Lamar Jackson [QB, Louisville]

[Inspector71]

On 12/10/2017 at 9:26 AM, CalhounLambeau said:

Which can be said for small, medium, or large sized quarterbacks. You're being tricked by the small sample size. 

Large: 6'5"-6'7"

Medium: 6'2"-6'4"

Small: 5'11"-6'1"

The number of small quarterbacks that enter the league every year is for the lack of a better term very small. But they still normally comprise a small number of the starting spots, a small number of the backup spots and a similar number of players who fall out of the league. I haven't done a full-fledged study on the subject but I've spent a good deal of time going through my old manuals and I couldn't find that smaller quarterbacks were any different than any other group of quarterbacks or any other position for that matter. Yet I keep hearing all the time "small quarterbacks fail more often." Two things, nobody has ever given me a convincing rebuttal based on anything other than feeling and it also makes little sense since nobody says the same thing about any other position on the field. Being big is great and people love size but like you said in post "Talent is what counts!" and it comes in every body type equally from what I can tell.

 

 

This seems kind of a strange way of looking at it to me.

The reason smaller QB's don't have a large sample size is because they don't meet the qualifications for the job.

It's like saying, "There could be some 6'3" NBA centers that can make it, but nobody will give the ma chance." OR "There is a small sample size of fat center fielders in MLB."

Size is a requirement for the job. So that's what employers (teams) are looking for.

Everyone is always looking for the exception to the rule and thinks "their guy" is gonna be that once in a decade find.

In any Baker Mayfield thread anywhere on the internet, you will see references to Brees and Wilson. Two prospects who were drafted 11 years apart. Yet, nearly every other year there is an undersized QB that has his fans and thinks he's going to be the next one.

I like Mayfield on the field. I think he has a chance to be a plus starter in the NFL, but I wouldn't TOUCH him in the 1st round.

I will gladly let some other GM look like the genius who bucked the history of top end QB's in the modern age and found the "Next Brees/Wilson".

Especially in a year with so many other good prospects who meet that historical requirement.

[Iamcanadian]

18 hours ago, MSURacerDT55 said:

I absolutely love Jackson but I can't take him over Darnold or Rosen, maybe last year but not this year. But conversely, his bowl game and combine are going to be must see.

I fully agree, in most draft years, Jackson would go #1 overall, but this is an exceptionable draft year for QB's, with 3 likely to go top 5 and Jackson's lower body build, will make him the 3rd one picked.

[Rich7sena]

4 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

I fully agree, in most draft years, Jackson would go #1 overall, but this is an exceptionable draft year for QB's, with 3 likely to go top 5 and Jackson's lower body build, will make him the 3rd one picked.

This doesn't appear to be the sentiment coming from the NFL. Remember, a lot of big media draftnik opinions are carbon copies of what they've been hearing from the league. I'm beginning to think Jackson in round one is a pipe dream among draft Twitter and this forum. Right now, it looks like his ceiling is around end of round 1.

[CalhounLambeau]

7 hours ago, Inspector71 said:

The reason smaller QB's don't have a large sample size is because they don't meet the qualifications for the job. Size is a requirement for the job. So that's what employers (teams) are looking for.

Being 6'3"-6'5" is not a requirement. It's an idealization. 

[bzane]

On 12/14/2017 at 12:50 AM, Inspector71 said:

OR "There is a small sample size of fat center fielders in MLB."

But not completely unheard of!

 

[Iamcanadian]

On 12/14/2017 at 6:26 AM, Rich7sena said:

This doesn't appear to be the sentiment coming from the NFL. Remember, a lot of big media draftnik opinions are carbon copies of what they've been hearing from the league. I'm beginning to think Jackson in round one is a pipe dream among draft Twitter and this forum. Right now, it looks like his ceiling is around end of round 1.

Under the NFL.com draft projections, Bucky Brooks and Daniel Jeremiah actually have Jackson rated ahead of Darnold and Rosen although Jeremiah admits in a vote of 5 GM's, all 5 picked Darnold over Rosen.

Jackson is the second coming of Michael vick with much more accuracy and far better touch, and IMO, in most draft years, he will be the #1 overall pick.

I cannot see him getting out of the top 10 and could possibly go as high as #3 overall behind Darnold and Rosen.

I guess time will tell which of us has a better read on him.

[Rich7sena]

3 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Under the NFL.com draft projections, Bucky Brooks and Daniel Jeremiah actually have Jackson rated ahead of Darnold and Rosen although Jeremiah admits in a vote of 5 GM's, all 5 picked Darnold over Rosen.

I don’t think either have pubished draft projections. Jeremiah comes out with a top 50 around Senior Bowl time, I believe.

[EastsideEZ]

I think he goes late first at best... I also heard he is going to be asked to run the drills as a receiver at the combine... whether he does or doesn’t who knows... I hope my Ravens draft him though... He needs to go somewhere that will allow him to sit 2 years or so and develop his game... He can have immediate success in the short term too but I think teams will adjust to his skill set... If he is allowed to develop an NFL skill set through patience I think the sky could be the limit for the kid though

[YogiBiz]

He is a mid first round guy. He needs to improve on his short to intermediate accuracy by a lot to prove he's worthy of a top ten look. I really hope he goes to a franchise that can work out his lower body's throwing form. He is a project only because of him needing to improve his short-int acc, but he could very well be the best player in this draft. He also has a very low floor. What if he never improves his accuracy? I just don't feel like the risk is worth the reward, especially when it is tied to your career when you are picking that high. 

[Iamcanadian]

17 hours ago, YogiBiz said:

He is a mid first round guy. He needs to improve on his short to intermediate accuracy by a lot to prove he's worthy of a top ten look. I really hope he goes to a franchise that can work out his lower body's throwing form. He is a project only because of him needing to improve his short-int acc, but he could very well be the best player in this draft. He also has a very low floor. What if he never improves his accuracy? I just don't feel like the risk is worth the reward, especially when it is tied to your career when you are picking that high. 

Michael Vick was far more inaccurate than Jackson and had zero touch when it was needed, but he still went top 5 in the draft and Jackson is a far more talented passer than Vick, so I still think he has a real shot as a top 5 pick.

Like all prospects, they still have to shine in the post season leading up to the draft, before any draft board is finalized, so we will just have to see how it plays out.

[YogiBiz]

8 hours ago, Iamcanadian said:

Michael Vick was far more inaccurate than Jackson and had zero touch when it was needed, but he still went top 5 in the draft and Jackson is a far more talented passer than Vick, so I still think he has a real shot as a top 5 pick.

Like all prospects, they still have to shine in the post season leading up to the draft, before any draft board is finalized, so we will just have to see how it plays out.

I see where you are coming from, but this draft just has so much talent at the top. I have a hard time moving Jackson towards the top. 

[49erurtaza]

I hope for Lamar Jackson career he goes to a team where he has a older established QB hopefully late first if not 2nd round. Where there isn't any pressure to start for a year or even two years. Get his feet work and game IQ down. Is able to read defenses. 

[lavar703]

On 12/24/2017 at 4:43 AM, Iamcanadian said:

Michael Vick was far more inaccurate than Jackson and had zero touch when it was needed, but he still went top 5 in the draft and Jackson is a far more talented passer than Vick, so I still think he has a real shot as a top 5 pick.

Like all prospects, they still have to shine in the post season leading up to the draft, before any draft board is finalized, so we will just have to see how it plays out.

Hokie fan here. Vick was lightyears beyond Jackson as a pro prospect and he wasn't that bad of a passer but the offense was literally one read and go. Check to see if Andre Davis was open and if not, take off. Vick was faster, stronger arm, the greatest open field running QB ever. These Lamar Jackson comparisons to Vick are so silly. Lamar is a good player, he's not what Vick was. 

[tyler735]

4 minutes ago, lavar703 said:

Hokie fan here. Vick was lightyears beyond Jackson as a pro prospect and he wasn't that bad of a passer but the offense was literally one read and go. Check to see if Andre Davis was open and if not, take off. Vick was faster, stronger arm, the greatest open field running QB ever. These Lamar Jackson comparisons to Vick are so silly. Lamar is a good player, he's not what Vick was. 

Think these 2 sentences explain everything here. Needless to say I disagree. 

[lavar703]

9 minutes ago, tyler735 said:

Think these 2 sentences explain everything here. Needless to say I disagree. 

You can disagree, that's fine. I watched both of their college careers and me being a hokie fan doesn't change the fact that Vick was better. There was never any doubt Vick was going to be the first pick, Jackson on the other hand may not even be a first rounder. Two completely different levels of talent.