Qb Pick Now, Or Qb Pick Next Draft? | Page 10 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Qb Pick Now, Or Qb Pick Next Draft?

LargoFin -

Your production analysis method for projecting quarterbacks to the next level does not work and has absolutely nothing to do with how a prospect grades out.

I've already covered this with you. You know it doesn't work, yet you still keep try to pump this garbage on people that know better. Don't try it with me again. That's the last time I'm going to tell you.
 
TedSlimmJr said:
LargoFin -

Your production analysis method for projecting quarterbacks to the next level does not work and has absolutely nothing to do with how a prospect grades out.

I've already covered this with you. You know it doesn't work, yet you still keep try to pump this garbage on people that know better. Don't try it with me again. That's the last time I'm going to tell you.
Click to expand...

Let go through it, name the guy. Btw, it's not just stats. It's frame, arm. throws. I call all that performance, including stats. Let's go name by name.
 
LargoFin said:
Let go through it, name the guy. Btw, it's not just stats. It's frame, arm. throws. I call all that performance, including stats. Let's go name by name.
Click to expand...


We already have. I'm not doing it again.

In 10 years here I've never done this - but I'm not going to be able to see anymore of your posts LargoFin. Don't take it personal. Just business.
 
TedSlimmJr said:
Disagreeing is fine. We disagree. However, your accusation was that my view was biased. It's not. I'd still believe Tua was the better quarterback if he played at Ohio St.

LargoFin definitely would.

Nowhere did Tua or his team give no respect to Clemson. They know that the only thing they can control is what they do, and what they didn't do against Clemson. That's how they look at it in order to make sure it doesn't happen again. That's all they can control. Anybody expecting Alabama's players to just bow down to Clemson is terribly mistaken. But there was never any disrespect given towards Clemson.

Alabama played their worst game of the season. Clemson played their best game in 90 years. Both teams know it.

You're being biased.
Click to expand...

I am confused. You are an Alabama fan that is indistubutable. I am not a fan of either. How am I biased? I must have missed that. Bama played their worst game because Clemson has just as much NFL talent. You act as if Bama is Gods Gift to football. They were ranked #1 and Clemson was #2. Hardly a despairity worth noting. Both undefeated so again where is the big divide? Best game in 90 years? Come on man really? A little over the top. Anybody watching that game saw Clemson manhandle Bama on both sides of the line. Anything else is just excuses and Tua most certainly didn't give Clemson credit saying they were nothing special. I remember it because a big deal was made of it. Both teams know that Bama was better? WTH, that is comical after getting curb stomped in front of God and mankind. I am sure Clemson was thanking their lucky stars.
 
ckparrothead said:
I think Brian Flores kind of let it slip they're going to take one guy in this draft. He was talking about the QB class, and said something like, "You can't pick all of them, and we know that..." which to me means that they WILL be picking one of them.

Perhaps they don't know which one. I'd say they probably don't know which one, and are still narrowing down their priorities. But I think they're going to add a guy to the QB room.

But I think the original poster meant 1st round guys like Kyler Murray, Dwayne Haskins, Drew Lock, or Daniel Jones.

And the answer to that is Kyler Murray or 2020/2021.

My feeling is that Easton Stick would be a great fit here to fill out the QB room as a mid to late rounder.
Click to expand...

And I agree with that philosophy...But I am now on board with either Murray, Haskins or Lock at 13.
 
LargoFin said:
Haskins is better. That is a fact. Haskins had 533 attempts in 14 games. He carried the offense. Tua had 345 attempts in 15 games. Adjusted for 14 games that would be 322 attempts. That is a world of difference. Haskins simply contributed more to moving the offense and scoring, significantly more!

In addition to that, Haskins has prototypical frame you want, Tua does not.

A smaller guy who does not contribute nearly as much cannot be better. If you are smaller you have to contribute more, be special about something, in performance. And Tua is not. He is not better, on performance.

Finally, on performance, Tua is a bigger risk, he has whacky numbers. His performance is akin to Kellen Moore, Case Keenum, Derek Carr, Brandon Doughty, those types of QBs in last year in college. His performance is not akin to Luck, WIlson, Mahomes, and others who actually translated great to NFL game.

All that boils down to this. You do not suck for a QB like that, not on this year's performance.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
You've got to applaud Largo's lunacy and sheer stubbornness. It's damn near masterful.
 
LargoFin said:
No, because I'm not biased. I do not care how Tua played in the NCG. Tua is 14-1, he is a winner and he is a competitor.

The thing is Tua is 6002 or listed 6-1, that's not prototypical, he is not Luck, and he is not Haskins.
Plus, at that frame, Tua is a low volume passer, 345 in 15 games, that's 368 adjusted for 16 games. That's too low. There will be an adjustment process to increase his load for the NFL. We do not know how that will work.

He is not an exceptional athlete, runner, to have something to fall back on. And his passing numbers are pitch and catch, whacky, and it will not be like that in the NFL.

And he has not even played his last season so we can know what we are dealing with.

There are serious risks with Tua based on the last season, even tho he has a gun, scores a ton, and is great competitor.

You do not suck the season for any player, let alone one with serious risks.
Click to expand...
So you didn’t think Wilson would be Great, Mahomes?
You don’t have Murray becoming a star?

All three are not prototypical.
 
djphinfan said:
So you didn’t think Wilson would be Great, Mahomes?
You don’t have Murray becoming a star?

All three are not prototypical.
Click to expand...


Mahomes is prototypical, around 6-3, 225. Second, Mahomes in twelve games threw the ball 591 times and rushed 130 times, didn't get hurt. That's a tremendous contribution. He carried the team with his arm and frame. And performed great, scored, did't throw interceptions, was decisive, did't get sacked, performed great. He had everything you want in a QB, except team wins.

No, Wilson was not as good a prospect as Luck, or Mahomes, because of the volume. Wilson had low volume and was not prototypical, But Wilson could rush and not get hurt. Wilson had a 140 rush attempt 9 rush TD season in college, and did not get hurt. That's 11 rushing attempts a game. The low volume translated early on in his career in the NFL. Seahawks were a heavy run team. It is certainly a concern when you are drafting high, they need to have something extra. and Wilson had it. But still ,they had to adjust the offense, become run heavy, he couldn't carry the large load initially, at good efficiency. It would be a mess.

Murray is similar. He is not prototypical, does not have the frame. Adjusted for 16 games, his volume was 431 attempts. That's borderline, okay. For example, they can play him at 30 attempts a game, 480 for the year, they can raise his volume a bit if need be without sacrificing efficiency, and the rest he can do with his legs. He rushed for a 1000 yards at 140 attempts, that's ten a game. and did not get hurt. He has something extra, he has the juice to be a top pick.

However, in the draft, if there is a prototypical quarterback, 6-3, 230, who threw the ball 500 times and rushed 80 times, and carried the team, and at good efficiency and scoring, is young, a winner, all that, you pick that guy over Murray. Just like you pick Luck over Wilson, any day. You don't mess around.

The thing that could push Wilson over Luck for some teams was if they were run heavy and did not need volume passer. Luck was very poor in college on third downs, whereas Wilson is the historical great on third downs in college, he thrived on third downs.

Unfortunately, in this draft there isn't a prototypical qb to clearly challenge Murray. Haskins has some risks because of the OSU offense, and Lock was not as efficient, therefore, Murray is the top pick and Haskins is close second. Murray was also excellent on third downs. Haskins was good.
And whoever drafts Murray will have to mainly run the ball and manage his passing a little bit, not put too much on his plate initially. He is not Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady, just yet.
 
Last edited:
LargoFin said:
Mahomes is prototypical, around 6-3, 225. Second, Mahomes in twelve games threw the ball 591 times and rushed 130 times, didn't get hurt. That's a tremendous contribution. He carried the team with his arm and frame. And performed great, scored, did't throw interceptions, was decisive, did't get sacked, performed great. He had everything you want in a QB, except team wins.

No, Wilson was not as good a prospect as Luck, or Mahomes, because of the volume. Wilson had low volume and was not prototypical, But Wilson could rush and not get hurt. Wilson had a 140 rush attempt 9 rush TD season in college, and did not get hurt. That's 11 rushing attempts a game. The low volume translated early on in his career in the NFL. Seahawks were a heavy run team. It is certainly a concern when you are drafting high, they need to have something extra. and Wilson had it. But still ,they had to adjust the offense, become run heavy, he couldn't carry the large load initially, at good efficiency. It would be a mess.

Murray is similar. He is not prototypical, does not have the frame. Adjusted for 16 games, his volume was 431 attempts. That's borderline, okay. For example, they can play him at 30 attempts a game, 480 for the year, they can raise his volume a bit if need be without sacrificing efficiency, and the rest he can do with his legs. He rushed for a 1000 yards at 140 attempts, that's ten a game. and did not get hurt. He has something extra, he has the juice to be a top pick.

However, in the draft, if there is a prototypical quarterback, 6-3, 230, who threw the ball 500 times and rushed 80 times, and carried the team, and at good efficiency and scoring, is young, a winner, all that, you pick that guy over Murray. Just like you pick Luck over Wilson, any day. You don't mess around.

The thing that could push Wilson over Luck for some teams was if they were run heavy and did not need volume passer. Luck was very poor in college on third downs, whereas Wilson is the historical great on third downs in college, he thrived on third downs.

Unfortunately, in this draft there isn't a prototypical qb to clearly challenge Murray. Haskins has some risks because of the OSU offense, and Lock was not as efficient, therefore, Murray is the top pick and Haskins is close second. Murray was also excellent on third downs. Haskins was good.
And whoever drafts Murray will have to mainly run the ball and manage his passing a little bit, not put too much on his plate initially. He is not Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady, just yet.
Click to expand...
With Wilson the prototype theory was squashed, he was an easy projection in becoming an elite QB

If Murray does the same and I believe he will you might have to change up some theories it seems.
 
Do NOT reach. QB should be later round selection . Think "long term backup" or "development".

It's time the organization taught itself priorities and sticking to a plan.

There is elite defensive talent in this draft, you do not reach for QB just it is the most important need. It's not the right time for our draft pick to align with the need.

That is in the future; 2020 or 2021.

Build. Stop reaching. Stop trying to manufacture false premature hope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom