Week 10 Prospect Talk

[Blue]

Just now, .Buzz said:

I did see all of that. I'm talking about prior to his last season jumping up boards. Where was Gabbert seen as a top 10 pick in the summer or 2010 (honestly even a 1st round pick)? Same for Daniel Jones?

 

3 minutes ago, Blue said:

The media doesn't magically make these players rise up the rankings once the games have been played. If you think those guys took on helium right before the draft, it's only because media was just catching wind of what teams had been thinking for a while.

 

[.Buzz]

Just now, .Buzz said:

I did see all of that. I'm talking about prior to his last season jumping up boards. Where was Gabbert seen as a top 10 pick in the summer or 2010 (honestly even a 1st round pick)? Same for Daniel Jones?

Even if they were, I know for a fact they weren't viewed as elite QB prospects prior to they're final season, nor were they hyped as elite QB prospects. Fields is widely viewed as a lock to be taken top 2.

[Blue]

1 minute ago, .Buzz said:

Even if they were, I know for a fact

I'm going to stop you right there because no, you don't.

[.Buzz]

Just now, Blue said:

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Blue said:

 

 

Gabbert fell to 10. Daniel Jones was viewed as a reach being taken top 10 and would've fell to the teens had the Giants not taken him.

Fields is being taken top 2, whether it's a team trading up or someone needing a QB taking him.

This is not the same.

[.Buzz]

A QB being taken top 10 doesn't mean the NFL views him as an elite QB prospect. That's not just "the media catching up" (although this is what happens). That's teams that have a glaring hole at QB being desperate and overdrafting a guy. Not to mention not all NFL FO's have the same view of a QB prospect.

Fields is widely consider the 1B to 1A that is Trevor Lawrence and has been prior to his ascension this season.

Sorry, but these aren't even close to the same situatons. Not all drafts are the same, nor are all QB prospects viewed as a top 10 pick from draft to draft the same. 

[Blue]

1 minute ago, .Buzz said:

Gabbert fell to 10. Daniel Jones was viewed as a reach being taken top 10 and would've fell to the teens had the Giants not taken him.

Fields is being taken top 2, whether it's a team trading up or someone needing a QB taking him.

This is not the same.

Gabbert was taken 10th in one of the most loaded draft classes in a quarter-century and Jacksonville still traded up to get him. There were reports following the draft that Washington was also interested in Jones and were considering trading up into the top five for him. Now, whether that's true or just the Giants doing some damage control after the pick was received poorly, well...

I agree that Fields is going top 2. I've never questioned that or suggested otherwise. I don't know what you think I'm saying at this point.

[MWil23]

It's also hard to gauge QB's as prospects based upon draft slot because of the disproportionate value that a Franchise QB brings to a team/organization.

IMO when you see those guys get taken above ELITE prospects, then that means their perceived value is very high. See: Goff, Wentz (as well as the trades up to get them)

Now, just to throw a grenade into this conversation for the sake of discussion and boredom, the real question is whether or not a team would ever consider trading the #1 pick and rights to Lawrence for an absolute king's ransom to a team who had the #2 overall pick in the draft, and still land Justin Fields.

(Granted, I don't think the team in the #2 overall draft slot does this)

[Blue]

1 minute ago, .Buzz said:

A QB being taken top 10 doesn't mean the NFL views him as an elite QB prospect. That's not just "the media catching up" (although this is what happens). That's teams that have a glaring hole at QB being desperate and overdrafting a guy. Not to mention not all NFL FO's have the same view of a QB prospect.

Fields is widely consider the 1B to 1A that is Trevor Lawrence and has been prior to his ascension this season.

Sorry, but these aren't even close to the same situatons. Not all drafts are the same, nor are all QB prospects viewed as a top 10 pick from draft to draft the same. 

That is exactly what it means. No one is taking a QB in the top 10 because they think he'll be "kinda good." Just because you think it's an overdraft doesn't mean the team does.

I don't believe a single team considers Justin Fields on the same level as Trevor Lawrence because I believe that, for all their faults, NFL scouts still have working eyes.

I never said they were all the same, let alone exactly the same. If you want an absolutely exact, definitive one-to-one comparison, that's a bit of a tough ask given there's only been two truly generational quarterback prospects like Lawrence in the last thirty years, but I think the Winston-Mariota class counts. I don't think anyone seriously considered Mariota a better on-the-field player than Winston, and they both had plenty of tape prior to declaring.

[Blue]

4 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

It's also hard to gauge QB's as prospects based upon draft slot because of the disproportionate value that a Franchise QB brings to a team/organization.

IMO when you see those guys get taken above ELITE prospects, then that means their perceived value is very high. See: Goff, Wentz (as well as the trades up to get them)

Now, just to throw a grenade into this conversation for the sake of discussion and boredom, the real question is whether or not a team would ever consider trading the #1 pick and rights to Lawrence for an absolute king's ransom to a team who had the #2 overall pick in the draft, and still land Justin Fields.

(Granted, I don't think the team in the #2 overall draft slot does this)

I wouldn't because I'm not a Fields fan, but if a team likes Fields and doesn't view him as a big drop-off from Lawrence? Of course they would.

That's not going to happen though because everybody is going to have Lawrence at the top of their board and passing on him would be such a PR fiasco that you probably wouldn't survive the year without a truly massive haul in return that I doubt anyone would be willing to offer.

Edited November 10, 2020 by Blue

[.Buzz]

8 minutes ago, Blue said:

That is exactly what it means. No one is taking a QB in the top 10 because they think he'll be "kinda good." Just because you think it's an overdraft doesn't mean the team does.

I don't believe a single team considers Justin Fields on the same level as Trevor Lawrence because I believe that, for all their faults, NFL scouts still have working eyes.

I never said they were all the same, let alone exactly the same. If you want an absolutely exact, definitive one-to-one comparison, that's a bit of a tough ask given there's only been two truly generational quarterback prospects like Lawrence in the last thirty years, but I think the Winston-Mariota class counts. I don't think anyone seriously considered Mariota a better on-the-field player than Winston, and they both had plenty of tape prior to declaring.

NFL front offices have shown time and time again that they'll overdraft a QB if there's even the slightest chance of being a franchise level QB/think they can coach up the serious issues that QB has. Of course they aren't drafting a guy if they don't think they can be "the guy" in the end. There's still an obvious difference in safeness and ability though, and both the guys you listed were very big risks with serious warts.

Point is, comparing guys like Gabbert and Jones who had serious issues and questions and weren't widely regarded as elite prospects coming out to someone like Fields right now isn't a good comparison. Fields is on a whole different level as a pure prospect than either of those were even if you take out hindsight. 

If you like TLaw more that's fine, I even agree with you. All I've said this whole time is Fields has an argument (and I think that's all others are saying, not to put words in their mouth though). Haven't seen one person here say they outright have Fields QB1.

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, Blue said:

I wouldn't because I'm not a Fields fan, but if a team likes Fields and doesn't view him as a big drop-off from Lawrence? Of course they would.

That's not going to happen though because everybody is going to have Lawrence at the top of their board and passing on him would be such a PR fiasco that you probably wouldn't survive the year without a truly massive haul in return that I doubt anyone would be willing to offer.

IMO, it would have to take someone like BB in New England to survive something like that (obviously they aren't picking first), albeit if I'm the Jets, I consider it just because I think that their roster is so unbelievably bad that they need a LOT of help in a LOT of places.

I still think it's going to be:

#1 NYJ

#2 JAX

...but you never know with a team like Dallas, NYG, Washington (Friendly reminder the NFC East gets a guaranteed playoff team this year) or even a team like the Texans, Bengals, or Chargers finds a way to work their way in to that conversation.

[.Buzz]

6 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

IMO, it would have to take someone like BB in New England to survive something like that (obviously they aren't picking first), albeit if I'm the Jets, I consider it just because I think that their roster is so unbelievably bad that they need a LOT of help in a LOT of places.

I still think it's going to be:

#1 NYJ

#2 JAX

...but you never know with a team like Dallas, NYG, Washington (Friendly reminder the NFC East gets a guaranteed playoff team this year) or even a team like the Texans, Bengals, or Chargers finds a way to work their way in to that conversation.

I think a team in the NFCE has a legit shot. Their SOS is so low due to that division being terrible so they're going to jump anyone with the same record.

One thing that goes against them is they do have some winnable games (still several against eachother) though.

[Blue]

8 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

NFL front offices have shown time and time again that they'll overdraft a QB if there's even the slightest chance of being a franchise level QB/think they can coach up the serious issues that QB has. Of course they aren't drafting a guy if they don't think they can be "the guy" in the end. There's still an obvious difference in safeness and ability though, and both the guys you listed were very big risks with serious warts.

Point is, comparing guys like Gabbert and Jones who had serious issues and questions and weren't widely regarded as elite prospects coming out to someone like Fields right now isn't a good comparison. Fields is on a whole different level as a pure prospect than either of those were even if you take out hindsight. 

If you like TLaw more that's fine, I even agree with you. All I've said this whole time is Fields has an argument (and I think that's all others are saying, not to put words in their mouth though). Haven't seen one person here say they outright have Fields QB1.

I mean, you could be right, but no NFL team is going to admit to that, so it's kind of a moot point.

My point isn't to make a direct comparison in terms of talent level (and even not liking Fields, he is a far superior prospect to what I thought of either of them even at the time). It's to point out that there are guys who get very high praise and even first overall talk throughout the process who don't end up going that high, and we laugh about that talk years later (or at the time, because, you know, we have eyes and oh my god who actually looked at Blaine Gabbert and thought he was good?).

2 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I think a team in the NFCE has a legit shot. Their SOS is so low due to that division being terrible so they're going to jump anyone with the same record.

One thing that goes against them is they do have some winnable games (still several against eachother) though.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. The issue the NFC East teams are facing is that they all have to play each other twice, so they may rack up some meaningless wins against each other that put them out of the top-3 range.

[MWil23]

13 minutes ago, .Buzz said:

I think a team in the NFCE has a legit shot. Their SOS is so low due to that division being terrible so they're going to jump anyone with the same record.

One thing that goes against them is they do have some winnable games (still several against eachother) though.

 

5 minutes ago, Blue said:

Yeah, I've been thinking about that too. The issue the NFC East teams are facing is that they all have to play each other twice, so they may rack up some meaningless wins against each other that put them out of the top-3 range.

Imagine the chaos if somehow Dallas completely imploded the rest of the way and got one of these two guys. You tag and trade Dak for a NICE RETURN (Paging the Cleveland Browns if Baker sucks the rest of the season, maybe even the Patriots/Vikings), and land an elite top tier QB prospect who has loaded offensive skill positions and a really nice offensive line, and then you use the pick you got for Dak/the haul there to go landing defensive talent.

Seeing Lawrence and Fields both end up in NY would just be boring and frustrating IMO.

[.Buzz]

1 minute ago, MWil23 said:

 

Imagine the chaos if somehow Dallas completely imploded the rest of the way and got one of these two guys. You tag and trade Dak for a NICE RETURN (Paging the Cleveland Browns if Baker sucks the rest of the season, maybe even the Patriots/Vikings), and land an elite top tier QB prospect who has loaded offensive skill positions and a really nice offensive line, and then you use the pick you got for Dak/the haul there to go landing defensive talent.

Seeing Lawrence and Fields both end up in NY would just be boring and frustrating IMO.

I still have a hard time seeing the Cowboys not pay Dak but it's an interesting thought. 

I really don't want to see Fields end up in Washington or the Giants. So I really hope they all just beat up on eachother.