Draft Busts

[BleedTheClock]

6 minutes ago, tyler735 said:

While I certainly can't say I agree with everything VanS says, how would Lamar not be a good "long term take" coming off an MVP season? I'd gladly take 5-10 years of what Lamar Jackson has to offer over a QB that may have better longevity, but less of an impact overall on their team like the current number 1 pick in that draft Baker Mayfield.

I just don’t think Jackson sustains this success. We’ll see. 

[jg77]

11 minutes ago, tyler735 said:

While I certainly can't say I agree with everything VanS says, how would Lamar not be a good "long term take" coming off an MVP season? I'd gladly take 5-10 years of what Lamar Jackson has to offer over a QB that may have better longevity, but less of an impact overall on their team like the current number 1 pick in that draft Baker Mayfield.

Lol folks say that when they don't want to be proven wrong. He could have a nice 8 year stretch but as soon as an injury happens...I told you so!

[THE DUKE]

1 minute ago, jrry32 said:

You sure? Julio has had a good QB his entire career. Yes, Brees is better, but Thomas better fits Brees's skill-set at this point in his career. Brees isn't a great vertical passer anymore. 

Guys like Michael Thomas are not common and cannot be found every year in the middle rounds. Your philosophy is a bad one. You totally discount skill and football IQ as if every player can and will develop them. 

It's completely discounting skills in favor of traits, like perfecting those skills is just some minor obstacle that anyone can overcome.  Honestly, it's probably why the bust rate is as high as it is in round 1.  Traits are easy to see, they are on film, they are measured.  Determining skill is an inexact science, even with the amount of tape that is watched and drills that are run.

[MikeT14]

5 minutes ago, BleedTheClock said:

I just don’t think Jackson sustains this success. We’ll see. 

I'm of the notion that defenses will figure him out a little bit better as time goes on.

[DerbyRam]

I really like Burrow; he looked consistently outstanding last year and you HAVE to take him at 1 IMO.

All that being said, you can't ignore the fact that he's just finished his fifth year at college. Darnold is younger and will be taking his third season in the NFL, whilst Burrow has his first. He completed just 27 passes in 10 games 3 years for Ohio State under Urban Myer, a fairly respected coach. He wasn't seen at all in his first year, beaten out for the starting job comprehensively by a guy in JT Barrett who may never take one snap in the NFL in both the second and third year, whilst Dwyane Haskins took over as backup and eventual starter - also a younger player.  He was average to below average 2018 in his first year at LSU, throwing at 57% accuracy with a 16-5 ratio despite having an extremely talented receivers. 

In 2019 he was just a different beast and truly had arguably the greatest season in college football history. I would just worry that he thrived in an environment, one which he won't be in anymore, with the pressure of being the first pick in the draft, so what am I getting? He could quite easily bust and the red flags are all there. Tua, at least, has been consistently paraded as one of the top QBs of his class and hasn't really dipped bar for injury. I think there is much less chance of Tua busting, but I still don't think you can watch what Burrow did last season and not take him. 

As for wide receivers, it really does depend on the play calling and team. I've seen most mock drafts predicting that Lamb, Jeudy and Ruggs will go to Jets, Raiders & Niners respectively. I'm backing them in reverse order. I think Darnold has promise, but I wouldn't like my chances under Gase. Niners are a run first team, but scheme well so good players will get opportunities. Raiders may lack a franchise QB, but at least they've got a bit about them. Further down the list you're likely looking at Wentz getting a new weapon, Brees getting a new weapon and Rodgers getting a new weapon. All likely to have a consistent year of touches with good set ups and good QBs. 

[VanS]

5 hours ago, jrry32 said:

You sure? Julio has had a good QB his entire career. Yes, Brees is better, but Thomas better fits Brees's skill-set at this point in his career. Brees isn't a great vertical passer anymore. 

Guys like Michael Thomas are not common and cannot be found every year in the middle rounds. Your philosophy is a bad one. You totally discount skill and football IQ as if every player can and will develop them. 

I was talking more about Sean Payton than the QBs.  IMO Sean Payton is as brilliant an offensive mind as any in the league.  His scheme is what has helped turn New Orleans from a laughing stock to one of the most consistently successful franchises in recent NFL history.  Give him a receiver like Julio Jones and I'm sure he would rewrite even more record books.

6'3" WRs that run 4.5 are very common.  I will give Michael Thomas credit for outstanding hands and route running.  But he's not really spectacular at much else.  His receiving numbers while impressive come more from volume than him being a game breaker.  His yards per reception have never been that impressive.  And to me YPC is a more important stat for a receiver than the raw total of catches.  

To me it comes down to this simple point.  You could replace Michael Thomas with several other receivers in the NFL and the Saints would continue to be successful.  Guys like Davante Adams, Adam Theilen, and DeAndre Hopkins have very similar skillsets.  Sean Payton could plug them right in and have zero drop off.  Now think of how many WRs could replace Julio Jones on the Falcons.  I can't think of one.  There is no other receiver currently in the NFL that matches Julio Jones skillsets.  He's one of one.  That is why I say receivers like him are worthy of high 1st round status while receivers like Michael Thomas, DeAndre Hopkins, Davante Adams, and Adam Theilen aren't.  One guy is rare while the others are more common. 

[VanS]

5 hours ago, BleedTheClock said:

I just don’t think Jackson sustains this success. We’ll see. 

Being the unanimous MVP every year does seem unsustainable.   However, being a solid franchise QB is definitely sustainable.  Lamar Jackson is a solid passer, a generational runner, and a hard worker.  Those skills and intangibles will keep him as a solid franchise QB for the next 8-10 years.  He might never win MVP again but that doesn't mean he won't have been worthy of being the 1st overall pick in 2018.

[jrry32]

19 minutes ago, VanS said:

I was talking more about Sean Payton than the QBs.  IMO Sean Payton is as brilliant an offensive mind as any in the league.  His scheme is what has helped turn New Orleans from a laughing stock to one of the most consistently successful franchises in recent NFL history.  Give him a receiver like Julio Jones and I'm sure he would rewrite even more record books.

6'3" WRs that run 4.5 are very common.  I will give Michael Thomas credit for outstanding hands and route running.  But he's not really spectacular at much else.  His receiving numbers while impressive come more from volume than him being a game breaker. 

6'2" WRs who run a 4.6 40 are common too. That doesn't change the fact that the greatest WR of all time is Jerry Rice. The three most productive WRs of the past decade are Julio, Antonio Brown, and Larry Fitzgerald. Brown is a 5'10" WR with a 4.5 40. Fitz is a 6'3" WR with a 4.6 40. You really don't seem to understand what makes WRs great. It isn't just being big and fast. Otherwise, a whole host of other WRs would have panned out (like Stephen Hill). Julio is great because he's skilled and intelligent. 

Quote

His yards per reception have never been that impressive.  And to me YPC is a more important stat for a receiver than the raw total of catches.

YPC isn't an important stat. YPT is. Michael Thomas's career YPT is 9.2. Julio's is 9.7. Sounds to me like Thomas is producing at a high level.  

Quote

To me it comes down to this simple point.  You could replace Michael Thomas with several other receivers in the NFL and the Saints would continue to be successful.  Guys like Davante Adams, Adam Theilen, and DeAndre Hopkins have very similar skillsets.  Sean Payton could plug them right in and have zero drop off.  Now think of how many WRs could replace Julio Jones on the Falcons.  I can't think of one.  There is no other receiver currently in the NFL that matches Julio Jones skillsets.  He's one of one.  That is why I say receivers like him are worthy of high 1st round status while receivers like Michael Thomas, DeAndre Hopkins, Davante Adams, and Adam Theilen aren't.  One guy is rare while the others are more common. 

That point is far from simple. It's baseless conjecture. It's also insane to say that the only WR worthy of "high first round status" is the guy you say is a once-in-a-generation talent. I guess in your mind WRs should rarely ever be first round picks. Simply put, your methods here are nonsensical.

[Ray Reed]

7 hours ago, tyler735 said:

While I certainly can't say I agree with everything VanS says, how would Lamar not be a good "long term take" coming off an MVP season? I'd gladly take 5-10 years of what Lamar Jackson has to offer over a QB that may have better longevity, but less of an impact overall on their team like the current number 1 pick in that draft Baker Mayfield.

Keep in mind you’re talking to a guy who had about 60% of his posts in the 2019 offseason very vocally staking his reputation on the fact that Lamar Jackson would never be a good quarterback in this league and that the Ravens would be looking for another quarterback in 2020. 

I’m not joking. I wish i had the care to pull up all of them - they were so, so committed. Literally ended every anti-Jackson post with “I can’t wait until I’m right. I guarantee it” lol. Said “Lamar Jackson would have to make one of the biggest leaps in the history of the position to even become a DECENT passer. It will never happen. We’ve never seen improvement like that”. 

And now that has turned into if Lamar doesn’t keep playing at a unanimous MVP type level and sustain that type of success, he will have been proven right, somehow...because reasons.

He can’t come off now. He took that ship out to sail and he’s going to hold on to every last plank as it sinks.

Edited April 16, 2020 by Ray Reed

[VanS]

3 hours ago, jrry32 said:

6'2" WRs who run a 4.6 40 are common too. That doesn't change the fact that the greatest WR of all time is Jerry Rice. The three most productive WRs of the past decade are Julio, Antonio Brown, and Larry Fitzgerald. Brown is a 5'10" WR with a 4.5 40. Fitz is a 6'3" WR with a 4.6 40. You really don't seem to understand what makes WRs great. It isn't just being big and fast. Otherwise, a whole host of other WRs would have panned out (like Stephen Hill). Julio is great because he's skilled and intelligent. 

YPC isn't an important stat. YPT is. Michael Thomas's career YPT is 9.2. Julio's is 9.7. Sounds to me like Thomas is producing at a high level.  

That point is far from simple. It's baseless conjecture. It's also insane to say that the only WR worthy of "high first round status" is the guy you say is a once-in-a-generation talent. I guess in your mind WRs should rarely ever be first round picks. Simply put, your methods here are nonsensical.

No.  Yards Per Target is not a better stat.  If Player A mostly runs short routes while Player B is running more routes down the field then naturally the guy running more deep routes will have a lower catch rate given the fact deeper routes are harder to complete.  Michael Thomas is great at what he does on short routes but just because he has a higher catch rate on those targets than Julio does running more deep routes doesn't put them on the same level as WRs.

Jerry Rice was before my time so I can't truly evaluate his greatness.  However, from what I've seen on tape he was extraordinarily explosive.  He might not have had great speed in the 40 but he played much faster.  He stretched the field like a guy who runs 4.4 in 40.  Same could be said for Antonio Brown who despite mediocre measurables played with elite explosiveness.  Michael Thomas doesn't do that.   He plays up to his combine stats not above them like Jerry and AB.  He's mostly running underneath routes.  And I simply value receivers that stretch the field over possesion receivers who rack up yards based on volume.

[jrry32]

3 minutes ago, VanS said:

No.  Yards Per Target is not a better stat.  If Player A mostly runs short routes while Player B is running more routes down the field then naturally the guy running more deep routes will have a lower catch rate given the fact deeper routes are harder to complete.  Michael Thomas is great at what he does on short routes but just because he has a higher catch rate on those targets than Julio does running more deep routes doesn't put them on the same level as WRs.

The higher yards per completion will compensate for the lower catch rate. That's why yards per target is a better metric than yards per completion. Do we use yards per attempt to judge QBs or yards per completion?

Quote

Jerry Rice was before my time so I can't truly evaluate his greatness.  However, from what I've seen on tape he was extraordinarily explosive.  He might not have had great speed in the 40 but he played much faster.  He stretched the field like a guy who runs 4.4 in 40.  Same could be said for Antonio Brown who despite mediocre measurables played with elite explosiveness.  Michael Thomas doesn't do that.   He plays up to his combine stats not above them like Jerry and AB.  He's mostly running underneath routes.  And I simply value receivers that stretch the field over possesion receivers who rack up yards based on volume.

You're shooting your own argument in the foot. You're now saying that the measurables may not sum up a guy's abilities. But that's your exact critique of the top WRs in this class. 

As for Thomas, I don't care what routes he runs. He consistently gets open, he consistently catches the ball, he consistently produces yardage, and he consistently helps his team put the ball in the end-zone. That's what matters. And Thomas doesn't just rack up yardage on volume. He's extremely efficient too. What you're doing here is akin to saying that you didn't value Peyton Manning because he wasn't a running threat. It's silly.

[thebestever6]

On 4/15/2020 at 12:55 AM, VanS said:

  If I'm looking for another DeAndre Hopkins I'll just take him in the 2nd round like the original DeAndre Hopkins

Hopkins went in the first lol

[thebestever6]

I can't believe there's people on here trashing Micheal Thomas the guy catches 85 to 90 % of his targets lol and people are acting like there's no value to that lol I don't get it

[VanS]

51 minutes ago, jrry32 said:

The higher yards per completion will compensate for the lower catch rate. That's why yards per target is a better metric than yards per completion. Do we use yards per attempt to judge QBs or yards per completion?

You're shooting your own argument in the foot. You're now saying that the measurables may not sum up a guy's abilities. But that's your exact critique of the top WRs in this class. 

As for Thomas, I don't care what routes he runs. He consistently gets open, he consistently catches the ball, he consistently produces yardage, and he consistently helps his team put the ball in the end-zone. That's what matters. And Thomas doesn't just rack up yardage on volume. He's extremely efficient too. What you're doing here is akin to saying that you didn't value Peyton Manning because he wasn't a running threat. It's silly.

First of all, I'm not a combine guy.  I measure traits primarily on film.  So I am not being inconsistent by praising Rice and AB while not praising Michael Thomas despite similar measurables.  On film Rice and AB look like elite athletes despite not being elite when tested.  Michael Thomas plays like the mediocre athlete he tested as which is why I'm not high on him.  Some guys play more athletically than they test while others play less athletically than they test.  Nonetheless, I will always tout the player who plays like an elite athlete regardless of how he tested.

With regard to your first point, I simply value explosive plays and players over dink and dunk players.  Sure on the stat sheet it looks the same if on a drive a WR catches 5 passes for 10 yards each time while another WR catches one pass but takes it for 50 yards.  I value explosive plays and players over guys who methodically move the ball down the field.  After turnover margin, explosive plays are typically the best indicator for who wins the game.  That's why I will always value the more explosive player.  

Your last point on Peyton Manning is a non-sequitor because running the ball as a QB is less efficient than throwing it.  As long as a QB is prolific passing the ball its not a negative that he can't run.  The only time that becomes a negative is if he's being compared to a QB who is similarly effective throwing the ball but has the added element of being a superior runner (i.e. Aaron Rodgers vs Peyton Manning).  As a WR being able to stretch the field vertically will always be more valued than a guy who just runs underneath routes.  Its why NFL teams spend more money and higher draft capital on outside receivers than slot guys.

[VanS]

5 minutes ago, thebestever6 said:

I can't believe there's people on here trashing Micheal Thomas the guy catches 85 to 90 % of his targets lol and people are acting like there's no value to that lol I don't get it

Don't get me wrong.  Michael Thomas has value and I like him a lot.  I just don't think he's in class with the likes of Julio Jones, Odell Beckham Jr., Antonio Brown, and Tyreek Hill.  I put Michael Thomas in the second tier of WRs alongside Adam Theilen, DeAndre Hopkins, and Davante Adams.  To me there is a separation between guys who are mostly possesion receivers versus guys who stretch the field vertically.  I will always value the elite explosive receiver over the elite possesion receiver.