"A couple of years ago, I asked how long it should have taken the Jaguars to move on from Blaine Gabbert. Today I want to revisit that general idea, but look at how long it takes the best quarterbacks to identify themselves as top-tier players... I looked at the greatest quarterbacks of all time. Using the top 75 quarterbacks from that list, I removed any player whose career began before the merger; that left me with 42 passers.
First, I looked at how each quarterback fared in relative Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt — i.e., ANY/A relative to league average — through their first 16 starts. Just over two-thirds of these passers were above average during their first 16 starts, with 1/3 of those quarterbacks being at least 1 ANY/A better than league average. That group of fourteen quarterbacks — which Aaron Rodgers just falls shy of joining — can be categorized as above-average quarterbacks from the beginning. They are Kurt Warner, Dan Marino, Daunte Culpepper, Chad Pennington, Tony Romo, Mark Rypien, Jeff Garcia, Boomer Esiason, Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, Matt Ryan, Joe Montana, Steve McNair, and Ken Stabler. Obviously a number of those quarterbacks were not immediate starters in the NFL, but they did excel as soon as they became starters.
Now, let’s remove the 14 quarterbacks who had a RANY/A of at least +1.0 through their first sixteen starts. How did the other 28 quarterbacks fare in starts 17 through 32 in RANY/A? Eleven of them produced a RANY/A of at least +1.0 in their next sixteen starts: Bert Jones, Matt Schaub, Ken Anderson, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Brad Johnson, Carson Palmer, Jim Everett, Steve Young, Dan Fouts, and Steve Grogan.
Just eight of these quarterbacks had below-average RANY/As in their second set of sixteen starts. Troy Aikman, Vinny Testaverde, and Terry Bradshaw were former number one overall picks who were drafted by very bad teams; they all started at least four games as rookies, and produced below-average numbers through both starts 1-16 and starts 17-32...
...If we eliminate the 11 quarterbacks who had RANY/A averages of at least +1.0 in starts 17 through 32, that leaves 17 quarterbacks who turned out to have very good careers but failed to be far above average through their first 32 starts. How did they fare in starts 33 through 48?
That leaves thirteen quarterbacks who failed to be significantly above-average during any of their first three 16-game samples: Brett Favre, Tom Brady, Joe Theismann, Dave Krieg, Jim Kelly, John Elway, Donovan McNabb, Vinny Testaverde, Terry Bradshaw, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Michael Vick, and Rich Gannon...
I looked at the best 42 quarterbacks to enter the league since 1970. Then I divided each quarterback’s career into sets of 16 starts. Just four of those quarterbacks produced below-average passing numbers in each of their first two sets of 16 starts: three former first overall picks (Bradshaw, Aikman, Testaverde), and Brees. If a quarterback is below-average through two years worth of starts — say, Ryan Tannehill — then it seems highly unlikely that such a player will turn into a franchise quarterback absent extenuating circumstances. In the case of Bradshaw/Aikman/Testaverde, the extenuating circumstances were landing with terrible teams; for Brees, well, he also landed with the worst team in the league: the Chargers went 1-15 the year before he arrived, and Brees was the first pick in the second round.
I tried summarizing the above more than I did but it lost its meaning. You can read the entire article to get a better picture.
The second article focuses only on John Elway and why the author believes that despite stats (produced by the author) that would make him only the 26th best QB of all time, he's one of the most clutch QBs in history. I'll let you read the article in full.
Many of the greatest QBs struggled at the beginning - including the "generational" Peyton Manning, and the GOAT Tom Brady. That's only if you guage them on their stats, and don't take into account other extenuating factors like the quality of teams and coaching they had in the beginning. In short, it's a team game, and no one has yet to create stats that weave together all the other players and the coaching to produce a meaningful assessment. Those who are panicking over - or predicting - that Zach will fail really should take these articles into their consideration.
Okay, I am going on the record approaching June 1st to say Zach will take a major step in 2022,
Jets win 7-8 games, he hits 62-65% of passes, 20 TD.... 12 INTs 3000 yards, addition of Hall at RB,
WR improvement, better O-line, coaching improvement, he will show a much better understanding
of the offense!!!
I don't think it's a good idea to compare QBs from the 1970s-1990s to QBs today. It was a different game then, today's QBs are more NFL-ready than their predecessors were.
I 100 percent disagree with this. In fact the opposite could be argued as most college Qbs are asked to do a lot less from a concept stand point. One read throw or run. The first time most college Qbs get under center is in the pros.
From a mechanics stand point you may be correct
It's a lot easier to play QB in the NFL now as opposed to then though. You have to keep that in mind when comparing QB's from different eras.
Can’t compare across eras…totally different game with the radically different PI rules and the inability today to hit QBs and WRs
PI as originally written meant you couldn’t hit the receiver when the ball was in the air…there was no 5 yard limit…and then once they caught it they could be clocked. No more. Can’t touch the QB anymore especially if it’s Brady. DL can’t use the head slap anymore to get past OL.
totally different game….it’s why so many great QBs had completion rates in the 50% range
I am not sure I would use the word easier. I say it is different. Is is easier in a few aspect like PI and protection of the QB and the hitting rules that have made it easier to throw to all parts of the field.
Throw in the short passing game and handoffs that count as passes and numbers get inflated.
It is harder in that defense of schemes are more complicated, the athletes are faster so your clock has to be faster, the transition from college to pro is worse than ever because in college you are not asked to read defenses.
Not easier just different.
Aikman was a game manager type. Wilson could not be more different. The only comparison here is that Aikman struggled as a rookie and so did Wilson. Not exactly something to hang your hat on
So who was the fucking QB?
??? He didn't get cut.
The OP probably started a new thread after reading a post from someone saying Wilson will be cut after this year, and then used his comparison to effectively say, "Would you have cut Aikman after the start he had?"
The articles don't really compare stats across eras though. They were examining how long it took even great QBs to reach their greatness.
The original post was badly worded. It threw me off as well...
"Who was exhibit A? And can we draw any similarities between Zach and exhibit A? Are they both going to get cut within two years and get labeled as one of the worst busts in NFL history?"
I'm not talking about comparing stats, I'm talking about comparing how long it takes a QB to develop. Back then it was common for QBs to not even play their rookie year because they weren't ready for the NFL. Now that only ever really happens when the team drafting them has at least a league-average incumbent starter. So saying it took x years for some QB from the 1980s to reach his peak doesn't mean QBs today should be expected to take x years to reach their peak.