Houston is gonna drop the ball on Watson

[iknowcool]

17 minutes ago, Ray Reed said:

Na, you're getting it twisted. And it literally makes perfect sense lol.

I'm not comparing the players. I'm saying it's bizarre that talented, young, first-round QBs entering their 2nd and 3rd seasons weren't afforded a "you know what, they're young, they can probably improve" relative to where they were and how they played, but a guy whose already pretty unanimously seen as a top-5 guy, entering year 5, is guaranteed to get even better than top-5 in the league.

If you can't see the logic in that take idk what to tell you the conversation should probably just end here...lol. Typically most football people expect young talented players to improve year to year. Just odd to me some of them are afforded that and others aren't.

But my certain-ness in Watson improving isn't simply because he's young and talented.  It is based off what he has shown on the field thus far.

I don't think you should blindly expect a player to improve just because he's young, talented, and was a first-round pick.  You consider how they have looked on the field.  

It just seems like you are trying to prove a point that wasn't there to prove (especially as I have never once suggested Allen, Mayfield and Jackson can't improve).  It should be pretty freakin' obvious why people are far less likely to think Darnold will improve than they do other QBs.  By your same logic, should people have been saying, "pump the brakes on JaMarcus Russell, he can probably improve?"  And if you agree that they shouldn't have been saying that, then you agree that there is more to it than being a talented, young, first-round QB when it comes to projecting how a player will do going forward.  I feel far more comfortable projecting Watson to work out his kinks when he's done nothing but ball out in his first 4 years, than I do projecting Darnold to improve when he's shown very little throughout his career (even when considering for the lack of talent around him).  You are asking me to blindly think a player is probably going to improve based off nothing but his age and draft status and I 100% disagree with that.

You tell me what Darnold has shown you that makes you think he's probably going to get better.

Edited February 24, 2021 by iknowcool

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

7 hours ago, Dr A W Niloc said:

People often make the synecdochical error of comparing players with teams (e.g. Wins/Losses, playoffs, Super Bowls, etc.).  I am more comfortable with players contextualized by their own teams.

As phenomenal as Patrick Mahomes and others are, no other QB could accomplish what Watson does in the circumstances he does it.  No other player could be traded straight up for the first pick in the 2021 draft (read:  for Trevor Lawrence).

What is it exactly that Watson has accomplished? Fantasy points in losses? 

honestly as a Ravens fan there’s no scenario in my mind where Lamar starts 16 games and comes out 4-12. He just doesn’t have that in him. 

And come on now, this thread is being irrational. The Jags would never trade Lawrence for Watson. If that was an option for the Texans it already would have happened. 

Watson’s trade value is at an all time low right now. He just lost 12 games and is a headache for the owner. There’s a reason it’s the Panthers and Dolphins who are offering to swap QBs, and not the Ravens, Bills, Browns, Chargers, Cardinals. Especially the Ravens who have a more accomplished QB who is younger..... 

Edited February 24, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[ET80]

6 minutes ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

honestly as a Ravens fan there’s no scenario in my mind where Lamar starts 16 games and comes out 4-12. He just doesn’t have that in him. 

Win/loss records are a team stat. Not a QB stat.

[ET80]

7 minutes ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

He just lost 12 games and is a headache for the owner.

Win/loss records are a team stat. Not a QB stat.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

11 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Win/loss records are a team stat. Not a QB stat.

Better tell Tom Brady that. Guess it’s just a coincidence the Bucs were relevant for the first time in 20 years and won a super bowl. Nothing to do with QBs.

Quarterback is far and away the most important position for influence on wins in the NFL. The entire rulebook is geared towards their success. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[ET80]

3 hours ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

Better tell Tom Brady that

Sure, no problem. While I'm at it, can you go and tell everyone who follows football that we got it wrong on Jimmy Garropolo - he and his 28-8 record as a starter qualifies him as great/franchise/nearly elite? Tks.

I've always maintained this as a stance - referencing Tom Brady doesn't change that stance one bit. Hopefully referencing Jimmy G should change your mind.

It seems as if it's the only thing you've chosen to address in respect to Watson - W/L. Anything else to bring to the table?

[MWil23]

My...how the people here would have hated young Michael Jordan, clearly the best in the NBA, before he got a coach and Pippen around him.

[ET80]

26 minutes ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

Better tell Tom Brady that. Guess it’s just a coincidence the Bucs were relevant for the first time in 20 years and won a super bowl. Nothing to do with QBs.

They were a 7-9 team the year before with a QB who threw for 5,000 and 30 TDs - once you got rid of 30 INTs that came with Jameis Winston, you could see them becoming relevant really quickly. You also had three additional impact players saddle up with Brady - Gronk, AB, Fournette (the three guys who scored the four offensive TDs for TB in the SB) played pretty big roles in that run to relevance...

...as was a defense that went from 29th in scoring defense (not good) to 8th in scoring defense (very good). Does Brady play MLB? How does Brady account for a 21 spot swing?

So... thanks for proving my point - Win/Loss are a team stat.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

12 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Sure, no problem. While I'm at it, can you go and tell everyone who follows football that we got it wrong on Jimmy Garropolo - he's and his 28-8 record as a starter qualifies him as great/franchise/nearly elite? Tks.

I've always maintained this as a stance - referencing Tom Brady doesn't change that stance one bit. Hopefully referencing Jimmy G should change your mind.

It seems as if it's the only thing you've chosen to address in respect to Watson - W/L. Anything else to bring to the table?

I’m Mainly addressing this towards the “Ravens would swap Lamar for Watson in a heartbeat” comment. That would never happen.

People are entitled to their opinion that Watson is better (I disagree), but to say that the Ravens would swap Lamar for Watson shows a fundamental lack of understanding of so many factors involved. 

I’ve maintained that Watson is a good QB, but just as you aren’t impressed with the win/loss record, I’m not impressed by pretty stats on bad teams a la Matt Stafford. Seems like the foundation of our arguments differs so I doubt we reach an agreement on rating Watson. Which is fine.

However, the idea that the Ravens would swap Lamar for Watson I can’t let fly. We’re good thanks, I’ll take the former MVP, who’s younger and puts up more points with a less talented offensive supporting cast.  

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

5 minutes ago, ET80 said:

They were a 7-9 team the year before with a QB who threw for 5,000 and 30 TDs - once you got rid of 30 INTs that came with Jameis Winston, you could see them becoming relevant really quickly. You also had three additional impact players saddle up with Brady - Gronk, AB, Fournette (the three guys who scored the four offensive TDs for TB in the SB) played pretty big roles in that run to relevance...

...as was a defense that went from 29th in scoring defense (not good) to 8th in scoring defense (very good). Does Brady play MLB? How does Brady account for a 21 spot swing?

So... thanks for proving my point - Win/Loss are a team stat.

Brady easily helps out that swing on defence by not killing the will of the team with 30 Ints.  

Honestly this post kinda helps my stance? Bucs were a good team but the QB was holding them back yet QB isn’t important in determining W/L record? 

Edited February 24, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[ET80]

9 minutes ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

Brady easily helps out that swing on defence by not killing the will of the team with 30 Ints.  

 

But quantifying it as all Brady (and all W/L TO Brady) is ignoring a lot. I mean, this TB defense went from 17th to 7th in INTs - how is that a Brady thing?

And - seriously, don't insult me with "kill the will of the team" platitudes. This defense was always bad prior to last season - 32nd in 2018, 22nd in 2017 (when Jameis Winston and Ryan Fitzpatrick we're not throwing 30 INTs). It's been a gradual buildup with some very young and talented players - give them SOME sort of credit.

[ThatJaxxenGuy]

5 minutes ago, ET80 said:

But quantifying it as all Brady (and all W/L TO Brady) is ignoring a lot. I mean, this TB defense went from 17th to 7th in INTs - how is that a Brady thing?

And - seriously, don't insult me with "kill the will of the team" platitudes. This defense was always bad prior to last season - 32nd in 2018, 22nd in 2017 (when Jameis Winston and Ryan Fitzpatrick we're not throwing 30 INTs). It's been a gradual buildup with some very young and talented players - give them SOME sort of credit.

You don’t think Winston’s interceptions hurt the rankings of their defence? It gives the opposing team an extra drive to put up numbers.

im not saying it was all Brady but he definitely was the single most important factor. QBs influence wins more than any other position 

Edited February 24, 2021 by ThatJaxxenGuy

[SalvadorsDeli]

55 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Win/loss records are a team stat. Not a QB stat.

The flip side of that is that individual stats aren't really divorced from team stats or context either.

As far as Lamar is concerned, it's fair to point out he has a better defense/coaching staff/organization and he's in a situation that has been more optimized for team wins. But he also plays for a team that has historically under-invested in its offenses and has virtually always struggled to field competitive offenses for a reason. Lamar's been up against that history as much as he's benefitted from playing for a good organization, and the tradeoff the Ravens make is that Lamar is essentially sacrificing individual success in service of winning games. 

Playing for the Ravens may have given Lamar a better shot at winning games, but playing for John Harbaugh also means playing in a conservative ball-control offense that doesn't set up Lamar to put up gaudy stats just like it didn't for Joe Flacco either. 

The few times we've ended up in big deficits over the past couple of years I've seen Lamar put up video game stats too, and if he played for a different/worse team he'd probably put up ~5,000 yards of total offense and get a lot more praise than he currently does for being a martyr and glorious loser on a bad team (which, if we're being honest, is what happened to Watson's personal stock this past year) rather than his current situation where he basically makes the entire team structure around him work and wins games while not lighting up the box score in the same way. 

Edited February 24, 2021 by SalvadorsDeli

[Dr A W Niloc]

Quote

Blue  "I pointed out in the OP of this thread why no team is going to trade the 1st overall pick for a veteran QB on a market-level contract. No player is getting traded straight up for the first pick in any draft with a clear-cut QB1."

    I agree in general but Lawrence-for-Watson is an exceptional case because it is the only win-win trade conceivable.  Indeed, I can imagine the fans of both teams doing cartwheels at the news.  All other offers will involve the other team exhausting its draft capital for Pick #1.  Zero sum gain.  Hardly worth the effort to reconfigure.

    By contrast, in Lawrence-for-Watson Houston gets a generational talent who fits their profile while getting rid of someone who doesn't want to play there any more.  We bear in mind that, based on Watson's success, Houston might believe they have a talent for developing QBs.  Jacksonville?  David Garrard, Luke McCown, Blaine Gabbert, Chad Henne, Blake Bortles, Gardner Minshew?  Not so much.

    The Jags won't sweat the cap hit, obviously.  They get the league's best QB as a proven quantity (i.e. "A bird in hand is worth two in the bush").  Better yet, Watson is a QB who, unlike Mahomes, Rodgers, and Brady, has recent experience with a squad even worse than the Jags.  In addition to being #1 in cap space, the Jags have the draft picks to surround Watson with the best talent he's seen since his glory days.  Having the veteran (Watson) instead of the rookie (Lawrence) QB fast-forwards Jacksonville's development/transition time.

    What objection do you think either team would have to this specific trade?

    (I agree wholeheartedly that Watson should deal away Watson before draft day.)

Quote

ThatJaxxenGuy:  "...honestly as a Ravens fan there’s no scenario in my mind where Lamar starts 16 games and comes out 4-12."

      Agreed.  There is no way Lamar Jackson would win 4 games in Houston.

Quote

ThatJaxxenGuy:  "The Jags would never trade Lawrence for Watson."

      If the Jacksonville braintrust evaluates individuals based on team Win/Loss records you're probably right.

 

[iknowcool]

54 minutes ago, ThatJaxxenGuy said:

Better tell Tom Brady that. Guess it’s just a coincidence the Bucs were relevant for the first time in 20 years and won a super bowl. Nothing to do with QBs.

Quarterback is far and away the most important position for influence on wins in the NFL. The entire rulebook is geared towards their success. 

Packers went 6-10 in 2008 and 6-9-1 in 2018

Colts went 6-10 in 2001

Saints went 7-9 3 consecutive years

What is your opinion on Rodgers, Manning, and Brees?