FAREWELL to the NFL Dwayne Haskins QB Ohio State

[skinsmania123]

14 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

After watching Burrow take apart defenses by Saban, Steele, and Venable I'd trade every QB on the roster, a 2020 3rd rounder, and a 2021 2nd rounder to swap picks with Cincy and get him.  That kid is going to be an assassin at the position.  Nothing gets to him.  He can beat you with his mind or his body.  Last year I was campaigning to load up on picks for this year.  The 2019 draft was weak on QB's.  Burrow is a franchise changing QB.  What in the hell was OSU thinking to let him go!?!? They'd have been National Champs this year.  

I literally just wrote something similar about Burrows mental state.  It is an intangible you can't teach. Nothing gets to him.   I had only watched him maybe three others times but his demeanor does not change.  And his skill set is solid. Yes, I agree he is going to be a bit like Mahomes.  He can change a game.   

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

40 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

What in the hell was OSU thinking to let him go!?!? They'd have been National Champs this year.  

There was a competition and Burrow lost.....to Dwayne Haskins. 

 

Burrow made the decision to transfer which obviously worked out well.

 

 

 

Fwiw, Haskins also beat out Tate Martell (5* QB).

 

 

He transferred as well....

 

 

[KDawg]

16 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

There was a competition and Burrow lost.....to Dwayne Haskins. 

 

Burrow made the decision to transfer which obviously worked out well.

 

 

 

Fwiw, Haskins also beat out Tate Martell (5* QB).

 

 

He transferred as well....

 

 

 

Tate Martell was horrendous for Miami. He couldn't even see the field, and when he did he led Miami to a 14-0 loss against LA Tech in a bowl game.

 

Haskins beating out Burrow at OSU doesn't mean much, in my opinion. OSU's system (at the time) values arm strength, which Haskins has in heaps. Burrow's game is more of a pro system kind of game. If I were Ohio State, and I had guys that had been there and could run my system at the skills, I'd give Haskins the nod, too. OSU's system is evolving with Fields at QB, though. So that's a nice change for them.

 

If they competed for the job at LSU, I'd bet good money Burrow wins that job.

[RawRebel]

2 hours ago, ntotoro said:

Seemed to me Gruden never particularly wanted to groom anyone. He was out to save Gruden, only his choices never made any damn sense. Manusky? Benching AP and calling it a Special Trams reason? His Colt worship? I look back through all this time and think not only was he a bad HC, but he was a really, realllllly bad HC.

Dont forget his unfathomable man crushes on Fat Rob and Samaje Perine.

[ThomasRoane]

26 minutes ago, BRAVEONAWARPATH said:

There was a competition and Burrow lost.....to Dwayne Haskins. 

 

Burrow made the decision to transfer which obviously worked out well.

 

 

That's an understatement.  LSU brought in an NFL passing game coordinator and Burrow swam like a fish in water.  OSU is working towards that but they still have a ways to go if they want to attract NFL talent at the QB position.

 

I've  only been watching Burrow since midseason but from what I see he is miles ahead of any QB drafted in the past five years minus Mahomes.  I'd take Burrow over any other QB not named Mahomes in a second.  This kid is a winner.  He manages protections, goes thru his progressions, moves great in the pocket, protects the ball, doesn't get rattled... I'd bug the crap outta Cincy.  Hell, I'd pay salaries for any players they'd want from us.  Their owner is cheap so I'd even throw in a few million.    

 

I'm not trying to put down Haskins.  He has potential.  I just think that Burrow will come in day one and play like a top 10 QB in his first year.  How often can you say that about a QB?  If we knew what Mahomes would be I'd like to think the Redskins would have made him their pick (maybe - Bruce Allen was an idiot).  You have another Mahomes this year in Burrow.  You gotta at least try to get this kid.  Nothing personal to DH, Alex Smith, or any other QB the Redskins could bring in.  Burrow is a can't miss superstar and you have to at least try to get him I think. 

[redskinss]

1 hour ago, KDawg said:

Im not sure why people think Smith is going to play. I mean, it’s possible, but I’d also say it’s probably more likely he retires and takes a job in the FO making some asinine figure to clear the books.

I wondered that myself but would the nfl allow that?

Wouldn't paying your former quarterback and current secretary to the offensive quality control coach 20 million dollars constitute a violation of the "spirit of the cap"?

Maybe we should ask Mara for his opinion. 

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

49 minutes ago, ThomasRoane said:

Nothing personal to DH, Alex Smith, or any other QB the Redskins could bring in.  Burrow is a can't miss superstar and you have to at least try to get him I think. 

I like Burrow quite a bit but I'm more bullish on Dwayne in the long run.

 

I believe you'll see why this upcoming season.

[Llevron]

If we were a QB away then sure go all in on Burrows but we aint even close to that and doing so now would just be the RG3 thing all over again. Especially if you have to give up on Young to get him. 

 

Obviously RG3 and Burrows are different prospects im not trying to conflate them. But as of yet our organization isnt much different than what it was when we brought in Griffin and we could be repeating the same mistake that set us back for almost a decade. We need to see this Haskins thing through for Risk v Reward if no other reason. Imo of course. 

[HigSkin]

2 hours ago, ThomasRoane said:

 

After watching Burrow take apart defenses by Saban, Steele, and Venable I'd trade every QB on the roster, a 2020 3rd rounder, and a 2021 2nd rounder to swap picks with Cincy and get him.  That kid is going to be an assassin at the position.  Nothing gets to him.  He can beat you with his mind or his body.  Last year I was campaigning to load up on picks for this year.  The 2019 draft was weak on QB's.  Burrow is a franchise changing QB.  What in the hell was OSU thinking to let him go!?!? They'd have been National Champs this year.  

 

Burrow broke his hand in an Ohio State practice in August 2017 and lost his #2 position to Haskins.  JT Barrett was the starter so Burrow transferred because he figured Haskins was the guy after Barrett graduated in 2018.

[SoCalSkins]

10 minutes ago, Llevron said:

If we were a QB away then sure go all in on Burrows but we aint even close to that and doing so now would just be the RG3 thing all over again. Especially if you have to give up on Young to get him. 

 

Obviously RG3 and Burrows are different prospects im not trying to conflate them. But as of yet our organization isnt much different than what it was when we brought in Griffin and we could be repeating the same mistake that set us back for almost a decade. We need to see this Haskins thing through for Risk v Reward if no other reason. Imo of course. 

Statistically Burrow is likely to be a bust. The other top overall QBs were not selected first because the teams drafting them thought they would be anything other than all pros but they turned out to be busts.  
 

You draft Chase and don’t think twice about it. Dude is a game wrecker. 20 years old. We will be cheering for him for the next decade leading competent D. He’s a Sean Taylor level talent prospect. I’m not passing on Chase under any circumstance. 

[Pick6]

Adding Chase Young gives this team a chance to be a hell of a lot better. I think Haskins can easily do what Jimmy G did during the season and now in the playoffs. I think 49ers are the blueprint. 

[Llevron]

5 minutes ago, Pick6 said:

Adding Chase Young gives this team a chance to be a hell of a lot better. I think Haskins can easily do what Jimmy G did during the season and now in the playoffs. I think 49ers are the blueprint. 

 

They are. The goal of that system even in the senior shanny days at denver was always to make the run game so strong that you would have to pay attention to it. Making the reads for any QB OR RB easier and essentially making it so any QB OR RB could run the offense. McNabb was on his way to his best season year one of shanny - on probably the worse team he had ever been on. Rex had an ok ish season. Griffin. Kirk. We had RBs who people wont even remember the names of putting up 100 yard games with ease. Then what the Texans did with Kubiac. Thats why It was so disappointing that we let shanny ruin the defense, cause his offense is automatic. 

[MartinC]

I popped in here expecting it to be all talk about Burrow 🙂

 

The Bengals are taking him first overall. Move on.

[goskins10]

48 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

Statistically Burrow is likely to be a bust. The other top overall QBs were not selected first because the teams drafting them thought they would be anything other than all pros but they turned out to be busts.  
 

You draft Chase and don’t think twice about it. Dude is a game wrecker. 20 years old. We will be cheering for him for the next decade leading competent D. He’s a Sean Taylor level talent prospect. I’m not passing on Chase under any circumstance. 

 

I have a question; Why are you willing to draft by %s "statistically" on Burrow, but you are willing to ignore the statistics on Young and have above in essence declared him a lock?   

 

Here is why i ask. Statistically speaking, based on a 2015 report (the latest data I could get) - drafting DL in the first has a lower chance of being successful - success meaning becoming a starter more than half their career, much less becoming a pro bowler or Al-Pro, - than QB. For QB it's 63%, for DL is 58%. So if you are drafting by the numbers you increase your chances of success by selecting Burrows. 

 

Again staying with statistics - once you get past the first rd - QB success becomes fleeting where as DL you have a little more chance. For the 10 yrs from 2005 to 2015, 38 QBs were taken in the 5th and 6th rds and not one became a starter. In fact once you get past the 3rd rd you virtually have no chance of a QB being a starter - oddly enough Kirk Cousins is the anomaly. So "statistically" you should take the QB in the first.

 

Again, based on this report, if you draft statistically, then you go OLine. They had an 83% success rate. Or TE, although there is not as big a drop off for TE, above 30% through the 5th rd and still 26% in the 6th. 

 

Here is the report I looked at: https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round   If there is more recent data that disputes this I am interested to see it. 

 

[SoCalSkins]

@goskins10

 

I am not saying D line is statistically a lock just less risky than QB. I personally love Chase Young as a prospect. Not based on past draft picks at d line, just watching him play. I had the same feeling with Sean Taylor. Dude looks like he is going to be a beast in my opinion. 
 

Burrow is going to be the first overall pick. He will likely cost Haskins, the pick that will be Chase Young and another high pick and that’s if the Bengals are willing to entertain offers. In that scenario you are gambling multiple picks on a single QB prospect. I wouldn’t make that move. Neither will the Bengals but that’s the minimum price. 

[goskins10]

My point has nothing to do with us taking Burrow or Chase. I agree, we will not be given that chance to decide. Someone - most likely Cinn is taking Burrow #1. I honestly prefer trading out of #2 if you can get the right deal - not sure what that is but it needs to include multiple 1sts (can be 20 and 21) and multiple 2nds, But that's just me. But I would not be unhappy if they traded out.

 

The data I provided shows that statistically speaking DL is actually more of a risk than QB. So your contention that DL is safer than QB is not true based on data. If you just like Young better, and I can see that, then no problem. In fact if you were strictly ranking players based on ability not need or where they are likely to go, I think Chase Young would be and is on the top of pretty much everyone's board ahead of Burrows. 

 

But starting out speaking about "statistically" then switching to I like him seemed a bit inconsistent. Just curious how "statistically" fits here.  

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

 

The Redskins logo their represents Case Keenum's numbers.  Obviously we're not interested in Keenum's numbers, so I included (with my crappy MS Paint skills) Haskins here.  Broke it down into 3 categories:

-All 7 Starts

-Only games in December (last 4)

-Only last 2 games.  This has the biggest shift, I could have included the Packers in here as you can start seeing the shift take place.

 

Air Yards are useful as they don't show YAC.  QB's can accurately throw passes that will create more YAC opportunities, but sometimes it's just from the receiver being amazing with the ball in his hands.  This takes that away.

 

[SoCalSkins]

14 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

My point has nothing to do with us taking Burrow or Chase. I agree, we will not be given that chance to decide. Someone - most likely Cinn is taking Burrow #1. I honestly prefer trading out of #2 if you can get the right deal - not sure what that is but it needs to include multiple 1sts (can be 20 and 21) and multiple 2nds, But that's just me. But I would not be unhappy if they traded out.

 

The data I provided shows that statistically speaking DL is actually more of a risk than QB. So your contention that DL is safer than QB is not true based on data. If you just like Young better, and I can see that, then no problem. In fact if you were strictly ranking players based on ability not need or where they are likely to go, I think Chase Young would be and is on the top of pretty much everyone's board ahead of Burrows. 

 

But starting out speaking about "statistically" then switching to I like him seemed a bit inconsistent. Just curious how "statistically" fits here.  

 

The link you provided has a subjective definition of success versus bust. Just because some dude who runs a Chiefs blog ranks based on number of starts doesn't mean it's a valid model or the best model to determine a bust.

 

The data seems like garbage to me. If you draft a QB in the first round, you tend to give him a pretty long leash because the coach and GM's fate are usually tied to it once he enters the starting lineup. You can look at the number of first round QBs who have been cut or not re-signed off their rookie deals and go on to have success elsewhere. It's miniscule. Meaning teams stick with QBs longer to make sure they are indeed busts. Thus, inflating the start stats.

[skinny21]

Based on that @Alcoholic Zebra, you can maybe see that Haskins started taking what was given, vs forcing the ball downfield.  But it wasn’t just taking a bunch of dump offs either.

[Always A Commander Never A Captain]

4 minutes ago, skinny21 said:

Based on that @Alcoholic Zebra, you can maybe see that Haskins started taking what was given, vs forcing the ball downfield.  But it wasn’t just taking a bunch of dump offs either.

 

I'm counting around 16 (17 if you include Keenum Skins) at 8.0 or below.  So that's half the league.  Even with Haskins taking what was given, you can see how his arm talent is factoring in and his average depth of throw is in the Top half of the league.

 

if you include the last 3 games (adds in Green Bay), his completion percentage is only below 5 teams.  Top half of the league in throw distance and a completion percentage that high?  That's bonkers.

 

I'm going to need to remember this, as I want to track it during the 2020 season.

[goskins10]

54 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

 

The link you provided has a subjective definition of success versus bust. Just because some dude who runs a Chiefs blog ranks based on number of starts doesn't mean it's a valid model or the best model to determine a bust.

 

The data seems like garbage to me. If you draft a QB in the first round, you tend to give him a pretty long leash because the coach and GM's fate are usually tied to it once he enters the starting lineup. You can look at the number of first round QBs who have been cut or not re-signed off their rookie deals and go on to have success elsewhere. It's miniscule. Meaning teams stick with QBs longer to make sure they are indeed busts. Thus, inflating the start stats.

 

Hmm.. Garbage? I can get you disagreeing with the data but discarding it as garbage seems a bit extreme. Is it the best model? Not sure i made that claim. I have seen enough other data to know this was within a small margin of error with other data I have seen. But is the best? Or perfect? I would never claim that. But it is something you can draw some general conclusions form. 

 

I agree there are some lurking variables. Patience with players - team situation - system they come from. The definition is a bit open but it is applied consistently. As for getting a second contract, you can say the same for DL. 

 

Let me bring this to what I was trying to get to a bit more softly - you keep making statements about "statistically" but not providing any actual data. Where is your data? Can you please provide your sources? It might make it clearly how you are coming to your conclusions. 

 

[SoCalSkins]

7 minutes ago, goskins10 said:

 

Hmm.. Garbage? I can get you disagreeing with the data but discarding it as garbage seems a bit extreme. Is it the best model? Not sure i made that claim. I have seen enough other data to know this was within a small margin of error with other data I have seen. But is the best? Or perfect? I would never claim that. But it is something you can draw some general conclusions form. 

 

I agree there are some lurking variables. Patience with players - team situation - system they come from. The definition is a bit open but it is applied consistently. As for getting a second contract, you can say the same for DL. 

 

Let me bring this to what I was trying to get to a bit more softly - you keep making statements about "statistically" but not providing any actual data. Where is your data? Can you please provide your sources? It might make it clearly how you are coming to your conclusions. 

 

The numbers he uses are absolute garbage particularly with respect to quarterbacks. The criteria is simply if a player started 50% or more of his games in his career he’s not a bust and less than 50% he is a bust. He doesn’t account for injuries either. 
 

So Tim Couch is not a bust in any way shape or form because he started 59 of 62 games which puts him near the top of the success list based on his criteria but Aaron Rodgers would be a bust on his rookie deal. 
 

I provided plenty of bust stats earlier in the thread. In the NFL modern era, the Redskins so far have a 100% bust rate on first round quarterbacks. Depending on the criteria used rest of the NFL is around 10%. If a player gets a second contract he’s not a bust if he doesn’t he is a bust that’s the basic criteria the stats are based on.
 

That has issues too because a player like Preston Smith is labeled a bust but it’s more accurate than the starting stats in my opinion. 

[goskins10]

9 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

The numbers he uses are absolute garbage particularly with respect to quarterbacks. The criteria is simply if a player started 50% or more of his games in his career he’s not a bust and less than 50% he is a bust. He doesn’t account for injuries either. 
 

So Tim Couch is not a bust in any way shape or form because he started 59 of 62 games which puts him near the top of the success list based on his criteria but Aaron Rodgers would be a bust on his rookie deal. 
 

I provided plenty of bust stats earlier in the thread. In the NFL modern era, the Redskins so far have a 100% bust rate on first round quarterbacks. Depending on the criteria used rest of the NFL is around 10%. If a player gets a second contract he’s not a bust if he doesn’t he is a bust that’s the basic criteria the stats are based on.
 

That has issues too because a player like Preston Smith is labeled a bust but it’s more accurate than the starting stats in my opinion. 

 

I disagree they are "garbage" but that's your opinion so fair enough. You are certainly entitled to your opinion. I would agree they are not perfect but they give a general idea but garbage? Not hardly. 

 

What I am still looking for is your source. I provided I source. You stated numbers in some of your comments but without a source - at least I have never seen a source and I have read pretty much every comment (bad weather so no golf). 

 

Can you please provide your source? Or if you did the research yourself then post that. 

 

 

 

 

[SoCalSkins]

@goskins10

It was a link I believe to second contracts and I researched the Skins myself because we have only had a handful of QBs in the first. It’s somewhere in this thread.

 

Regardless I want Chase Young no matter what the stats are. 

[goskins10]

4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

@goskins10

It was a link I believe to second contracts and I researched the Skins myself because we have only had a handful of QBs in the first. It’s somewhere in this thread.

 

Regardless I want Chase Young no matter what the stats are. 

 

That is fair! Totally get that.   Just was getting hung up on the statistical reference. I would think you have the link handy but OK, no worries. Seems neither one of us is looking through the thread. 

 

I like Chase Young a lot too. Just worry about all the eggs on one basket. The counter argument to that - and it's fair - we do not have many if any true blue chip players. He has the best chance of becoming a true blue chip player. And I do like doubling down on the DL. It is probably our strength but if you look at teams with great DLines, they are always adding talent, even to the detriment of some other positions. I am Ok if we go this route. 

 

But still, if someone offers a huge haul for him, you have to consider trading down. I expect the draft to be fun either way.