Pats QB Options

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
"Screwing your direct competitor" is not always at the expense of your own best interest. If you can get a "pretty good deal" from a non-competitor, or a better deal from a direct competitor but that makes their team better, there is logic in "screwing the other team". Not always, but sometimes.

And there are definitely emotions, with GM's and owners. Maybe not as much as we sometimes think, but emotions are always 9or at least often) at play.

Isn't there talk that BB took a little less when he traded away JG, because he wanted JG to end up somewhere with potential? What drives the difference between "dumb emotional decision" and "intangible decision that isn't all about the short term zero-sum balance"?
The BB took less for Jimmy G story was always dubious at best, and mostly paired with the "Bill wanted to trade Tom and Kraft forced him to trade JG" conspiracy, it's pure conspiracy that flies counter to every move BB has made in the past.
Good GMs don't care, nor should they, there are basically no such thing as "direct competitors" in the NFL, intra division trades happen all the time because smart GMs know that you take every single ounce of value you can get. Divisions don't matter in the WC era, what does matter is the marginal value to your team you left on the table, which now means you lost an intra-conference playoff game because you were worried about someone else's team instead of your own.
 

Beomoose

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
18,340
Wherabouts Unknown
No it isn't a great situation at all. With all the uncertainly, maybe having a couple extra bites at the QB apple makes sense. At least this is one QB they won't have to use extra draft capital to trade up for. If they do go QB and it doesn't work out, they'll still have the same problem and may have to pay extra draft capital for the privilege of rolling the dice again.
Isn't ATL's situation exactly what lower-round QB picks are for, though? If Newman is our only QB pick and he busts, we haven't hurt our drafting ability much but we're pretty fucked (unless Cam rebounds incredibly). While they have #2 under center the Falcons aren't going to be burned as badly by a bust, but If ATL grabs some weapons for Ryan earlier in the draft and then grab Newman later they're better positioned short and long term even before they find out whether the kid is going to hit or miss.
 

EvilEmpire

paying for his sins
Staff member
Dope
Gold Supporter
Apr 9, 2007
12,610
Washington
Isn't ATL's situation exactly what lower-round QB picks are for, though?
Ideally, yes. If you can find someone who you think could be really good deeper into the draft, then that is the play to make. Trade down or take Pitts, or ideally, trade down and take Pitts.

We just don't know how the QBs are racked and stacked on all these draft boards, or how teams assess how big the differences in quality are between them. If Atlanta has Lance or Fields or Mac as the #2 QB on their board or maybe a close #3 right behind Wilson, well, I think that pick falling into your lap is big opportunity to pass up even though the timing isn't the best.

The different valuations of Wilson/Lance/Fields/Jones among the pundits and fans is a really interesting aspect to this draft that I don't think we'll see again for a while. And while each has different strengths and weaknesses, I'm not sure the overall difference in quality between them all is very big either.

It's going to be a fun draft.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
Look at the numbers. This guy is literally Calvin Johnson levels of big and fast and has the biggest wingspan of a condor.

You think you’re irrationally high on Pitts? I think he’s the second best player in the draft and might end up having a better career than Lawrence.
I was the one that said that, but yeah, can you imagine what the Falcons could do with Pitts lining up in the slot between Jones and Ridley? That's an arial circus waiting to happen. And having Pitts makes it a whole lot easier to develop a successor to Ryan.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,743
CT
I was the one that said that, but yeah, can you imagine what the Falcons could do with Pitts lining up in the slot between Jones and Ridley? That's an arial circus waiting to happen. And having Pitts makes it a whole lot easier to develop a successor to Ryan.
Problem is the Falcons aren’t one player away from being good again. Which is why they’re trying to trade down.
 

67YAZ

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2000
3,392
Problem is the Falcons aren’t one player away from being good again. Which is why they’re trying to trade down.
It might only take Julio, Ridley, & Pitts 2 seconds to get open, but can Ryan stay upright that long?
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
With Jones, Ridley, and Pitts running routes? Opponents will need to keep seven guys in the secondary. I think even Matty Ice can stay upright against that pass rush.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,310
Richmond, VA
I mean, the Falcons literally made a trade with the Patriots on 10/22/19 (Sanu). They play in the opposite conference, play each other a bit more than every 4 years, & don't have any history of bad blood between the organizations that I'm aware of. If the Patriots make the best offer of picks, I couldn't imagine the Falcons saying naw, we'll go with this lesser offer. It's cool.

The Broncos beat the Falcons in SB XXXIII. Should they be off the table? There was a big brouhaha about the Elway/Elder Shanny coup of Dan Reeves & clearly the Broncos tricked Eugene Robinson into offering an undercover cop $40 for oral sex (I hope this last bit made it obvious that I'm messing around to exaggerate a point).

I do understand a bit why certain rivals make less trades - either due to mutual distrust or personality conflicts or one side's refusal to engage or what have you. The Yankees/Red Sox & Jets/Patriots are examples of franchises that rarely make deals with each other. I think as sports becomes more modernized and front offices get smarter as a whole over time, this decreases though (see e.g. the Ottavino trade).

The not trading within your division concept makes more sense to me than the "not trading with a team you blew a SB against concept" though. Although apparently Arthur Blank was angry at Kraft over putting 283 diamonds in the SB rings :eek:
The BB took less for Jimmy G story was always dubious at best, and mostly paired with the "Bill wanted to trade Tom and Kraft forced him to trade JG" conspiracy, it's pure conspiracy that flies counter to every move BB has made in the past.
Good GMs don't care, nor should they, there are basically no such thing as "direct competitors" in the NFL, intra division trades happen all the time because smart GMs know that you take every single ounce of value you can get. Divisions don't matter in the WC era, what does matter is the marginal value to your team you left on the table, which now means you lost an intra-conference playoff game because you were worried about someone else's team instead of your own.
Both of you are saying basically that sometimes teams trade with rivals and inter conference foes. But they also don’t, sometimes. As we’ve all seen, sometimes people in the NFL can be petty, emotional, and self-defeating. Not always, but sometimes.
And I disagree that there’s no difference between conference foes and ‘any other team’. What matter is it the marginal value, but the differential value.
If you take a little bit less in a trade, because the alternative was a little more but also a notable benefit to a team you play twice a year and also who you are competing with directly for a playoff spot, it’s nkt clear-cut. It’s a cost-benefit analysis to be sure, but it’s subjective.
you’re balancing your specific return, and that value to your winning, v your direct mathematical rival (for a playoff spot) and how much benefit it might give them. If you take a slightly lower draft pick or slightly lower position player in a trade, but it means your division rival needs to pay more (in salary or draft picks or players) to fill a need, it might very rationally be worth it.
I’d be shocked if someone like BB didn’t assess things in that fashion.
I’m not saying he would never trade within the division, I’m saying he definitely processes the value differently within his division v
outside of it.
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,771
Bay Area
I wonder if the Pats would consider a QB double-dip. There aren't a ton of roster spots, but it's possible a rookie QB could beat out Stidham for a backup job. So they'd have a better use of a roster spot and double their chance of drafting their QB of the future.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
21,075
A Scud Away from Hell
Here's another (possibly terrible) take. Are we sure Carolina won't take Trey Lance if he fell to them at #8?

They're shopping Bridgewater. Darnold has a fifth year option in 2022 for almost $19m. If the former Jet plays well, they can trade him for a better return with Lance waiting in the wings. If not, the Panthers can simply let him go and still have the then-2nd year QB. Since Lance had a rather short collegiate career (only 318 attempts in 18 games played over 3 years), it may be a better move to sit him for a year anyway.

If Carolina does not draft a QB and can't get Darnold to play well (very possible) then they are right back in a tanking mode. While the chances are small, as they have a ton of holes to fill, I don't think it's out of question that they don't draft a QB.
 

sodenj5

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
4,743
CT
Here's another (possibly terrible) take. Are we sure Carolina won't take Trey Lance if he fell to them at #8?

They're shopping Bridgewater. Darnold has a fifth year option in 2022 for almost $19m. If the former Jet plays well, they can trade him for a better return with Lance waiting in the wings. If not, the Panthers can simply let him go and still have the then-2nd year QB. Since Lance had a rather short collegiate career (only 318 attempts in 18 games played over 3 years), it may be a better move to sit him for a year anyway.

If Carolina does not draft a QB and can't get Darnold to play well (very possible) then they are right back in a tanking mode. While the chances are small, as they have a ton of holes to fill, I don't think it's out of question that they don't draft a QB.
I don’t think it’s a terrible take. I think they may have viewed trading up to 4 as cost prohibitive, but if Fields or Lance or whoever they were considering falls to them, that’s a win-win. Certainly not out of the realm of possibility.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
509
Here's another (possibly terrible) take. Are we sure Carolina won't take Trey Lance if he fell to them at #8?

They're shopping Bridgewater. Darnold has a fifth year option in 2022 for almost $19m. If the former Jet plays well, they can trade him for a better return with Lance waiting in the wings. If not, the Panthers can simply let him go and still have the then-2nd year QB. Since Lance had a rather short collegiate career (only 318 attempts in 18 games played over 3 years), it may be a better move to sit him for a year anyway.

If Carolina does not draft a QB and can't get Darnold to play well (very possible) then they are right back in a tanking mode. While the chances are small, as they have a ton of holes to fill, I don't think it's out of question that they don't draft a QB.
Agree. I think that they're in the same boat as the Lions where they are somewhat tied to a QB for 2 years who may or may not do any good in their new environment.

It's too bad the Bengals haven't figured out how phones work yet.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
I wonder if the Pats would consider a QB double-dip. There aren't a ton of roster spots, but it's possible a rookie QB could beat out Stidham for a backup job. So they'd have a better use of a roster spot and double their chance of drafting their QB of the future.
Anything is possible, but Cam is going to be on the roster no matter what. If they draft a QB then I would expect Stid will end up on the practice squad, no one is going to claim him to their active roster based on what he has shown. And it doesn't seem likely that the Pats will carry 3 QBs on the active roster.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,034
Philadelphia
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
 

SeoulSoxFan

I Want to Hit the World with Rocket Punch
Dope
Jun 27, 2006
21,075
A Scud Away from Hell
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
Just for comparison, Darnold threw 846 passes over 2 years (not counting the redshirt freshman year). Fields attempted 618 total (Georgia & OSU). Lawrence 758, Zach Wilson 566, and Mac Jones 556 passes.

We don't need something like Mahomes' whopping 1,349 attempts to evaluate a player but 318 passes (at North Dakota State, no less) certainly adds to the risk factor.

P. S. Then again, scouts saw 1,170 passes that Josh Rosen threw and he still went 10th overall.
 

bsj

Renegade Crazed Genius
SoSH Member
Dec 6, 2003
20,705
Central NJ SoSH Chapter
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
I think there is a lot to what you are saying....and i LIKE Lance. A lot. I would take him at 15. I don't know that I would take him in the top 5 tho..
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
35,582
Hartford, CT
The idea that Lance may go ahead of Fields in the top ten of the NFL draft is tough for my to wrap my head around.

I’d be really concerned with investing multiple future high picks to move up to take him over a guy like Fields.
 

brendan f

lurker
Jan 13, 2019
21
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
Fair point. In fact, he didn't play quarterback until middle school and wasn't considered a quarterback prospect by most schools. He wanted to play at Minnesota, but they wanted him to play cornerback. And as a quarterback, he essentially has one year of dominant play in a not so great conference and nothing else. That being said, he essentially couldn't have played any better than he did. All of this makes him a fascinating prospect.

I think being able to wait a round and take Mond makes more sense. I predict this is what they will do.
 

MainerInExile

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Nov 21, 2003
4,771
Bay Area
Anything is possible, but Cam is going to be on the roster no matter what. If they draft a QB then I would expect Stid will end up on the practice squad, no one is going to claim him to their active roster based on what he has shown. And it doesn't seem likely that the Pats will carry 3 QBs on the active roster.
I was assuming they will carry 3. 2 is a big risk when one is Cam and one is a rookie. Adding a second rookie makes it more likely one of them is competent when Cam goes down for a couple of games.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,251
Mansfield MA
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
He sat as a true freshman too, so if he sits an NFL year, it will be one season + one game played out of four seasons.

The plus side with Lance is you hear nothing but A+ evaluations of his off-field, his whiteboard acumen, his understanding of the game, etc. NDSU runs a complex offense with more NFL-type concepts than most (Lance in a third of the the dropbacks of these guys still has far more under-center reps), they put a lot on the QB in terms of protections / audibles / adjustments / etc. Lance still might benefit from a year sitting to refine his mechanics without the pressure of gameday reps, but mentally his adjustment is probably going to smaller than the other top prospects.
 

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
10,915
I was assuming they will carry 3. 2 is a big risk when one is Cam and one is a rookie. Adding a second rookie makes it more likely one of them is competent when Cam goes down for a couple of games.
I'm thinking two on the active roster and one on the PS. This team isn't going to have 3 QBs worth burning a roster spot on, and that extra slot would be better spent on another player (they currently have 10 draft picks).
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
Does it matter, at all, that Wentz also went to NDSU? I know that he has had some ups and downs as a pro, but it can't hurt that they played in the same system, right?
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
I'm thinking two on the active roster and one on the PS. This team isn't going to have 3 QBs worth burning a roster spot on, and that extra slot would be better spent on another player (they currently have 10 draft picks).
Exactly that's what I'm thinking - with Stid on the PS.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
19,034
Philadelphia
I think there is a lot to what you are saying....and i LIKE Lance. A lot. I would take him at 15. I don't know that I would take him in the top 5 tho..
Yup. I am not a QB evaluator but that is basically my take too just thinking about those risk factors.

Its very hard for me to imagine that, given all those things, a team like ATL is actually serious about taking Lance at #4. Even putting aside all the issues that have been debated regarding Ryan in this thread, they have a new GM and he is going to gamble his whole career on a guy with that kind of thin resume for whom the plan will involve not actually playing meaningful competitive football for 2.5 years right smack in the middle of the most important physical and mental development period (age-wise) of an athlete? Good luck with that I guess.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
27,095
Hingham, MA
Am I nuts for thinking if we have 3 QBs on roster it would be Cam, a rookie, and....a cheap vet like Hoyer?

I dont see what value Stidham brings to the equation if we choose to draft a rookie.
Difference in salary between Stid and Hoyer is still huge. Plus not sure if Hoyer has PS eligibility. They don't want to guarantee a vet's salary.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
509
Idk, only QB ever drafted from NDSU is a Pro Bowler, & the only NDSU player the Patriots ever drafted was a 3-time Pro Bowler. Sounds like elite pedigree to me.
 

brendan f

lurker
Jan 13, 2019
21
I dont see what value Stidham brings to the equation if we choose to draft a rookie.
I think most people are undervaluing Stidham going into this season. It's unclear what happened with him last year but he has shown promise. I thought Kraft's recent comments were interesting but especially that he felt Stidham deserved more of a chance last year. Drafting two quarterbacks only makes sense if you think Stidham is garbage. I don't think he is.
Middle school? Are we holding it against a guy that he was behind as a 10 year old now?
Haha. No, obliviously not. Just more to highlight his lack of qb experience overall. He just doesn't have a large sample size at any level.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
20,794
I think most people are undervaluing Stidham going into this season. It's unclear what happened with him last year but he has shown promise. I thought Kraft's recent comments were interesting but especially that he felt Stidham deserved more of a chance last year. Drafting two quarterbacks only makes sense if you think Stidham is garbage. I don't think he is.
Has he shown promise? I mean, what are we basing that on. He's only attempted 48 passes, a limited sample for sure, but in those passes he was absolute dogshit terrible. Away from performance, the choice to make him QB3 behind the very very washed Hoyer, and not starting the game Cam was out for, was pretty telling about how his camp and practice performances were viewed.

Stidham hasn't shown promise, he's shown exactly what most 1st contract washouts show.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
43,943
I think most people are undervaluing Stidham going into this season. It's unclear what happened with him last year but he has shown promise.
I don't think it was unclear at all. His camp wasn't good, and after he got injured the team had to decide to on a starter because there simply wasn't enough time to wait for Sitdham to heal and then see if his camp performance improved.
 

brendan f

lurker
Jan 13, 2019
21
Stidham hasn't shown promise, he's shown exactly what most 1st contract washouts show.
I'm talking about preseason. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he beat out Hoyer his rookie year. Yes, he lost out to him last year and I admit that's not a good showing. But it takes time to learn a system, especially as one as complicated as the Patriots. It wasn't long ago that he was viewed as the most likely starter for them last year.

My point is I think there is a wide variance out what Stidham could do this year. Most people seem to think he is dead and gone, but there is still a chance he could be the back-up and a long shot chance he could be the starter (I admit, that's a very long shot). Either way, I see it as a make or break year for him. I think it's borderline crazy to draft two guys and put him on the practice squad. If they think he's bad, they'll cut him and move on.
I don't think it was unclear at all. His camp wasn't good, and after he got injured the team had to decide to on a starter because there simply wasn't enough time to wait for Sitdham to heal and then see if his camp performance improved.
Right, but it remains unclear why he didn't get a chance later in the season. Maybe Belichick thinks he's crap, but it's clear Kraft doesn't think so (for whatever that's worth).
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
68,508
Oregon
Maybe Belichick thinks he's crap, but it's clear Kraft doesn't think so (for whatever that's worth).
If Kraft's opinion of quarterbacks was a deciding factor, there wouldn't be a hole at QB at the moment
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
5,624
New York City
The more I think about it the more I wonder whether people are really underestimating the level of risk with Lance. This is a guy who threw like 300 passes above the high school level, against poor competition. Now if you sit him his rookie year he’ll end up going through about a 2.5 year period from age 19 to 22 in which he basically didn’t play in competitive football games at all. And he plays a position in which instinctual mental processing and muscle memory is at the heart of everything.
I agree that this is somewhat of a concern, although it didn't stop the Pats from taking Matt Cassell who had a grand total of 33 pass attempts his entire college career. It's certainly not apples to apples since Cassell was a seventh-round pick and never someone who stood much of a chance of being an NFL star, but he played well enough on the Pats to suggest that a lack of pass attempts/game experience standing alone isn't a reason to think a QB can't succeed in the NFL. (Brady obviously had more experience, but still effectively only 2 years of "starter" experience when the Pats drafted him.)

I think I'm with @bsj insofar as I don't know if the risk that Lance is a bust (or even just mediocre) is sufficiently low to justify whatever it would take to trade up to #4. It's a closer question as to whether the Pats should trade up to 8 if Lance is still there, and would depend on the asking price. Chances are he is taken in the top 4 and that becomes a moot question, though.
 

BusRaker

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 11, 2006
963
You mean the part where he says "I trusted Bill to make the final decision as he's more capable than I am."?
Sorry should have put the quote in the post. I take it to mean he would have stuck with Bledsoe and Brady could be owner/manager/player of the Expos right now. And we would have drafting a quarterback somewhere around 2005/6, potentially Alex Smith or VInce Young and could still likely have a hole at quarterback.

"I went and met with Bill, and Bill explained to me his thinking. I mean, I could have stepped in especially at that time. I had deep discussions with Bill. I was bothered, but I trusted Bill to make the final decision as he's more capable than I am. Although, emotionally it was very difficult."
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
509
I think there's a bit too much discussion of the bust chances of someone like Lance & not as much of an exploration of the upside chances & the entire bell curve.

Trey Lance's ceiling is like 2nd best QB in the NFL. Does he get there often? Of course not, but his combination of size, speed, arm strength, footwork & intelligence at 20 y/o is really rare.

The acceptable bust risk on someone with that upside is really high for me. I don't think he busts very often either, though.

I think Fields has a higher bust risk than Lance & a lower upside, but still think he probably has a better career than Lance about half the time & would be excited for either.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
I think Fields has a higher bust risk than Lance & a lower upside, but still think he probably has a better career than Lance about half the time & would be excited for either.
Really? I like Fields more, but I trust your eye for FB more, so I have to be wrong about that. I know you watch football the way I do hoops.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
509
Really? I like Fields more, but I trust your eye for FB more, so I have to be wrong about that. I know you watch football the way I do hoops.
No need to defer to my opinion.

Most people like Fields more & they could certainly be right. I just see some things in Lance that make me feel like he understands the game at a higher level than Fields.
 

nighthob

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
10,064
That's exactly where I trust you more, I've made the exact same observation about college basketball players before. It's one reason I have Scottie Barnes over Jonathan Kuminga for the 2021 NBA draft. If I trusted Barnes as a shooter more I'd have him #2 on my board. As it is when I do my final eval I think he'll overtake Jalen Green for #3.
 

JM3

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 14, 2019
509
That's exactly where I trust you more, I've made the exact same observation about college basketball players before. It's one reason I have Scottie Barnes over Jonathan Kuminga for the 2021 NBA draft. If I trusted Barnes as a shooter more I'd have him #2 on my board. As it is when I do my final eval I think he'll overtake Jalen Green for #3.
Plus Barnes isn't related to Emmanuel Mudiay lol.

But in all seriousness, I would trust people like SMU/professional experts more than me. I have a pretty decent track record for correctness in various places, but I don't get to watch nearly as much as I would like & don't have the time to put in the work to be able to provide that high level analysis.

My main point was just to look at a range of outcomes & not just bust rates to determine the potential value of a pick because it is such an inexact science.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
4,921
around the way
Plus Barnes isn't related to Emmanuel Mudiay lol.

But in all seriousness, I would trust people like SMU/professional experts more than me. I have a pretty decent track record for correctness in various places, but I don't get to watch nearly as much as I would like & don't have the time to put in the work to be able to provide that high level analysis.

My main point was just to look at a range of outcomes & not just bust rates to determine the potential value of a pick because it is such an inexact science.
It's a great point about ranges of outcomes. But it's understandable why people are focused on bust potential. You draft a career clipboard guy in the 3rd round, BFD. Whiff on a first rounder, and it's a huge missed opportunity. Nobody wants to draft backups or busts on day 1.
 

Beomoose

Member
SoSH Member
May 28, 2006
18,340
Wherabouts Unknown
No need to defer to my opinion.

Most people like Fields more & they could certainly be right. I just see some things in Lance that make me feel like he understands the game at a higher level than Fields.
I've seen comments like this a lot, and NDSU linebackers coach Randy Hedberg said that Lance called out all of the protections for his offensive line, even calling plays for the offense occasionally. That sort of data really speaks to me, which is why I lean Lance between the two right now. Not so long ago, I was hoping Lance would fall into our laps at 15 (and dreaming of trading up to 5-10 range for Fields), but I think now I'm increasingly of the "Just go get him, Bill" persuasion.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
6,996
Dallas
Trey Lance and Justin Fields have similar ceilings: sky high. They are both true dual-threats with cannons for arms. Lance has accuracy issues whereas Fields sometimes takes too long to launch it (see-it throw-it). If you watch his second Clemson game this year you get the best of Fields. Fields cannon and accuracy will mitigate any slow decision making he has. Lance is taught to progress the opposite way as most QBs do from the FB to then the WR. With Lance he isn’t always as traditionally aggressive as you want but like Fields he hardly ever makes a turnover worthy throw.
Some like Lance more. Some like Fields more. I have more questions on if Lance can fix his accuracy vs Fields speeding things up but I’d be thrilled with both.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.