Number 44

10-7.

2 hours ago, RandyHolt said:

Don't overthink it. And dont force it. It's JD, Jayden, Daniels, or Jayden Daniels. Until teammates reveal his nickname.

8 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Alright. Tell me which game you want me to watch that’s going to showcase how well he plays under pressure.

Watch what you want.  Alabama would probably be a good one.  First rounder Turner and second rounder Braswell.  I'd gues there's a good chance there may have been some pressure applied by that defense.

3 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Yeah, but the reason he wasn’t pressured very much is because his offensive line was good. It’s not like he’s some super magical quarterback that keeps the defenders at bay with his aura. If Daniels was the starting quarterback behind our offensive line last year, he would have been pressured a lot and from what we’ve seen when he has been pressured, he takes a lot of sacks. 

89 pressures for the whole season.  LSU had a good O line.  Not great.  Daniels is an athletic QB that reads plays well, moves well, and makes good decisions.  No magical powers involved.

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

You said that it was silly to imply that all of JD's sacks were his fault. Who said they were? That's implying that anyone was saying they were all his fault, when nobody did.

 

And good god, what is it with you and the raw sack numbers? It is not the sack numbers. I don't care about the sack numbers. It's the amount of times he was sacked relative to those sack numbers and pressures. I honestly don't understand how many more times I have to say that before it sinks in, but it seems it just isn't. You're either intentionally being obtuse in order to push your view on Daniels or you're just genuinely being obtuse. You don't seem like a dumb guy so I'm going to assume the first. In which case the debate is irrelevant at this point.

 

And your claim that the high PTS ratio is "mitigated" is based on nothing but your belief that Daniels has some sort of mystical pressure avoidance that nobody else does.

For crying out loud.  I was stressing the point that of his 22 sacks, which is not a huge number to begin with, it is pretty much certain that a good share of those weren't his fault.  I never said that you said they were.  

The raw sack numbers are certainly important, whether you want to care about them or not.  It was odd to me for folks to be so worried about sacks for a guy that wasn't sacked all that often.  

His number of pressures are obviously a lot lower that other QBs.  That isn't mythical.  You want to go on the 24% STP ratio and ignore the raw numbers.  Suit yourself.  I think taking everything into consideration is the way to go.

2 minutes ago, mistertim said:

 

I'm not paranoid, I just don't like disingenuous arguments, and you've been chock full of them so far. Implying that anyone is saying that all of JD's sacks were his fault is a lie and just dumb because nobody said it. Which you know.

 

And I don't see the point in much more of this back and forth because you're literally just ignoring points and repeating the same stuff. The sack number isn't relevant. The ratio of pressures to sacks is. But you keep harping on the sack numbers. 

 

And no, Daniels doesn't have the propensity to throw the ball up for grabs to avoid sacks or pressure. He doesn't have the propensity to throw the ball when pressured. He has the propensity for often running as soon as he gets pressured. So um, yeah, that would make sense with regards to interceptions.

I implied nothing.  You continue to assert that sacks are a concern with Daniels.  I was showing that he doesn't have a big number to begin with, and that it is very likely that a good number of his sacks were through no fault of his own.  You claim to agree, yet, somehow, you continue your assertion.  The player's frame is a concern, and for all I know, the Commanders brain-trust may well eliminate the player based on that alone.  But sacks certainly don't concern me as far as Daniels is concerned, and I really doubt is Peters and company are concerned about his sacks, either.  The tape gives no reason to worry about sacks, the seemingly high STP ratio seems mitigated once analyzed, and the raw sack and pressure stats are good.  It does seem odd to me to argue that sacks are a problem for a player and say that the sack number is irrelevant.  Sorry, I just can't agree with you.

1 minute ago, mistertim said:

 

Again, stop with the dumb straw man arguments. Nobody here has said that "all 22 of Daniels's sacks were his fault". Of course that would be silly. Which is why nobody said it.

 

And if you have an issue with how the PTS ratio is derived, perhaps you should email the people at PFF (who watch film of all of the snaps and grade them) and ask them to explain their methodology. Because, as of now, you're basically just using a fantasy argument where you think we should mostly ignore the bad PTS percentage because of your belief that Daniels is just that good at avoiding pressure.

You seem paranoid.  🙂  I didn't say that you said it.  I said that it would be silly to pretend that they were all his fault.  Apparently you agree.

Like all stats, STP ratio has a purpose, but it isn't the be all, end all.  PFF doesn't claim that it is.   My point was, and remains, we need to look at stats with an understanding  of the context.  For example, if a QB has a propensity to throw the ball up for grabs when being pressure to avoid sacks, his STP  ratio might look good, but he's likely to have bad outcomes.  The whole reason I even looked into this was the obvious fact that 22 sacks is by no means a high number for a QB to have in a season, and he certainly isn't throwing a lot of interceptions, either.  The 24%  STP ratio that folks kept throwing out there seemed odd, given the sack number.  It then became clear that, in Daniels' case, the guy was doing an outstanding job avoiding pressure.  Again, I can't see any reason to buy an argument that sacks are a problem for Daniels.

Just now, mistertim said:

 

Wait, what?

 

Do you understand how ratios work? The STP percentage is high because he was sacked a high amount of times relative to how often he was pressured. That's the entire point.

Or the number of pressures was very low.  A pressure is defined as a play in which a defender gets within a yard an a half of the QB before the pass.  I hope that we all can agree that the defense is attempting to pressure the QB on all pass plays.  If we give the QB no credit for avoiding pressure to the point that he allowed only 89 pressures (within 1.5 yards) in the season, we are kidding ourselves.  Avoiding pressures is a good thing.  Not sure how there can be disagreement on that.  When we are dealing with small sample size, percentages can easily appear distorted.  I think it's safe to say that pretty much every game there's at least one play where the OL has a blown assignment and a sack happens where the QB had no chance.  To pretend that all 22 of Daniels' sacks were his fault seems rather silly to me.  This is true of pretty much all college QBs.  I'm sorry, I just don't see sacks as being a problem for Daniels, and certainly nothing I've seen here would cause me to change my mind on that.  Peace.

Fellas, believe what you want.  We aren't going to help Peters with his decision.  The STP ratio is 24% because the number of pressures is low, not because the number of sacks is high.  That seems obvious to me, but apparently not to everyone.  So be it.  If you think Daniels is bad, I'm not going to argue with you any more about it.

Just now, mistertim said:

 

The number is pretty concerning to me as well, but it's not my biggest issue with Daniels and pressure. My biggest issue is the historically low percentage of times he threw it after getting pressured / breaking the pocket. It means that when pressured and/or breaks the pocket he's far more likely to pull his eyes down and tuck the ball and run.

 

You can see this in the tape as well. Much more often than not when he breaks the pocket he doesn't keep his eyes downfield (or if he does, it's not for long) and then quickly looks to run instead of scrambling and making an off-platform throw, which is what both Caleb and Maye usually do.

 

This is very concerning, and I think would be concerning for coaches too. Because not only is he leaving plays on the field (a lot of time he's pulling his eyes down and running with receivers open down the field) but also because this means he'll run it much more often when pressured which will lead to more hits, which increases injury risk, especially with his slight frame.

 

And this was at LSU with a very good OL. What will happen when he's likely under much more pressure in the NFL behind a likely mediocre OL? It could get pretty ugly.

Again, what you are missing, IMO, is the fact that he had a very low number of pressures.  He is outstanding at recognizing where pressure will be coming from and making excellent decisions to move and avoid the pressure.  If no defender gets within one and a half yards of him, the play doesn't count as a pressure.  His 22 sacks are not a concerning number.  Heck, if that concerns you, how about Maye's 29 or Williams' 32?  I think you are misreading his excellent ability to avoid pressure to somehow mislead you to thinking he is bad.  The guy avoids pressure extremely well.  A QB without his athleticism and decision making ability would have had many, many more pressures (and sacks) on the exact same plays.  If he wasn't as good as he is at avoiding pressure and therefore allowed a lot more defenders get within a yard and a half of him, his STP ratio would appear to be better, but that's the fallacy of looking at one stat without context.  The claim that Daniels never threw off platform is just plain false.  That he did run when he saw he had huge open field was in no way a bad thing.  Sacks were not a problem.  Turnovers were not a problem.  The guy performed and presented major problems to the opposing defenses.  I find it hard to watch his tape and see it any other way. 

I'm only seeing the tape and reading what I can.  I'm not a scout and don't have the knowledge, experience, and information that Peters and company have.  I trust them and will be happy with however they decide to go.  My choice would be Daniels, but I'm totally unqualified to make such a decision.  I do know that I don't buy into your arguments.  Daniels' tape and results just don't fit your narrative in my eyes.  Heck, maybe something came up in Daniels' visit that turned Peters and company off to him, I've got no way to know that.  In any case, we aren't going to resolve anything here today.  I'm just extremely unlikely to ever believe that having a low number of sacks and a very low number of pressures are valid reasons to be concerned about a QB.

13 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

Wow you are quick on these 

It would be truly amazing if we were in a position of being able to make this happen. Sadly our QB cupboard is pretty bare but you did pull Penix out with both of these.

Maybe a 7th rounder but no likely you are correct. Just weird to use a top 30 visit for that

Wasn't a top 30 viisit.  Schools within a certain distance of the NFL team - I think it's 50 miles - don't count as a top 30 visit.

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

He is not excellent at handling pressure. He takes his eyes off his receivers and starts looking for run lanes at the first hint of pressure and still takes a higher percentage of sacks. He is terrible at handling pressure and he lacks the strength to break free if anyone gets their hand on him. This is like saying RG3 is better at handling pressure than Ben Roethlisberger.

Daniels was sacked 22 times.  22.  Maye was sacked 29, and Williams 32.  Sack to pressure ratio is just that - dividing the sacks by the pressures.  If his ratio was 24%, that means he had 89 pressures -- a phenomenally low number.  Playing in the SEC.  Your opinion notwithstanding, Daniels was quite obviously outstanding at recognizing and avoiding pressure.  This means he not only was sacked less, but he also made fewer bad decisions due to pressure.  22 sacks.  4 interceptions. 40 touchdowns.  Those are outstanding numbers. You are incredibly pretending that sacks were a problem for Daniels.  Your comment above would be a clear indication that you either didn't see him play very often, are unaware of what exactly the sack-to-pressure ratio is, or both.  I understand the concern folks have about his frame.  In view of the fact that he hasn't missed games due to injury, I think the risk is worth taking, but I understand the concern.  Your comments regarding pressure and sacks, well, I don't understand that at all.

3 minutes ago, DWinzit said:

TE Tip Reiman. Not one of the more notable TE's and not one we have spoken much about. He is a good blocker, perhaps underrated with separation and hands since he was barely used in the pass game. Or, try to move to OL?

 

QB Tagovvailoa. @JamesMadisonSkinsshould crank up the trades machine to figure how many selections we pickup and go with Mariota and Tags as the rookie .  Seriously, would this be like a late rounder to become a future backup for the top selection? 

 

My guess is that they are considering Tagovailoa as an UDFA.  I doubt if he's drafted.  

1 hour ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Statistically, Maye was better at avoiding sacks under pressure than either of the other two.

You are misreading the stat.  Daniels was outstanding at avoiding pressure.  He had quite a few less sacks, and many less pressures.  You are mistakenly not recognizing the main reason for the "ratio" is that Daniels was excellent at recognizing what was happening and moving within the pocket and out of the pocket to avoid pressure.  If no defender gets within a yard and a half of him, it isn't statistically a pressure.  This explains both the low sacks number AND the low interception number.  Pretending that sacks were a problem for Daniels flies in the face of reality.  Fortunately, Peters and company are well aware of this.

13 minutes ago, actorguy1 said:

There is a very real chance that we will have no definitive answer on who they are taking at two right up until the pick is made. That's both thrilling and terrifying at the same time 

Terrifying?

43 minutes ago, ntotoro said:

 

The sacks don't worry me as much as the hits Daniels takes past the LoS. I mean... his frame will get abused more in the NFL than in the SEC, but even some of the hits he took past the LoS in college have been gnarly. Imagine those coming from NFL defenders. 

Those gnarly looking hits almost always involve him being in the air.  Most injuries to knees, hips, legs, ankles, etc. occur when one or both feet are planted on the ground.  Other than helmut-to-helmut, those replays we see over and over aren't really nearly as concerning as some make them out to be.  Note - he missed zero games.  He did miss a quarter once while in concussion protocol for a helmut-to-helmut hit.  Was cleared and went back in.  All QBs have injury risk, of course.  That's why they keep adding more rules in an effort to protect them.  Fortunately for Daniels, he has shown he can take hits pretty well.  His frame is a concern, but thus far he has been OK.

20 minutes ago, kingdaddy said:

For one, if we can convince NE that we're taking Daniels and they really want Daniels then maybe they offer us a nice deal to move up just one spot to take Daniels.....while in reality we really want Maye or McCarthy. Try and leverage as much out of the 2 spot as we can.....I could really see us doing this if we want McCarthy and we know that NE wants Daniels or Maye. 

Seems extremely unlikely.

Daniels was sacked 22 times in 2023.  Maye was sacked 29 times in 2023.  It seems bizarre to me to pretend that sacks are a major worry when considering Daniels.  22 sacks in 12 games in the SEC ain't bad.  It seems to me that he clearly was able to avoid both sacks and pressure.  If the number of times he is pressured seems low - that is a good thing.  Seems more like statistical manipulation by PFF to me than something to truly worry about.  Just my take.  Sacks don't worry me with either of these QBs, or McCarthy, for that matter.  Like DQ says "Keep the main thing the main thing."  I'm happy with whichever QB Peters and company decide on.  

38 minutes ago, The Rook said:

 

I'm a fan.  Even drafted him at #55 (for Miami) in our mock draft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Rook

That seems pretty early for Cohen, IMO.  I was thinking maybe round 5 for him.

1 hour ago, Bifflog said:

 

I love it in theory but what do you do if all of the tackles through Morgan/Suamataia are gone by 36?

You grab the 1st-round talent WR or EDGE that should have gone ahead of those guys and get Paul or the Yale tackle at 40 and/or 67.  That would be a great outcome, IMO.

20 minutes ago, RVAskins said:

We know Mara will be watching us to make sure we don't break an unwritten rule.

The spirit of the kickoff.

22 minutes ago, BMagic said:

24% pressure to sack ratio is unplayable in the NFL, would absolutely have to be mitigated. If he can maintain a higher playing weight, he'll be able to brush off more sack attempts as well.

I read that that stat doesn't include scrambles.  If that is true, it is a useless stat.  If the QB scrambles away from pressure and makes a positive play, it doesn't count?  LOL.  Who comes up with stats like this?

3 hours ago, mudhog said:

No trades

This would be a great draft.  My only differences would be the first two.  I'd be happy with Maye, but my slight preference would be Daniels.  I like McConkey, but I think the team really needs an X receiver, so my slight preference there would be Mitchell, Legette, or Franklin.