calfoxwc Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Looking at that, I don't see how Goff is more talented than Wentz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 I had a couple (real) Cubans in Mexico (I know they were real based on my research, almost everybody sells fakes). I honestly can't tell the difference between a Cuban and any other cigar - I smoked one on the beach though which was nice. I'm sure their reputation has a mystique factor built in due to being hard to get. Kind of like Coors beer as it crept east in the 80's. That's the 1980's, Mike... Looking at that, I don't see how Goff is more talented than Wentz. Looking at that after watching all their 2015 game tape, I don't agree with those rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Looking at those alone it'd mean cardale was a top 3 QB in the draft - he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Using stats isn't the best for this type of discussion, but UGH, OK we can do that. Justin is a very good friend of mine and put a ton of work into this, please give it a read (don't just read the charts). http://draftbreakdown.com/2016-nfl-draft-breaking-down-situational-quarterback-performance/ Wentz has advantages in a few of the categories, not just above Goff, but above the rest of this QB class. Nice article... curious about the scale development and the relative weighting (or lack thereof) for the categories. Also feel there's a discountable element of collegiate QB's running that's not considered. An element that shows in 3rd Down and Red zone passing stats that won't translate to the NFL... not fully anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Looking at those alone it'd mean cardale was a top 3 QB in the draft - he's not. Gruden (or Jaws?) had an interesting take on Cardale today... "Cardale Jones is not a pro prospect. He is a pro project." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike H Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Nice article... curious about the scale development and the relative weighting (or lack thereof) for the categories. Also feel there's a discountable element of collegiate QB's running that's not considered. An element that shows in 3rd Down and Red zone passing stats that won't translate to the NFL... not fully anyway. Those are passing red zone numbers. If you added in running, it'd make Wentz even higher above the rest in that category Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Gruden (or Jaws?) had an interesting take on Cardale today... "Cardale Jones is not a pro prospect. He is a pro project." As a HC, Gruden seemed best at borrowing veteran QBs like Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson rather than drafting/training young inexperienced QBs. GB was good at training young QBs when he was there; but that also included other offensive minded coaches like Andy Reid, Mike Holmgren, and Steve Marriucci. I've never been a big fan of Jaws especially when he couldn't understand how Joe Thomas continues to make the Pro Bowl. My guess is things really changed the minute he stopped having Dick Vermeil around to translate NFL film for him and give him the week long wtf's in practice. Vermeil prolly liked him because he felt needed but at the expense of burnout from too many hours to the extreme of frequent sleeping at the office. Ryan had the mentality if a QB needed that much attention - he was replaceable. Today, I'd rather listen to Greg Cosell summarize film than the over-caffeinated Jaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Those are passing red zone numbers. If you added in running, it'd make Wentz even higher above the rest in that category Understood... poorly stated my point... As you just confirmed, the analysis was of QB passing effectiveness, not overall effectiveness. Running QBs create redzone pressure at the collegiate level that does not fully translate to the NFL because they don't run as much at the Pro level. By pulling up LBs and DBs their college running opens up passes that won't be there at the next level. Thus their running inflates their collegiate passing numbers. So I would maintain running QBs redzone passing should be discounted. How to determine the "discount"? Possibly as simply as game notes of such occurrences... The same could apply to 3rd down situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 One other Mayock musing from today: This draft's Goff/ Wentz pair will end up as good or better than 2015's Wilson/ Mariota. Here's an article with more on this... Mayock: Goff-Wentz as good, maybe better than Winston-Mariota By Dan Parr, College Football 24/7 Editor, Published: March 18, 2016 at 02:59 p.m NFL Media draft expert Mike Mayock dropped a bit of a bombshell in his analysis during NFL Network's coverage of Cal QB Jared Goff's pro day on Friday. Mayock said during a discussion with his fellow analysts that he considers the consensus top two QBs in this year's draft, Goff and North Dakota State's Carson Wentz, to be just as good and maybe even better than the top two QBs in last year's draft, Marcus Mariota and Jameis Winston. "The statement I'm going to make to you guys, and you can tell me whether you agree or not, is I'm at the point now with both Wentz and Goff where I think they're every bit as good, if not better, than Winston and Mariota from a year ago as prospects," Mayock said. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000645605/article/mayock-goffwentz-as-good-maybe-better-than-winstonmariota Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Make-Believe Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 If I saw them as close, then I would not try to draw out distinctions... I do not see them as close. I'm with Tour on this one. I don't believe it's a coin flip. There is clearly a better player here and it's Goff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 So how irate are you guys going to be when Analytics boy decides to pick somebody in the third or fourth round? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 So how irate are you guys going to be when Analytics boy decides to pick somebody in the third or fourth round? WSS As the second QB taken, after we take one at #2? Not irate whatsoever. Analytics points to taking a QB earlier rather than later. More teams have experienced more SUSTAINED success with first round QB's than QB's taken in any of the other six rounds. The common argument is "oh yeah, look at Tampa, or Baltimore, or New England". New England is really the lone exception, as both Tampa and Baltimore crashed essentially immediately after their Super Bowl runs. You don't win for long in the NFL without a QB, period. The Browns have taken the top QB exactly once since the return, and they've been the worst team in the NFL over the same span. "Analytics" (read: common sense) points to us taking a QB at #2. Everyone else using the term "analytics" to say we're not going to spend picks on valuable, highly ranked players in the draft fundamentally doesn't understand what that word means. We're not "moneyballing" the league, we're just not being fucking stupid and trying to bargain basement shop for a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Well maybe you guys have a better handle on what the fuck analytics might possibly mean. But in case I wasn't clear I'm talking about foregoing a quarterback until the third or fourth round where coach Jackson sees one he could coach up to be the next Andy Dalton WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoorta Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 I had a couple (real) Cubans in Mexico (I know they were real based on my research, almost everybody sells fakes). I honestly can't tell the difference between a Cuban and any other cigar - I smoked one on the beach though which was nice. Cuban cigars are over rated. All the quality producers hit the road after Castro took over. (If they could)- Dominican Republic. Cuban cigars tend to have a very robust flavor profile- and that's not my cup or tea (or smoke). Give me a nice mild Macanudo. Cigars consist of filler, binder and wrapper. Bet you didn't know the very best cigar wrappers are grown right here in the USA- Connecticut shade tobacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 Well maybe you guys have a better handle on what the fuck analytics might possibly mean. But in case I wasn't clear I'm talking about foregoing a quarterback until the third or fourth round where coach Jackson sees one he could coach up to be the next Andy Dalton WSS Andy Dalton was pick #35, so it would make more sense we took a guy around #32 to do that. That means Cook or Hackenberg. I was high on Cook to start the season but drastically cooled when he didn't show any sort of progression. He's as good today as he was two years ago, in my eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tour2ma Posted March 19, 2016 Report Share Posted March 19, 2016 So how irate are you guys going to be when Analytics boy decides to pick somebody in the third or fourth round? Irate? Mildly at best as I'll be more stunned, then gradually move to stupefied... Everyone else using the term "analytics" to say we're not going to spend picks on valuable, highly ranked players in the draft fundamentally doesn't understand what that word means. We're not "moneyballing" the league, we're just not being fucking stupid and trying to bargain basement shop for a QB. Even Moneyball teams spend on pitchers... well, other than the Indians they do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joedawg69 Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 I will be OK with it so long as Pittsburgh does not end up with Wentz or Goff like the year we picked Wimbley and they ended up with Rothlesburger. If I have to go through another decade of Pittsburgh domination while we have another project bust taken high I am going to go crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Using stats isn't the best for this type of discussion, but UGH, OK we can do that. Justin is a very good friend of mine and put a ton of work into this, please give it a read (don't just read the charts). http://draftbreakdown.com/2016-nfl-draft-breaking-down-situational-quarterback-performance/ Wentz has advantages in a few of the categories, not just above Goff, but above the rest of this QB class. Thanks for sharing that - great read Mike! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flugel Posted March 20, 2016 Report Share Posted March 20, 2016 Andy Dalton was pick #35, so it would make more sense we took a guy around #32 to do that. That means Cook or Hackenberg. I was high on Cook to start the season but drastically cooled when he didn't show any sort of progression. He's as good today as he was two years ago, in my eyes. Devil's advocate. It could also mean they're willing to project better football ahead from different QBs slotted later. While I agree with your point about Cook - it's important to understand he wasn't anywhere near 100% when MSU squeaked by Iowa and I'm guessing the same held true the next time he got center stage vrs Bama. I will say I don't remember seeing Michigan State having a better 3 year run than I've seen the last 3 years with Cook starting there. That could all very well be just a coincidence. Marino didn't have a very good last season at Pitt so he dropped all the way down to Don Shula's draft slot somewhere around #26 overall with quite a few QBs drafted ahead the HOF QB. Someone like Farmer wouldn't be smart enough to research more than 1 extract or understand what's caused a drop-off. Andy Dalton reminds us that a guy learning from Hue can get his arm stronger as evidenced in his 2015 season. Even before that, it wasn't like he was a bad regular season QB while Cincy has frequented playoffs since he has arrived. Yes, I know they haven't won a post season game yet but you gotta make the playoffs to have a shot at winning a playoff game. He's leading the horse to water but now the horse needs to be thirsty when it gets there. It almost was with a backup QB in 2015 but 1 late fumble and lost composure shortly thereafter reminded us nobody's Burfict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Looking at those alone it'd mean cardale was a top 3 QB in the draft - he's not. Or, maybe that is just what he will turn out to be. You never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Gruden (or Jaws?) had an interesting take on Cardale today... "Cardale Jones is not a pro prospect. He is a pro project." OK, how do you interpret that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 So how irate are you guys going to be when Analytics boy decides to pick somebody in the third or fourth round? WSS And no QB in the first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gipper Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I will be OK with it so long as Pittsburgh does not end up with Wentz or Goff like the year we picked Wimbley and they ended up with Rothlesburger. If I have to go through another decade of Pittsburgh domination while we have another project bust taken high I am going to go crazy. Ah, No. The year the Steelers took BR was the year we took K2 in the draft. Wimbley was later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 If we don't take a QB @ #2, Cook might be worth a look in a later round. He wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 If we don't take a QB @ #2, Cook might be worth a look in a later round. He wins. So did Colt McCoy. College stats mean shit all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 If we don't take a QB @ #2, Cook might be worth a look in a later round. He wins. No thanks on Cook. Would rather take one of the project guys that at least seem like they want to be leaders (Jones/Prescott/Hogan). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike H Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Cook is not appealing to me, at all, in any round. I wonder if Dak Prescott will fall because of DUI. All other accounts of his character have been very good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Couch Pulls Out Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 Cook is not appealing to me, at all, in any round. I wonder if Dak Prescott will fall because of DUI. All other accounts of his character have been very good. I've been hard in the Wentz camp (second gayest thing I've said here), but I wouldn't mind signing RG3 and drafting Dak, say, in the fourth or so. RG3 + Myles Jack (#2) + BPA EDGE/WR + Tyler Matakevich (3rd) + Joe Haeg (4th) + Dak Prescott (4th comp.) wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I've been hard in the Wentz camp (second gayest thing I've said here), but I wouldn't mind signing RG3 and drafting Dak, say, in the fourth or so. RG3 + Myles Jack (#2) + BPA EDGE/WR + Tyler Matakevich (3rd) + Joe Haeg (4th) + Dak Prescott (4th comp.) wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. I would be pretty happy with that kind of draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike H Posted March 21, 2016 Report Share Posted March 21, 2016 I dont like Matakevich as much as I did initially. I don't know what I think about Myles Jack still, have been so focused on QBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.