Burrow vs Lamar vs Mayfield: who would you take as a GM?

[RuskieTitan]

Having seen how Jackson performs in the playoffs, I'd be more worried for my team to run into a Burrow-led team than a Jackson-led team in the playoffs.

[diamondbull424]

On 4/16/2020 at 3:12 PM, SmittyBacall said:

1. This is all so irrelevant when compared to observing the tape and coming to a conclusion based off of game film. Half of these numbers function only as a means to confirm what you’ve already seen. You’re overcomplicating this for the sake of overcomplicating.

2. If someone asks you those questions and you throw those measures at them, I feel sorry for the person that asked.

3. That’s the great thing about opinions, you don’t need to engage the stupid ones.

1. A conclusion is irrelevant when not properly explained. This is not the scientific method. Simply coming to a conclusion doesn’t make something true or properly observed. Watching the tape and simply saying, “this guy is a running QB” and this guy is not is meaningless without context for how the opinion is formed. Is that opinion duplicatable by a particular method? No? Then it isn’t to be taken seriously. 1+1 = 2 would be a meaningless statement if there were no proper methods to duplicate the understanding. Luckily it IS duplicatable and is thus not worthless characters. We can duplicate it by establishing the notion that we have 1 duck and adding one more duck would provide us with two ducks. This is now a meaningful mathematical foundation for which all other works can be based off of.

2. I gave examples. And I feel sorry for the person who asks that question and has the person retort with saying, “because he’s a good route runner” with no actual breakdown as to what, in fact, makes him good. What I stated above is LITERALLY what any coach is doing. They’re drilling different route releases into their players. They go to the film and say, “look at how quickly he gains separation here, look at what the defender is seeing and how he’s manipulating that.” The coach then drills the player on different ladder drills to improve the quickness of his feet. He then evaluates film with his player and says, “see this is what x NFL receiver is doing, look at how quickly he’s able to get in and out of his breaks here to gain separation. Look at the depth of his separation.” The combine numbers simply then becomes the result of all that hardwork. The quicker that players feet or explosive in and out of his breaks, the more likely he is to test well in those respective drills.

3. This isn’t a very realistic solution. People not being within agreement on something doesn’t make another perspective any less likely to be true. Perhaps the Iverson debater could state that he’s personally played against both Jordan and Iverson and that Iverson was easily the more difficult player for him to contain. From his experience, he would have advanced information that if included would validate his opinion. Would it usurp public opinion, no it would not. However it would provide new found data points that in the future we might be able to utilize for some other purpose... perhaps in a debate between Dwayne Wade and Allen Iverson perhaps.

[diamondbull424]

23 minutes ago, Yin-Yang said:

I’m going to - for the final time - put this as simply as possible, so that nobody could possibly misconstrue it: 

Not interested in the running QB debate. Came in to state that it’s not a term everyone has the same definition for. Stated some other opinions too, you disagree with em, fine. Take it home and bank it though, because no thanks.

Sounds good, but again... that’s not what I asked you this time. I asked you two completely different questions.

1. Run reliance isn’t asking for a breakdown on what makes one QB a “running QB” and another “not a running QB”, I’ve simply asked for a definition of that specific term that you’ve used. What does that mean?

2. What’s more my other question was even less related to the running QB debate... what makes Jackson not comparable to Wilson from a work ethic and development perspective. At age 22 Wilson had 146 carries for 667 yards, 527 pass attempts (58.4% completions) for 3563 yards for 28 TDs at NC State; while at 22 Jackson had 176 carries for 1206 yards, 401 pass attempts (66.1%) for 3127 yards and 36 TDs. What makes a comparison to Wilson as a potential developmental progression path for Jackson feel less genuine than to a comparison to 22 year old Newton?

 

Or is it more simply that you aren’t interested in debating me here at all? If that’s your wish then I will oblige.

Edited April 17, 2020 by diamondbull424

[SmittyBacall]

23 minutes ago, diamondbull424 said:

1. A conclusion is irrelevant when not properly explained. This is not the scientific method. Simply coming to a conclusion doesn’t make something true or properly observed. Watching the tape and simply saying, “this guy is a running QB” and this guy is not is meaningless without context for how the opinion is formed. Is that opinion duplicatable by a particular method? No? Then it isn’t to be taken seriously. 1+1 = 2 would be a meaningless statement if there were no proper methods to duplicate the understanding. Luckily it IS duplicatable and is thus not worthless characters. We can duplicate it by establishing the notion that we have 1 duck and adding one more duck would provide us with two ducks. This is now a meaningful mathematical foundation for which all other works can be based off of.

2. I gave examples. And I feel sorry for the person who asks that question and has the person retort with saying, “because he’s a good route runner” with no actual breakdown as to what, in fact, makes him good. What I stated above is LITERALLY what any coach is doing. They’re drilling different route releases into their players. They go to the film and say, “look at how quickly he gains separation here, look at what the defender is seeing and how he’s manipulating that.” The coach then drills the player on different ladder drills to improve the quickness of his feet. He then evaluates film with his player and says, “see this is what x NFL receiver is doing, look at how quickly he’s able to get in and out of his breaks here to gain separation. Look at the depth of his separation.” The combine numbers simply then becomes the result of all that hardwork. The quicker that players feet or explosive in and out of his breaks, the more likely he is to test well in those respective drills.

3. This isn’t a very realistic solution. People not being within agreement on something doesn’t make another perspective any less likely to be true. Perhaps the Iverson debater could state that he’s personally played against both Jordan and Iverson and that Iverson was easily the more difficult player for him to contain. From his experience, he would have advanced information that if included would validate his opinion. Would it usurp public opinion, no it would not. However it would provide new found data points that in the future we might be able to utilize for some other purpose... perhaps in a debate between Dwayne Wade and Allen Iverson perhaps.

That's great that your an advocate of science and all but you need to understand that not everyone sees the world through that lens. You're posting on the wrong board if that's what you're expecting. I appreciate the response but I'm not going to take the time to deconstruct this any further. 

[diamondbull424]

15 minutes ago, SmittyBacall said:

That's great that your an advocate of science and all but you need to understand that not everyone sees the world through that lens. You're posting on the wrong board if that's what you're expecting. I appreciate the response but I'm not going to take the time to deconstruct this any further. 

Wait, what? Science literally means “the study of”, thus if someone is “analyzing tape” they are conducting science. If this person doesn’t know how to digest such analysis into productive information for others to consume and are only able to hold onto their own opinion then they are simply “bad at science”.

Lastly I’ve been posting on this board since 2007, half of that as a mod for the board. This board has always been based fundamentally on discussion and debating different draft talents and their potential in the pros (hence Footballs future)... so I think I’m pretty qualified in determining that I do, indeed, belong on the board... but thanks for your suggestion of what I should and shouldn’t do with my time, I truly appreciate it....

[Soko]

1 hour ago, diamondbull424 said:

Sounds good, but again... that’s not what I asked you this time. I asked you two completely different questions.

1. Run reliance isn’t asking for a breakdown on what makes one QB a “running QB” and another “not a running QB”, I’ve simply asked for a definition of that specific term that you’ve used. What does that mean?

2. What’s more my other question was even less related to the running QB debate... what makes Jackson not comparable to Wilson from a work ethic and development perspective. At age 22 Wilson had 146 carries for 667 yards, 527 pass attempts (58.4% completions) for 3563 yards for 28 TDs at NC State; while at 22 Jackson had 176 carries for 1206 yards, 401 pass attempts (66.1%) for 3127 yards and 36 TDs. What makes a comparison to Wilson as a potential developmental progression path for Jackson feel less genuine than to a comparison to 22 year old Newton?

 

Or is it more simply that you aren’t interested in debating me here at all? If that’s your wish then I will oblige.

It’s this topic overall, man. I honestly don’t feel like there’s much to gain on either side here, lol. My first comment was about the idea that there’s differing definitions of “running QBs” (how I view that term is irrelevant, just mentioning that there’s more than one way to view it). Made some comments after that which I was more putting out there than debating. 

[Letsch80]

2 hours ago, RuskieTitan said:

Having seen how Jackson performs in the playoffs, I'd be more worried for my team to run into a Burrow-led team than a Jackson-led team in the playoffs.

Lmao!!!!! 

Yeah that makes perfect sense,  lets trust the quarterback who hasn't played a single snap. in the league versus the unanimous MVP of the league..

I love how you assume who Lamar is as a quarterback when he has played only 25 games in his career (which he has won 19). In about 3-5 years this will be an idiotic take.. 

[RuskieTitan]

6 minutes ago, Letsch80 said:

Lmao!!!!! 

Yeah that makes perfect sense,  lets trust the quarterback who hasn't played a single snap. in the league versus the unanimous MVP of the league..

I love how you assume who Lamar is as a quarterback when he has played only 25 games in his career (which he has won 19). In about 3-5 years this will be an idiotic take.. 

He could prove me wrong. But I've seen him in the playoffs two consecutive seasons. I'd be curious to know how many duds would have to happen before you concede what you see?

[Letsch80]

12 minutes ago, RuskieTitan said:

He could prove me wrong. But I've seen him in the playoffs two consecutive seasons. I'd be curious to know how many duds would have to happen before you concede what you see?

Lol!!! It was his second freaking start in the post season!!!  You do realize that there are a ton of successful quarterbacks that have struggled in the post season early in their careers right?  Peyton Manning comes to mind.. 

Also it's not like Lamar was the sole reason they lost in the divisional round.. The offensive coaches abandoned the run way too early in that game and the defense couldn’t stop Henry.. So how exactly is the loss solely on Lamar??  

I will never understand the hatred for Lamar and how people refuse to give him credit for constantly proving analysts and skeptics wrong throughout his career so far.. I guess him winning in the playoffs is just the next step to putting a stop to all of this nonsense!! 

[diamondbull424]

3 hours ago, Yin-Yang said:

It’s this topic overall, man. I honestly don’t feel like there’s much to gain on either side here, lol. My first comment was about the idea that there’s differing definitions of “running QBs” (how I view that term is irrelevant, just mentioning that there’s more than one way to view it). Made some comments after that which I was more putting out there than debating. 

FWIW, when this topic was created I facepalmed and told myself I wasn’t going to participate in it at no cost... alas, I lied to myself. 😅

[wackywabbit]

On 4/17/2020 at 10:08 PM, RuskieTitan said:

He could prove me wrong. But I've seen him in the playoffs two consecutive seasons. I'd be curious to know how many duds would have to happen before you concede what you see?

Take a look at Flacco's playoff game log: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00/gamelog/post/ and how he started compared to Lamar.

^ At what point there were we supposed to "concede what we see" on his playoff ability by @RuskieTitan logic?

[RuskieTitan]

5 minutes ago, wackywabbit said:

Take a look at Flacco's playoff game log: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/F/FlacJo00/gamelog/post/ and how he started compared to Lamar.

^ At what point there were we supposed to "concede what we see" on his playoff ability by @RuskieTitan logic?

I'm not making a prediction on what he will continue to do or improve on. I simply posed a question, if he continues to underwhelm in the playoffs, how many times would it take before accepting that's what he is?

[wackywabbit]

Just now, RuskieTitan said:

I'm not making a prediction on what he will continue to do or improve on. I simply posed a question, if he continues to underwhelm in the playoffs, how many times would it take before accepting that's what he is?

Did you click the link I posted? 

If so, the answer to your question is pretty obviously way more than 2 games isn't it?

[RuskieTitan]

1 minute ago, wackywabbit said:

Did you click the link I posted? 

If so, the answer to your question is pretty obviously way more than 2 games isn't it?

5 years, got it.

[MSURacerDT55]