Poll - QB Preference (now that PR has officially retired) (merge)

[DougDew]

16 minutes ago, stitches said:

Mahomes and Watson and Allen and Lamar were not sure things either. The sure things in the draft are extremely rare and even they are not exactly 100% sure. Noone is saying there is no risk in drafting/tradin up for a QB. If we want to get a franchise QB we will need to take some risks. The question is what option is the best, when taking all available information and the full context - draft compensation, age, salary. IMO going for the QB Ballard and Reich love in the draft would be the much preferable option. Is Wentz more or less risky than Zach Wilson? I'd take Zach Wilson pretty easily actually. And I wouldn't have to pay him 35M for the next 4-5 years. 

 

Also when people say - we have other needs - LT, EDGE,CB, etc... I agree... we do. But people seem to assume that those are 100% surefire hits. No, they are not! There are studies done already and the hit rate of pretty much all positions is in the same range... your EDGE or CB drafted in the first is about as likely to hit as your QB. The difference is... the return on investment if you hit on the QB is much higher than if you hit on any other position. 

If we aren't going to take a known quantity vet QB, then I prefer to fill the vacancy with a QB that checks all of the important boxes.

 

One of them is height, which is superior to mobility.

 

So if we're talking college QBs that we don't know how they will perform in the NFL, my favorite is Jacob Eason.

 

Next would be Kyle Trask.

 

Just like the only QB I wanted last year was Herbert.  Allen over Darnold and Mayfield, 

 

Not interested in Mac Jones, Tua, Fromm, Gordon, Wilson.  We'll see how Fields and Lance measure up.  My guess is that they will fall short.

[DoubleE Colt]

2 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's true to some extent. That's why I put my qualifier there of "if this is true and if we are going to be paying this". Of course if Wentz's price is like... 3d or 4th rounder, then the calculation changes and I would absolutely take that risk. You can see my preferences from a month or two ago in this and other threads where I actually assumed a 3d-4th rounder is what it would take ... in that scenario Wentz was actually my no. 2 option from all options(still behind going for the draft, but very much a good option IMO).

How far do you think we would need to trade up to get a QB that would start for us next season out of interest? 

[The Fish]

This is like other example in following current events, why aren't people getting the nomenclature of why the Stafford/Goff trade went down the way it did. It wasn't 2 firsts just to trade multiple firsts. One of those firsts had to do with compensation for a gawd awful contract. 

 

I've seen this twice today, where pro journo's simply aren't getting it.

[stitches]

Just now, The Fish said:

So we're giving up draft capital to do this... The team has a substantial list of other needs too. 

 

Not that this is the question, but I don't see it in most of these prospects anyway.

How many of them have you watched? IMO all 4 of the top QBs in this class are actually very much worth trading up for and very much good prospects at the QB spot. I'd trade up at the very least an additional 1st for all of them and even more for some of them. 

 

This team is not getting fixed in this off-season. We will take a step back pretty much no matter who we get at QB because we don't have the resources to fix all high importance positions this off-season. But getting a franchise QB is still the most important thing you can do for your team. When you have limited resources, using some of the premier ones on QB is a no-brainer. I'd much rather get a shot at a QB through 2 1st round picks than get 2 1st round shots at a LT and DE for example. There is no competition whatsoever in my mind. There is no price high enough for getting your franchise QB. 

[The Fish]

Stolen from a JB might be the guy in 21' article on that blog no one really likes. 

Drafting a guy high is worse than a crap shoot.

 

 

2009

Matt Stafford- Very good player finishing his career in another city. Objectively did not work out for the Lions

Mark Sanchez- Mostly remembered for the “butt-fumble”.

Josh Freeman- He started a game for the Colts in 2015 and then he never played again.

2010

Sam Bradford- Made an amazing amount of money despite having a career record of 34-48-1.

Tim Tebow- Now plays baseball.

2011

Cam Newton- Went well in the beginning, 10 years later and he will not be a starting NFL QB in 2021.

Jake Locker- LOL

Blane Gabbart- LOL

Christian Ponder- LOL

2012

Andrew Luck- Oh what should have been.

Robert Griffin III- Had one good year.

Ryan Tannehill- Is a good quarterback, but not for the team that drafted him.

Brandon Weedon- LOL

2013

EJ Manuel- How did this even happen?

2014

Blake Bortles- No longer plays professional football

Johnny Manziel- I don’t think I need to say anything, do I?

Teddy Bridgewater- Had a career year in 2020 for his 3rd team, throwing for 3,733 yards, 15 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. His current team is working hard to replace him. Despite popular opinion, wasn’t “better before the injury”.

2015

Jameis Winston- Replaced by a 43-year-old quarterback who then wins a Super Bowl with essentially the same teammates Winston led to seven wins a season ago.

Marcus Mariota- Has never been good, despite being very popular.

2016

Jared Goff- Went to a Super Bowl before his team gave up an extra first-round draft pick (two total) just to get rid of him for the first guy on this list.

Carson Wentz- will likely be traded this offseason after being benched and replaced by a second-round pick.

Paxton Lynch- LOL

2017

Mitchell Trubisky- His team has been trying to replace him for two years.

Patrick Mahomes- The best quarterback in the NFL.

Deshaun Watson- Great player whose team is amazingly inept and might trade him.

2018-2020 the jury is still out but Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, and Kyler Murray might make up for Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, and Dwayne Haskins.

Just now, stitches said:

How many of them have you watched? IMO all 4 of the top QBs in this class are actually very much worth trading up for and very much good prospects at the QB spot. I'd trade up at the very least an additional 1st for all of them and even more for some of them. 

 

This team is not getting fixed in this off-season. We will take a step back pretty much no matter who we get at QB because we don't have the resources to fix all high importance positions this off-season. But getting a franchise QB is still the most important thing you can do for your team. When you have limited resources, using some of the premier ones on QB is a no-brainer. I'd much rather get a shot at a QB through 2 1st round picks than get 2 1st round shots at a LT and DE for example. There is no competition whatsoever in my mind. There is no price high enough for getting your franchise QB. 

See my post above

[PrincetonTiger]

Friendly reminder from TigerTown  

The Colts GM is Chris Ballard

[stitches]

24 minutes ago, DoubleE Colt said:

How far do you think we would need to trade up to get a QB that would start for us next season out of interest? 

Getting a QB who will start next year is not a priority for me. Getting a future franchise QB is. I am not drafting a QB for his rookie year. I'm drafting him for the next 10-15 years. Very few rookie QBs have high end performances. To me it's more important that he develops into a long-term solution than him being ready year 1. Now... when you get him, you make everything possible for him to be ready year 1, but you don't force it if he's not ready. 

 

With that said... depends on who Ballard and Reich like... I'm not exactly sure what the league thinks of Fields. From what I'm hearing Zach Wilson is actually QB2 on most teams' boards and Fields might actually fall a bit(at least that seems to be what the ESPN insiders think). So yeah... I personally woulnd't mind us trading up for any of them - Wilson, Fields, Lance... whoever B&R like and think has high chance of becoming a franchise QB, I'd be good with whatever is needed to get him. There isn't a price high enough if this guy pans out. 

 

IMO a trade to the 8-12 range would cost about an additional 1st. And trade to the top 3, might cost 2 additional firsts + some day 2 picks. I wouldn't mind it if B&R love the QB. 

[danlhart87]

6 minutes ago, stitches said:

Getting a QB who will start next year is not a priority for me. Getting a future franchise QB is. I am not drafting a QB for his rookie year. I'm drafting him for the next 10-15 years. Very few rookie QBs have high end performances. To me it's important that he develops into a long-term solution than him being ready year 1. Now... when you get him, you make everything possible for him to be ready year 1, but you don't force it if he's not ready. 

 

With that said... depends on who Ballard and Reich like... I'm not exactly sure what the league thinks of Fields. From what I'm hearing Zach Wilson is actually QB2 on most teams' boards and Fields might actually fall a bit(at least that seems to be what the ESPN insiders think). So yeah... I personally woulnd't mind us trading up for any of them - Wilson, Fields, Lance... whoever B&R like and think has high chance of becoming a franchise QB, I'd be good with whatever is needed to get him. There isn't a price high enough if this guy pans out. 

 

IMO a trade to the 8-12 range would cost about an additional 1st. And trade to the top 3, might cost 2 additional firsts + some day 2 picks. I wouldn't mind it if B&R love the QB. 

Just sit on 21 and let Jones fall into our lap 

[stitches]

14 minutes ago, DougDew said:

If we aren't going to take a known quantity vet QB, then I prefer to fill the vacancy with a QB that checks all of the important boxes.

 

 

One of them is height, which is superior to mobility.

 

So if we're talking college QBs that we don't know how they will perform in the NFL, my favorite is Jacob Eason. Next would be Kyle Trask.

 

Just like the only QB I wanted last year was Herbert.

 

Not interested in Mac Jones, Tua, Fromm, Gordon, Wilson.  We'll see how Fields and Lance measure up.

I don't care much about their height. Mahomes is 6'2", so is Watson, Wilson is even smaller. Herbert didn't succeed becuase he's tall. He succeeded because he had incredibly high success rate under pressure and outside of structure. He was actually worse when not pressured than when pressured this year. 

 

All of this year's highly ranked QBs seem to hit at least 6'2" height too. That's not small by any means for an NFL QB. 

[stitches]

16 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Stolen from a JB might be the guy in 21' article on that blog no one really likes. 

Drafting a guy high is worse than a crap shoot.

 

 

2009

Matt Stafford- Very good player finishing his career in another city. Objectively did not work out for the Lions

Mark Sanchez- Mostly remembered for the “butt-fumble”.

Josh Freeman- He started a game for the Colts in 2015 and then he never played again.

2010

Sam Bradford- Made an amazing amount of money despite having a career record of 34-48-1.

Tim Tebow- Now plays baseball.

2011

Cam Newton- Went well in the beginning, 10 years later and he will not be a starting NFL QB in 2021.

Jake Locker- LOL

Blane Gabbart- LOL

Christian Ponder- LOL

2012

Andrew Luck- Oh what should have been.

Robert Griffin III- Had one good year.

Ryan Tannehill- Is a good quarterback, but not for the team that drafted him.

Brandon Weedon- LOL

2013

EJ Manuel- How did this even happen?

2014

Blake Bortles- No longer plays professional football

Johnny Manziel- I don’t think I need to say anything, do I?

Teddy Bridgewater- Had a career year in 2020 for his 3rd team, throwing for 3,733 yards, 15 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions. His current team is working hard to replace him. Despite popular opinion, wasn’t “better before the injury”.

2015

Jameis Winston- Replaced by a 43-year-old quarterback who then wins a Super Bowl with essentially the same teammates Winston led to seven wins a season ago.

Marcus Mariota- Has never been good, despite being very popular.

2016

Jared Goff- Went to a Super Bowl before his team gave up an extra first-round draft pick (two total) just to get rid of him for the first guy on this list.

Carson Wentz- will likely be traded this offseason after being benched and replaced by a second-round pick.

Paxton Lynch- LOL

2017

Mitchell Trubisky- His team has been trying to replace him for two years.

Patrick Mahomes- The best quarterback in the NFL.

Deshaun Watson- Great player whose team is amazingly inept and might trade him.

2018-2020 the jury is still out but Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, and Kyler Murray might make up for Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, and Dwayne Haskins.

See my post above

And what is your point? A lot of the failed QBs suffered series of bad injuries, some were under horrible management and coaching... either way ... noone is saying QBs don't bust. They do. Just like LTs bust... or DEs... or WRs... or CBs... and they all bust and succeed at similar rates in the 1st round. I personally think the environment those QBs are put in has something to do with how they develop. Very few are the ones that will succeed no matter what dumpster fire you put them in(like Luck for example). I think we have good basis, good coaching and I trust Ballard to get talent on the team to help the development of the QB. I think very few highly ranked rookie QBs get as good of a situation as the Colts is now specifically for their development as QBs. That's part of why I think it's worth going up for one. 

[DougDew]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

How many of them have you watched? IMO all 4 of the top QBs in this class are actually very much worth trading up for and very much good prospects at the QB spot. I'd trade up at the very least an additional 1st for all of them and even more for some of them. 

 

This team is not getting fixed in this off-season. We will take a step back pretty much no matter who we get at QB because we don't have the resources to fix all high importance positions this off-season. But getting a franchise QB is still the most important thing you can do for your team. When you have limited resources, using some of the premier ones on QB is a no-brainer. I'd much rather get a shot at a QB through 2 1st round picks than get 2 1st round shots at a LT and DE for example. There is no competition whatsoever in my mind. There is no price high enough for getting your franchise QB. 

Most are too short.  And decision making and accuracy are hard to judge based upon how they played in college.  Huge risks with all them except Trevor, who has enough height to work with if he needs work in other areas.

[stitches]

6 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

Just sit on 21 and let Jones fall into our lap 

Jones is not the guy IMO. 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, stitches said:

I don't care much about their height. Mahomes is 6'2", so is Watson, Wilson is even smaller. Herbert didn't succeed becuase he's tall. He succeeded because he had incredibly high success rate under pressure and outside of structure. He was actually worse when not pressured than when pressured this year. 

 

All of this year's highly ranked QBs seem to hit at least 6'2" height too. That's not small by any means for an NFL QB. 

Yes, they succeed because of how they play out of structure, if that's how you want the OC to plan a game (see KC SB).  A QB that can succeed while playing in structure needs height.  6'4 minimum, IMO.  And that doesn't mean 6'3.5.  

 

The only exception is Drew Brees, but he was actually mobile coming out of college then learned how to play within structure despite being short.

 

[danlhart87]

Just now, stitches said:

Jones is not the guy IMO. 

[stitches]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Yes, they succeed because of how they play out of structure, if that's how you want the OC to plan a game (see KC SB).  A QB that can succeed while playing in structure needs height.  6'4 minimum, IMO.  And that doesn't mean 6'3.5.  

 

HARD disagree. HARD!!! This to me is incredibly arbitrary threshold to put on a QB height and I haven't seen any evidence that it means much whether you are 6'3.5 or 6'4... 

 

2 minutes ago, danlhart87 said:

I mean... if Ballard and Reich love him and get him, I can be talked into it, but I personally don't see the high end with him. 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, stitches said:

HARD disagree. HARD!!! 

I mean... if Ballard and Reich love him and get him, I can be talked into it, but I personally don't see the high end with him. 

So if a QBs success is based upon how well he plays out of structure, what kind of an OC do you want him to have?

 

Kind of conflicting priorities, isn't it?  Teach the guy the offense, practice it during the week, but throw it away come game time because he only succeeds outside of the structure of the offense.   

 

Its great to see these broken junk ball plays, but how well do each of these QBs rank in their ability to succeed within the designed offense?  That's my question.  Trevor seems to be the only sure thing.

[aaron11]

Doug really hates "junk ball"  

 

Personally Lamar is my favorite QB to watch, most entertaining 

[The Fish]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

And what is your point? 

....

[DougDew]

2 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

Doug really hates "junk ball"  

 

Personally Lamar is my favorite QB to watch, most entertaining 

Do you watch the NBA?  I can't stand the lack of structure in it.  Its horribly boring to watch.

[danlhart87]

9 minutes ago, stitches said:

HARD disagree. HARD!!! This to me is incredibly arbitrary threshold to put on a QB height and I haven't seen any evidence that it means much whether you are 6'3.5 or 6'4... 

 

I mean... if Ballard and Reich love him and get him, I can be talked into it, but I personally don't see the high end with him. 

[aaron11]

2 minutes ago, DougDew said:

Do you watch the NBA?  I can't stand the lack of structure in it.  Its horribly boring to watch.

Occasionally, I am a Pacers fan but it feels like they will never win anything 

[DougDew]

5 minutes ago, aaron11 said:

Occasionally, I am a Pacers fan but it feels like they will never win anything 

I guess I liked watching the Manning Brady games in the past.  Lots of players made plays.  The QBs were only responsible for making the good decisions and the good throws.  Both PM and TB were tall for their era.

 

Watching a QB run around and completing a pass because a defender falls down or drifts out of position just seems like random luck to me.  It takes virtually everything out of the game except athleticism.  Boring to me.

[Dingus McGirt]

1 hour ago, Chloe6124 said:

Sports is entertainment.  Just take them for what they are.  

 

Vin says panthers have now entered the talks but still believes the colts are going to get him.

VIn is an agent...

[The Fish]

9 minutes ago, DougDew said:

I guess I liked watching the Manning Brady games in the past.  Lots of players made plays.  The QBs were only responsible for making the good decisions and the good throws.  Both PM and TB were tall for their era.

 

Watching a QB run around and completing a pass because a defender falls down or drifts out of position just seems like random luck to me.  It takes virtually everything out of the game except athleticism.  Boring to me.

Weird. Watching athletes doing athletic stuff is boring? 

huh.. Isn't the Defense trying to break the design of the play as a matter of course?

[Superman]

1 hour ago, stitches said:

Also when people say - we have other needs - LT, EDGE,CB, etc... I agree... we do. But people seem to assume that those are 100% surefire hits. No, they are not! There are studies done already and the hit rate of pretty much all positions is in the same range... your EDGE or CB drafted in the first is about as likely to hit as your QB. The difference is... the return on investment if you hit on the QB is much higher than if you hit on any other position. 

 

58 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's why you trade up to get the guy you like. 

 

To the bolded, another difference is that because of the importance of getting a QB, QBs get overdrafted as teams trade up to get the guy they like. The Bears spent two thirds and a fourth to move up one spot to get Trubisky, when they could have had Mahomes or Watson. Just one example.

 

There are no surefire hits, but when you miss on the QB, it sets your team back. Especially if you've spent multiple picks moving up for him.

[Shive]

31 minutes ago, stitches said:

I mean... if Ballard and Reich love him and get him, I can be talked into it, but I personally don't see the high end with him. 

I'm in the same boat. I'm not sure what is is about Jones that I don't feel makes him a sure thing, because he played so lights out this past season. He beat Burrow in almost every important measure PFF uses in grading QB's:

 

Joe Burrow (2019) vs. Mac Jones (2020): Passing statistics

     Joe Burrow, LSU (2019)              Mac Jones, Alabama(2020)

94.9   PFF grade   95.5

94.1   PFF passing grade   94.5

10.8   Yards per attempt   11.2

140.9   Passer rating when clean 142.4

141.1   Passer rating under pressure   122.7

24.3%   Uncatchable pass % on throws 10-plus yards   18.7%

37.9%   Uncatchable pass % on tight-window throws   34.7%

 

Quote

And all of this success isn’t entirely because he has open throw after open throw. He's actually thrown into a tight window on 15.2% of his passes this season, a rate that is about four percentage points higher than Tagovailoa's last season and is nearly double that of Justin Fields (8.3%) this year. Oh, and Jones has also been the most accurate passer on tight-window throws this season — by a large margin.

The counter-point on that piece is that while he was highly rated on the times he threw to a tight window, the amount of times he threw into a tight window were absurdly low compared with Burrow's in 2019.

 

He may not have the physical tools other prospects have, but he definitely excels in the things that are generally important for an NFL QB. Somehow, I'm still not sold on him and it may just have to do with him playing on a stacked roster. I wouldn't be upset if we drafted Jones, but I'm definitely not advocating we draft him either.

[stitches]

46 minutes ago, DougDew said:

So if a QBs success is based upon how well he plays out of structure, what kind of an OC do you want him to have?

No QB can be successful long-term based solely on his play out of structure. NFL offenses are not based on plays out of structure... because... well... they are out of the structure of the offense by the very name of it. Out of structure plays are ones that happen when the structure is broken and the QB has to improvise. 

 

You have to start with fundamentals and play within structure because that's when the offense is most efficient and that's hopefully the huge majority of snaps(ideally over 80-85%). Now the best of the best(with minor exceptions) nowadays are the ones that on top of good to great execution of the planned in structure offense, can give you the extra playmaking when the play breaks down and you have to improvise and extend the play... out of structure and off platform. 

 

Quote

Kind of conflicting priorities, isn't it?  Teach the guy the offense, practice it during the week, but throw it away come game time because he only succeeds outside of the structure of the offense.   

 

Huh? No. What? I don't get this. Where do you get this? You have your offense... your structured offense with route combinations, options, progressions, preset run plays, etc. The out of structure play is largely improvisational and almost never looks the same because plays break in completely different ways and the receiving options are at different points of the field, etc.  Now there are some principles for the receivers if they see a play gets broken - for example run towards the side the QB is running to and hope he sees you streaking, etc. but for the most part the QBs job in those scenarios is to just extend the play as much as possible in order to allow the receivers to get open... to a big degree it's playmaking in chaos. Some are better than others with that, but you cannot be successful in the league if that's the only thing you are good at.

 

For example, last year people were harping on Jordan Love's out of structure play and I liked his potential there BUT... do you know that when he was in structure and not under pressure he was the second best QB in the draft behind Joe Burrow with some insane completion % and TD/INT ratio. In a weird way Love was actually having most of his troubles when pressured and when he was sped up. 

 

BTW there might be some correlation here - i.e. if the QB is great out of structure, it's possible the mental traits that help him in addition to the physical ones in those situations, also would be helpful in structure(decisionmaking).

 

 

Quote

Its great to see these broken junk ball plays, but how well do each of these QBs rank in their ability to succeed within the designed offense?  That's my question.  Trevor seems to be the only sure thing.

I think all of them are pretty good at it and all of them have potential to be even better. Wilson for example has a very natural drop back as a QB and plays with very good rhythm and layers his passes with incredible touch between lines of the defense. Fields has some great accuracy down the middle and he's shown an ability to dissect high end defenses in college. Now he does have things to work on, but who doesn't... Lance is a bit weird because at the same time he plays in the most pro-like system out of all of them with snaps under center, running tons of RPO and play actions ... but also... their offense was heavily run oriented. I personally think he did well in structure of their offense and his decision making was very good but I wonder if we get him whether we will have to rework the offense to take advantage of his running ability to utilize some designed QB runs(similar to how the Ravens use Lamar)... I still like him though... 

 

 

 

I like all of those QBs. I like them in structure(to a varying degree) and I like all of them out of structure ability. It's not just their out of structure ability that draws me to them. 

[Smoke317]

22 minutes ago, stitches said:

That's true to some extent. That's why I put my qualifier there of "if this is true and if we are going to be paying this". Of course if Wentz's price is like... 3d or 4th rounder, then the calculation changes and I would absolutely take that risk. You can see my preferences from a month or two ago in this and other threads where I actually assumed a 3d-4th rounder is what it would take ... in that scenario Wentz was actually my no. 2 option from all options(still behind going for the draft, but very much a good option IMO).

This is exactly how I feel about Wentz.  I’m not giving up much more than that.  I think Ballard is thinking the same and playing the long game.  Trubisky was taken top 5 like some of these other QB’s (Darnold, Wentz, and Goff).  We can have him without giving up draft capital.  And he’s been to the playoffs twice & was a triple doink on a 30 something yard field goal from winning a playoff game.  Ballard isn’t gonna overspend when there’s a cheaper option like Mitch out there.  

Ballard is getting to gather great intel on who else is definitely in the QB hunt.  Have to see who we may have to jump ahead of come draft time.  There’s 4 potentially special QB’s in this class.  I think you can take Lawrence, Fields, or Wilson (not as sure with Lance because of experience but he could be a surprise) and put them on a handful of teams (Colts being one of them) and be a playoff team next year.  We’ve seen Lamar do it.  We’ve seen Mayfield almost do it but didn’t get to start Day 1.  Watson, Trubisky, & Wentz all made playoffs by 2nd year.  
 

We’ve got the perfect team of veterans to put around a young rookie. Where the team leaders are the hardest workers.  Add in a great coaching staff, and you have the perfect environment for a young rookie QB.  He doesn’t have to be the hero.  The special ones find ways to thrive in that environment.  They have the talent combined with football character to lead older more experienced men than themselves.  

That doesn’t mean they can’t bust or not reach their potential if put in bad organizations.  But if put in the right ones, just plug them in and watch them shine.  I for sure see that kind of player in Lawrence and Fields.  Wilson and Lance are more wild cards in that sense because we haven’t seen them have the same sustained success as the other two.  But they could actually be more talented/dynamic than the other two in certain aspects.  Ballard shouldn’t miss out on the opportunity to grab one of these guys by overspending on a retread.  Keep playing the long game Ballard.
 

 

[DougDew]

13 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Weird. Watching athletes doing athletic stuff is boring? 

huh.. Isn't the Defense trying to break the design of the play as a matter of course?

More variety makes for less boring.  The ball handlers should be athletic.  A QBs job is to make good decisions and to make good throws.  Let the athletes compete.  HAve the QBs do what they do.  More variety means more ways to enjoy the game.  IOW not as boring.

 

Boxing has stragegy, despite it being a constant physical battle.  The set ups, the resting and coasting, the pacing, the flurry; all make for an entertaining match.

 

Anyway, just saying what I think is important in an NFL QB provided that OCs have a designated structure they want everybody to play under:

 

Decision Making

Accuracy

Arm talent including strength and touch when appropriate

Pocket Presence/ peripheral vision/feel

Height

Weight

Mobility

 

If you draft a short mobile QB, and change the offense to a roll out/bootleg based structure, then mobility rises in importance and height diminishes.  We have a pocket based offense, AFAIK.

 

If we're going to love college QBs based upon mobility/out of structure plays, I think we are missing most of the important things that matter.

[stitches]

2 minutes ago, Shive said:

I'm in the same boat. I'm not sure what is is about Jones that I don't feel makes him a sure thing, because he played so lights out this past season. He beat Burrow in almost every important measure PFF uses in grading QB's:

 

Joe Burrow (2019) vs. Mac Jones (2020): Passing statistics

     Joe Burrow, LSU (2019)              Mac Jones, Alabama(2020)

94.9   PFF grade   95.5

94.1   PFF passing grade   94.5

10.8   Yards per attempt   11.2

140.9   Passer rating when clean 142.4

141.1   Passer rating under pressure   122.7

24.3%   Uncatchable pass % on throws 10-plus yards   18.7%

37.9%   Uncatchable pass % on tight-window throws   34.7%

 

The counter-point on that piece is that while he was highly rated on the times he threw to a tight window, the amount of times he threw into a tight window were absurdly low compared with Burrow's in 2019.

 

He may not have the physical tools other prospects have, but he definitely excels in the things that are generally important for an NFL QB. Somehow, I'm still not sold on him and it may just have to do with him playing on a stacked roster. I wouldn't be upset if we drafted Jones, but I'm definitely not advocating we draft him either.

Those are interesting to look at but don't tell the whole story and the difference in the offense they are running. A lot of Mac Jones' production is him hitting open receivers short and relying on them to make a big play. Now Burrow had his own great set of receivers but IMO Burrow's offense and how he was succeeding was much closer to what translates to the NFL than what Alabama was doing to help Mac Jones. I read some stat that Mac Jones had 40 tight window throws for the entire season, while Burrow had 120 or something of the sort and a lot of them were on the run. There are reasons why one was considered no. 1 pick and the other one might or night not get drafted in the 1st. It's not all about stats, there are traits where Burrow was MUCH better. 

[DattMavis]

I think it’s very telling that Ballard recently said that we aren’t in our Super Bowl window yet. He feels like we are going to be good for a long time. I could see him being willing to draft a QB that might not be a stud for a year or two. I’m fine with him drafting if he’s confident.

[Restinpeacesweetchloe]

Another rumor by a random guy lol.

 

 

[danlhart87]

1 minute ago, Chloe6124 said:

Another rumor by a random guy lol.

 

 

I'm calling nonsense

Chris isn't gonna up his offer 

 

[The Fish]

4 minutes ago, DougDew said:

More variety makes for less boring.  The ball handlers should be athletic.  A QBs job is to make good decisions and to make good throws.  Let the athletes compete.  HAve the QBs do what they do.  More variety means more ways to enjoy the game.  IOW not as boring.

 

Boxing has stragegy, despite it being a constant physical battle.  The set ups, the resting and coasting, the pacing, the flurry; all make for an entertaining match.

 

Anyway, just saying what I think is important in an NFL QB provided that OCs have a designated structure they want everybody to play under:

 

Decision Making

Accuracy

Arm talent including strength and touch when appropriate

Pocket Presence/ peripheral vision/feel

Height

Weight

Mobility

 

Unless you draft a short mobile QB, and change the offense to a roll out/bootleg based structure, then mobility rises in importance and height diminishes.  We have a pocket based offense, AFAIK.

 

If we're going to love college QBs based upon mobility/out of structure plays, I think we are missing most of the important things that matter.

Well, if the point is that mobility is nice but overvalued in relation to accuracy, arm strength, mechanics with that delivery, intelligence, leadership intangibles ect, totally agree. 

But guys who can make chicken salad, when plays break down have a fun to watch skill- sorry, but watching a guy like Russell Wilson make it happen despite his crap O-line, for example, fun to watch for my buck.

[John Waylon]

6 minutes ago, Chloe6124 said:

Another rumor by a random guy lol.

 

 

 

Ballard made a fair offer that he was comfortable with. If that doesn’t work he’s going to move to whatever the next option is. He’s too pragmatic to do something stupid like overpay for a trade just for the sake of making the trade. 

[DougDew]

8 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Well, if the point is that mobility is nice but overvalued in relation to accuracy, arm strength, mechanics with that delivery, intelligence, leadership intangibles ect, totally agree. 

But guys who can make chicken salad, when plays break down have a fun to watch skill- sorry, but watching a guy like Russell Wilson make it happen despite his crap O-line, for example, fun to watch for my buck.

Yes, that's what I was saying upstream.  We were talking about the risks in college QBs.  I was saying that I prefer Jacob Eason, Herbert, Trevor, Trask because of their height over their mobility as a great starting point to then evaluate the other things.

 

It seemed like many were pointing to others' mobility as a starting point to then evaluate other things. 

 

I simply meant between height and mobility (both being down the list) I think height is more important.  Mobility is down the list, IMO.

[Shive]

15 minutes ago, stitches said:

Those are interesting to look at but don't tell the whole story and the difference in the offense they are running. A lot of Mac Jones' production is him hitting open receivers short and relying on them to make a big play. Now Burrow had his own great set of receivers but IMO Burrow's offense and how he was succeeding was much closer to what translates to the NFL than what Alabama was doing to help Mac Jones. I read some stat that Mac Jones had 40 tight window throws for the entire season, while Burrow had 120 or something of the sort and a lot of them were on the run. There are reasons why one was considered no. 1 pick and the other one might or night not get drafted in the 1st. It's not all about stats, there are traits where Burrow was MUCH better. 

That's the exact stat I was referencing in the counterpoint. I absolutely agree with this and I think Jones may be statistically the better college QB between him and Burrow, but I don't think Jones is going to have anywhere near the success in the NFL.

[stitches]

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

 

 

To the bolded, another difference is that because of the importance of getting a QB, QBs get overdrafted as teams trade up to get the guy they like. The Bears spent two thirds and a fourth to move up one spot to get Trubisky, when they could have had Mahomes or Watson. Just one example.

True. But also, it's worth it. 

 

25 minutes ago, Superman said:

There are no surefire hits, but when you miss on the QB, it sets your team back. Especially if you've spent multiple picks moving up for him.

It sets you back but missing on DEs or CBs sets you back too. Just like Missing on all those second and third round CBs and DEs Ballard has taken has put us in a position now that we have no starting caliber DE or outside CB under contract for next year. 

[danlhart87]

 

 

It's hard having a double life 

 

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, zibby43 said:

I’m confused as to what the standard is for posting then.

 

The Luck speculation threads were shut down as rumors with no reliable sources.  So as far as who cares, I guess some of the other mods?

 

Those threads were certainly entertaining. And they were nuked from orbit.

 

I’m not saying nuke this thread, but it’s pretty easy to sort a good source from a bad one.

 

Otherwise I may as well start tweeting my own Pepe Silvia theories and posting them here.

 

I don't think this is particularly confusing. 

 

Someone faked a rumor about Luck and the Colts, used fake messages to promote it, and it was obviously nonsense from the start.

 

In the case, Wentz is clearly on the market, there's legitimate reporting to support that, and in between, there's a lot of noise. It's not a fake story, it's a real story with some nonsense to be sorted through.

 

We shut down rumors based on fake information. It's in the rules.