The Official QB Thread- JD5 taken #2. Randall 2.0 or Bayou Bob? Mariotta and Hartman forever. Fromm cut

[Number 44]

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.

[NoCalMike]

The hit rate on QB's coming out of college that end up being long term Top 10 level franchise QBs is low enough that it is a lot easier predicting them to fail ahead of time then putting yourself out there to say they will succeed.  The fact is that the QB position is so hard to accurately evaluate what will transfer from college to the NFL because it often takes more than the skills they displayed on tape in college.  There is a developmental and maturation process aspect to the QB position that mostly can't be evaluated before you actually see them play for a season or two in the NFL.

[mistertim]

4 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

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.

 

He wasn't sacked a lot. Because he wasn't pressured a lot. But when he was pressured, he was sacked at a rate that is, historically, a big red flag. You can try to come up with whatever rationalizations you want, but at the end of the day that number has been a pretty sticky indicator for QBs when going from college to the NFL. 

 

Sure, Daniels could be some huge outlier there, ala Burrow, but it probably isn't likely considering the rest of the QB company in that category.

[Llevron]

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

The hit rate on QB's coming out of college that end up being long term Top 10 level franchise QBs is low enough that it is a lot easier predicting them to fail ahead of time then putting yourself out there to say they will succeed.  The fact is that the QB position is so hard to accurately evaluate what will transfer from college to the NFL because it often takes more than the skills they displayed on tape in college.  There is a developmental and maturation process aspect to the QB position that mostly can't be evaluated before you actually see them play for a season or two in the NFL.

Right. At some point it’s easier to just assume they all will fail lol

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

10 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

His number of pressures are obviously a lot lower that other QBs.  That isn't mythical. 

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. 

[Llevron]

5 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. 

I think part of the argument is he gets the ball out fast enough that he doesn’t get pressured a lot. 
 

Which of course is because the **** throws to his open targets as they are literally uncoverable. 
 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, Llevron said:

I think part of the argument is he gets the ball out fast enough that he doesn’t get pressured a lot. 
 

Which of course is because the **** throws to his open targets as they are literally uncoverable. 
 

 

Right, I get that maybe some people might think that, but it’s like you said. Not going to translate.

[Number 44]

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.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

4 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

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.

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

 

edit: and you are right. His offensive line does not deserve all of the credit. It also helped that he threw at the top of his drop so often. That’s not going to continue at the next level.

Edited April 9 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[SoCalSkins]

4 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.

 

How about this one?

 

 

[ILikeBilly2]

JD had a 24% P2S%.  Washington gave about 280 pressures last season.  At that rate JD is sacked 67 times.  Simple math. Even GMAP can do it.JD had a 24% P2S%.  Washington gave about 280 pressures last season.  At that rate JD is sacked 67 times. 

Edited April 9 by ILikeBilly2

[Llevron]

What are pre and post snap reads? Serious inquiry. Cause I assumed something and they must not mean that thing I assumed. 

[Number 44]

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.

[SoCalSkins]

3 minutes ago, Number 44 said:

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.

He used his head to get a first down against Alabama on this play:

 

 

[Dah-Dee]

4 minutes ago, SoCalSkins said:

He used his head to get a first down against Alabama on this play:

 

 

 

Turner should have gotten ejected for targeting on that (flagged for roughing the passer) hit, and I'll never be convinced that Saban didn't tell Turner to go headhunting and knock Daniels out of the game after Saban's halftime interview rant about how Daniels was killing Alabama. Freaking Saban!

 

Hey, you've got your ridiculous conspiracy theories, I've got mine. Drink up! 🍻

 

 

[CommanderInTheRye]

Statistically invalid nationwide straw poll from ESPN on which qb respondents think will have the best career:

 

 

 

Over 13,000 votes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9 by CommanderInTheRye

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Ok, here it is.

Give me the timestamp of all the plays where he doesn’t either:

1. throw it at the top of his drop

2. stand behind a clean pocket

3. take off running

4. Throw a bad pass

[SoCalSkins]

4 minutes ago, Dah-Dee said:

 

Turner should have gotten ejected for targeting on that (flagged for roughing the passer) hit, and I'll never be convinced that Saban didn't tell Turner to go headhunting and knock Daniels out of the game after Saban's halftime interview rant about how Daniels was killing Alabama. Freaking Saban!

 

Hey, you've got your ridiculous conspiracy theories, I've got mine. Drink up! 🍻

 

 

Yes claiming morally superior behavior over Alabama from a school that produced such stellar character players like Derrius Guice. That LSU program is a cesspool. I’m not surprised Jayden fled there after he helped get the ASU staff fired. 

[Darth Tater]

48 minutes ago, Llevron said:

Right. At some point it’s easier to just assume they all will fail lol

If I just say <name_of_qb_here> will be a bust (at least for the team that picked him), I've got at least a 70% chance of being right.

[FootballZombie]

2 minutes ago, ILikeBilly2 said:

JD had a 24% P2S%.  Washington gave about 280 pressures last season.  At that rate JD is sacked 67 times.  Simple math. Even GMAP can do it.

 

Can't make that kind of comparison my guy. That is woefully oblivious to the idea that a QB that is a fast processor and gets the ball out will face less pressure than a guy who historically stands there and holds the ball for an eternity.

 

JD improves the Oline in front of him just by being on the field. Logan Paulsen has hit on this repeatedly. You can't rush him the same way, or as fast.

I would not expect JD to face as many pressures as Howell did last year playing behind the same Oline. Kinda like how Brissett looked different in the same environment.

 

 

If blanket covering methodology like that was acceptable we'd be seeing lines of thinking like: If JD threw as many passes as Maye did last year his numbers would be so gawdy other countries would decry his use in games as a war crime.

 

 

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

What are pre and post snap reads? Serious inquiry. Cause I assumed something and they must not mean that thing I assumed. 

 

Pre snap reads are looking over the D formation before a play and either getting yourself into a favorable playcall against said D (audible), or figuring out the order of operations when it comes to your own progression tree. What may be read #1 vs some Ds, could be read #3 vs others.

 

Post snap reads are both your progressions thru your passing tree and identifying any changes the D makes, and reacting accordingly. A lot of the better Ds in college will show you one thing pre-snap, only to completely change their D post snap. If say a pressure package was well disguised but you pick it up post snap, your hot route could become your new #1 read on a given play.

 

Post snap reads are obviously more time constraining but it can be hard in general to gauge aptitude in college as players do not face the same complexities w/ some guys going against more advanced adversaries on average that throw more at the QB. Some QBs facing easier teams simply don't take the same test as others.

[Llevron]

8 minutes ago, Sacks &#x27;n&#x27; Stuff said:

Ok, here it is.

Give me the timestamp of all the plays where he doesn’t either:

1. throw it at the top of his drop

2. stand behind a clean pocket

3. take off running

4. Throw a bad pass

You can’t even see the defense in these plays??? I assume that is not needed to evaluate QB play? 

[Llevron]

3 minutes ago, FootballZombie said:

Pre snap reads are looking over the D formation before a play and either getting yourself into a favorable playcall against said D (audible), or figuring out the order of operations when it comes to your own progression tree. What may be read #1 vs some Ds, could be read #3 vs others.

 

Post snap reads are both your progressions thru your passing tree and identifying any changes the D makes, and reacting accordingly. A lot of the better Ds in college will show you one thing pre-snap, only to completely change their D post snap. If say a pressure package was well disguised but you pick it up post snap, your hot route could become your new #1 read on a given play.

 

Post snap reads are obviously more time constraining but it can be hard in general to gauge aptitude in college as players do not face the same complexities w/ some guys going against more advanced adversaries on average that throw more at the QB. Some QBs facing easier teams simply don't take the same test as others.

If this were true, wouldn’t you have to take in the defense, the looks they give you, know the play AND know the reads in order to make a full determination of any given play? 
 

You would have to be some kind of pro QB to understand all this crap. What good are all these ****ing advanced metrics if I still have to know all this stuff to get an idea of what they mean? It’s bull****, really. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

9 minutes ago, Llevron said:

You can’t even see the defense in these plays??? I assume that is not needed to evaluate QB play? 

The whole conversation we’ve been having has been about playing under pressure. My point is that he has not demonstrated that he can effectively do anything besides take off and run and that’s just not a sustainable model in the NFL.

[Voice_of_Reason]

1 hour ago, Conn said:

By and large the type of former QB more likely to be on daily 9-5 type NFL media coverage, or have their own side hustle YouTube channel, are the smart but athletically limited clipboard holders that didn’t earn franchise contracts (or enough money to keep them from needing to engage in a full-time, or even part time, jobs creating content for mooks like us). Guys who might have a mind for grinding tape but didn’t necessarily have the tools/ability to succeed as starters.
 

J.T O’Sullivan, Dan Orlovsky, Kurt Benkert etc. 

 

I don’t think it’s surprising that this type of former player often prefers completely mechanically sound dudes rather than toolsy “rule breakers” at the position. Nobody should be surprised by that imo. It’s an inherent bias in a lot of these guys doing their own tape grinding and their own evaluations that nobody seems to acknowledge. They oftentimes prefer guys who win the way they were taught they had to win. They see impending disaster in the habits of guys like Maye, Herbert, Allen, even Mahomes because of course they do. And sometimes they’re right.

This also applies to a lot of coaches as well. 
 

Most coaches played at some level.  Most weren’t really great.  (Some notable exceptions).

 

I don’t know about scouts. 
 

But a lot of coaches coach because they couldn’t play.  Or at least, couldn’t play really well.  

[FootballZombie]

14 minutes ago, Llevron said:

f this were true, wouldn’t you have to take in the defense, the looks they give you, know the play AND know the reads in order to make a full determination of any given play? 
 

You would have to be some kind of pro QB to understand all this crap. What good are all these ****ing advanced metrics if I still have to know all this stuff to get an idea of what they mean? It’s bull****, really. 

 

Pretty much.

 

Pro QBs can't even determine correct order of operations on film. We don't know what the player is instructed to do.

Kurt Warner hits this all the time in his breakdowns "That's not how I would read it, but that may be what he was told to do"

 

 

What I can say is that if a QB looks at a guy, notices he is covered and then subsequently rifles thru following progressions until he finds someone open, that is generally a good thing.

 

If a QB takes forever to move thru his progressions, that is a bad thing.

 

If a QB is throwing to guys who are not open, without making multiple reads, that a very bad thing.

 

There is even value in hitting your first read if hes open. If your going out there pre-snap and figuring out that option "X" is gonna be open because they are likely playing "Y" defense, good on you.

 

 

U gotta get that prospect in a film room, ask him what he saw and why he did what he did on any given play, and we simply are not privy to that info.

 

 

Edited April 9 by FootballZombie