ckparrothead
Premium Member
That was a direct response to the statement, "Anyone knocking Josh Rosen is too much in love with their own subjectivity." Hence the wording.
The Top 3 QB's are gone: Which QB would you pick late?
- Thread starter The Bopkin
- Start date
That was a direct response to the statement, "Anyone knocking Josh Rosen is too much in love with their own subjectivity." Hence the wording.
I appreciate the response. I get it.
And I suppose your comments are based solely on what saw earlier this season. Sorry if I don't trust you ahead of the FO. I don't know why people insist that they are the experts when they don't even work in the field. Now if that same FO chooses to go another direction I would not question that for one second. Arrogance never underestimated it I guess.
I think we here in the newsgroup should be prepared for this scenario and the fact that the front office could have a wildcard they think would fit what they want to do, somebody I never heard of would not surprise me at all since I have no in-depth knowledge of who's available. Brady is a prime example of this and how he seem to fit the system perfectly.
Oh please. The Patriots didn't even know what Brady was. They passed on him six times before they selected him in the sixth round. It was blind luck.
You do know how the organization feels about him. They put him on the bench and never let him play again. That's how you know what they think of him.
Yes, at 5. You would not question taking Brees, or Wilson, or Brady at 5. You would not wait until the third or sixth round. No. You take the QB at 5. You do not fk around with that.
In this draft there are roughly six quarterbacks who will be available to play and on performance are worthy of consideration in the first round. They have put together the last college season that is worthy of first round consideration. And if they are worthy of the first round, then they are worthy of being drafted at any spot in the first round. They can be drafted #1 overall.
The six quarterbacks are: Burrow, Tua, Hurts, Gordon, McDonald, and Herbert. That is the cream of the crop in this class. (Eason and From are not. They are good, later round prospects, but they did not drive the offense to scoring in their last season.)
Burrow will be taken #1 overall so you can scratch him. Which is what the OP says, Burrow is taken.
Tua is also taken in the OP, But also, Tua played for Bama in a whacky offense which is run based, he is 6-0 tall, he is also injury prone, and now has a major hip injury. My advice is scratch him, his production is unreliable and his health and physical ability are unreliable. Ultimately, the OP says Tua is taken for the purposes of the thread.
And OP says that Herbert is taken too.
That leaves Hurts, Gordon, McDonald and then Eason who is really not first-round worthy but he is next in the line. Out of those quarterbacks, based on the OP which excludes Burrow, Tua, and Herbert, there is one quarterback that is the QB the Dolphins should take at 5 because he is worth it and there is no time to fk around.
Now, whether it is Gordon, or Hurts or McDonald, I do not know yet. I'm just saying for now that is how it is.
I like Gordon's accuracy, quick release, anticipatory throws, I like his play in the redzone, but there are question about his size, physical ability, arm strength, winning mentality, lack of long game. Those are the concerns. Hurts also has some question marks, as well as McDonald. But those are minor details to sort between first-round worthy quarterbacks. Hey, my choice could be McDonald at 5 in the end. But those are the guys. And you take the best one at 5, and you do not fk around.
The Chris Grier you call a fkn criminal would be a fkn criminal if he took Gordon at 5. Or Hurts. Or McDonald.
Yes, Tua's performance (production) is unreliable, the numbers are wacky, comparable to Josh Johnson, Geno Smith, Kellen Moore, Sam Bradford, Case Kenum, Derek Carr, Paxton Lunch, last year Dwayne Haskins for example. It is unreliable, you cannot tell where he is as a quarterback. And also his physical readiness is unreliable.
And btw, same goes for Joe Burrow. His production is unreliable. Cannot draft a guy like that, unless there is nothing else available.
Why are they wacky, what about Alabama's offense is wacky?
It is weird that you say that, but pump Gordon who is in an offense known for inflated QB numbers that have only translated to the NFL one time out of a dozen or so QBs.
Cant really blame you for having a different view, its actually a good thing to have your own opinions.... But if you're going to make such polarizing claims, you better damn well be more precise in your explanations if you want to be taken seriously... Those numbers are wacky because they're unreliable simply just wont cut it.
What I'm about to type has to do with just the numbers and just the basic filter to match prospect to previous greats. There are other things to consider, like experience, arm strength, athletic ability, winning record, etc. Here I am just answering about wacky numbers, nothing else.
Here is how it goes. We are analyzing wacky numbers, therefore numbers. Any time we analyze numbers. production, we must have a filter, we must design a filter, to say these numbers are within the range we are looking for and some other ones are not. This filter allows us to say that based on production a set of quarterbacks falls within a range we are looking for and the other ones do not. For a visual example, imagine a bell curve, the peak is the filter, high fidelity, what we want, and the low part of the curve on both sides of the bell is not what we want, it's noise, and it must get filtered out. We disregard it and let through to the speaker just the bell part, high fidelity.
When it comes to analyzing quarterback production, we want quarterbacks with high completion percentage, low sacks, low interceptions, and a lot of touchdowns. All of that, not just one thing. We want quarterbacks who have produced in their last season, across those categories. And based on that we design a filter. It is an arbitrary number that is later adjusted against known samples to values that work. And I will give examples below of what those values and numbers are.
It just so happens that quarterbacks in the past, the last 10-15 years, who were drafted, and have performed on rookie contract, given their teams a chance at competing for a SB on rookie contract, fall within the bell, and not outside of the bell. Whereas Tua and Burrow are in the noise region.
Now let's start with 2008 draft and Joe Flacco. After Joe Flacco was drafted, he made the playoffs in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 before winning the superbowl in 2012. He was not exactly on a rookie deal in 2012 when he won the superbowl, but in the previous four season he gave his team a chance to compete for the superbowl, and that what we want. In his final season in college, Joe Flacco produced:
521 attempts, 63.5% completion percentage, 23 TD, 5 interceptions, and 15 sacks. Now let's convert those numbers to attempts per touchdown, interception, sack. Joe Flacco thus produced:
63.5% completions, 34.7 attempts per sack (APS), 104.2 attempts per interception (API), and 22.7 attempts per touchdown (APT).
Since we want the completions to be high, attempts per sack to be high, and attempts per interception to be high, we will multiply them to get 0.635 x 34.7 x 104.2 = 2296. And we also want the attempts per touchdown to be low. So, we will put the values we want to be high in the numerator and the value we want low in the denominator, and divide the two: 2296 / 22.7 = 101.1
Joe Flacco's Reliability (filter) score in his last year in college was 101.1.
In 2009 Mark Sanchez was drafted, and he helped the Jets compete for the Superbowl on his rookie deal. HE beat Brady, beat Manning on the way to AFC title. That's what we want. In his last college season, Mark Sanchez produced:
366 attempts, 65.9%, 17 S, 10 INT, 34 TD, or
65.9%, 21.5 APS, 36.6 API, 10.8 APT
Reliability = 65.9% x 21.5 x 36.6 / 10.8 = 48.2
2010 had no phenoms. In 2011 Cam Newton was drafted. He played in 3 playoff games until his fifth season when he won the MVP and took the Panthers to the SB. In his last college season, Cam Newton produced:
280 attempts, 66.1%, 23 S, 7 INT, 30 TD, or
66.1%, 12.2 APS, 40 API, 9.3 APT
Reliability = 34.5
In 2012, Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson were drafted and both went on to give their teams a chance to compete for Superbowl, in the playoffs. In their last college season they produced:
Andrew Luck:
404 attempts, 71.3%, 11 S, 10 INT, 37 TD, or
71.3%, 36.7 APS, 40.4 API, 10.9 APT
Reliability = 96.9
Russell Wilson:
309 attempts, 72.8%, 22 S, 4 INT, 33 TD, or
72.8%, 14.1 APS, 77.3 API, 9.4 APT
Reliability = 84.4
In 2013, 214, 2015 there were no phenoms. In 2016, Jared Goff was drafted. Jared Goff on rookie contract took his team to playoffs and to the SB. we want that. In his last season in college Jared Goff produced:
529 attempts, 64.5%, 26 S, 13 INT, 43 TD, or
64.5%, 20.4 APS, 40.7 API, 12.3 APT
Reliability = 43.4
In 2017, Patrick Mahomes and Deshaun Watson were drafted. They give their teams a chance to compete on rookie deals. We want that. Pat Mahomes and Deshaun Watson in their final college season produced:
Pat Mahomes:
591 attempts, 65.7%, 27 S, 10 INT, 41 TD, or
65.7%, 21.9 APS, 59.1 API, 14.4 APT
Reliability = 58.9
Deshaun Watson:
579 attempts, 67.0%, 17 S, 17 INT, 41 TD, or
67.0%, 34.1 APS, 34.1 API, 14.1 APT
Reliability = 55.0
And lets stop there since we are running out of time, sum it up, and mention four more players. In other words, quarterbacks who we want, who had performed to rookie deal and given their teams chance to compete for the superbowl, have the following scores:
Joe Flacco =101.1
Mark Sanchez = 48.2
Cam Newton = 34.5
Andrew Luck = 96.9
Russell Wilson = 84.4
Jared Goff = 43.4
Pat Mahomes = 58.9
Deshaun Watson = 55.0
Colin Kaepernick = 61.6
Carson Wentz, Reliability = 28.5
Dak Prescott, Reliability = 57.3
Baker Mayfield, Reliability = 78.6
In other words, quarterbacks who had performed on rookie deals fall within the range of 28.5 to 101.5.
Everything outside of that is noise, wacky numbers, unreliable performance. And here is why. Here are draft quarterbacks whose Reliability score is 102 and higher, since 2008.
2008 Josh Johnson = 1722
2010 Sam Bradford = 203.4
2011 Andy Dalton = 117.6
2013 Geno Smith = 136
2014 Derek Carr = 258
2014 Jimmy Garoppolo = 116
2014 Keith Wenning = 123
2015 Marcus Mariota = 103
2016 Brandon Doughty = 138
2016 Paxton Lynch = 122
2016 Nate Sudfeld = 106
2018 Chad Kanoff = 131
2019 Dwayne Haskins = 117
2019 Gardener Minshew = 152
2019 Marcus McMaryon = 122
It's not a good list. It's not a performing list.
And here is production for Tua and Burrow:
Tua
252 attempts, 71.4%, 10 S, 3 INT, 33 TD, or
71.4 %, 25.2 APS, 84 API, 7.6 APT
Reliability = 198
Burrow
527, 76.3%, 34 S, 6 INT, 6 TD, or
76.3%, 15.5 APS, 87.8 API, 8.8 APT
Reliability = 118
They are not in a good company. They are in a company of wacky numbers.
There are always exceptions, and Tua and Burrow have posted some elite numbers, Burrow can run too so that helps. But their production is unreliable for the purposes of the draft. They have wacky numbers.
Thank you for taking the time to write this post, I will be very honest, I did not expect this response. Whether or not I agree with anything you just wrote is irrelevant in this post, just want give you some props for trying to do your own thing.
That being said, its a long ass one and there are a few things I want to comment on, and I will later on...
So how do you account for strength of schedule? Especially in college since there's such a big gap between different teams? Why only the last season?
Why is Mark Sanchez a successful draft pick in your opinion(Hasnt posted a single rating over 80 while in NY)? Is this simply based on the Jets W/L record?
Last edited: