CW21's 2018 NFL Draft Review (Browns Up)

[diamondbull424]

1 hour ago, CWood21 said:

Russell Wilson will go down as one of my (and many others) biggest QB whiffs.  I gave him a 7th round grade at the time, which in hindsight was probably way too harsh.  But I think you're also kidding yourself if you don't think there's a stigma against shorter QBs.  I mean, we even saw it this year with Baker Mayfield.  Remember how many people were concerned with Baker's height?  It was only after he measured in at 6'1" that those critics started to stop bringing it up.  If you don't think height played a part in Russell Wilson's fall, I don't know what to tell you.  The other part was that he was essentially a 1-year wonder playing in an offensive scheme that most felt made him look better than he actually was.  I mean, he went from completing 58% of his passes and a 2:1 TD-INT ratio in his last year at NC State to completing 72% of his passes with a 8:1 TD-INT ratio.  Nobody trusted him.  That's why he went where he went.  That being said, I think you and I are clearly on different wavelengths.  I'm evaluating Russell Wilson the passing QB against Lamar Jackson the passing QB.  That's where there is a night and day difference.  Lamar Jackson was a far bigger threat with his legs than Wilson ever was.

It's not flawed.  I think Darnold is a viable starting QB, I don't think Lamar Jackson is.  So at that point, I'm willing to give up just about anything in order to add him.  I'm not willing to do that for the Lamar Jackson.  Let's go back to your point.  If they both flop, the Jets invested 3 second round picks into Darnold essentially.  If Lamar Jackson flops, they essentially invested one.  At the end of days, it goes back to the order of magnitude about how I feel the likelihood of Darnold succeeding and the unlikelihood that Lamar Jackson does.  To the point where the cost doesn't really bother me.  Especially since I don't think he needs to be a Matt Ryan-level QB.  It's not like they gave up an RG3 package to get him.

And of those "dual threat" QBs you listed, how many of them had sub-60% completion percentages in college?  Yes, it's a very rudimentary measurement of a passer, but it gives you an idea of him as a passer.  I mean, completing 60% passes in college isn't a huge benchmark to clear especially given the prevalence of spread offenses in CFB.  He didn't even hit that.  As far as I'm aware, Michael Vick is the only QB that had a sub-60% completion percentage in college that had sustained success in the NFL, and I'd make the argument that had more to do with his legs than his arm.  He was an "all or nothing" passer.  That being said, you and I clearly have way different definitions of dual threat QBs.  I think the only player in that group that is remotely like Lamar Jackson is Michael Vick.  Lamar Jackson had 3000+ rushing yards his final two seasons with Louisville.  McNabb had 850 rushing yards, Culpepper had 900, Michael Vick had 1300, Alex Smith had 1100, Vince Young had 2100, Tim Tebow had 1600, Cam Newton had 1500 in his lone year at Auburn, Jake Locker had 800, RG3 had 1300, and Johnny Manziel had 2200.  You lumping in Donovan McNabb and Culpepper in with that group isn't fair given that it was less prevalent that players declared early.  You have to have some sort of baseline to "equalize" it, which is why I said their last two seasons in college.  If you draw that line at 1000 yards, that success rate goes down.  Quite frankly, your benchmarks for what is a success and what wasn't is wildly inconsistent.  Alex Smith hasn't lived up to the #1 overall pick, so I'd hardly call that a success.  He's turned into a decent QB, but not someone who was drafted first overall.  Either way, you're essentially narrowing the focus to fit your argument.  Teams simply don't take running QBs in the first.  If they're going to gamble on those types, it's later in the draft.  You're essentially trying to make the qualifier that because he was drafted in the first that he's more likely to succeed.  Would you still be making this argument if he was drafted 33rd?  Probably not.

But like I said, find me a list of QBs in college with a sub-60% completion percentage who had sustained success in the NFL aside from Michael Vick.  I think you'll be astounded to how much that translate to the the next level.

And the law of averages works better off when we're talking about larger sample sizes.  The Packers drafted two corners a few years back with Damarious Randall and Quentin Rollins with their first two picks.  Randall was just dealt to Cleveland for DeShone Kizer, and Rollins is in jeopardy of being released.  Just because they drafted two TEs doesn't mean they're going to get one of them to hit.  It's a little outdated but the numbers figure to remain relatively static.

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Scroll down to the TE situation.  There's a 67% success rate in the first round, but only a 39% success rate in the 3rd round.  Assuming my math is correct, there's a 26% chance that they both hit.  There's a 41% chance that Hurst hits, but Andrews flops.  There's a 13% chance that Andrews hits, but Hurst flops.  And there's a 20% chance that they both flop.  Each position has a list, and you're likelihood of them succeeding goes down as you go down in the draft.  I've already mentioned that I think Lamar Jackson flops, but I think your expectaions of Jordan Lasley making 3 Pro Bowls as unlikely.  The success rate of 4th round receivers is ~12%.  Maybe he beats the odds, but that 88% chance he flops seems like a better bet.

1. Clearly you’re missing the point. Your past self analyzed Wilson to be a 7th round pick as a QB prospect. The past selves of the NFL deemed him to be a 3rd round quarterback- at Best.

Your current self is telling us that Wilson was a better QB prospect than Lamar Jackson in the their respective last seasons. I’m not arguing about Jackson the pro or Wilson the pro, that’s irrelevant to the discussion because Jackson hasn’t even begun that particular chapter in his novel.

My argument is that you are so confident in your current opinion, yet your past self was likely similarly as confident with Wilson after his superior (to Jackson) final season. He had such a great season that you rated him as a 7th round quarterback? So I suppose that makes Lamar Jackson’s last season nothing more than UDFA worthy, considering non-revised logic.

Point being, you’re using revisionist history to elevate your current comparison, which is a flawed concept. Which is why I asked you what you thought of Wilson in comparison to Luck and RG3, because revisionist history would tell us that Wilson was the better prospect, clearly. Especially when you see that he beat Luck by 20 points in his QB rating within a pro style offense and such. Yet he was 5’11” and 206 lbs, thus he was simply no more than a career backup. FWIW, I didn’t pay attention to those QBs enough to analyze them. I simply “liked what I saw” from Wilson when I watched him play. But I wasn’t dialed in on him because the Ravens had Flacco as our QB. I was instead dialed into the greatness that was Kevin Ziegler and Travis Frederick. This to say your rant about how I viewed Wilson isn’t relevant.

2. That’s not what’s being argued. @wackywabbit stated that the opportunity cost providers for Jackson and the cost provided for Darnold were not the same. So while you might be much more confident in Darnold’s success, his success is also much more tied to the success of this 2018 draft class. Whereas Jackson’s success is not. Which is the point.

What’s more the point about Wilson is just as relevant here, which was the point of its inclusion into the conversation in the first place. If Darnold is analogous to Luck and Wilson is analogous to Jackson, the value of Jackson would greatly be much higher given the 3rd round value that went to securing him vs the 1st overall pick value that went into selecting Luck.

You ignored the true reason for the comparison to launch into your hindsight view of Wilson as a better passer than Jackson, which is irrelevant to the metaphor. That’s irrelevant because Luck was also viewed as one of the top QB prospects of all time, while Darnold is simply viewed as the best QB prospect of his class. Just as Jackson is viewed to be worse than Darnold in 2018, like Wilson was considered to be worse than Luck in 2012. Hindsight makes us all prophets, but if things go sideways and they both fail the opportunity cost of giving away less resources is always more optimal than giving away more resources. This literally can’t be argued. Which was the point that was being made that you ignored or didn’t perceive. Which is why I resupplied it. 

3. True. Good point. But adjusted for drops by receivers and Lamar Jackson’s completion percentage skyrockets to 67.7%, which is actually 0.7% higher than one Sam Darnold.

4. Yeah, someone who doesn’t view Donovan McNabb, a guy that is top 10 in rushing yards of all time by an NFL QB, as a “dual threat” QB does not share the definition with me. Clearly in such a universe if one does not rush for the most yards in NFL history like Mike Vick they are not a dual threat QB, clearly.?

5. Not really. Once someone is drafted they are no longer a draft pick, but a player. I like opportunity cost just as much as the next guy and that’s relevant when we’re comparing VALUE RETURNED. But when we are simply comparing an arbitrary indicator such as success, I would consider a “successful” QB as someone that can be a consistently good passer of the ball which a combination of pro bowls and performance indicators shows me. Someone with 3 probowls is generally considered as someone that was a quality performer at their position. If you don’t like that definition of success figure out your own. If Jackson produces to my standards of a successful NFL QB then I would be happy. And judging by his predecessors, he has a great chance to. 

6. Actually, I would. The statistics would also be in my favor. Think of all the crappy pocket passers that have been in the league vs crappy dual threat QBs. Generally if a dual threat option gets drafted, he’s been put under much higher scrutiny than his pocket passer peers. So if he’s drafted to play QB, chances are he’s been much better vetted. I just didn’t feel like combing through EVERY QB drafted within the past 20 years because I knew that in the other rounds Law of Averages should equally play out similarly.

7. Agreed. Which is why a larger draft class is a “larger sample” than a smaller draft class. This literally can’t be argued. Finding the statistics of success in each round vs less success all culminates into telling the same tale. Success increased the more shots you take. I have greater chance at success with my fourth round if I have 3 picks then if I have only 1. You literally can’t argue that point. Which is the point being made with drafting TWO tight ends and TWELVE draft picks. Law of averages works as law of averages work.

8. True. But I never said Lasley making 3 pro bowls was an expectation, that was you. I said, “I have no idea which players will hit... but if I had to guess which ones would be the hits, I would say... Jordan Lasley.” There is a great difference between expecting and guessing. I expect that everyday of my employment, I will be paid. I’m guessing that I have a shot at winning $100m by buying a lottery ticket.

I simply added a few milestones that if things workout, how I might see them working. In terms of Lasley succeeding, it is indeed a long shot, but we’ve seen it happen before where late round receivers turn into diamonds. In fact Antonio Brown was drafted in the 6th round. Different position but also drafted in the 5th round were Kam Chancellor and Richard Sherman.

So I’m not expecting Lasley to succeed. But he definitely has the talent to. Which is why I’m guessing that he CAN succeed, just like you are guessing that Sam Darnold will succeed... and equally guessing at how all these drafts will play out. I mean, I respect the analysis and all, and being bold enough to put your thoughts on blast, but you’re still guessing nonetheless.

[diamondbull424]

18 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Give him all day to throw and play press aggressively at the LoS? Lamar Jackson has shown more than capable of hitting deep throws over the top if you are going to make it that easy. 

Or compare Lamar Jackson's age 18-20 seasons which were way better than Russell Wilson's age 20-22 seasons. 

Nah. Every GM would rather whiff on the guy that cost a mid and future second, than the guy that cost the #6 overall, a high second, a mid second, and a future second. If they whiff, what does it matter what you used to feel about them?

I wish I had this level of brevity and effectiveness all in one. Like this literally cannot be argued.

Stating the opposite would be like saying, I’d much rather total my dad’s Bentley than total his Civic... because it costs more.

Your dad will be upset either way, but total the Civic and you might actually escape with your life. The Bentley and there’s no chance.?

[paraven]

19 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And I think that's where the biggest discrepancies are going to lie, your evaluation of Lamar Jackson.  If you view Lamar Jackson as a legitimate QB prospect, than you're going to like this draft.  If you're like me and don't view him as a legitimate QB prospect, you're probably not going to hate it.  Add on that I didn't like the value on the Hurst selection, and they're first two picks were whiffs for me.  The problem for me is that we've seen a flurry of these athletes at QBs, and they all tend to have a pretty short shelf life before the NFL figures them out.  I mean, when was the last time we had a "run first" QB have sustained success in the NFL over an extended period?  I think you'd have to go back to Michael Vick to find that kind of level of success over an extended period.  RG3 was great as a rookie and then got injured and fell off the face of the earth, Colin Kaepernick had a ~2 year period of decent success in large part because of his legs, etc.  I mean, what separates Lamar Jackson the athlete from say Braxton Miller the athlete?   If Lamar Jackson is Michael Vick 2.0, they nailed this draft.  If he's just a "package player" he most certainly isn't worth the same as a starter at another position.

As for the difference between the Jets and Raven situation.  I feel exponentially more confident in Darnold's ability to play QB than I do Lamar's.  I'm okay with what the Jets gave up to get him.  If they gave up that same to get Lamar, I'd have lost my mind as a Jets fan.  I'd take Darnold for what the Jets gave up over what the Ravens got for Lamar Jackson, and I don't think twice about it.  IF Darnold whiffs, that's something I can live with.

I agree with your assessment of Jackson, I feel he would have  been there at pick 52 and the ravens didnt need to reach for him at 32. Best Value though IMO will end up being Orlando Brown Jr in the 3rd round. My biggest gripe was the ravens twice passing on the top 2 wrs, before trading back a 3rd time and ultimately getting Hurst. I feel 22 would have been a great spot for DJ Moore

[Glen]

13 hours ago, CWood21 said:

@Acgott @10Manning10 @mattbags2313 @minutemancl @w4rrior723 @Money @GMENNATION @Gmen @Gmen4ev @DaBoys @YogiBiz @bzane @Bballbkd @GEE MEN @ny92jefferis

Was not a fan of the Barkley pick at first. But became a huge fan of it after the Hernandez pick. The pairing of those two picks lead me to believe that we have a sense of direction now. And not just throwing darts at the wall like some years prior.

[diamondbull424]

19 hours ago, CWood21 said:

And I think that's where the biggest discrepancies are going to lie, your evaluation of Lamar Jackson.  If you view Lamar Jackson as a legitimate QB prospect, than you're going to like this draft.  If you're like me and don't view him as a legitimate QB prospect, you're probably not going to hate it.  Add on that I didn't like the value on the Hurst selection, and they're first two picks were whiffs for me.

 

25 minutes ago, paraven said:

I agree with your assessment of Jackson, I feel he would have  been there at pick 52 and the ravens didnt need to reach for him at 32. Best Value though IMO will end up being Orlando Brown Jr in the 3rd round. My biggest gripe was the ravens twice passing on the top 2 wrs, before trading back a 3rd time and ultimately getting Hurst. I feel 22 would have been a great spot for DJ Moore

Just out of curiosity, what type of results would quantify Jackson (and to a lesser degree Hurst) as a “success” for the both of you?

And I don’t want the “it depends on how the stars shine at 9am on a Tuesday” type of response some people give when they try to expertly dodge a question, but a clear and concise structure as to how you guys would define these guys as “hits” given all the current information we have at our disposal. Just curious.

[CWood21]

11 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Give him all day to throw and play press aggressively at the LoS? Lamar Jackson has shown more than capable of hitting deep throws over the top if you are going to make it that easy. 

Yes.  I've got less confidence that Lamar can throw in those tight windows, and despite your opinion otherwise he really hasn't shown the ability to throw in those tight windows consistently.

 

11 hours ago, wackywabbit said:

Nah. Every GM would rather whiff on the guy that cost a mid and future second, than the guy that cost the #6 overall, a high second, a mid second, and a future second. If they whiff, what does it matter what you used to feel about them?

If you go into the draft feeling they're both going to whiff, yes.  But that's not the case.  You go into the draft pretty damn confident Darnold is going to hit, otherwise you wouldn't have drafted him 3rd.  I don't have that same level of confidence with Lamar Jackson.  I'm willing to bet more money with better odds than I am less money with poor odds.

[paraven]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

 

Just out of curiosity, what type of results would quantify Jackson (and to a lesser degree Hurst) as a “success” for the both of you?

And I don’t want the “it depends on how the stars shine at 9am on a Tuesday” type of response some people give when they try to expertly dodge a question, but a clear and concise structure as to how you guys would define these guys as “hits” given all the current information we have at our disposal. Just curious.

Hurst will need to immediately be the go to tight end for me to consider him a him. Something like and aversge of 700 yards and 8 tds a year in his first 3 years and I'm happy. 

As for Jackson if he can eventually turn into a serviceable qb then I suppose I'll be happy. I'm just more of a pure pocket passer type of guy then a mobile run option guy. But if he can show that he can stay in the pocket and not scramble at the first sign of pressure, then il be good 

[TENINCH]

On ‎5‎/‎11‎/‎2018 at 12:24 PM, Uncle Buck said:

Great write-up CWood21.  This pretty much reinforces my thoughts coming out of the draft weekend.  We probably didn't bomb, but there were choices made that can very easily be questioned.  We'll just have to see how it works out 2-3 years down the line.  Thanks for your hard work in this thread.

Vikings get a grade of C. 

Cwood21 gets a grade of A+   

He gets a 100 point deduction for being a Cheesehead though. So his real score is an F+

[wackywabbit]

2 hours ago, CWood21 said:

If you go into the draft feeling they're both going to whiff, yes.  But that's not the case.  You go into the draft pretty damn confident Darnold is going to hit, otherwise you wouldn't have drafted him 3rd.  I don't have that same level of confidence with Lamar Jackson.  I'm willing to bet more money with better odds than I am less money with poor odds.

I still feel you are either missing or avoiding the point. It's not about comparing Darnold and Jackson (although I'd be willing to do that too). You go a lot further when declaring Jackson the worst "value" pick. 

Value is equal parts what you get and what you spend. What Darnold cost in draft capital to acquire exceeds the ENTIRE Ravens draft class by any chart out there. So Darnold busting is worse than all 12 Ravens draft picks busting if you want to talk value. 

You bring up Kaepernick and RG3 like they are examples against that pick. But, if you look at the approximate value chart, Kaepernick and even RG3 would have exceeded the AV expectation for Lamar Jackson's pick. Granted, I believe AV is mostly data-noise down on an individual basis, but more interesting on a larger sample averaging look. However it makes sense, that a single player greatly elevating one side of the ball for two seasons would exceed the average return on the two seconds spent on Jackson.

[diamondbull424]

3 hours ago, paraven said:

Hurst will need to immediately be the go to tight end for me to consider him a him. Something like and aversge of 700 yards and 8 tds a year in his first 3 years and I'm happy. 

As for Jackson if he can eventually turn into a serviceable qb then I suppose I'll be happy. I'm just more of a pure pocket passer type of guy then a mobile run option guy. But if he can show that he can stay in the pocket and not scramble at the first sign of pressure, then il be good 

1. This is what I was looking for. This is fair. I can agree with these metrics. My changes would be more yards and less touchdowns. Something like an average of 750 yds, 6 TDs over his 5 year contract. Would put him above Pitta and Heap on our all time TE list.

2. This is too vague. One persons ideas of “serviceable” May be wildly different to another’s. One person may consider Tyrod Taylor as a “serviceable” QB, some may disagree. Someone else might consider Alex Smith as serviceable, while others might disagree.

So what would you define as your “minimum” threshold for any QB to be successful, regardless of playing style?

[CWood21]

5 hours ago, diamondbull424 said:

Just out of curiosity, what type of results would quantify Jackson (and to a lesser degree Hurst) as a “success” for the both of you?

And I don’t want the “it depends on how the stars shine at 9am on a Tuesday” type of response some people give when they try to expertly dodge a question, but a clear and concise structure as to how you guys would define these guys as “hits” given all the current information we have at our disposal. Just curious.

I'm not sure there's really a single stat that says he's a success.  I consider him a success if the Ravens don't feel the need to improve and/or actively looking to improve upon him.  I know that doesn't really answer your question, but I don't think you can use any single stat and say above this line he's a success, but below it he isn't.

[paraven]

2 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

1. This is what I was looking for. This is fair. I can agree with these metrics. My changes would be more yards and less touchdowns. Something like an average of 750 yds, 6 TDs over his 5 year contract. Would put him above Pitta and Heap on our all time TE list.

2. This is too vague. One persons ideas of “serviceable” May be wildly different to another’s. One person may consider Tyrod Taylor as a “serviceable” QB, some may disagree. Someone else might consider Alex Smith as serviceable, while others might disagree.

So what would you define as your “minimum” threshold for any QB to be successful, regardless of playing style?

TBH, im not a stat guy, If he plays big in big games and goes for 11 tds and no ints in a  playoff run to the  super bowl then I will like him. If he puts up big numbers in the regular season and chokes in the playoffs, I will not be happy. Obviously if he does  both then its great. 

[CWood21]

3 hours ago, paraven said:

Hurst will need to immediately be the go to tight end for me to consider him a him. Something like and aversge of 700 yards and 8 tds a year in his first 3 years and I'm happy.

There have been 38 TEs taken in the first three rounds since 2010.  Of those 38, I believe only two (Jimmy Graham and Rob Gronkowski) hit your 700/8 mark.    If you scale it down to the 750/6, I believe three (Jimmy Graham, Rob Gronkowski, Travis Kelce) would hit that qualifier.  Basically, you're saying that he has to be an elite TE in order for that to be a worthy pick.

[CWood21]

1 hour ago, wackywabbit said:

I still feel you are either missing or avoiding the point. It's not about comparing Darnold and Jackson (although I'd be willing to do that too). You go a lot further when declaring Jackson the worst "value" pick. 

Value is equal parts what you get and what you spend. What Darnold cost in draft capital to acquire exceeds the ENTIRE Ravens draft class by any chart out there. So Darnold busting is worse than all 12 Ravens draft picks busting if you want to talk value. 

You bring up Kaepernick and RG3 like they are examples against that pick. But, if you look at the approximate value chart, Kaepernick and even RG3 would have exceeded the AV expectation for Lamar Jackson's pick. Granted, I believe AV is mostly data-noise down on an individual basis, but more interesting on a larger sample averaging look. However it makes sense, that a single player greatly elevating one side of the ball for two seasons would exceed the average return on the two seconds spent on Jackson.

I'm missing or avoiding the point.  As I mentioned before, I had a 5th round grade on Lamar Jackson going into the draft, and they took him in the first round.  By that factor alone, he was the worst value pick for me.  I didn't like Hayden Hurst, but he was still 3rd round value.  3rd round value on a 1st round pick used on a TE against a 5th round value QB selected using a first round pick really isn't a comparison.  Add on that I mentioned in the Bills' selection of Josh Allen, the trade up is factored.  So not only did the Ravens take a player I thought was poor value, they traded up using a future pick to do so.  That's why Lamar Jackson was my worst value pick.

You talk about value being equal parts what you spend and what give you get.  Sam Darnold was a top 10 prospect for me.  The Jets gave up three seconds in order to select him.  That's a small price to pay especially compared to what teams have given in order to secure their franchise QB.  In 2016, the Rams traded two second and a third in the 2017 draft AND a 1st and 3rd in the 2018 draft in order to move up to select Jared Goff receiving a 1st, 4th, and 6th in return.  The Eagles traded their 1st, 3rd, 4th, '17 1st, and '18 2nd in order to move up to select Carson Wentz.  In terms of trades, I'd argue the Wentz trade was probably closer to the Jets' trade.

What you seem to be misunderstanding is that I'm not arguing that if Darnold busts, who gave up more.  I'm arguing that giving up assets for someone you don't realistically think is going to succeed is a poor use of resources.  I don't think Lamar Jackson is going to succeed.  Using the 52nd pick (or whatever pick the Ravens had) is bad enough, but it's compounded by the fact that they threw in their '19 2nd in order to select him.  I think Darnold can/will succeed, giving up those 2nds really isn't going to be the end of it for me.

[Broncofan]

If Lamar is league average for 3/5 years (his first full year of starting I don’t ever expect that) - win for value.  If he’s better or does it for longer then the greater the gain.  

If Lamar isn’t a league average QB then it’s a loss.  How badly he fails increase the loss.  

For Darnold the bar is higher - I’d consider league average as a fail for all but his year 1-2 years.   I’d want top 12 play for years 3-5 for break even point.   The bar is different but the same principle applies imo.   I do agree Darnold (and Rosen) have much safer floors which is why I had them as my top 2 guys.  

If you don’t think Lamar will pan out it’s a bad draft.  If you think he will it’s a strong draft (although I wasn’t a fan of Hurst Rd 1 either).   It’s not that surprising to see polarized grades.